[Due for payment 2025-03-25] [$125] Expense - Unexpexted error when trying to delete an expense.

[mitarachim]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 9.1.10-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: No
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: Yes, reproducible on both
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): [email protected]
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Motorola MotoG60 - Android 12 - Chrome / Windows 10 - Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

Prerequisite: Delayed submissions and approvals enabled.

1. Open the Expensify app.
2. Open a workspace chat.
3. Tap on the "+" button and select "Create Expense"
4. Complete the creation flow.
5. Once redirected to chat, tap on "Submit" and "Approve" on the expense preview.
6. Long tap on the expense preview.
7. Tap on "Delete Comment"
8. Check the expense behaviour after this action.

Expected Result:

User should be able to delete the expense without any issue after submitting it.

Actual Result:

"Unexpected error" message is displayed when user tries to delete an expense via context menu, after submitting it and approving it. Also, "Delete Comment" is displayed on context menu instead of "Delete Expense"

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

• Android: Standalone
• Android: HybridApp
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Standalone
• iOS: HybridApp
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6763495_1741310149437.Unexpected.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021897868050174930335
• Upwork Job ID: 1897868050174930335
• Last Price Increase: 2025-03-18

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @garrettmknight

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @garrettmknight (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @robertjchen (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[melvin-bot]

💬 A slack conversation has been started in #expensify-open-source

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[robertjchen]

we were having site issues at the time, can we try testing again?

[mitarachim]

Hello @robertjchen issue still reproducible

screen-20250307-001153.mp4

[bernhardoj]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Error when deleting expense.

What is the root cause of that problem?

When we already approved the expense, the delete option shouldn't be shown.

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 2115 to 2117 in fb79730

	if (isReportApproved({report: moneyRequestReport}) || isClosedReport(moneyRequestReport) || isSettled(moneyRequestReport?.reportID)) {
	return false;
	}

However, the report passed is the policy expense chat, not the expense report. This started to happen after we allowed deleting a single transaction report preview. We pass the moneyRequestAction, which is the single IOU action but with the current report reportID, the policy expense chat reportID.

App/src/pages/home/report/ContextMenu/ContextMenuActions.tsx

Lines 756 to 759 in fb79730

	shouldShow: ({type, reportAction, isArchivedRoom, isChronosReport, reportID, moneyRequestAction}) =>
	// Until deleting parent threads is supported in FE, we will prevent the user from deleting a thread parent
	type === CONST.CONTEXT_MENU_TYPES.REPORT_ACTION &&
	canDeleteReportAction(moneyRequestAction ?? reportAction, reportID) &&

Also, if we see the delete option, it reads "Delete comment" instead of "Delete expense". That's because we pass the report preview action instead of the IOU action to the translate key.

App/src/pages/home/report/ContextMenu/BaseReportActionContextMenu.tsx

Line 361 in fb79730

const text = textTranslateKey && (isKeyInActionUpdateKeys ? translate(textTranslateKey, {action: reportAction}) : translate(textTranslateKey));

App/src/languages/en.ts

Line 707 in fb79730

deleteAction: ({action}: DeleteActionParams) => `Delete ${action?.actionName === CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.IOU ? 'expense' : 'comment'}`,

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

First, we need to pass the expense report reportID.

App/src/pages/home/report/ContextMenu/ContextMenuActions.tsx

Lines 756 to 771 in fb79730

	shouldShow: ({type, reportAction, isArchivedRoom, isChronosReport, reportID, moneyRequestAction}) =>
	// Until deleting parent threads is supported in FE, we will prevent the user from deleting a thread parent
	type === CONST.CONTEXT_MENU_TYPES.REPORT_ACTION &&
	canDeleteReportAction(moneyRequestAction ?? reportAction, reportID) &&
	!isArchivedRoom &&
	!isChronosReport &&
	!isMessageDeleted(reportAction),
	onPress: (closePopover, {reportID, reportAction, moneyRequestAction}) => {
	if (closePopover) {
	// Hide popover, then call showDeleteConfirmModal
	hideContextMenu(false, () => showDeleteModal(reportID, moneyRequestAction ?? reportAction));
	return;
	}
	// No popover to hide, call showDeleteConfirmModal immediately
	showDeleteModal(reportID, moneyRequestAction ?? reportAction);

We can get it from the original message.

getOriginalMessage(moneyRequestAction)?.IOUReportID ?? reportID

For the second issue, we need to pass the moneyRequestAction.

App/src/pages/home/report/ContextMenu/BaseReportActionContextMenu.tsx

Line 361 in fb79730

const text = textTranslateKey && (isKeyInActionUpdateKeys ? translate(textTranslateKey, {action: reportAction}) : translate(textTranslateKey));

action: moneyRequestAction ?? reportAction

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

N/A

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021897868050174930335

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @akinwale (External)

[akinwale]

@bernhardoj's proposal looks good here.

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed.

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @robertjchen is eligible for the choreEngineerContributorManagement assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[robertjchen]

Sounds good, thanks for the review 👍

[bernhardoj]

PR is ready

cc: @akinwale

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot]

Upwork job price has been updated to $125

[garrettmknight]

@akinwale can you have a look at this deploy blocker and see if this PR caused it?

[akinwale]

@akinwale can you have a look at this deploy blocker and see if this PR caused it?

The link seems to be mixed up in your post, but yes, this deploy blocker was caused by the PR for this issue.

[garrettmknight]

Thanks for confirming - do we need to do anything here to correct or is that other issue correcting entirely?

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.1.14-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix delete expense showing for approved expense #58172

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-03-25. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @akinwale requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @bernhardoj requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests

[melvin-bot]

@akinwale @garrettmknight @akinwale The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[akinwale]

Thanks for confirming - do we need to do anything here to correct or is that other issue correcting entirely?

There is a PR on the other issue which has been cherry-picked to the deploy, so nothing else to do here at this time except to complete the checklist.

[garrettmknight]

Got it, we'll wait for the checklist and halve payment then. Thanks!

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• Reviewer: @akinwale owed $125 via NewDot
• Reviewer: @bernhardoj owed $125 via NewDot

BugZero Checklist (@garrettmknight)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the necessary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants/1897868050174930335/hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[bernhardoj]

Requested in ND.

[garrettmknight]

@bernhardoj confirming you submitted $125 for the request due to the regression?

[akinwale]

@garrettmknight You'd also need to post a payment summary for the ND payments to be processed.

[JmillsExpensify]

$125 approved for @akinwale

[garrettmknight]

Payment summary is here: #57971 (comment)

[bernhardoj]

@garrettmknight yes

[JmillsExpensify]

$125 approved for @bernhardoj