[Due for payment 2025-04-10] [Better Expense Report View] Expense Reports - Table header remains after all the expenses are deleted

[vincdargento]

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: 9.1.16-1
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Unable to check
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: N/A
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: Mac 15.3 / Chrome
App Component: Search

Action Performed:

Precondition:

• Log in with Expensifail account.

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat.
3. Submit a manual expense to the workspace chat.
4. Go to expense report and send a message.
5. Go to Reports.
6. Go to Expense Reports.
7. Click on the expense report from Step 4.
8. Click on the report header > Delete expense.
9. Delete the expense.

Expected Result:

The table header will disappear after all the expenses are deleted.

Actual Result:

The table header remains after all the expenses are deleted.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

bug.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @twisterdotcom

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @twisterdotcom (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]

💬 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.

[vincdargento]

@twisterdotcom FYI I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors.

[luacmartins]

This view is behind a beta. NAB. @Kicu

[melvin-bot]

@Kicu Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[Kicu]

will be fixed in #58903

[trjExpensify]

@Kicu I still see some wonkiness on this one with deleting expenses from this new multi-expense report view:

• When I delete an expense on a multi-expense report, it isn't removed from the table view right away. I have to refresh.
• When I delete an expense on an expense report with 2 expenses to leave just one 1 expense, it doesn't change to the one expense report view. (Maybe will be handled somewhere else?)

Then yeah, if I delete that last expense in that temporary one-expense report table view, the header is slow to disappear and I end up on a NotFound page, but that should be avoided if we're doing the second bullet above.

CC: @shawnborton

2025-04-01_17-18-44.mp4

[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.

[Kicu]

@trjExpensify about removing requiring refresh I think then its another bug and should be easy to fix.

However:

delete expense on an expense report with 2 expenses to leave just one 1 expense, it doesn't change to the one expense report view. (Maybe will be handled somewhere else?)

This is a bit more complex actually. The part where this changes into a "single expense view" is not yet in place. But now that I think about it this is a bit confusing. Indeed in the design doc (I checked 😄) we say that if there is 1 expense we don't change how we show the view. But there is a figma design (perhaps a random mistake?) where we have the "table view" with just 1 expense:

And to be honest I was following the figma 😅

Long story short:

• it will be trivial to switch to single expense view into classic reports (when you have Inbox on the left) - we will add this as part of a separate issue
• it will require more work to do the same thing on search - we have never shown "normal" reports until now on Search and I kinda thought we need only the table view there
• can we rethink this? I think I saw a slack thread somewhere, in which people complained that this "flashing" of single expense view was disruptive

CC @shawnborton @Expensify/design

[twisterdotcom]

A bit of a fly on the wall here too, but I agree with @Kicu that it seems odd to change the view in the reports page, even if there's just one expense right @trjExpensify?

[shawnborton]

But there is a figma design (perhaps a random mistake?) where we have the "table view" with just 1 expense:

Yeah, that is indeed a mistake. I think the intention was always to just use the one-expense-report style if the report only has one expense.

[Kicu]

ok @shawnborton then just one last concern.

A user creates empty report using new "Report Creation UI" flow. It will look like this:

Then

1. user adds a trnasaction
2. this view changes into "single expense report" which looks a bit different
3. user adds another transaction to this view
4. the view changes again into new "table expense" view

Is this flow sounding ok?

[shawnborton]

Yup, that is indeed correct.

And I think we need to experience it in the product for a while to help us make a decision if it feels correct, or if we want to just eliminate the single expense report view altogether and always use a table (my preference).

However, some folks felt very strongly that we should not get rid of the one-expense-report view just yet, hence why we are still holding on to it for the time being. Thanks for bearing with us here!

[Kicu]

thanks for the thorough response 👍
(I'm in the always table view camp btw 😅)

[trjExpensify]

(I'm in the always table view camp btw 😅)

🤝

[dannymcclain]

🤝

[shawnborton]

🤝

[luacmartins]

🤝

[dubielzyk-expensify]

🤝

[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 9.1.22-10 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Improve MoneyRequestReportView #58903

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-04-10. 🎊

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

• @Kicu does not require payment (Contractor)
• @DylanDylann requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot]

@DylanDylann @twisterdotcom @DylanDylann 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]

[mountiny]

🤝

Sorry using internet explorer

[Kicu]

@mountiny I think we can close this. There were separate PRs responsible for the "empty transactions" view and it looks good - header no longer stays.

[mountiny]

🤝