LHN - Expense sender is shown twice and LHN shows sender pays instead of the payer

[jponikarchuk]

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: 9.1.17-0
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: Exp
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): [email protected]
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Mac 15.3 / Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. [User A] Submit an expense to User B.
3. [User B] Open DM with User A.
4. [User B] Note that LHN shows "You" when User A is the sender.
5. [User B] Go to the expense report.
6. [User B] Note that LHN shows "User A" twice in the preview.
7. [User B] Click Pay elsewhere.
8. [User B] Note that LHN shows "User A" pays the expense.

Expected Result:

In Step 4, LHN will show "User A" instead of "You".
In Step 6, LHN preview will show "User A" once.
In Step 8, LHN will show "User B" paid the expense.

Actual Result:

In Step 4, LHN shows "You" when User A is the sender.
In Step 6, LHN preview shows "User A" twice.
In Step 8, LHN shows that "User A" paid the expense when "User B" paid it.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @zanyrenney (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]

I feel like this may be on the backend and related to issues we've seen in the past 🤔

[zanyrenney]

Should we make this internal then, @robertjchen ?

[zanyrenney]

Bump @robertjchen should i make this internal ?

[melvin-bot]

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

[zanyrenney]

bumping in the channel: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C05LX9D6E07/p1743432655824749

[zanyrenney]

This is now in HIGH so should be prioritised better, thanks Tim!

[robertjchen]

Tagged as Internal 👍

[zanyrenney]

waiting for someone internal to pick it up

[zanyrenney]

same as above!

[melvin-bot]

@robertjchen @zanyrenney this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to a solution? Let's make sure we're treating this as a top priority. Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[melvin-bot]

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

[zanyrenney]

https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C05LX9D6E07/p1744043213740469?thread_ts=1743432968.459699&cid=C05LX9D6E07

[zanyrenney]

Chatted in Slack but downgrading this to weekly since this has been a long-standing issue and there won't be a quick resolution.

[robertjchen]

no update

[zanyrenney]

@robertjchen what should we do here? @muttmuure mentioned this in his update.

I am not sure if you have capacity to pick it up, but perhaps if not we could get an external contributor to take a look, unless its BE?

[robertjchen]

I believe this may still be hinged on the BE, but I propose that we close this out in favor of other ongoing priorities. Perhaps we can revisit if it proves to be a critical issue affecting mainline flows and stopping users from using NewDot.