[Due for payment 2025-05-20] Intacct - Missing "Export to Sage Intacct" in More options after changing auto sync settings

[luacmartins]

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

---

Intacct - Missing "Export to Sage Intacct" in More options after changing auto sync settings

Version Number: v9.1.28-13 PR:59999
Reproducible in staging?: No
Reproducible in production?: No
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team

Action Performed:

Precondition:

• Workspace is connected to Sage Intacct.
• Auto sync is ENABLED.

1. Go to https://59999.pr-testing.expensify.com/
2. Go to workspace chat.
3. Submit a manual expense.
4. Click Submit, Approve and Pay elsewhere.
5. Click on the expense preview.
6. Click More.
7. Note that "Export to Sage Intacct" button is present in More options menu when auto sync is ENABLED.
8. Go to workspace settings > Accounting.
9. Click Advanced > DISABLE auto sync.
10. Go back to the expense report from Step 5.
11. Click on the primary action button "Export to Sage Intacct" (IMPORTANT).
12. Go to workspace settings > Accounting.
13. Click Advanced > ENABLE auto sync.
14. Go back to the expense report from Step 5.
15. Click More.

Expected Result:

"Export to Sage Intacct" button will be present in More options menu because auto sync is enabled.

Actual Result:

"Export to Sage Intacct" button is not shown in More options menu when auto sync is enabled.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6806151_1744970124152.20250418_174743.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @JmillsExpensify

[melvin-bot]

@luacmartins, @borys3kk, @jnowakow Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[jnowakow]

@luacmartins when user clicks Export to ... primary button or selects Export to ... option from More button it triggers EXPORTINTEGRATION action. Presence of this action is condition to recognise report as exported and thus after refreshing there is no Export to ... option because this condition is not met

App/src/libs/ReportSecondaryActionUtils.ts

Lines 219 to 222 in 802e0d7

	const isReportExported = isExportedUtils(getReportActions(report));
	const isReportFinished = isReportApproved || isReportReimbursed || isReportClosed;
	return isAdmin && isReportFinished && syncEnabled && !isReportExported;

[luacmartins]

Nice! I think that's the same root cause as this #61260 (comment). I'll handle it in my PR once I figure out what the condition should be.

[jnowakow]

Cool 😎

[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 9.1.44-8 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix export condition #61260

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-05-20. 🎊

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

• @borys3kk does not require payment (Contractor)
• @jnowakow does not require payment (Contractor)

[melvin-bot]

Skipping the payment summary for this issue since all the assignees are employees or vendors. If this is incorrect, please manually add the payment summary SO.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @JmillsExpensify (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.

[suneox]

BugZero Checklist:

• [Contributor] Classify the bug:

Bug classification

Source of bug:

• 1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
• 1b. Mistake during implementation
• 1c. Backend bug
• 1z. Other:

Where bug was reported:

• 2a. Reported on production (eg. bug slipped through the normal regression and PR testing process on staging)
• 2b. Reported on staging (eg. found during regression or PR testing)
• 2d. Reported on a PR
• 2z. Other:

Who reported the bug:

• 3a. Expensify user
• 3b. Expensify employee
• 3c. Contributor
• 3d. QA
• 3z. Other:

• [Contributor] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake.

  This issue come from PR Simplified Actions on Report Header and Preview V2 #59999, which involved extensive changes across various parts of the system. Due to the complexity and number of flows described in the documentation, some cases mentioned in the description were unintentionally overlooked, this issue the same root cause at this comment.

• [Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner.

  Link to discussion: N/A

• [Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.

  N/A: It isn't easy to set up the test

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify 6 days overdue. This is scarier than being forced to listen to Vogon poetry!