[Due for payment 2025-05-20] [$150] Expensify Card - Limit input page shows error after incorrect magic code is entered

[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: 9.1.33-3
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: No, reproducible on hybrid only
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: Workspace Settings

Action Performed:

Precondition:

• Workspace has enabled Expensify Card feature and has set up bank account.

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace settings > Expensify Card.
3. Click Issue card.
4. Fill in the details and reach the confirmation page.
5. On confirmation page, enter incorrect magic code.
6. Now enter the correct magic code.
7. Click Issue card.
8. Select any member.
9. Select any card type > Next.
10. Select Limit type > Next.

Expected Result:

Limit input page will not show error.

Actual Result:

Limit input page shows error - You must be a domain admin to create the virtual card.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6816046_1745907880813.20250429_141825.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021917579859517676775
• Upwork Job ID: 1917579859517676775
• Last Price Increase: 2025-05-01
• Automatic offers:
• mkzie2 | Contributor | 107140179

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @joekaufmanexpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @joekaufmanexpensify (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.

[Themoonalsofall]

🚨 Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2025-04-29 11:13:50 UTC.

Proposal

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

Expensify Card - Limit input page shows error after incorrect magic code is entered

What is the root cause of that problem?

After entering the wrong magic code, the error is saved in the key issueNewExpensifyCard and we don't clear error in issueNewExpensifyCard after creating a new issue card

App/src/libs/actions/Card.ts

Lines 746 to 755 in ca7e756

	const successData: OnyxUpdate[] = [
	{
	onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
	key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.ISSUE_NEW_EXPENSIFY_CARD}${policyID}`,
	value: {
	isLoading: false,
	isSuccessful: true,
	},
	},
	];

We don't add policyID as param in this command

App/src/libs/actions/User.ts

Line 469 in 3941adf

API.write(WRITE_COMMANDS.RESEND_VALIDATE_CODE, null, {optimisticData, successData, failureData});

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

1. Add a new policyID param for requestValidateCodeAction function

2. Add policyID as a param and we also need to update type of WRITE_COMMANDS.RESEND_VALIDATE_CODE

App/src/libs/actions/User.ts

Line 469 in 3941adf

API.write(WRITE_COMMANDS.RESEND_VALIDATE_CODE, null, {optimisticData, successData, failureData});

    API.write(WRITE_COMMANDS.RESEND_VALIDATE_CODE, {policyID}, {optimisticData, successData, failureData})

3. Passing policyID in ConfirmationStep

App/src/pages/workspace/expensifyCard/issueNew/ConfirmationStep.tsx

Line 145 in 3941adf

sendValidateCode={requestValidateCodeAction}

    sendValidateCode={() => requestValidateCodeAction(policyID)}

Note: We can check for similar errors with pages where we use ValidateCodeActionModal

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


None

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[mkzie2]

🚨 Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2025-05-01 16:28:53 UTC.

Proposal

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

Limit input page shows error - You must be a domain admin to create the virtual card.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We already have logics to clear error here

App/src/pages/workspace/expensifyCard/issueNew/ConfirmationStep.tsx

Line 148 in b1fcf20

clearError={() => clearIssueNewCardError(policyID)}

App/src/libs/actions/Card.ts

Lines 373 to 375 in b1fcf20

	function clearIssueNewCardError(policyID: string | undefined) {
	Onyx.merge(`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.ISSUE_NEW_EXPENSIFY_CARD}${policyID}`, {errors: null});
	}

However, when validating with incorrect magic code, We don’t send policyID together with CreateAdminIssuedVirtualCard, so BE send error in issueNewExpensifyCard with no policyID

So we're not clearing the correct Onyx entry and the error persists.

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

1. BE should return error in correct Onyx entry
2. To fix this in FE, create a new Onyx key for issueNewExpensifyCard, then we should update clearIssueNewCardError to clear error in issueNewExpensifyCard as well

App/src/libs/actions/Card.ts

Lines 373 to 375 in b1fcf20

	function clearIssueNewCardError(policyID: string | undefined) {
	Onyx.merge(`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.ISSUE_NEW_EXPENSIFY_CARD}${policyID}`, {errors: null});
	}

function clearIssueNewCardError(policyID: string | undefined) {
    Onyx.merge(`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.ISSUE_NEW_EXPENSIFY_CARD}${policyID}`, {errors: null});
    Onyx.merge(‘issueNewExpensifyCard’, {errors: null});
}

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

I don't think we need one, because it's error when sending API.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We should pass policyID to CreateAdminIssuedVirtualCard parameters

App/src/libs/actions/Card.ts

Lines 768 to 775 in 3941adf

	const parameters = {
	assigneeEmail,
	limit,
	limitType,
	cardTitle,
	validateCode,
	domainAccountID,
	};

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Reproduced. The error clears if you proceed past it, so it's no major impact. But it's confusing so feels worth cleaning it up.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021917579859517676775

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @dukenv0307 (External)

[dukenv0307]

I'm not sure why BE returns the error for issueNewExpensifyCard, it should return the error for issueNewExpensifyCard_policyID, so I think the best way is to fix it on BE side. If there's a reason to return this key, we can go with @mkzie2's proposal to clear the error in clearIssueNewCardError

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @blimpich, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[blimpich]

@dukenv0307 so to be clear, we could fix this either in the BE or FE, but we should probably fix it in the backend?

Looks like we basically had this exact same issue a couple months ago: #56363

[blimpich]

cc: @lakchote I think this PR should've fixed this issue right?

[lakchote]

However, when validating with incorrect magic code, BE send error in issueNewExpensifyCard with no policyID

That's expected as the frontend doesn't provide a policyID to the API command, as such we can't key the error by the policy ID:

The fix needs to be frontend related.

cc @blimpich

[mkzie2]

That's expected as the frontend doesn't provide a policyID to the API command, as such we can't key the error by the policy ID:

Updated proposal

[Themoonalsofall]

thanks @lakchote, i updated the proposal

[dukenv0307]

Thank you @lakchote, let's go with @mkzie2's proposal, it works well

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

📣 @mkzie2 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[melvin-bot]

Upwork job price has been updated to $150

[blimpich]

Reducing price because Lucien basically solved this for us and the fix is just a simple parameter change.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@mkzie2 is there an ETA for a PR?

[mkzie2]

PR will be up in several hours.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

PR in review

[joekaufmanexpensify]

PR on staging

[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: error in set card limit page after entering wrong magic code #61360

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

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

• @dukenv0307 requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @mkzie2 requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

@dukenv0307 @joekaufmanexpensify @dukenv0307 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]

[dukenv0307]

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
• 2b. Reported on staging (deploy blocker)
• 2c. 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.

  Link to comment: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/59996/files#r2089426301

• [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. Yes

Regression Test Proposal Template

• [BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

  Link to issue:

Regression Test Proposal

Test:

• Precondition: Workspace has enabled Expensify Card feature and has set up bank account.

1. Go to workspace settings > Expensify Card.
2. Click Issue card.
3. Select Virtual card type
4. Fill in the details and reach the confirmation page.
5. On confirmation page, enter incorrect magic code.
6. Now enter the correct magic code.
7. Click Issue card.
8. Select any member.
9. Select Virtual card type > Next.
10. Select Limit type > Next.
11. Verify that: Limit input page will not show error.

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Will handle next steps today so we're prepped to pay tomorrow

[joekaufmanexpensify]

This is a pretty niche bug. Only applicable if you're issuing multiple cards in short succession and incorrectly enter magic code when issuing the first one. I don't think we need to have QA test this flow in every test run as it is not likely to be something commonly done by actual users. Going to skip the test for now.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

All set to pay tomorrow! We need to pay:

• @mkzie2 $150 for PR via Upwork.
• @dukenv0307 $150 for C+ via NewDot.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@mkzie2 $150 sent and contract ended!

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Upwork job closed.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@dukenv0307 Please request payment at your earliest convenience. Closing as this is otherwise all set!

[JmillsExpensify]

$150 approved for @dukenv0307