fix: Update duplicate detection to be treated as any other violation

[nkdengineer]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #57941
PROPOSAL: #57941 (comment)

Tests

1. Sign in a new account
2. Create a new WS
3. Create two duplicate expense
4. Verify that you see RBR on the workspace chat
5. Verify that you see RBR on the report preview in the workspace chat
6. Verify that you see RBR on each expense preview in the expense report
7. Verify the next steps in the expense report header read: “Potential duplicate expenses identified. Review duplicates to enable submission.”
8. Open the transaction thread report. Verify the header read: "This expense has the same details as another one. Please review the duplicates to remove the hold."

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

None

QA Steps

1. Sign in a new account
2. Create a new WS
3. Create two duplicate expense
4. Verify that you see RBR on the workspace chat
5. Verify that you see RBR on the report preview in the workspace chat
6. Verify that you see RBR on each expense preview in the expense report
7. Verify the next steps in the expense report header read: “Potential duplicate expenses identified. Review duplicates to enable submission.”
8. Open the transaction thread report. Verify the header read: "This expense has the same details as another one. Please review the duplicates to remove the hold."

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-03-19.at.14.43.19.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-03-19.at.14.40.50.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-03-19.at.14.45.26.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-03-19.at.14.42.17.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-03-19.at.14.34.51.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-03-19.at.14.47.57.mov

[melvin-bot]

@DylanDylann Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[DylanDylann]

@pecanoro Could you help to verify the icon on the status bar? Currently we display clock icon on both both report header and request header

Screen.Recording.2025-03-21.at.15.47.30.mov

[DylanDylann]

1. Sign in a new account

2. Create a new WS
3. Create two duplicate expense
4. Verify that you see RBR on the workspace chat
5. Verify that you see RBR on the report preview in the workspace chat
6. Verify that you see RBR on each expense preview in the expense report
7. Verify the next steps in the expense report header read: “Potential duplicate expenses identified. Review duplicates to enable submission.”
8. Open the transaction thread report. Verify the header read: "This expense has the same details as another one. Please review the duplicates to remove the hold."

@pecanoro Just want to confirm: with these steps, If we submit expense the RBR and the message still be retained. But when approving the expense the RBR and the message on the header will be changed

Screen.Recording.2025-03-21.at.15.54.34.mov

[pecanoro]

@DylanDylann Let me double check with @garrettmknight

[garrettmknight]

I think I'd update the transaction thread header to not refer to hold:

"This expense has similar details to another one. Please review the duplicates to continue.

[garrettmknight]

@DylanDylann after chatting with our designers, let's use the exclamation point instead of the clock in the header:

[nkdengineer]

@garrettmknight Please help to verify that comment.

[garrettmknight]

@DylanDylann / @nkdengineer sorry for the change, but can we use the flag icon instead of the exclamation point, please.

[DylanDylann]

@garrettmknight as this comment, could you help to confirm if we should retain the “Potential duplicate expenses identified. Review duplicates to enable submission.” message after users submit the expense report

[garrettmknight]

To this questions, the RBR should persist until the submitter resolves it. A few notes on the submitter experience:

• The Reveiw duplicates button should show as the primary action vs. Submit when duplicates exist.
• If the submitter still submits the report, the RBR should persist. Submitters can submit with potential duplicates in Classic today and I think the report actions update will effectively allow them to submit as a secondary action in NewDot too.

As for the approver, I think we let's update the header to something closer to the approver version we have today:

"Potential duplicate expenses identified. Please review the comments for next steps."

[DylanDylann]

@nkdengineer Let's update this PR like the above expectation

[nkdengineer]

"Potential duplicate expenses identified. Please review the comments for next steps."

@garrettmknight This will display for both submitter and approver or only approver and submitter will still display Potential duplicate expenses identified. Review duplicates to enable submission.

[nkdengineer]

@DylanDylann after chatting with our designers, let's use the exclamation point instead of the clock in the header:

I think I'd update the transaction thread header to not refer to hold:

Updated these bugs.

[DylanDylann]

@nkdengineer The header message isn't updated and RBR doesn't display if we approve or unapprove offline

Screen.Recording.2025-03-27.at.11.16.10.mov

[nkdengineer]

@nkdengineer The header message isn't updated and RBR doesn't display if we approve or unapprove offline

@DylanDylann

1. I updated to remove the duplicate violation offline when we approve the expense report.
2. When we unapprove offline, there is no way to detect the duplicate in FE, so we can skip that.

[DylanDylann]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
• I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
  • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-03-27.at.17.19.30.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-03-27.at.17.14.22.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-03-27.at.17.12.45.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-03-27.at.17.11.19.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-03-27.at.17.06.13.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-03-27.at.17.09.29.mov

[OSBotify]

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/pecanoro in version: 9.1.21-0 🚀

platform	result
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.1.21-3 🚀

platform	result
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	failure ❌
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

[JmillsExpensify]

@garrettmknight I thought we agreed to use the flag icon per this Slack convo? Do you mind creating a separate issue to get that updated?

[garrettmknight]

@JmillsExpensify we did, looks like it slipped by: #58387 (comment)

[JmillsExpensify]

Cool, let's tackle it in a fix then.