[Multi-Scan] Refactor IOU screens to support handling multiple expense creation #61574

VickyStash · 2025-05-07T11:04:05Z

Explanation of Change

Doc section: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZjSjfIM7N8jhBwyYA4nz3Fe0cvOEXdu-6FA3pethL1Q/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0#bookmark=id.ez670onfv4jq

Fixed Issues

$ #61176
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Using FAB button:

Test manual expense creation.
Test scan expense creation.
Test distance expense creation.

Inside 1-1 chat:

Test manual expense creation.
Test scan expense creation.
Test distance expense creation.

Expense creation logic should work the same way as before.

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Same, as in the Tests steps.

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android1.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android_web1.mp4

iOS: Native

ios1.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios_web1.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web1.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

desktop1.mp4

melvin-bot · 2025-05-09T14:14:12Z

@dukenv0307 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]

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx

dukenv0307 · 2025-05-12T10:10:04Z

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx

+                const isTestReceipt = receipt?.isTestReceipt ?? false;
+                requestMoneyIOUActions({
+                    report,
+                    participantParams: {


participantParams and policyParams should be depended on transaction

I believe the participants and policy parameters in this case will be the same for all transactions. (see the slack)

Ah seems like I can't open the slack link, but it makes sense to me

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx

dukenv0307 · 2025-05-12T10:40:52Z

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx

                if (currentUserPersonalDetails.login && !!transaction) {
                    startSplitBill({
                        participants: selectedParticipants,
                        currentUserLogin: currentUserPersonalDetails.login,
                        currentUserAccountID: currentUserPersonalDetails.accountID,
                        comment: trimmedComment,
-                        receipt: receiptFile,
+                        receipt: currentTransactionReceiptFile,


Why do we use the currentTransactionReceiptFile only?

The split functionality won't support multi-scan for now, see the docs:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZjSjfIM7N8jhBwyYA4nz3Fe0cvOEXdu-6FA3pethL1Q/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0#bookmark=id.vmodh43m67v8

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepScan/index.tsx

VickyStash · 2025-05-12T14:33:52Z

@dukenv0307 Could you please take another look?

dukenv0307 · 2025-05-13T08:18:39Z

on it now

dukenv0307 · 2025-05-13T11:14:30Z

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 that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: HybridApp
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: HybridApp
- 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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
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 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.ts 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.
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this 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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-05-13.at.18.03.02.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-05-13.at.16.24.31.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-05-13.at.18.06.22.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-05-13.at.16.23.40.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-05-13.at.16.20.42.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-05-13.at.18.12.27.mov

dukenv0307 · 2025-05-13T11:15:16Z

Looks good. But we got the conflicts, can you please resolve it @VickyStash?

VickyStash · 2025-05-13T12:26:41Z

But we got the conflicts, can you please resolve it @VickyStash?

@dukenv0307 Done!

github-actions · 2025-05-13T12:35:43Z

🚧 @cristipaval has triggered a test app build. You can view the workflow run here.

github-actions · 2025-05-13T13:14:57Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
Android 🤖🔄	iOS 🍎🔄
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/android/61574-hybrid/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/61574-hybrid/index.html

Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/61574/NewExpensify.dmg	https://61574.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

jponikarchuk · 2025-05-15T10:10:37Z

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

Expense - To field is missing on the confirmation page and unable to submit track expense

Version Number: 9.1.44-6
Reproducible in staging?: No
Reproducible in production?: No
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team

Action Performed:

Go to https://61574.pr-testing.expensify.com/
Go to self DM.
Track a manual expense.
Click Categorize it or Share it with my accountant.
Proceed to confirmation page.
Click Create expense.

Expected Result:

There will be To field on the confirmation page.

Actual Result:

To field is missing on the confirmation page and unable to submit track expense.
Issue repro on all environment except iOS.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6831962_1747302560206.Screen_Recording_2025-05-14_at_22.35.42.mp4

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

jponikarchuk · 2025-05-15T10:39:36Z

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

Scan - Unable to submit a scan expense via QAB

Version Number: 9.1.44-6
Reproducible in staging?: No
Reproducible in production?: No
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team

Action Performed:

Precondition:
You have submitted one scan expense to a user

Click on FAB > Scan QAB
Upload a receipt and submit

Expected Result:

The expense is submitted

Actual Result:

"There was an error uploading your receipt. Please try again or save the receipt to upload later." error appears and the expense is not submitted
Issue repro on Web and mWeb.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6831977_1747303905165.2025-05-15_13_07_12.mp4

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

VickyStash · 2025-05-15T15:54:05Z

Expense - To field is missing on the confirmation page and unable to submit track expense - fixed in 68bb862
Scan - Unable to submit a scan expense via QAB - fixed in bad98e9

cc @dukenv0307

Great findings @jponikarchuk, thank you!

nlemma · 2025-05-15T15:55:52Z

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

Expense-Correct category not reflected in confirmation page for distance request created via FAB

Version Number: 9.1.44-6 PR:61574
Reproducible in staging?: No
Reproducible in production?: No
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team

Action Performed:

Preconditions:
Admin side:

Create a workspace >> enable distance rates in more features
Set unit to km(or can be miles) & default category to any other category (for eg: Travel) in distance rates settings
Invite a member to WS

Member side:

Member has 2 workspaces - 1 own WS & other the invited WS from admin

Steps:

Navigate to https://61574.pr-testing.expensify.com/
Sign in as member
Tap FAB >> Create expense >> Distance option
Enter the waypoints >> tap Next
Select the invited WS from admin (Note: Observe the default category Car is displayed & not the admin selected category)
Change the member's own workspace in To field (Note: Observe the category field now changes to admin selected category)

Expected Result:

On step 5 - Admin set category should be displayed on member side when creating distance request
On step 6 - When member changes to his own workspace in To field, the default category to be displayed (in this case Car) & not the admin selected category for the invited workspace

Actual Result:

Correct category not reflected in confirmation page for distance request created via FAB
On step 5 - When member create distance request via FAB, admin set category is not reflected in confirmation page instead show the default category
On step 6 - When member changes to his own WS, then the category changes to the one the admin set in distance rates settings

Note: Issue NOT reproducible when member directly creating distance request from workspace chat (i.e via + icon next to composer)

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6832216_1747321830137.Recording__163.mp4

nlemma · 2025-05-15T17:47:26Z

Expense - Can not enable or disable the billable toggle when creating a new expense

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: 9.1.44-6 PR:61574
Reproducible in staging?: No
Reproducible in production?: No
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: https://expensify.testrail.io/index.php?/tests/view/6102877
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): [email protected]
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: iOS 18
App Component: Money requests

Action Performed:

Launch the app and login with an account that has a workspace where the expenses has the option "Re-bill expenses to clients" set to "Default to Billable" or "Default to Non-Billable"
Create a new expense (e.g. a manual one) and set the workspace as the responder if not set
Scroll down (show more if needed) and try to toggle the Billable toggle

Expected Result:

User can set the expenses to either Non Billable or Billable if the "Re-bill expenses to clients" is set to "Default to Billable" or "Default to Non-Billable" during expense creation

Actual Result:

The Billable toggle can not be changed when creating an expense. The expense is set to the default value and user needs to edit that later on the expense details

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6832243_1747323196408.ScreenRecording_05-15-2025_18-25-39_1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

dukenv0307 · 2025-05-16T02:42:23Z

Reviewing again. BTW, we got the conflicts @VickyStash

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx

…an-flow # Conflicts: # src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepScan/index.native.tsx # src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepScan/index.tsx

VickyStash · 2025-05-16T09:42:15Z

Note: The getTransactions deprecation (lint failing) is being handled in this issue: #61910.

VickyStash · 2025-05-16T10:25:57Z

Expense-Correct category not reflected in confirmation page for distance request created via FAB and Expense - Can not enable or disable the billable toggle when creating a new expense are fixed in cd2af29.
Thank you @dukenv0307 for the fix suggestion!

…an-flow # Conflicts: # src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx # src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepScan/index.native.tsx # src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepScan/index.tsx

dukenv0307 · 2025-05-19T03:31:02Z

Looks good now. @cristipaval should we trigger the new build?

cristipaval · 2025-05-19T09:40:57Z

I just asked Applause if they finished the regression tests. If they did, then I think it's fine if you test the PR again, @dukenv0307. If you reapprove, I think we're good to merge.

cristipaval · 2025-05-19T09:50:27Z

Alright, the regression is complete. Once we have the reported issues fixed, and the PR retested by the C+, I think we can merge.

dukenv0307 · 2025-05-19T10:04:33Z

on it now

dukenv0307 · 2025-05-19T10:17:39Z

Screen.Recording.2025-05-19.at.17.14.53.mov

Screen.Recording.2025-05-19.at.17.10.39.mp4

dukenv0307 · 2025-05-19T10:18:27Z

@cristipaval We're good to merge

VickyStash mentioned this pull request May 8, 2025

[$250] [Multi-Scan] Refactor IOU screens to support handling multiple expense creation #61176

Open

VickyStash marked this pull request as ready for review May 9, 2025 14:14

VickyStash requested a review from a team as a code owner May 9, 2025 14:14

melvin-bot bot requested review from dukenv0307 and removed request for a team May 9, 2025 14:14