[Due for payment 2025-07-28] [$250] Expense - In split, second expense is shown little bit delay

[jponikarchuk]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: V9.1.67-1
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/a
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): slottwo1gcd1@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Redminote 10s android 13
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

1. Launch app
2. Open workpace chat
3. Create a manual expense
4. Open the expense- more - split expense
5. Tap save

Expected Result:

In split, second expense must be shown together with 1st expense and total.

Actual Result:

In split, second expense is shown little bit delay after 1st expense and total is displayed.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

• Android: App
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: App
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• iOS: mWeb Chrome
• Windows: Chrome
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021935263978695367896
• Upwork Job ID: 1935263978695367896
• Last Price Increase: 2025-06-25

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @garrettmknight

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @twisterdotcom (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.

[bernhardoj]

Proposal

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

When doing split, the splitted expense is shown with delay.

What is the root cause of that problem?

From the video, we can see that after split, only 1 expense is visible and there are quite big spaces. If we log the transactions list, we can see that there are 3 transactions, the original transaction, and 2 splitted transactions. So, the real problem here is that, the original transaction is still shown and both splitted transactions are shown with delay.

We already optimistically update the reportID of the original transaction.

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Lines 11665 to 11672 in 7b6e4e1

	optimisticData.push({
	onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
	key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${originalTransactionID}`,
	value: {
	...originalTransaction,
	reportID: CONST.REPORT.SPLIT_REPORT_ID,
	},
	});

However, the new 2 transactions are updated earlier because it uses SET method, while the original transaction update above uses MERGE.

For the delay, we use InteractionManager before starting the new item animation, so it's delayed.

App/src/hooks/useAnimatedHighlightStyle/index.ts

Lines 98 to 118 in 7b6e4e1

	InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions(() => {
	runOnJS(() => {
	nonRepeatableProgress.set(
	withDelay(
	itemEnterDelay,
	withTiming(1, {duration: itemEnterDuration, easing: Easing.inOut(Easing.ease)}, (finished) => {
	if (!finished) {
	return;
	}
	repeatableProgress.set(
	withSequence(
	withDelay(highlightStartDelay, withTiming(1, {duration: highlightStartDuration, easing: Easing.inOut(Easing.ease)})),
	withDelay(highlightEndDelay, withTiming(0, {duration: highlightEndDuration, easing: Easing.inOut(Easing.ease)})),
	),
	);
	}),
	),
	);
	})();
	});

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

First, we can change the method from MERGE to SET.

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Lines 11665 to 11672 in 7b6e4e1

	optimisticData.push({
	onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
	key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${originalTransactionID}`,
	value: {
	...originalTransaction,
	reportID: CONST.REPORT.SPLIT_REPORT_ID,
	},
	});

This is how it looks.

a.mp4

If we want to remove the delay, we can remove the InteractionManager and it will look like this.

b.mp4

(notice that the highlight a bit lagging)

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

N/A

[twisterdotcom]

cc @garrettmknight - what do you think? Worthy of a fix? Seems like @bernhardoj is ready to go with it anyway.

[garrettmknight]

Yeah, can't comment on whether that proposal is a good one or not, but I think this is worth making snapier if we can.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021935263978695367896

[melvin-bot]

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