[Due for payment 2026-06-04] [Due for payment 2026-06-03] Expense - "Submitted" is shown in "marked as done" system message thread header

[applause-bot]

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: 9.3.83-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: N/A - new feature, doesn't exist in prod
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from BrowserStack: #88455
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): odijosijndosjdoj@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Bug source: Exploratory - Significant User Experience Deterioration
Device used: Mac 26.5 / Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Log in with new Gmail account.
3. Skip work email step.
4. Select Track expenses for my business.
5. Complete the onboarding.
6. Go to workspace chat.
7. Create an expense.
8. Open the expense.
9. Click Mark as done button.
10. Right click on Mark as done system message > Reply in thread.

Expected Result:

Marked as done will be shown in system message thread header.

Actual Result:

"Submitted" is shown in "marked as done" system message thread header.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

Bug7163801_1779828086967.2.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Applause Internal Information
Exported by: Svetlana Lazutkina
Bug ID: 7163801

[applause-bot]

While Applause doesn't embed attachments for this bug, here are the links for quick view:
https://platform.applause.com/services/links/v1/external/a7330137b72ea655b280eb67d4bc5855aaec3068be2fe5ef60a32c580cadc309

[melvin-bot]

You have been assigned to this deploy blocker because you recently merged this PR: #88455

[melvin-bot]

💬 A slack conversation has been started in #expensify-open-source

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[MelvinBot]

Proposal

What is the root cause of that problem?

PR #88455 added shouldShowMarkAsDone checks to ApprovalFlowContent.tsx (the inline system message renderer) so it correctly displays "marked as done" for track-intent users. However, the thread header text is computed by a separate code path — computeReportNameBasedOnReportAction in ReportNameUtils.ts — which was not updated. That function groups isMarkAsClosedAction with SUBMITTED/SUBMITTED_AND_CLOSED actions and unconditionally returns translate('iou.submitted'), never checking shouldShowMarkAsDone.

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

In ReportNameUtils.ts (line 427–437), add a shouldShowMarkAsDone check (mirroring the pattern in ApprovalFlowContent.tsx) before the generic translate('iou.submitted') return. When isMarkAsClosedAction is true and shouldShowMarkAsDone returns true, return translate('iou.markedAsDone', ...) instead.

This will require threading the necessary context (isTrackIntentUser, policy, report) into computeReportNameBasedOnReportAction — the function already receives reportPolicy (as the policy) and the parent report, so the main addition is isTrackIntentUser.

What alternative solutions did you explore?

An alternative would be to check isMarkAsClosedAction alone (without shouldShowMarkAsDone) and always return "marked as done" for those actions. However, this would diverge from the pattern established in ApprovalFlowContent.tsx and could show incorrect text for non-track-intent users. Mirroring the existing shouldShowMarkAsDone guard is more consistent and correct.

---

Next Steps for Contributor+ team: Reply with @MelvinBot implement this to create a draft PR, @MelvinBot <your feedback> to refine this analysis, or explain why you are rejecting Melvin's proposal.

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.