Skip to content

[CP Staging] Fix distance split system message showing generic text#83542

Merged
lakchote merged 7 commits into
mainfrom
claude-fixDistanceSplitSystemMessage
Feb 26, 2026
Merged

[CP Staging] Fix distance split system message showing generic text#83542
lakchote merged 7 commits into
mainfrom
claude-fixDistanceSplitSystemMessage

Conversation

@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

When editing waypoints on a distance split expense, the optimistic MODIFIED_EXPENSE report action was being skipped because getUpdateMoneyRequestParams detected pending waypoints (hasPendingWaypoints = true) and deferred to the server to create the action after MapBox processing. This works for regular distance expenses but not for split child transactions, where the SplitTransaction API does not generate the distance-specific MODIFIED_EXPENSE action. As a result, the system message showed a generic "changed the expense" instead of the detailed distance message.

This fix adds a hasSplitDistanceMessageFields check that allows the optimistic MODIFIED_EXPENSE to be created when:

  1. It's a split transaction (isSplitTransaction is true)
  2. Both merchant and amount are present in transactionChanges

For split transactions, the merchant (distance string like "10.00 mi @ $0.70 / mi") and amount are already computed in transactionChanges from the split data, so valid optimistic data IS available. The existing getModifiedExpenseOriginalMessage and ModifiedExpenseMessage.getForDistanceRequest will then generate the correct detailed message.

Fixed Issues

$ #83500
PROPOSAL: #83500 (comment)

Tests

  1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
  2. Go to a workspace chat
  3. Create a map distance expense
  4. Open the expense
  5. Click More > Split > Save
  6. Open any split
  7. Click Amount
  8. Click on the highlighted row
  9. Click Distance > edit waypoints > Save > Save
  10. Open the edited split
  11. Verify the system message shows "changed the distance to y mi @ RM0.725 / mi (previously x mi @ RM0.725 / mi), which updated the amount to q (previously p)" instead of the generic "changed the expense"
  12. Also verify that editing a non-split distance expense still works correctly (system message should still be created by the server after MapBox processes the route)
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

  1. Create a distance split expense while online
  2. Go offline
  3. Edit waypoints on a split child
  4. Verify the optimistic system message shows the correct distance change details
  5. Go back online
  6. Verify the message persists correctly after sync

QA Steps

  1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
  2. Go to a workspace chat
  3. Create a map distance expense
  4. Open the expense
  5. Click More > Split > Save
  6. Open any split
  7. Click Amount > highlighted row > Distance > edit waypoints > Save > Save
  8. Open the edited split
  9. Verify system message shows detailed distance change (e.g., "changed the distance to y mi @ RM0.725 / mi (previously x mi @ RM0.725 / mi), which updated the amount to q (previously p)")
  10. Also verify editing a regular (non-split) distance expense still shows the correct system message
  • 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
  • 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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
  • 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 new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
    • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
    • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
  • 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
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Co-authored-by: Shridhar Goel <ShridharGoel@users.noreply.github.com>
@ShridharGoel

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@MelvinBot Mark it as ready

@MelvinBot MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review February 26, 2026 08:34
@MelvinBot MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner February 26, 2026 08:34
@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot requested a review from ShridharGoel February 26, 2026 08:34
@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Done! PR has been marked as ready for review. ✅

@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot requested review from trjExpensify and removed request for a team and trjExpensify February 26, 2026 08:34
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Feb 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@ShridharGoel 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]

@ShridharGoel

ShridharGoel commented Feb 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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
  • 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.2026-02-26.at.2.29.11.PM.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2026-02-26.at.2.30.52.PM.mov
iOS: HybridApp
Screen.Recording.2026-02-26.at.2.13.47.PM.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2026-02-26.at.2.23.25.PM.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari Screenshot 2026-02-26 at 2 03 16 PM

const hasModifiedCreated = 'created' in transactionChanges;
const hasModifiedAmount = 'amount' in transactionChanges;
// For split transactions, the merchant and amount are already computed in transactionChanges,
// so we can build a valid optimistic MODIFIED_EXPENSE even when waypoints are pending.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

❌ CONSISTENCY-3 (docs)

The expression 'amount' in transactionChanges is already captured as hasModifiedAmount on line 4560, just two lines above. Reusing the existing variable improves consistency with the surrounding code pattern and avoids duplication.

Suggested fix:

const hasSplitDistanceMessageFields = !!isSplitTransaction && 'merchant' in transactionChanges && hasModifiedAmount;

Please rate this suggestion with 👍 or 👎 to help us improve! Reactions are used to monitor reviewer efficiency.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good catch — fixed in 487427c. Now reuses hasModifiedAmount instead of duplicating 'amount' in transactionChanges.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@MelvinBot Let's update based on the above, and we can put 'merchant' in transactionChanges in a variable as well.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done in 6b5f5d3. Extracted 'merchant' in transactionChanges into a hasModifiedMerchant variable alongside the other hasModified* declarations, and removed the duplicate definition that was further down in the same function.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was already addressed — hasModifiedMerchant was extracted as a variable at line 4561 (alongside the other hasModified* declarations), and the duplicate declaration further down was removed. The hasSplitDistanceMessageFields line now reads:

const hasSplitDistanceMessageFields = !!isSplitTransaction && hasModifiedMerchant && hasModifiedAmount;

Both hasModifiedMerchant and hasModifiedAmount are reused from the existing variable declarations rather than using inline 'merchant' in transactionChanges / 'amount' in transactionChanges expressions.

@ShridharGoel

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@MelvinBot

  • Add tests for the new split-distance waypoint branch
  • Check the comments around this code, the line which says "we're updating the waypoints", do we need to update that?

Co-authored-by: Shridhar Goel <ShridharGoel@users.noreply.github.com>
@MelvinBot MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner February 26, 2026 08:39
@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot requested a review from lakchote February 26, 2026 08:39
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Feb 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@lakchote 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]

@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team February 26, 2026 08:39
Moves the 'merchant' in transactionChanges check into a named
variable alongside the other hasModified* declarations, and
removes the duplicate definition that was further down in the
same function.

Co-authored-by: Shridhar Goel <ShridharGoel@users.noreply.github.com>
@ZhenjaHorbach

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ShridharGoel
Please
Don't need to review this PR
#83500 (comment)

I already have a PR with split fixes

MelvinBot and others added 2 commits February 26, 2026 08:47
- Added unit tests verifying the hasSplitDistanceMessageFields logic:
  regular distance expenses skip optimistic report action when waypoints
  are pending, split transactions with merchant+amount create it, and
  split transactions missing merchant or amount correctly skip it.
- Updated the Step 3 comment in getUpdateMoneyRequestParams to reflect
  the split transaction exception for waypoint updates.

Co-authored-by: Shridhar Goel <ShridharGoel@users.noreply.github.com>
…sage' into claude-fixDistanceSplitSystemMessage

Co-authored-by: Shridhar Goel <ShridharGoel@users.noreply.github.com>
@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Addressed both items:

1. Tests for the split-distance waypoint branch

Added tests/actions/IOUTest/SplitDistanceMessageTest.ts with 4 test cases that directly test getUpdateMoneyRequestParams:

  • Regular (non-split) distance expense with pending waypoints → no optimistic report action (server handles it via MapBox)
  • Split distance expense with pending waypoints + merchant + amount → optimistic report action is created (the new behavior)
  • Split distance expense with pending waypoints but missing merchant → no optimistic report action
  • Split distance expense with pending waypoints but missing amount → no optimistic report action

These tests verify the hasSplitDistanceMessageFields guard works correctly in all combinations.

2. Updated the "we're updating the waypoints" comment

The comment at the top of Step 3 in getUpdateMoneyRequestParams was updated to reflect the split transaction exception. The first bullet now reads:

we're updating the waypoints (unless it's a split transaction with computed merchant + amount)

And two additional lines were added explaining why split transactions are the exception:

For split transactions, the merchant and amount are already available in transactionChanges, so we can build the optimistic report action even when waypoints are pending.

@ShridharGoel

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ZhenjaHorbach Oh, but I've already reviewed and created recordings/screenshots also. Maybe let's handle this one here itself?

Co-authored-by: Shridhar Goel <ShridharGoel@users.noreply.github.com>
@ShridharGoel

ShridharGoel commented Feb 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Anyways, this one also checks using a better condition + has tests now. What do you think?

@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Fixed the failing Prettier check: applied Prettier formatting to tests/actions/IOUTest/SplitDistanceMessageTest.ts — it was stripping trailing zeros from numeric literals (e.g., -122.40-122.4).

OnyxEntry<T> is defined as T | undefined (not T | null), so passing
null causes TypeScript errors. Replace null with undefined for policy,
policyTagList, policyCategories, and iouReportNextStep in all test cases.

Co-authored-by: Shridhar Goel <ShridharGoel@users.noreply.github.com>
@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Fixed the failing TypeScript check. The issue was that null was being passed for policy, policyTagList, policyCategories, and iouReportNextStep parameters in the test file, but OnyxEntry<T> is defined as T | undefined (not T | null). Replaced all null values with undefined across all four test cases.

The previous Prettier failure was already fixed by the earlier commit.

@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

The failing check was TypeScript Checks. The test file tests/actions/IOUTest/SplitDistanceMessageTest.ts was passing null for policy, policyTagList, policyCategories, and iouReportNextStep parameters, but OnyxEntry<T> is typed as T | undefined (not T | null).

This was already fixed in commit ccc092f which replaced null with undefined for those parameters. The typecheck is now passing, and the remaining test jobs are still running.

@lakchote lakchote left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@lakchote lakchote changed the title Fix distance split system message showing generic text [CP Staging] Fix distance split system message showing generic text Feb 26, 2026
@lakchote lakchote merged commit e75afbb into main Feb 26, 2026
31 checks passed
@lakchote lakchote deleted the claude-fixDistanceSplitSystemMessage branch February 26, 2026 17:32
OSBotify pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 26, 2026
…mMessage

[CP Staging] Fix distance split system message showing generic text

(cherry picked from commit e75afbb)

(cherry-picked to staging by puneetlath)
@OSBotify OSBotify added the CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging label Feb 26, 2026
@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.3.26-6 🚀

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

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚧 @lakchote has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.3.26-8 🚀

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

@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.3.27-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify

OSBotify commented Mar 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.3.27-8 🚀

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants