[Payment due @daledah] [No QA] Report managed card transactions to employee's default policy by s77rt · Pull Request #94768 · Expensify/App

s77rt · 2026-06-27T09:42:13Z

Explanation of Change

Modified the usePolicyForMovingExpenses hook that we use to select the target policyID when moving expenses, if we are moving an unreported managed card transaction then it should be moved to the employee's default policy (and not ours) and since we don't know that info, we will return undefined and this will omit sending the policyID to the backend.

In the backend, when no explicit policyID is provided, it will automatically find and use the preferred policy.

Fixed Issues

#87954
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Requires 2 accounts (an admin and an employee) on same private domain e.g. companydomain.com
Employee have assigned an E-Card.
Admin and Employee have different default workspaces

Employee: Have an unreported card expense
Admin: Go to Spend > Expenses and look for the unreported expense
Admin: When reporting the unreported expense verify the Create report option does not display any workspace name under it i.e. no supporting text
Admin: Report the unreported expense
Admin: Verify it was reported with success
Employee: Verify the expense is on a new report that was created on your default workspace

Screen.Recording.2026-06-27.at.11.46.24.AM.mov

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

n/a

QA Steps

n/a

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

…ses as source of truth

…y policyID to backend

codecov · 2026-06-27T10:50:43Z

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...firmationListFooter/hooks/useFooterDerivedFlags.ts	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
...nents/Navigation/QuickCreationActionsBar/index.tsx	`85.36% <100.00%> (-0.18%)`	⬇️
...c/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx	`73.83% <100.00%> (-0.07%)`	⬇️
.../SearchPageHeader/SearchActionsBarCreateButton.tsx	`96.05% <100.00%> (-0.06%)`	⬇️
src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts	`88.69% <100.00%> (+0.01%)`	⬆️
src/libs/actions/Report/index.ts	`70.02% <100.00%> (+0.02%)`	⬆️
...es/iou/request/step/IOURequestEditReportCommon.tsx	`79.83% <100.00%> (+0.16%)`	⬆️
.../components/MoneyRequestHeaderSecondaryActions.tsx	`0.51% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️
src/pages/iou/SplitExpenseEditPage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
...rc/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepReport.tsx	`75.32% <71.42%> (+1.00%)`	⬆️
... and 3 more
... and 47 files with indirect coverage changes

melvin-bot · 2026-06-27T10:57:20Z

@marcochavezf 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]

s77rt · 2026-06-27T10:58:09Z

Does this need C+ review?

github-actions · 2026-06-27T11:01:25Z

    const policyForMovingExpenses = policyForMovingExpensesID ? allPolicies?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY}${policyForMovingExpensesID}`] : undefined;
    const [betas] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.BETAS);
    const [transactions] = useTransactionsByID(transactionIDs);
+    const hasUnreportedManagedCardTransactions = transactions.some((transaction) => isExpenseUnreported(transaction) && isManagedCardTransaction(transaction));


❌ CONSISTENCY-3 (docs)

The predicate isExpenseUnreported(transaction) && isManagedCardTransaction(transaction) is duplicated here and in SearchTransactionsChangeReport.tsx and IOURequestStepReport.tsx. Consolidate this single concept into one util so it stays consistent.

Add isUnreportedManagedCardTransaction(transaction) to TransactionUtils and reuse it:

const hasUnreportedManagedCardTransactions = transactions.some(isUnreportedManagedCardTransaction);

Reviewed at: e280d03 | Please rate this suggestion with 👍 or 👎 to help us improve! Reactions are used to monitor reviewer efficiency.

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: e280d034aa

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

daledah · 2026-07-01T15:50:22Z

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 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 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)
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)
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.
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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

daledah · 2026-07-01T16:16:54Z

Employee have assigned an E-Card.
Employee: Have an unreported card expense

The code looks good overall, and I don't see any issues. @s77rt how can I create an unreported card expense for testing?

s77rt · 2026-07-02T00:05:15Z

@daledah Not really sure, can you please ask in Slack cc @DylanDylann in case you have some link to share as you tested #76000

luacmartins · 2026-07-02T18:08:56Z

@daledah can you try the following?

Use staging API
Workspace > More Features > Enable Company Cards
Workspace > Company cards > Add Cards
Select United States, Direct Feed and Mock Bank
Refresh the page
You should see two cards
Assign the card to a workspace member, select Transaction start date > From the beginning
That should assign the card and create a few transactions for that card
If you need to unreport them, you can delete the report.

daledah · 2026-07-03T06:38:49Z

thanks @luacmartins, i have unreported card expense for testing now.

daledah · 2026-07-03T06:44:38Z

@s77rt could you please resolve conflict?

and I'm having trouble with this branch, error: message: "401 Unauthorized" when i click create report button

dev.mov

On staging, I'm able to create a report, and the new report is created in the employee workspace.

staging.mov

luacmartins · 2026-07-03T15:56:55Z

thanks @luacmartins, i have unreported card expense for testing now.

Nice! Glad it worked

s77rt · 2026-07-03T16:59:40Z

@daledah Thanks for testing! So when I tested this I tested it on a private domain and that worked (admin@domain.com/employee@domain.com) but now I'm seeing it does not work with a public domain (when you are an admin only at workspace level).

Not really sure how to handle this but can you test on OD too? (in OD there are two options to report unreported transaction, either by creating a new report or use the auto-report option)

daledah · 2026-07-06T08:56:24Z

web.mov

@s77rt I tested it on OD as well with a public domain

With the New Report option, an "An error has occurred" modal is displayed.
With the Auto Report option, we receive a "401 Unauthorized" error message.

s77rt · 2026-07-06T10:15:14Z

@daledah Thanks for testing. The Auto Report option is actually working. (Both error messages you saw were for the New Report option)

I'm checking this now...

s77rt · 2026-07-06T11:03:20Z

Okay I don't have a good solution for this yet. I can update the CreateReport API to accept another parameter managedCardID so we can resolve the correct domain to use for the authToken swapping but not sure if this is the best option. I have updated the steps to require testing on same domain accounts. (not sure if this is easy to test though)

@luacmartins Do you think we can proceed here and handle the case where admin/employee are on different domains? That case is broken on OD too

luacmartins · 2026-07-06T19:21:27Z

I think we can proceed if both conditions below are true:

The flow is also broken in OD
This won't persist incorrect data in the DB

It seems like that's the case, but I just want to make sure before we continue here.

s77rt · 2026-07-06T21:12:26Z

Yeah it's the case, just wanted to get this unblocked so we can keep making progress

luacmartins · 2026-07-06T21:19:12Z

Cool, in that case, let's continue with review @daledah

daledah

Aside from the known 401 issue on public domain accounts (which is also broken on OD and will be handled separately), everything LGTM.

melvin-bot · 2026-07-07T05:33:32Z

🎯 @daledah, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

A payment issue will be created for your review once this PR is deployed to production.
E/E issue linked to the PR - no internal issue.

If payment is not needed (e.g., regression PR review fix etc), react with 👎 to this comment to prevent the payment issue from being created.

github-actions · 2026-07-07T22:08:45Z

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

OSBotify · 2026-07-07T22:14:38Z

✋ 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 · 2026-07-07T22:19:27Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #94768.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-6a0f1e5-ee2dd9f-fe62a3b0bdfcf3a4f1694d87ced58ce9237f78b8/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-6a0f1e5-ee2dd9f-f3d05acb0f666b450fc30a1f5f64d1d3a6dbd5dd/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://94768.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-07-09T11:05:23Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.4.32-0 🚀

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

MelvinBot · 2026-07-09T11:08:14Z

🤖 I reviewed the changes and checked the help site articles under docs/articles.

Conclusion: No help site changes are required. The existing documentation already describes the exact behavior this PR enforces, so no draft PR was created.

This PR is a bug fix: when a Workspace Admin reports an employee's unreported managed card transaction, the code now omits the policyID so the backend routes the new report to the employee's default workspace instead of the admin's.

The article that documents this flow — Create and Submit Reports — already states the correct, post-fix behavior:

"Select Create report to add the expense to a report on the member's default workspace." (Create-and-Submit-Reports.md:76)
"Select Create report to add the expenses to a report on the member's default workspace." (Create-and-Submit-Reports.md:88)

This is a case of the code catching up to already-accurate docs, not a doc-impacting behavior change. I also confirmed there is no contradicting statement elsewhere (e.g. Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md and the Spend page article describe the same admin-on-behalf flow consistently). The only other user-visible detail from the test steps — the Create report option no longer showing workspace supporting text for these transactions — is UI-level polish that the help articles do not document.

Since no articles needed updating, there is no linked help site PR to review, label (HelpDot), or assign.

s77rt — if you believe a specific article should call out this employee-default-workspace behavior more explicitly (rather than it just being implicitly correct), let me know which article and I'll draft the update.

OSBotify · 2026-07-10T13:42:26Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.4.32-3 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android

melvin-bot · 2026-07-10T13:44:58Z

🤖 Payment issue created: #95816

s77rt added 5 commits June 27, 2026 09:36

add return type for usePolicyForMovingExpenses

85c27e3

add shouldNavigateToUpgradePath return field

e389dd2

use returned shouldNavigateToUpgradePath from usePolicyForMovingExpen…

2045a32

…ses as source of truth

add isNonOwnedManagedCardTransaction param to be able to send an empt…

35af664

…y policyID to backend

get empty policyID when reporting unreported managed card transactions

09d8fae

melvin-bot Bot assigned s77rt Jun 27, 2026

s77rt added 6 commits June 27, 2026 11:14

pass missed isUnreportedManagedCardTransaction param

f0527f9

fix variable name

44a36e4

display create report option for unreported managed card transactions

fc533b3

fix createReport early return

3c85137

move return after hooks

007a939

fix test and ts

e280d03

s77rt mentioned this pull request Jun 27, 2026

Mirror Classic reconciliation auto-report functionality for statements #87954

Open

s77rt marked this pull request as ready for review June 27, 2026 10:56

s77rt requested review from a team as code owners June 27, 2026 10:56

melvin-bot Bot requested review from flaviadefaria and marcochavezf and removed request for a team June 27, 2026 10:56

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team June 27, 2026 10:57

s77rt requested review from luacmartins and removed request for marcochavezf June 27, 2026 10:57

github-actions Bot reviewed Jun 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/pages/Search/SearchTransactionsChangeReport.tsx Outdated

github-actions Bot reviewed Jun 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepReport.tsx Outdated

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jun 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestEditReport.tsx Outdated

Comment thread src/hooks/usePolicyForMovingExpenses.ts

luacmartins requested a review from daledah June 29, 2026 14:36

merge main

1f29d3d

daledah approved these changes Jul 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot changed the title ~~[No QA] Report managed card transactions to employee's default policy~~ [Payment due @daledah] [No QA] Report managed card transactions to employee's default policy Jul 7, 2026

luacmartins approved these changes Jul 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

luacmartins merged commit 6a0f1e5 into Expensify:main Jul 7, 2026
40 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-07-09 #95677

Closed

94 tasks

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2026

Expense - Expense remains on the same report after being moved to new one in offline mode. #95753

Closed

7 tasks

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Jul 10, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-07-17] Payment issue for E/App PR#94768 #95816

Open

Uh oh!

Conversation

s77rt commented Jun 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jun 27, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 27, 2026

Uh oh!

s77rt commented Jun 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot Jun 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

❌ CONSISTENCY-3 (docs)

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

daledah commented Jul 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

daledah commented Jul 1, 2026

Uh oh!

s77rt commented Jul 2, 2026

Uh oh!

luacmartins commented Jul 2, 2026

Uh oh!

daledah commented Jul 3, 2026

Uh oh!

daledah commented Jul 3, 2026

Uh oh!

luacmartins commented Jul 3, 2026

Uh oh!

s77rt commented Jul 3, 2026

Uh oh!

daledah commented Jul 6, 2026

Uh oh!

s77rt commented Jul 6, 2026

Uh oh!

s77rt commented Jul 6, 2026

Uh oh!

luacmartins commented Jul 6, 2026

Uh oh!

s77rt commented Jul 6, 2026

Uh oh!

luacmartins commented Jul 6, 2026

Uh oh!

daledah left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

s77rt commented Jun 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Jun 27, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

daledah commented Jul 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading

daledah left a comment •

edited

Loading