[$250] Deleted workspace still visible in recipient list when creating an expense via FAB

[mitarachim]

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: 9.2.43-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from BrowserStack: #72871
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): poipio514+employee1@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Windows 11 / Chrome, iPhone 13 / Safari
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

Preconditions:

1. Login with any account that has an invited workspace
2. Delete all existing workspaces and leave from any invited workspace, so there will be a "you have no workspace" modal displayed in workspace tab.

Steps:

1. Refresh the page
2. Click FAB > Click "create expense"
3. Enter any amount > click "next"
4. Observe the recipient list -> there's a deleted workspace displayed
5. Click on the workspace
6. Enter the merchant and click "create ... expense"

Expected Result:

The deleted workspace shouldn't be visible in recipient list, like in mobile app version do. Also, if user click on the deleted expense as recipient, it should be trigger an error.

Actual Result:

The deleted expense is visible in recipient list and when user try to select it as recipient, user is navigated to self DM and the expense is created in self DM.

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

Bug6993491_1762245743401.deleted_workspace.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021985812442777928560
• Upwork Job ID: 1985812442777928560
• Last Price Increase: 2025-11-11

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @Christinadobrzyn (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.

[mitarachim]

Issue was found while executing QA for PR #72871

[abbasifaizan70]

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

When creating an expense, deleted workspaces are still appearing in the recipient list. When a user selects a deleted workspace as a recipient, they are navigated to their self DM and the expense is created there instead of showing an error.

Expected Result:

• The deleted workspace shouldn't be visible in recipient list (like in mobile app version)
• If user clicks on the deleted workspace as recipient, it should trigger an error

Actual Result:

• The deleted workspace is visible in recipient list
• When user tries to select it as recipient, user is navigated to self DM and the expense is created in self DM

What is the root cause of that problem?

The isValidReport function in src/libs/OptionsListUtils/index.ts doesn't check if a policy expense chat's associated policy is deleted or pending deletion. When a workspace is deleted, its policy gets pendingAction: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.DELETE, but the expense chat reports associated with that policy can still exist in the reports collection. The validation logic filters based on report properties but doesn't validate the policy status.

The shouldShowPolicy utility function exists to check if a policy should be displayed (excluding deleted policies when shouldShowPendingDeletePolicy is false), but it's not being used in the isValidReport function when validating policy expense chats.

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

Add a check in the isValidReport function to filter out policy expense chats whose associated policies are deleted or pending deletion. This will ensure deleted workspaces don't appear in the recipient list, matching the mobile app behavior.

Changes Made

File: src/libs/OptionsListUtils/index.ts

1. Add shouldShowPolicy to the imports from @libs/PolicyUtils
2. Add validation in isValidReport function to check if policy expense chat's policy is deleted

diff --git a/src/libs/OptionsListUtils/index.ts b/src/libs/OptionsListUtils/index.ts
index abc123..def456 100644
--- a/src/libs/OptionsListUtils/index.ts
+++ b/src/libs/OptionsListUtils/index.ts
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ import {
     getCountOfRequiredTagLists,
     getSubmitToAccountID,
     isCurrentUserMemberOfAnyPolicy,
+    shouldShowPolicy,
 } from '@libs/PolicyUtils';
 import {
     getChangedApproverActionMessage,
@@ -1722,6 +1723,13 @@ function isValidReport(option: SearchOption<Report>, config: IsValidReportsConf
     if (isPolicyExpenseChat && !includeOwnedWorkspaceChats) {
         return false;
     }
+
+    // Filter out policy expense chats whose policies are deleted or pending deletion
+    if (isPolicyExpenseChat && option.policyID) {
+        const policy = allPolicies?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY}${option.policyID}`];
+        if (!shouldShowPolicy(policy, false, currentUserLogin)) {
+            return false;
+        }
+    }
+
     // When passing includeP2P false we are trying to hide features from users that are not ready for P2P and limited to expense chats only.
     if (!includeP2P && !isPolicyExpenseChat) {
         return false;

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

1. Filter at the report level: Checked if we could filter deleted policies when building the reports list, but the filtering needs to happen at the option validation level since reports can exist independently of their policy status.

2. Validation in MoneyRequestParticipantsSelector: Considered adding validation in the component, but the proper place is in isValidReport since this ensures deleted workspaces don't appear in any recipient selection scenario, not just expense creation.

3. Using isPendingDeletePolicy directly: Instead of shouldShowPolicy, we could check policy?.pendingAction === CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.DELETE, but shouldShowPolicy provides a more comprehensive check that also handles edge cases like policies with errors.

[Christinadobrzyn]

@lakchote @ZhenjaHorbach @LukasMod It looks like this was found while executing the QA of #72871

Does that mean that you should work on the fix? I don't think that necessarily means a regression, correct?

[ZhenjaHorbach]

@lakchote @ZhenjaHorbach @LukasMod It looks like this was found while executing the QA of #72871

Does that mean that you should work on the fix? I don't think that necessarily means a regression, correct?

I don't think this is an issue with our PR
We just fixed the issue with using negative values

[Christinadobrzyn]

I can reproduce this on iOS following the steps in the OP. Adding External.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021985812442777928560