[Due for payment 2025-12-05] [$250] Report - "Changed the amount" message appears when splitting expense and deleting one split.

[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: 9.2.44-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from BrowserStack: https://test-management.browserstack.com/projects/2219752/test-runs/TR-1792/folder/13176670/47002824/994328590
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): ibellicotest+2008@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Motorola MotoG60 / Android 12 / Chrome ( mWeb / Hybrid app) - Windows 11 / Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

Prerequisite: Account has at least one workspace.

1. Open the Expensify app.
2. Open any workspace chat.
3. Create a manual expense.
4. Open the report of the just created expense.
5. Tap on "More" and select "Split"
6. Save the amounts.
7. When redirected to report, open both splits and note that no system message is displayed on any of them.
8. Delete one of the splits.
9. When landing on report of remaining expense, note that a "Changed the amount to $XX" system message appears on report.

Expected Result:

When splitting an expense and deleting one of the splits, no system message about amount being changed should appear, as the remaining expense is an split, and user didn´t edit the amount.

Actual Result:

When splitting an expense and deleting one of the splits, a "Changed the amount to $XX" system message appears on report.

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

Bug6994460_1762308749395.Changed.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021986549731172332280
• Upwork Job ID: 1986549731172332280
• Last Price Increase: 2025-11-06
• Automatic offers:
• nyomanjyotisa | Contributor | 109399535

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @CortneyOfstad

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @CortneyOfstad (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.

[nyomanjyotisa]

Proposal

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

Report - "Changed the amount" message appears when splitting expense and deleting one split

What is the root cause of that problem?

When a split is deleted and one split remains, we compares the remaining split new amount against its old amount. However, this comparison doesn't account for case when only one split remains after deletion (a reverse split operation), the amount recalculation is not a user edit but a system calculation. This causes a "Changed the amount" system message to be generated

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Lines 13914 to 13954 in eb1b8f1

	// For existing split transactions, update the field change messages
	// For new transactions, skip this step
	if (splitTransaction) {
	const existing = getTransactionDetails(splitTransaction);
	const transactionChanges = {
	...currentSplit,
	comment: currentSplit?.comment?.comment,
	} as TransactionChanges;
	if (currentSplit) {
	currentSplit.reimbursable = splitTransaction.reimbursable;
	currentSplit.billable = splitTransaction.billable;
	}
	Object.keys(transactionChanges).forEach((key) => {
	const newValue = transactionChanges[key as keyof typeof transactionChanges];
	const oldValue = existing?.[key as keyof typeof existing];
	if (newValue === oldValue) {
	delete transactionChanges[key as keyof typeof transactionChanges];
	// Ensure we pass the currency to getUpdateMoneyRequestParams as well, so the amount message is created correctly
	} else if (key === 'amount') {
	transactionChanges.currency = originalTransactionDetails?.currency;
	}
	});
	if (Object.keys(transactionChanges).length > 0) {
	const {onyxData: moneyRequestParamsOnyxData, params} = getUpdateMoneyRequestParams({
	transactionID: existingTransactionID,
	transactionThreadReportID: isReverseSplitOperation ? splitExpense?.reportID : transactionThreadReportID,
	transactionChanges,
	policy,
	policyTagList: policyTags ?? null,
	policyCategories: policyCategories ?? null,
	newTransactionReportID: splitExpense?.reportID,
	policyRecentlyUsedCategories,
	});
	if (currentSplit) {
	currentSplit.modifiedExpenseReportActionID = params.reportActionID;
	}
	updateMoneyRequestParamsOnyxData = moneyRequestParamsOnyxData;
	}

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

Add a condition to skip generating the modified expense report action when this is a reverse split operation

            if (Object.keys(transactionChanges).length > 0 && !isReverseSplitOperation) {
                const {onyxData: moneyRequestParamsOnyxData, params} = getUpdateMoneyRequestParams({
                    transactionID: existingTransactionID,
                    transactionThreadReportID: transactionThreadReportID,
                    transactionChanges,
                    policy,
                    policyTagList: policyTags ?? null,
                    policyCategories: policyCategories ?? null,
                    newTransactionReportID: splitExpense?.reportID,
                    policyRecentlyUsedCategories,
                });

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Lines 13939 to 13949 in eb1b8f1

	if (Object.keys(transactionChanges).length > 0) {
	const {onyxData: moneyRequestParamsOnyxData, params} = getUpdateMoneyRequestParams({
	transactionID: existingTransactionID,
	transactionThreadReportID: isReverseSplitOperation ? splitExpense?.reportID : transactionThreadReportID,
	transactionChanges,
	policy,
	policyTagList: policyTags ?? null,
	policyCategories: policyCategories ?? null,
	newTransactionReportID: splitExpense?.reportID,
	policyRecentlyUsedCategories,
	});

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We can pass shouldBuildOptimisticModifiedExpenseReportAction as false

                const {onyxData: moneyRequestParamsOnyxData, params} = getUpdateMoneyRequestParams({
                    transactionID: existingTransactionID,
                    transactionThreadReportID: isReverseSplitOperation ? splitExpense?.reportID : transactionThreadReportID,
                    transactionChanges,
                    policy,
                    policyTagList: policyTags ?? null,
                    policyCategories: policyCategories ?? null,
                    newTransactionReportID: splitExpense?.reportID,
                    policyRecentlyUsedCategories,
                    shouldBuildOptimisticModifiedExpenseReportAction: false,
                });

Or filter out the "amount" and "currency" fields from transactionChanges when isReverseSplitOperation is true. With this change, we can still get the "changed the expense" system message without the amount message

            if (isReverseSplitOperation) {
                delete transactionChanges.amount;
                delete transactionChanges.currency;
            }

            if (Object.keys(transactionChanges).length > 0) {
                const {onyxData: moneyRequestParamsOnyxData, params} = getUpdateMoneyRequestParams({
                    transactionID: existingTransactionID,
                    transactionThreadReportID: isReverseSplitOperation ? splitExpense?.reportID : transactionThreadReportID,
                    transactionChanges,
                    ...

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021986549731172332280

[melvin-bot]

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

[CortneyOfstad]

Getting eyes on this — it's as if the system is taking the remaining split and treating like the original expense, even though it should be separated.

[CortneyOfstad]

@dukenv0307 — we have a proposal for you to review here. Thanks!

[dukenv0307]

@nyomanjyotisa's proposal looks good to me and works well

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed