[Due for payment 2026-01-16] [$250] Tag validation missing after moving expense between workspaces

[m-natarajan]

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: 9.2.46-1
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
**If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:**
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
**Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
**Issue reported by: @cristipaval
Slack conversation (hyperlinked to channel name): #Expensify Bugs

Action Performed:

1. Have an expense in a report from Workspace A with TagA applied
2. Have Workspace B with multi-level tags, where TagA is not available (uses a different tag set) and empty report
3. Move the expense from Workspace A’s report to a report in Workspace B.

Expected Result:

A “Tag no longer valid” violation should appear since the tag applied to the expense does not exist in the new workspace.

Actual Result:

No violation is displayed even though the tag is invalid for the new workspace.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Select the officially supported platforms where the issue was reproduced:

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

Platforms Tested:

On which of our officially supported platforms was this issue tested:

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

Screenshots/Videos

+++ Add any screenshot/video evidence

+++

Screen.Recording.2025-11-07.at.14.49.04.mp4

Recording.1901.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021986817774550001005
• Upwork Job ID: 1986817774550001005
• Last Price Increase: 2025-11-14

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @JmillsExpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @JmillsExpensify (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.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021986817774550001005

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @parasharrajat is eligible for the External assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[cristipaval]

Assigned @parasharrajat as the C+ since he has context

[mukhrr]

cannot reproduce

[marufsharifi]

🚨 Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2025-11-09 12:16:20 UTC.

Proposal

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

Tag validation missing after moving expense between workspaces

What is the root cause of that problem?

The expense is initially assigned a tag value in one workspace. When the expense is moved to another workspace that uses multi-level tags, the previously assigned tag value may no longer exist in the target workspace.

Currently, we map the transaction’s tagValue to the policy’s tag list based on its index and assign it to the tagValue field. We do not validate whether the transaction’s tag value still exists in the target policy’s available tag options, and we do not display the Tag no longer valid error message if it does not exist.

In other words, instead of validating the tagValue against the policy’s available tags, we simply assign the value by its index in the tag list, which can result in invalid or outdated tags being associated with the expense.

We map the policy tags here

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Lines 555 to 583 in 5dc4f0c

	const tagList = policyTagLists.map(({name, orderWeight, tags}, index) => {
	const tagForDisplay = getTagForDisplay(updatedTransaction ?? transaction, index);
	let shouldShow = false;
	if (hasDependentTags) {
	if (index === 0) {
	shouldShow = true;
	} else {
	const prevTagValue = getTagForDisplay(transaction, index - 1);
	shouldShow = !!prevTagValue;
	}
	} else {
	shouldShow = !!tagForDisplay || hasEnabledOptions(tags);
	}
	if (!shouldShow) {
	return null;
	}
	const tagError = getErrorForField(
	'tag',
	{
	tagListIndex: index,
	tagListName: name,
	},
	hasDependentTags,
	tagForDisplay,
	);
	const tagCopyValue = !canEdit ? tagForDisplay : undefined;

And we check for the errors here

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Lines 380 to 421 in 5dc4f0c

	const getErrorForField = useCallback(
	(field: ViolationField, data?: OnyxTypes.TransactionViolation['data'], policyHasDependentTags = false, tagValue?: string) => {
	// Checks applied when creating a new expense
	// NOTE: receipt field can return multiple violations, so we need to handle it separately
	const fieldChecks: Partial<Record<ViolationField, {isError: boolean; translationPath: TranslationPaths}>> = {
	amount: {
	isError: transactionAmount === 0,
	translationPath: canEditAmount ? 'common.error.enterAmount' : 'common.error.missingAmount',
	},
	merchant: {
	isError: !isSettled && !isCancelled && isPolicyExpenseChat && isEmptyMerchant,
	translationPath: canEditMerchant ? 'common.error.enterMerchant' : 'common.error.missingMerchantName',
	},
	date: {
	isError: transactionDate === '',
	translationPath: canEditDate ? 'common.error.enterDate' : 'common.error.missingDate',
	},
	};
	const {isError, translationPath} = fieldChecks[field] ?? {};
	if (readonly) {
	return '';
	}
	// Return form errors if there are any
	if (hasErrors && isError && translationPath) {
	return translate(translationPath);
	}
	if (isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy && field === 'customUnitRateID') {
	return translate('violations.customUnitOutOfPolicy');
	}
	// Return violations if there are any
	if (field !== 'merchant' && hasViolations(field, data, policyHasDependentTags, tagValue)) {
	const violations = getViolationsForField(field, data, policyHasDependentTags, tagValue);
	return `${violations.map((violation) => ViolationsUtils.getViolationTranslation(violation, translate, canEdit)).join('. ')}.`;
	}
	return '';

We never validate the tag value against the available options for that specific tag name.

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

To resolve this, we need to validate the tag value against the available tag options for the corresponding tag name.
This requires updating the getErrorForField function to validate tagValue as bellow

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Lines 380 to 421 in 5dc4f0c

	const getErrorForField = useCallback(
	(field: ViolationField, data?: OnyxTypes.TransactionViolation['data'], policyHasDependentTags = false, tagValue?: string) => {
	// Checks applied when creating a new expense
	// NOTE: receipt field can return multiple violations, so we need to handle it separately
	const fieldChecks: Partial<Record<ViolationField, {isError: boolean; translationPath: TranslationPaths}>> = {
	amount: {
	isError: transactionAmount === 0,
	translationPath: canEditAmount ? 'common.error.enterAmount' : 'common.error.missingAmount',
	},
	merchant: {
	isError: !isSettled && !isCancelled && isPolicyExpenseChat && isEmptyMerchant,
	translationPath: canEditMerchant ? 'common.error.enterMerchant' : 'common.error.missingMerchantName',
	},
	date: {
	isError: transactionDate === '',
	translationPath: canEditDate ? 'common.error.enterDate' : 'common.error.missingDate',
	},
	};
	const {isError, translationPath} = fieldChecks[field] ?? {};
	if (readonly) {
	return '';
	}
	// Return form errors if there are any
	if (hasErrors && isError && translationPath) {
	return translate(translationPath);
	}
	if (isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy && field === 'customUnitRateID') {
	return translate('violations.customUnitOutOfPolicy');
	}
	// Return violations if there are any
	if (field !== 'merchant' && hasViolations(field, data, policyHasDependentTags, tagValue)) {
	const violations = getViolationsForField(field, data, policyHasDependentTags, tagValue);
	return `${violations.map((violation) => ViolationsUtils.getViolationTranslation(violation, translate, canEdit)).join('. ')}.`;
	}
	return '';

Apply this update

diff --git a/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx b/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx
index 478a05ddbb8..e3173dc1545 100644
--- a/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx
+++ b/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ import {
     isTrackExpenseReport,
     shouldEnableNegative,
 } from '@libs/ReportUtils';
-import {hasEnabledTags} from '@libs/TagsOptionsListUtils';
+import {hasEnabledTags, hasMatchingTag} from '@libs/TagsOptionsListUtils';
 import {
     getBillable,
     getCurrency,
@@ -428,6 +428,12 @@ function MoneyRequestView({
                 return `${violations.map((violation) => ViolationsUtils.getViolationTranslation(violation, translate, canEdit, undefined, companyCardPageURL)).join('. ')}.`;
             }
 
+            if (field === 'tag' && tagValue) {
+                if (!hasMatchingTag(policyTagList, tagValue)) {
+                    return translate('violations.tagOutOfPolicy', {tagName: data?.tagListName});
+                }
+            }
+
             return '';
         },
         [
@@ -448,6 +454,7 @@ function MoneyRequestView({
             canEdit,
             isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy,
             companyCardPageURL,
+            policyTagList,
         ],
     );

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

None

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)