[Due for payment 2026-01-16] [$250] Expense- Keep this one button opens not here page after deleting split and duplicating expense

[jponikarchuk]

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: 9.2.85-1
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from BrowserStack: Exploratory
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): sdoijsndojojsiojioj@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Bug source: Exploratory - Critical User Impact
Device used: Mac 26.1 / Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat.
3. Create an expense.
4. Open the expense report.
5. Click More > Split > Save.
6. Open any split and delete it.
7. On the remaining expense, click More > Duplicate.
8. Open the first expense.
9. Click Review duplicates.
10. Click Keep this one on the second expense preview.

Expected Result:

Confirm page will open.

Actual Result:

Keep this one button opens not here page after deleting split and duplicating expense.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~022002887907564899963
• Upwork Job ID: 2002887907564899963
• Last Price Increase: 2025-12-28

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @jliexpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @jliexpensify (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.

[samranahm]

Proposal

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

Keep this one button opens not here page after deleting split and duplicating expense

What is the root cause of that problem?

Here

App/src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/Confirmation.tsx

Line 106 in df5234b

const doesTransactionBelongToReport = reviewDuplicates?.transactionID === reportTransactionID || (reportTransactionID && reviewDuplicates?.duplicates.includes(reportTransactionID));

The validation logic for doesTransactionBelongToReport is too strict. When a split expense is created and then one split is deleted, the remaining expense's reportID can become CONST.REPORT.SPLIT_REPORT_ID. This caused the validation to fail, showing the "not here" page instead of allowing the user to proceed to the confirmation page.

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

We should update the doesTransactionBelongToReport check to also validate if the transaction being kept reviewDuplicates?.transactionID is one of the duplicate transactions being reviewed (allDuplicateIDs or transactionID). This will handles the edge case where split expenses have been deleted and duplicated, and will allow the confirmation page to display correctly.

const doesTransactionBelongToReport =
    reviewDuplicates?.transactionID === reportTransactionID ||
    (reviewDuplicates?.transactionID && (allDuplicateIDs.includes(reviewDuplicates.transactionID) || reviewDuplicates.transactionID === transactionID));

here

App/src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/Confirmation.tsx

Line 106 in df5234b

const doesTransactionBelongToReport = reviewDuplicates?.transactionID === reportTransactionID || (reportTransactionID && reviewDuplicates?.duplicates.includes(reportTransactionID));

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~022002887907564899963

[melvin-bot]

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

[daledah]

🚨 Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2025-12-22 02:16:36 UTC.

Proposal

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

Keep this one button opens not here page after deleting split and duplicating expense.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We have the logic to show the not found page here

App/src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/Confirmation.tsx

Lines 109 to 113 in df5234b

	const shouldShowNotFoundPage =
	isEmptyObject(report) ||
	!ReportUtils.isValidReport(report) ||
	ReportUtils.isReportNotFound(report) ||
	(reviewDuplicatesResult.status === 'loaded' && (!newTransaction?.transactionID || !doesTransactionBelongToReport));

shouldShowNotFoundPage is true because ReportUtils.isReportNotFound(report) is true

because we only check the object report?.errorFields?.notFound exists here

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 9157 to 9159 in df5234b

	function isReportNotFound(report: OnyxEntry<Report>): boolean {
	return !!report?.errorFields?.notFound;
	}

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

We need to check if the current report's ID is in the notFound object, not just if the object exists.

    function isReportNotFound(report: OnyxEntry<Report>): boolean {
        return !!(report?.reportID && report?.errorFields?.notFound?.[report.reportID]);
    }

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 9157 to 9159 in df5234b

	function isReportNotFound(report: OnyxEntry<Report>): boolean {
	return !!report?.errorFields?.notFound;
	}

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Or we can remove the ReportUtils.isReportNotFound(report) in this condition

App/src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/Confirmation.tsx

Lines 109 to 113 in df5234b

	const shouldShowNotFoundPage =
	isEmptyObject(report) ||
	!ReportUtils.isValidReport(report) ||
	ReportUtils.isReportNotFound(report) ||
	(reviewDuplicatesResult.status === 'loaded' && (!newTransaction?.transactionID || !doesTransactionBelongToReport));

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[huult]

Screen.Recording.2025-12-22.at.15.06.52.mp4

I think this is a backend issue because after we duplicate it, OpenReport returns errorFields?.notFound. Returning errorFields?.notFound here seems incorrect, so we should check this on the backend.

[jliexpensify]

Thanks! Lets see what @jjcoffee says!