Bulk hold

[Tony-MK]

Explanation of Change

Utilizing the new BulkHoldRequest endpoint to avoid calling HoldRequest N times.

Fixed Issues

$ #62503
PROPOSAL: #62503 (comment)

Tests

1. Create more one expenses.
2. Click on the report preview to open the report.
3. Select the more than one expenses that are not held.
4. Hold the expenses.
5. Verify the expenses were held.
6. Select the more than one expenses that are on hold.
7. Remove the expenses' hold.
8. Verify that the expenses' hold were remove.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

Same as tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• I followed proper code patterns (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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • 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)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• 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.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android.-.Native.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Android.-.mWeb.mov

iOS: Native

iOS.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

iOS.-.Native.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

macOS.-.Chrome.mov

MacOS: Desktop

macOS.-.Desktop.mov

[Tony-MK]

Hey @luacmartins, coming from #60436 (comment).

BulkHoldRequest is returning an auth error. What could be wrong?

[luacmartins]

@Tony-MK I'm getting a Unique Constraints Violation, command: BulkHoldRequest which means we're passing an existing ID for the hold reportAction. The command failed on this line:

Trying to create action (reportID 1745444501546034, requestingAccountID: 19540983, actionAccountID: 19540983, action: HOLD, reportActionID: 6672180307325613727)
Unique Constraints Violation, command: BulkHoldRequest

[melvin-bot]

@blimpich 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]

[blimpich]

@Tony-MK when making a PR please make sure to add the link to the issue after the dollar sign under the Fixed Issues section. It is an important part of our automations that make sure the right people are assigned to PRs to review them. If you don't add it, random people get assigned (like me 😄)

Unassigning myself as I assume that @luacmartins is the CME here based on this comment

[Tony-MK]

I'm sorry about that. We don't have an issue with this, and did not know what to link it to.

[luacmartins]

@Tony-MK is this PR ready for review?

[Tony-MK]

@luacmartins, Yes, it's ready for review.

[Tony-MK]

Hey @luacmartins, quck question.

Besides BulkHoldRequest, have we implemented something like BulkUnHoldRequest because UnHoldRequest is the same as HoldRequest, where it's called N times.

App/src/hooks/useSelectedTransactionsActions.ts

Lines 146 to 153 in 6871ba9

	selectedTransactionsID.forEach((transactionID) => {
	const action = getIOUActionForTransactionID(reportActions, transactionID);
	if (!action?.childReportID) {
	return;
	}
	unholdRequest(transactionID, action?.childReportID);
	});
	setSelectedTransactionsID([]);

[Ollyws]

Reviewing today.

[Ollyws]

A problem I noticed is that if we:

1. Create two requests.
2. Hold them both.
3. Delete one of them.

We're taken back to the Expense Report but with only the 'Submit' button showing, wereas if we had simply created a single request and held it this would show 'Remove hold' button.

Screen.Recording.2025-05-22.at.13.29.19.mov

[luacmartins]

Besides BulkHoldRequest, have we implemented something like BulkUnHoldRequest because UnHoldRequest is the same as HoldRequest, where it's called N times.

@Tony-MK unhold still doesn't have a bulk API. I can work on adding that.

[Tony-MK]

@Ollyws, I think that bug is caused by getOneTransactionThreadReportID returning nothing for transactionThreadReportID when there are two IOU actions. The new IOU action and the previous one, which is marked as deleted by isDeletedParentAction being true, and text and html are empty strings. What do you think?

App/src/libs/ReportActionsUtils.ts

Lines 1240 to 1243 in 54919d4

	// If we don't have any IOU request actions, or we have more than one IOU request actions, this isn't a oneTransaction report
	if (!iouRequestActions.length || iouRequestActions.length > 1) {
	return;
	}

App/src/libs/ReportPrimaryActionUtils.ts

Lines 206 to 210 in 9a3e530

	const transactionThreadReportID = getOneTransactionThreadReportID(report.reportID, reportActions);
	if (!transactionThreadReportID) {
	return false;
	}

[Ollyws]

@Tony-MK Yeah that seems to be the culprit, returning undefined in isRemoveHoldAction

[Tony-MK]

@Tony-MK Yeah that seems to be the culprit, returning undefined in isRemoveHoldAction

@Ollyws, By removing deleted IOU actions iouRequestActions before this condition should fix it.

What do you think?

[luacmartins]

@Tony-MK I see tests failing with CONFLICT (submodule): Merge conflict in Mobile-Expensify. Can you sync the submodule please?

[Tony-MK]

@luacmartins, Synced. All good.

[luacmartins]

@Tony-MK we have conflicts now 😞

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.1.60-1 🚀

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

[aldo-expensify]

The searchHash is not falsey when we are NOT in the search, it is -1, this is causing this: #63614

[aldo-expensify]

Doesn't seem to be as simple as this, even if I change this check to searchHash !== -1 there is still a problem because we can still get a searchHash (I'm getting 72317659) and I'm not holding from the search. I think the final solution would be to check that the transaction actually exists in onyx so we don't merge incomplete stuff or something like that.

[Tony-MK]

Thanks, let me look into it.

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.1.61-0 🚀

platform	result
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	failure ❌
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.1.62-0 🚀

platform	result
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	failure ❌
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.1.62-0 🚀

platform	result
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	failure ❌
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅