Fix Duplicate Review when there are card expenses

[kubabutkiewicz]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #59380
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Have an account where there are duplicated card expenses
2. Go to Duplicates Review flow
3. Verify that there is only Keep all button

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

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: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[melvin-bot]

@jayeshmangwani 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]

[jayeshmangwani]

Hi @kubabutkiewicz, how are we creating the duplicate card expenses for testing this PR? Have you mocked the data, or are you using another way?

[kubabutkiewicz]

Hey, so I was using the import onyx state and used @joekaufmanexpensify state which had card expenses. but this way I cannot test the backend integration, so I also asked in the issue if they could test if this is fixing the issue.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Hey, so I was using the import onyx state and used @joekaufmanexpensify state which had card expenses. but this way I cannot test the backend integration, so I also asked in the issue if they could test if this is fixing the issue.

@kubabutkiewicz Sure, so you just want me to test this on an ad-hoc build/after we merge the PR on staging? If so, happy to!

[kubabutkiewicz]

I think the best will be on adhoc build

[jayeshmangwani]

Hey @joekaufmanexpensify, could you please test this by kicking off an ad-hoc run? I can only test this PR by mocking the data locally, so it’d be great if you could test it with real data.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Kicked off build! I will test once the build is ready.

[github-actions]

🚧 @joekaufmanexpensify has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #64154.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
❌ FAILED ❌	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/64154/index.html
The QR code can't be generated, because the Android build failed

Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/64154/NewExpensify.dmg	https://64154.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Confirmed this worked on the ad-hoc 👍

2025-06-20_15-03-54.mp4

[joekaufmanexpensify]

However, resolve duplicates on the report view is still not working. We show a "not here" page. So it only seems to be working when you try to resolve duplicates on an individual expense.

2025-06-20_15-04-45.mp4

[jayeshmangwani]

@kubabutkiewicz , could you please take a look at this comment #64154 (comment)? What can we do to handle the "not here" page? Thanks!

[kubabutkiewicz]

Yeah will take a look on this

[kubabutkiewicz]

@joekaufmanexpensify can I ask you again for the new onyx state when after you reproduce that issue? 🙈 I am not able to repro this with the current states which I have from you

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@kubabutkiewicz DM'ed to you in Slack!

[kubabutkiewicz]

Hi, didn't have time to work on this yet, will try today/tomorrow.

[kubabutkiewicz]

I found the problem but I am not sure if this is just a Import Onyx state problem or BE problem.
The problem is that we are trying to navigate to report for which we don't have data in Onyx.
Take a look at those screenshots

Here for first transaction which we find is the duplicate we are looking for the IOU action when we find it we are navigating to its childReportID

App/src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx

Lines 403 to 410 in 66cbac1

	const getFirstDuplicateThreadID = (reportTransactions: OnyxTypes.Transaction[], allReportActions: OnyxTypes.ReportAction[]) => {
	const duplicateTransaction = reportTransactions.find((reportTransaction) => isDuplicate(reportTransaction.transactionID));
	if (!duplicateTransaction) {
	return null;
	}
	return getThreadReportIDsForTransactions(allReportActions, [duplicateTransaction]).at(0);
	};

App/src/libs/MoneyRequestReportUtils.ts

Lines 47 to 58 in 66cbac1

	function getThreadReportIDsForTransactions(reportActions: ReportAction[], transactions: Transaction[]) {
	return transactions
	.map((transaction) => {
	if (isTransactionPendingDelete(transaction)) {
	return;
	}
	const action = getIOUActionForTransactionID(reportActions, transaction.transactionID);
	return action?.childReportID;
	})
	.filter((reportID): reportID is string => !!reportID);
	}

But in the onyx there is no data for this reportID

[pecanoro]

@jayeshmangwani Did you have time to review and test the PR?

[jayeshmangwani]

Did you have time to review and test the PR?

@pecanoro , Yes sure.

but, we were running into an issue #64154 (comment) , so I was waiting for it to be resolved but It seems to be a backend issue #64154 (comment), so I’m not sure how we want to proceed there.

Also, in this PR, I’m testing mock data and manually manipulating it locally to simulate a duplicate card expense. I’m not sure if QA can easily test this, so I’d suggest we do Internal QA for this PR.

cc: @kubabutkiewicz

[kubabutkiewicz]

I overall think this is not related only to the resolving duplicates flow, for example here I just opened some report in the Search view and I am getting same issue

[jayeshmangwani]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: HybridApp
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: HybridApp
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (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
  • 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 verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• 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
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• 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.
• For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Android-1.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

mweb-chrome.mov

iOS: HybridApp

iOS.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

mweb-safari.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

[jayeshmangwani]

LGTM 🚀

[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/pecanoro in version: 9.1.79-0 🚀

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

[nlemma]

@kubabutkiewicz This PR is failing with this issue.

[pecanoro]

@kubabutkiewicz Can you take a look at @nlemma last comment?

[VickyStash]

@kubabutkiewicz Can you take a look at @nlemma last comment?

@kubabutkiewicz is OOO till the end of this week, I'll check the mentioned issue tomorrow morning (GMT+2)

[VickyStash]

Okay, the issue mentioned by @nlemma is also happening on production. It's not caused by this PR and not a deploy blocker, right? So what should be the next steps here?
At first glance, it looks like that issue can be BE-related—the API potentially doesn't return duplicatedTransaction violations for the duplicates in that specific case. Is it possible to check if it's the same in the OD?
Unfortunately, I don't have access to card expenses on my own.

[pecanoro]

Ah yes, if it's happening on prod, it's not coming from this. I will comment in the issue, they are probably not getting flagged because credit card expenses have a time besides the date stored in the transaction data

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.1.79-11 🚀

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