[Better Expense Reports] Stand-alone TransactionPreviews' jumping fix by Guccio163 · Pull Request #64234 · Expensify/App

Guccio163 · 2025-06-16T12:30:39Z

Explanation of Change

This PR primarily fixes TransactionPreviews' style in Duplicates review section to rely on CSS styles and percentage width - this way it is ready right on the first render and the Transactions' list stay on top (doesn't scroll down). It also ensures that the rest of standalone TransactionPreview usages use similar design and refactors part of the code responsible for this.

Fixed Issues

$ #62988
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Create a report with duplicates.
Click on the Report preview.
Click on duplicate transaction row in Report View table (Transaction's RHP should open).
Click 'Review Duplicates'.
Refresh the page.
TransactionPreviews' should be loaded from the start, no resize/jump/loading should occur.

QA Steps

Same as tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

mWeb-android.mov

iOS: Native

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

mWeb-ios.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

melvin-bot · 2025-06-21T09:16:07Z

@DylanDylann 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]

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

shawnborton · 2025-06-23T07:12:19Z

Videos seem good to me 👍

DylanDylann · 2025-06-23T11:06:20Z

src/pages/home/report/PureReportActionItem.tsx

-                                transactionID={shouldShowSplitPreview ? moneyRequestOriginalMessage?.IOUTransactionID : undefined}
-                                containerStyles={[shouldUseNarrowLayout ? {...styles.w100, ...styles.mw100} : reportPreviewStyles.transactionPreviewStyle, styles.mt1]}
-                                transactionPreviewWidth={shouldUseNarrowLayout ? styles.w100.width : reportPreviewStyles.transactionPreviewStyle.width}
+                                transactionID={isSplitInGroupChat ? moneyRequestOriginalMessage?.IOUTransactionID : undefined}


Why do you change the condition from shouldShowSplitPreview to isSplitInGroupChat?

I don't quite know why this highlights as my change, because it looks like @JakubKorytko changed it before me - I didn't delve into this logic, so I left it unchanged - if you feel like shouldShowSplitPreview is a better choice I can change it 👍

If this isn't related to our PR, please revert this change

I have no idea what happened here. I believe I created these variables two months ago, but I can see that some changes have been made to them in the last few days (e.g. #64686, #62638), although - not by me.

DylanDylann · 2025-06-23T11:24:00Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestAction.tsx

-    const singleTransactionPreviewWidth = shouldUseNarrowLayout ? styles.w100.width : reportPreviewStyles.transactionPreviewStyle.width;
-    const singleTransactionPreviewStyles = [shouldUseNarrowLayout ? {...styles.w100, ...styles.mw100} : reportPreviewStyles.transactionPreviewStyle, styles.mt2];
+    // Condition extracted from MoneyRequestPreview
+    if (lodashIsEmpty(iouReport) && !(isSplitBillAction || isTrackExpenseAction)) {


Why do you remove isReviewDuplicateTransactionPage condition?

'TransactionReport' has been implemented in the rest of the app by @JakubKorytko, so this condition is redundant - because the styling changes here, the logic can be simplified to the same TransacitonPreview component with minor styling changes.

DylanDylann · 2025-06-23T11:29:39Z

@Guccio163 could you please write a proposal to describe your solution first? I think it will help everyone understand your idea thoroughly and save discussion time

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

Guccio163 · 2025-06-23T11:47:46Z

This PR simply changes styling of the TransactionPreview in duplicate-detection view from exactly X px width (used in Carousel - MoneyRequestReportPreview) to using CSS 100%, this way having it ready from the start, not after parents' onLayout. Since it is not a new idea (it is implemented app-wide like that now) it is also cleaning MoneyRequestAction component from redundant conditionals like isReviewDuplicateTransactionPage.

DylanDylann · 2025-06-24T08:12:12Z

src/pages/home/report/PureReportActionItem.tsx

-                                transactionID={shouldShowSplitPreview ? moneyRequestOriginalMessage?.IOUTransactionID : undefined}
-                                containerStyles={[shouldUseNarrowLayout ? {...styles.w100, ...styles.mw100} : reportPreviewStyles.transactionPreviewStyle, styles.mt1]}
-                                transactionPreviewWidth={shouldUseNarrowLayout ? styles.w100.width : reportPreviewStyles.transactionPreviewStyle.width}
+                                transactionID={isSplitInGroupChat ? moneyRequestOriginalMessage?.IOUTransactionID : undefined}


If this isn't related to our PR, please revert this change

DylanDylann · 2025-06-24T08:18:48Z

src/styles/utils/getMoneyRequestReportPreviewStyle/index.ts

+        transactionPreviewStandaloneStyle: {width: `min(100%, ${TRANSACTION_WIDTH_WIDE}px)`, maxWidth: `min(100%, ${TRANSACTION_WIDTH_WIDE}px)`},
        componentStyle: [{maxWidth: `min(${carouselExactMaxWidth}px, 100%)`}, {width: currentWrapperWidth > minimalWrapperWidth ? 'min-content' : '100%'}],
        expenseCountVisible: transactionPreviewWidth >= TRANSACTION_WIDTH_WIDE,
+        transactionWidth: currentWrapperWidth > minimalWrapperWidth ? TRANSACTION_WIDTH_WIDE : transactionPreviewWidth,


I see that transactionPreviewCarouselStyle.width and transactionWidth have a slight difference (currentWrapperWidth === 0). With this logic, transactionWidth will be negative if currentWrapperWidth = 0. Is it intentional? Also, please help explain why we need to introduce transactionWidth? Could we use transactionPreviewCarouselStyle.width instead of transactionWidth

transactionWidth will be negative

It doesn't matter, since 0 is not greater than minimalWrapperWidth, then TRANSACTION_WIDTH_WIDE will just be applied.

Could we use transactionPreviewCarouselStyle.width

Yeah from what I see right now, I think it was use before I split transactionPreviewStyle into Carousel and Standalone styles, back then transactionPreviewStyle.width could be a CSS style string and I wanted to avoid this conflict; I guess we can switch it like you're proposing

@Guccio163 How about this point?

Oh right, missed that one because my comment was the last one - good catch!

DylanDylann · 2025-06-24T08:28:11Z

src/styles/utils/getMoneyRequestReportPreviewStyle/index.ts

+        transactionPreviewCarouselStyle: {width: currentWrapperWidth > minimalWrapperWidth || currentWrapperWidth === 0 ? TRANSACTION_WIDTH_WIDE : transactionPreviewWidth},
+        transactionPreviewStandaloneStyle: {width: `min(100%, ${TRANSACTION_WIDTH_WIDE}px)`, maxWidth: `min(100%, ${TRANSACTION_WIDTH_WIDE}px)`},


Could you please give a comment to explain the meaning of the two styles?

transactionPreviewCarouselStyle is a style applied to TransactionPreviews that are used inside of Carousel (MoneyRequestReportPreview) and transactionPreviewStandaloneStyle is a style applied to TransactionPreviews used with our the carousel, as standalone previews in Chats etc. These two need separate styles, because inside Carousel they need to be styled exactly by calculated value and without the Carousel they can base on CSS styles like 'width: 100%'

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

DylanDylann · 2025-06-24T08:33:43Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestAction.tsx

-
-    const singleTransactionPreviewWidth = shouldUseNarrowLayout ? styles.w100.width : reportPreviewStyles.transactionPreviewStyle.width;
-    const singleTransactionPreviewStyles = [shouldUseNarrowLayout ? {...styles.w100, ...styles.mw100} : reportPreviewStyles.transactionPreviewStyle, styles.mt2];
+    // Condition extracted from MoneyRequestPreview


What is the meaning of this comment?

this condition was extracted from MoneyRequestPreview when it was replaced by TransactionPreview - it can be that it is redundant right now, but I can't really evaluate this, the comment is left so that it is clear where did it come from.

@Guccio163 I can't find MoneyRequestPreview in our codebase anymore

Yeah, that's exactly why the comment was left

If that, I don't see any reason to keep this comment.

DylanDylann · 2025-06-24T08:53:50Z

@Guccio163 The rest of the code change looks fine. Please ping me when you update the above comment and I will start on testing

DylanDylann · 2025-06-25T07:21:44Z

@Guccio163 Kindly bump

Guccio163 · 2025-06-25T10:09:49Z

@DylanDylann done 👍

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

Guccio163 · 2025-06-25T10:29:45Z

OK, now should be done ✅

DylanDylann · 2025-06-26T07:11:37Z

BUG (Not related to this PR): Not found page display when going to review duplicate page (only happens if we haven't opened the transaction)

Screen.Recording.2025-06-26.at.14.10.11.mov

DylanDylann · 2025-06-26T07:11:49Z

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

Screen.Recording.2025-06-26.at.14.19.23.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-06-26.at.14.14.21.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-06-26.at.14.12.42.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-06-26.at.14.11.59.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-06-26.at.14.04.38.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-06-26.at.14.16.02.mov

DylanDylann

LGTM

Guccio163 · 2025-06-26T09:14:21Z

Not found page display

+1, I've come across it too

mountiny · 2025-06-27T06:42:28Z

Waiting with this one for after our hackathon

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

mountiny

Thanks

OSBotify · 2025-06-30T07:37:30Z

✋ 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 · 2025-06-30T22:50:43Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.1.73-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-07-01T22:06:22Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.1.73-0 🚀

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

Guccio163 added 6 commits June 9, 2025 16:46

RHP scaling, MoneyRequestAction styles fix

869a94c

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:software-mansion-labs/expensify-app…

bfe01e9

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:software-mansion-labs/expensify-app…

0949a0f

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:software-mansion-labs/expensify-app…

a663927

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

styling fix

15298c5

type fix

6e73a67

Guccio163 mentioned this pull request Jun 18, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-07-08] [$250] [Better Expense Report View] Fix the review duplicates page scrolled upon opening on some pages #62988

Closed

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:software-mansion-labs/expensify-app…

9af618a

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

Guccio163 marked this pull request as ready for review June 21, 2025 09:16

Guccio163 requested review from a team as code owners June 21, 2025 09:16

melvin-bot bot requested a review from DylanDylann June 21, 2025 09:16

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team June 21, 2025 09:16

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:software-mansion-labs/expensify-app…

be5f457

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

DylanDylann reviewed Jun 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:software-mansion-labs/expensify-app…

c78da74

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

DylanDylann reviewed Jun 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:software-mansion-labs/expensify-app…

79e38ea

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

DylanDylann reviewed Jun 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

review fixes

d43f09d

Guccio163 added 2 commits June 25, 2025 12:10

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:software-mansion-labs/expensify-app…

c7e3933

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

remove transactionWidth

50d21b9

DylanDylann approved these changes Jun 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from mountiny June 26, 2025 07:20

JakubKorytko mentioned this pull request Jun 26, 2025

[Avatars - Reports] If a report contains the expenses of one person, only display their avatar + fix isOneTransactionReport #64802

Merged

48 tasks

mountiny assigned Guccio163 Jun 27, 2025

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:software-mansion-labs/expensify-app…

4d6dd93

…-fork into Guccio163/MoneyRequestReportPreviewStylesCleanup

mountiny approved these changes Jun 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit f875773 into Expensify:main Jun 30, 2025
18 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jun 30, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-06-30 #65214

Closed

29 tasks

		transactionPreviewCarouselStyle: {width: currentWrapperWidth > minimalWrapperWidth \|\| currentWrapperWidth === 0 ? TRANSACTION_WIDTH_WIDE : transactionPreviewWidth},
		transactionPreviewStandaloneStyle: {width: `min(100%, ${TRANSACTION_WIDTH_WIDE}px)`, maxWidth: `min(100%, ${TRANSACTION_WIDTH_WIDE}px)`},

Conversation

Guccio163 commented Jun 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Jun 21, 2025

Uh oh!

shawnborton commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Guccio163 commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Jun 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Jun 25, 2025

Uh oh!

Guccio163 commented Jun 25, 2025

Uh oh!

Guccio163 commented Jun 25, 2025

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Jun 26, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

DylanDylann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Guccio163 commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Jun 27, 2025

Uh oh!

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Guccio163 commented Jun 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

DylanDylann commented Jun 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

DylanDylann commented Jun 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading