fix: After clearing merchant and saving it, Merchant field reverts to previous value #63587 by ganzz4 · Pull Request #64761 · Expensify/App

ganzz4 · 2025-06-23T19:46:02Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #63587
PROPOSAL: #63587 (comment)

Tests

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Open FAB > Create expense > Manual
Submit an expense to any user without merchant (not workspace)
Go to transaction thread
Click Merchant
Enter merchant and save it
Click Merchant
Empty the merchant and save it
After clearing merchant and saving it, Merchant field does NOT revert to previous value

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same

QA Steps

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Open FAB > Create expense > Manual
Submit an expense to any user without merchant (not workspace)
Go to transaction thread
Click Merchant
Enter merchant and save it
Click Merchant
Empty the merchant and save it
After clearing merchant and saving it, Merchant field does NOT revert to previous value

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android_native.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android_mweb.mp4

iOS: Native

ios_native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios_mweb.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

macos_safari.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

macos_desktop.mp4

… previous value Expensify#63587

melvin-bot · 2025-06-23T19:46:08Z

@mananjadhav 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]

src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

ganzz4 · 2025-06-24T01:53:02Z

I noticed there is a bug in my solution: if the merchant is not empty when created, the getMerchant function still returns an empty value because transaction?.modifiedMerchant === ''.

I have a few ideas on how to fix this issue, specifically to distinguish between an initially empty merchant and one that was intentionally cleared.

I plan to write and implement these improvements tomorrow morning.

ganzz4 · 2025-06-24T13:07:28Z

@mananjadhav, @pecanoro

I've updated the implementation to address both core issues:

Preserving an intentionally cleared merchant (as originally intended)
Avoiding the bug where a valid, untouched merchant appears empty due to modifiedMerchant === ''

Solution Summary

To solve both, I introduced a wasMerchantCleared flag that helps distinguish between:

Intentionally cleared merchants (user cleared a previously filled field)
Initially empty merchants (untouched or technical artifacts)

Key Changes

Added wasMerchantCleared flag to Transaction types and API
Updated updateMerchant() logic in IOURequestStepMerchant.tsx
- Detects when a user clears the field
- Prevents saving empty merchants for workspace expenses
- Allows them for personal expenses
Updated getMerchant() logic to:
- Return empty string if wasMerchantCleared: true (for personal)
Integrated the flag into updateMoneyRequestMerchant() API calls

Result

Personal expenses: can save empty merchant
Workspace expenses: cannot save empty merchant
Behavior is now consistent and correct

The implementation is complete and ready for review. Let me know if you want me to walk through the logic or decisions — happy to explain.

…ensify#63587

…tch cases

mananjadhav · 2025-06-26T14:23:38Z

I'll review this today/tomorrow.

mananjadhav · 2025-06-29T20:56:48Z

src/types/onyx/Transaction.ts

        inserted?: string;
+
+        /** Whether the merchant field was intentionally cleared by the user */
+        wasMerchantCleared?: boolean;


I am still not sure if this is the right approach to add a flag. I'll check if this is an acceptable pattern.

I agree it's worth checking. I considered alternatives:

Using null/undefined distinction - but since the API always returns empty strings "", we lose the ability to distinguish between "never touched" and "intentionally cleared" after the first API response

Storing meta-information within the field itself - but this would pollute the actual data

The flag seems like the cleanest solution given the API constraints. But if there's an established pattern in the codebase for similar cases, I'm happy to use that approach instead.

Is this what is pending?

@mananjadhav I pinged you here. If no one has any other suggestions, we should move forward with the solution

I agree this is not the right solution. It's caused a few bugs now and we'd also need to keep search data in sync

mananjadhav

This PR is not approved. By mistake I commented on a different PR.

pecanoro · 2025-07-07T17:26:53Z

Sorry for the delay! I was on vacation!

mananjadhav

Reviewed the code changes. Testing it out.

mananjadhav · 2025-07-10T17:44:47Z

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: mWeb Chrome

mweb-chrome-merchant-clear.mov

iOS: HybridApp

ios-merchant-clear.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

mweb-safari-merchant-clear.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web-merchant-clear.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop-merchant-clear.mov

mananjadhav

Spent a few hours to fix my android build but it didn't work. But I've tested in all platforms. Approving this one.

OSBotify · 2025-07-11T17:14:51Z

✋ 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 · 2025-07-11T18:06:27Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/pecanoro in version: 9.1.80-0 🚀

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

luacmartins · 2025-07-15T01:52:34Z

FYI this PR was reverted because it caused these 2 issues

#65975
#65974

Additionally, I don't think the original solution to add a wasMerchantCleared flag is correct, because this flag is not saved in the DB and would result in incorrect values if the data is cleared and refetched.

github-actions · 2025-07-15T03:00:16Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.1.80-8 🚀

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

fix: After clearing merchant and saving it, Merchant field reverts to…

b69ad10

… previous value Expensify#63587

ganzz4 requested a review from a team as a code owner June 23, 2025 19:46

melvin-bot bot requested review from mananjadhav and removed request for a team June 23, 2025 19:46

mananjadhav reviewed Jun 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pecanoro self-requested a review June 23, 2025 21:54

ganzz4 requested a review from mananjadhav June 24, 2025 18:00

fix: reimplement merchant clearing logic using wasMerchantCleared Exp…

c642653

…ensify#63587

ganzz4 force-pushed the fix/63587 branch from 4bf6f59 to c642653 Compare June 24, 2025 23:05

fix: add missing wasMerchantCleared to Transaction validation and swi…

ac33e5c

…tch cases

mananjadhav reviewed Jun 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Sign in to view

mananjadhav reviewed Jun 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

pecanoro approved these changes Jul 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

mananjadhav reviewed Jul 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

mananjadhav approved these changes Jul 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from pecanoro July 10, 2025 17:45

pecanoro approved these changes Jul 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

pecanoro merged commit f90ac1b into Expensify:main Jul 11, 2025
20 of 29 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jul 11, 2025

Investigate workflow job failing on main: test / test (job 1) #65957

Closed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jul 11, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-07-11 #65958

Closed

73 tasks

vincdargento mentioned this pull request Jul 11, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-07-22] Expense-Report header shows "x expense" instead of "x for description" after removing merchant #65974

Closed

8 tasks

lanitochka17 mentioned this pull request Jul 11, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-07-22] Reports - Removed merchant persists in expense row after removing merchant #65975

Closed

16 tasks

luacmartins mentioned this pull request Jul 14, 2025

Revert "fix: After clearing merchant and saving it, Merchant field reverts to previous value #63587" #66082

Merged

51 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Jul 15, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-10-01] [$125] IOU - After clearing merchant and saving it, Merchant field reverts to previous value #63587

Closed

16 tasks

Julesssss mentioned this pull request Jul 15, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-04-29 Expensify/App-Test-Fork#56

Closed

68 tasks

ganzz4 deleted the fix/63587 branch August 4, 2025 15:38

Conversation

ganzz4 commented Jun 23, 2025 • edited by pecanoro 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 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ganzz4 commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

ganzz4 commented Jun 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Solution Summary

Key Changes

Result

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

mananjadhav Jun 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ganzz4 Jun 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pecanoro Jul 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pecanoro Jul 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

luacmartins Jul 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Uh oh!

mananjadhav left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pecanoro commented Jul 7, 2025

Uh oh!

mananjadhav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Jul 10, 2025

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

mananjadhav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 11, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jul 11, 2025

Uh oh!

luacmartins commented Jul 15, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jul 15, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

ganzz4 commented Jun 23, 2025 •

edited by pecanoro

Loading

ganzz4 commented Jun 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mananjadhav left a comment •

edited

Loading