Add toggle to manually control the transaction thread report creation #68431

VickyStash · 2025-08-13T10:49:54Z

Explanation of Change

This PR is a follow-up to #68009.
It adds a troubleshoot toggle that QAs can manually enable to block the creation of transaction thread reports.

By default, transaction thread reports will now be created even if the noOptimisticTransactionThreads beta is on. This change should simplify testing of the expenses functionality on accounts where all betas are enabled by default, while we continue working on the functionality refactoring.

Fixed Issues

$ #67884
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

When noOptimisticTransactionThreads beta is on:

Open the troubleshoot section and see that a new toggle, Block transaction thread report creation has been added. By default, it should be off.

In the troubleshoot section turn on the Debug Mode.

With Block transaction thread report creation toggle turned off:
The expense creation and any expense-related functionality should work the same way as before:

FAB -> create manual expense. If you have access to the API response check that it has valid
transactionThreadReportID.
Create a couple more expenses in the same chat.
Open created expenses.
Delete one of the created expenses.

With Block transaction thread report creation toggle turned on:

Open the app.
Go to the Settings -> Troubleshoot -> Turn on the Debug Mode.
FAB -> create manual expense.
Check the response of the RequestMoney API call, the transactionThreadReportID should be invalid (-1).
Using the debug mode, check the created expense iou report action data. See that it has no childReportID field.

❗ It's expected that the functionality related to the expense without the transaction thread won't work as expected/be limited. It will be implemented incrementally in separate issues. Please, TURN OFF Block transaction thread report creation toggle if you need to test the expenses-related functionality.

When noOptimisticTransactionThreads beta is off:

There should be no Block transaction thread report creation in the troubleshoot section.

The expense creation and any expense-related functionality should work the same way as before:

FAB -> create manual expense. If you have access to the API response check that it has valid
transactionThreadReportID.
Create a couple more expenses in the same chat.
Open created expenses.
Delete one of the created expenses.

Make sure there are no changes and it all works the same way as before.

Offline tests

Same, as in the Tests section

QA Steps

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

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Same, as in the Tests section

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

With the beta turned off:

beta-off.mp4

With the beta turned on:

beta-is-on.mp4

melvin-bot · 2025-08-13T11:11:54Z

@hungvu193 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]

VickyStash · 2025-08-13T11:14:30Z

cc @aldo-expensify @mountiny Let me know what you think about adding this toggle to simplify the expenses testing from the accounts that have all betas turned on by default.

aldo-expensify · 2025-08-13T17:29:25Z

src/libs/actions/User.ts

+function setShouldBlockTransactionThreadReportCreation(shouldBlockTransactionThreadReportCreation: boolean) {
+    Onyx.merge(ONYXKEYS.ACCOUNT, {shouldBlockTransactionThreadReportCreation});
+}


Is it not possible to change the value of the beta itself in Onyx instead of adding a new value in account? I think it would make this check less confusing:

const shouldGenerateTransactionThreadReport = !isBetaEnabled(CONST.BETAS.NO_OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_THREADS) || !account?.shouldBlockTransactionThreadReportCreation;

It's possible, but:

if QA needs to Clear cache and restart during the test flow - the betas will be reset, while the account data is preserved

Right now, we show the toggle only if beta is on. If we want to modify the betas instead of the account flag, then we will need to always show the toggle to all of the users

ahh, I didn't know they would be reset, then I think what you have is better.

# Conflicts: # src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepAmount.tsx

VickyStash · 2025-08-14T15:03:13Z

Note: I'll be OOO tomorrow!

hungvu193 · 2025-08-18T09:32:06Z

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.2025-08-18.at.16.46.43.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-08-18.at.16.48.15.mov

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-08-18.at.16.36.50.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Beta.enabled.-.toggled.mov

Beta.off.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-08-18.at.16.34.49.mov

hungvu193 · 2025-08-18T09:51:52Z

cc @roryabraham

iwiznia

Let's remember to remove this once we are done

OSBotify · 2025-08-18T12:14:44Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

OSBotify · 2025-08-18T15:53:23Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/iwiznia in version: 9.1.96-0 🚀

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

vincdargento · 2025-08-18T17:59:04Z

@VickyStash For this step:
5. Using the debug mode, check the created expense iou report action data. See that it has no childReportID field.
I see 2 Report Actions here, the "CREATED" action does not have childReportID field, but the "IOU" action does. Is this expected?

bandicam.2025-08-18.13-53-06-727.mp4

VickyStash · 2025-08-18T18:07:15Z

@VickyStash For this step:
5. Using the debug mode, check the created expense iou report action data. See that it has no childReportID field.
I see 2 Report Actions here, the "CREATED" action does not have childReportID field, but the "IOU" action does. Is this expected?

@vincdargento All of the steps relate to childReportID of the IOU action.

The easiest way to check it even without debug mode:

Turn on the Block transaction thread report creation toggle
Open any 1-1 chat where you haven't had the expenses
Create 3-4 expenses
Try to open the expense -> you won't be able cause there is no childReportID in the iou action
Turn off the Block transaction thread report creation toggle
Create one more expense
See that you can open it, cause it has childReportID

example.mp4

OSBotify · 2025-08-19T18:59:18Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 9.1.96-2 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2025-08-19T20:13:27Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 9.1.96-2 🚀

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

Add toggle to manually control the transaction thread report creation

a75fd26

VickyStash marked this pull request as ready for review August 13, 2025 11:11

VickyStash requested a review from a team as a code owner August 13, 2025 11:11

melvin-bot bot requested review from hungvu193 and removed request for a team August 13, 2025 11:11

mountiny assigned VickyStash Aug 13, 2025

This was referenced Aug 13, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-08-26] [Due for payment 2025-08-20] Add noOptimisticTransactionThreads beta flag. #67884

Closed

[Due for payment 2025-11-03] [$125] Do not create optimistic transaction thread report on RequestMoney #58828

Closed

aldo-expensify reviewed Aug 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into VickyStash/refactor/67884-follow-up-toggle

7038aaa

# Conflicts: # src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepAmount.tsx

hungvu193 approved these changes Aug 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from iwiznia August 18, 2025 09:51

iwiznia approved these changes Aug 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

iwiznia merged commit 2ca9068 into Expensify:main Aug 18, 2025
21 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Aug 18, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-08-18 #68664

Closed

47 tasks

VickyStash mentioned this pull request Aug 27, 2025

Update several transactions expense in the chat to work as expected if no optimistic thread report was created #68536

Merged

51 tasks

Add toggle to manually control the transaction thread report creation #68431

Add toggle to manually control the transaction thread report creation #68431

Uh oh!

Conversation

VickyStash commented Aug 13, 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 Aug 13, 2025

Uh oh!

VickyStash commented Aug 13, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aldo-expensify Aug 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

VickyStash Aug 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aldo-expensify Aug 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

VickyStash commented Aug 14, 2025

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Aug 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

iwiznia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

vincdargento commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

VickyStash commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 19, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 19, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

VickyStash commented Aug 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

VickyStash commented Aug 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

hungvu193 commented Aug 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading