Follow up: make SEARCH_REPORT and REPORT_WITH_ID routes compliant with routing philosophies #69536

VickyStash · 2025-08-29T12:47:03Z

Explanation of Change

Make SEARCH_REPORT and REPORT_WITH_ID routes compliant with routing philosophies

Fixed Issues

$ #69385
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Turn on the noOptimisticTransactionThreads beta.
In the troubleshoot section turn on Block transaction thread report creation toggle (you can also turn it on in the troubleshoot modal CMD + D)
Open any 1-1 chat where you haven't had expenses before.
Tap on it to open. Make sure it open without problem. Go back.
Create several expenses. Tap on the expenses preview.
Select an expense using a checkbox.
Open actions dropdown and tap Hold. Make sure Holding works as expected.
Try to open any transaction you haven't opened before.
Open any workspace chat.
Create two similar expenses and tap on the expenses preview.
Tap Review duplicates button in the header
Resolve duplicates, make sure it works the same way as before.

❗ Note:

There are two known issues:

BE related issue: Incorrect comments count display in the transaction row after putting it on hold (more info)
Greyed out expense apears after duplicates resolution (check here). It will be fixed after onyx bump to v2.0.135.

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

Android: Native

android.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android_web.mp4

iOS: Native

ios.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios_web.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mp4

melvin-bot · 2025-09-01T10:08:40Z

@eh2077 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]

hungvu193 · 2025-09-01T10:30:06Z

I'll review it today

trjExpensify · 2025-09-01T15:38:17Z

PR doesn’t have any new product considerations. Removing the tag and unsubscribing myself.

hungvu193 · 2025-09-01T16:15:11Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestAction.tsx

-            const optimisticReportID = generateReportID();
-            Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(optimisticReportID, undefined, undefined, action.reportActionID, transactionID, Navigation.getActiveRoute()));
+            const transactionThreadReport = createTransactionThreadReport(iouReport, action);
+            Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(transactionThreadReport?.reportID, undefined, undefined, Navigation.getActiveRoute()));


Before, we had this condition to decide whether to call openReport or not.

App/src/pages/home/ReportScreen.tsx

Lines 497 to 507 in 8b28384

const {moneyRequestReportActionID, transactionID, iouReportID} = route.params;

// When we get here with a moneyRequestReportActionID and a transactionID from the route it means we don't have the transaction thread created yet

// so we have to call OpenReport in a way that the transaction thread will be created and attached to the parentReportAction

if (transactionID && currentUserEmail && !report) {

const iouReport = getReportOrDraftReport(iouReportID);

const iouAction = getReportAction(iouReportID, moneyRequestReportActionID);

const optimisticTransactionThread = buildTransactionThread(iouAction, iouReport, undefined, reportIDFromRoute);

openReport(reportIDFromRoute, undefined, [currentUserEmail], optimisticTransactionThread, moneyRequestReportActionID, false, [], undefined, transactionID);

return;

}

But with this change createTransactionThreadReport(iouReport, action);, I saw it's calling openReport everytime here. Is that correct?

Before:
We passed to the ReportScreen transactionID, iouReportID, iouReportActionID to identify the report should be created (the OpenReport was called in the ReportScreen with all of the necessary params)

After:
We create the report (call OpenReport with necessary params) and navigate to the ReportScreen. On the ReportScreen, the OpenReport isn't called extra time because the hook stops in this condition.

hungvu193 · 2025-09-02T07:50:24Z

src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx

-                        const optimisticTransactionThread = buildTransactionThread(iouAction, moneyRequestReport);
-                        threadID = optimisticTransactionThread.reportID;
-                        openReport(threadID, undefined, session?.email ? [session?.email] : [], optimisticTransactionThread, iouAction?.reportActionID);
+                        const createdTransactionThreadReport = createTransactionThreadReport(moneyRequestReport, iouAction);


Isn't that createdTransactionThreadReport optimistic data? I think we should change the variable name to make it more clear here, probably createdOptimisticTransactionThreadReport.

createTransactionThreadReport method doesn't just build optimistic data, it actually creates the report, so I think it's okay to name it like this.

hungvu193 · 2025-09-02T07:52:37Z

I'll do some testing in the meantime, will let you knnow if I find any bugs.

VickyStash · 2025-09-02T11:17:54Z

@hungvu193 Will you be able to finish the review today?

hungvu193 · 2025-09-02T11:18:51Z

@hungvu193 Will you be able to finish the review today?

Hopefully Yes, I'm still doing tests

hungvu193 · 2025-09-02T14:27:32Z

Review duplicate button displays briefly, then disappears:

Create 2 duplicate expense (Don't open them).
Click review duplicate > keep all.
Create another expense with the same amount as these 2 previous expenses. (The third expense).
Observe that Review duplicate button appears then disappears.
Create another expense with the same amount then delete it and the third expense.
Obsever that Review duplicate button is still visible.

Screen.Recording.2025-09-02.at.21.21.10.mov

Screen.Recording.2025-09-02.at.21.25.03.mov

hungvu193 · 2025-09-02T14:32:56Z

@VickyStash I couldn't reproduce #69536 (comment) consistently, and the issue when Review duplicates button is visible when there's no duplicate expense is also on main.

hungvu193 · 2025-09-02T15:05:37Z

The review duplicates flow is unstable on main too. Found several bugs but unrelated to this PR.

VickyStash · 2025-09-02T15:16:51Z

The review duplicates flow is unstable on main too. Found several bugs but unrelated to this PR.

Same, I was able to reproduce the reported issues on the main too. It feels like it relates to optimistic threads creation so I'm checking

VickyStash · 2025-09-02T16:10:45Z

Okay, I've tested it more and was able to reproduce similar behaviour on the prod with noOptimisticTransactionThreads beta off, see the video:

prod_bugs.mp4

Steps:

Create two duplicated expenses
Without opening them tap Review duplicates -> Keep all -> Review duplicates button disappear
Open any of the transaction and go back
The Review duplicates button appears again and works weird (Keep all has no effect)
If I create one more duplictaed transaction, it continue to act weird

So I think this bug should be investigated separately!

hungvu193 · 2025-09-02T16:12:19Z

Yeah I also noticed it on main.

All good. I'll complete the checklist

roryabraham

Overall seems like a great simplification, but subscribing to the whole reports collection on the search page seems like it might cause a lot more re-renders.

src/components/Search/index.tsx

roryabraham

great, thank you so much!

hungvu193 · 2025-09-03T07:02:02Z

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.2025-09-03.at.14.57.13.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-09-03.at.14.11.00.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-09-03.at.14.26.07.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-09-03.at.14.00.47.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-09-03.at.13.54.22.mov

Screen.Recording.2025-09-03.at.13.55.43.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-09-03.at.13.58.13.mov

iwiznia

Did not review, Rory already did and there was no push to the branch afterwards, not sure why GH is not showing it as reviewed in the UI

OSBotify · 2025-09-03T10:59:45Z

✋ 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 · 2025-09-05T20:03:50Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/iwiznia in version: 9.2.2-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2025-09-09T03:06:34Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.2.2-8 🚀

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

Update SEARCH_REPORT and REPORT_WITH_ID routes

5077c34

melvin-bot bot assigned VickyStash Aug 29, 2025

VickyStash added 3 commits August 29, 2025 15:04

Lint fixes

3761643

Add warning message

0bd1530

Remove commented part

e8f8d94

VickyStash marked this pull request as ready for review September 1, 2025 10:08

VickyStash requested review from a team as code owners September 1, 2025 10:08

melvin-bot bot requested review from eh2077 and removed request for a team September 1, 2025 10:08

VickyStash mentioned this pull request Sep 1, 2025

Update Reports page tabs (Expenses, Reports, Chats) to work without optimistic transaction thread reports #68929

Merged

51 tasks

trjExpensify removed the request for review from a team September 1, 2025 15:38

hungvu193 reviewed Sep 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

roryabraham reviewed Sep 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/components/Search/index.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Simplify the logic

fa83fa5

roryabraham approved these changes Sep 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

hungvu193 approved these changes Sep 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from roryabraham September 3, 2025 07:27

iwiznia approved these changes Sep 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

iwiznia merged commit 037f61a into Expensify:main Sep 3, 2025
22 of 24 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Sep 5, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-09-05 #69979

Closed

	const {moneyRequestReportActionID, transactionID, iouReportID} = route.params;

	// When we get here with a moneyRequestReportActionID and a transactionID from the route it means we don't have the transaction thread created yet
	// so we have to call OpenReport in a way that the transaction thread will be created and attached to the parentReportAction
	if (transactionID && currentUserEmail && !report) {
	const iouReport = getReportOrDraftReport(iouReportID);
	const iouAction = getReportAction(iouReportID, moneyRequestReportActionID);
	const optimisticTransactionThread = buildTransactionThread(iouAction, iouReport, undefined, reportIDFromRoute);
	openReport(reportIDFromRoute, undefined, [currentUserEmail], optimisticTransactionThread, moneyRequestReportActionID, false, [], undefined, transactionID);
	return;
	}

Follow up: make SEARCH_REPORT and REPORT_WITH_ID routes compliant with routing philosophies #69536

Follow up: make SEARCH_REPORT and REPORT_WITH_ID routes compliant with routing philosophies #69536

Uh oh!

Conversation

VickyStash commented Aug 29, 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 Sep 1, 2025

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Sep 1, 2025

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Sep 1, 2025

Uh oh!

hungvu193 Sep 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

VickyStash Sep 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hungvu193 Sep 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

VickyStash Sep 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Sep 2, 2025

Uh oh!

VickyStash commented Sep 2, 2025

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Sep 2, 2025

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Sep 2, 2025

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Sep 2, 2025

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Sep 2, 2025

Uh oh!

VickyStash commented Sep 2, 2025

Uh oh!

VickyStash commented Sep 2, 2025

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Sep 2, 2025

Uh oh!

roryabraham 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!

Uh oh!

roryabraham left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Sep 3, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

iwiznia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Sep 3, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Sep 5, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Sep 9, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

VickyStash commented Aug 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

roryabraham left a comment •

edited

Loading

hungvu193 commented Sep 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading