Auto reporting: backward compatibility

[s77rt]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #70220
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Test 1: Personal policy auto reporting is off + Group policy auto reporting is off

Perquisites:

• Go to OD -> Settings -> Workspaces -> Personal policy -> Workflows, then disable "Submission frequency"
• Go to ND -> Workspaces -> Default workspace -> Workflows, then disable "Submission frequency"

1. Click FAB -> Create expense
2. Choose Manual and continue
3. In confirmation step, verify the Report field is set to None
4. Create expense
5. Verify the expense is created in your self DM report
6. Verify you can move the expense to a report
7. Repeat test but in step 2 choose Scan then Distance

Test 2: Personal policy auto reporting is on + Group policy auto reporting is off

Perquisites:

• Go to OD -> Settings -> Workspaces -> Personal policy -> Workflows, then enable "Submission frequency"
• Go to ND -> Workspaces -> Default workspace -> Workflows, then disable "Submission frequency"

1. Click FAB -> Create expense
2. Choose Manual and continue
3. In confirmation step, verify the Report field is set to either an existing report or New report
4. Create expense
5. Verify the expense is created in the existing or the new report linked to your policy expense chat
6. Repeat test but in step 2 choose Scan then Distance

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as 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 new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• 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

Screen.Recording.2025-10-01.at.6.04.14.PM.mov

[c3024]

LGTM!

[pecanoro]

This one is not back-end related so no need for me to review it, I am going to unassign myself and leave it to @stitesExpensify who was originally assigned to the issue

[stitesExpensify]

Working my way through this review slowly but surely. In the mean time @s77rt can you please pull main and fix the conflicts? i'll try to get this done quick tomorrow so that more don't pop up

[s77rt]

Resolved conflicts. @c3024 Can you please give this a quick retest

[c3024]

Tests well!

[trjExpensify]

Wahoo! Over to you, @stitesExpensify.

[stitesExpensify]

Looks great! Thanks for all of your work on this one!

[stitesExpensify]

How are there conflicts already 😭

@s77rt if you can fix those and DM me on Slack I will merge straight away

[s77rt]

@stitesExpensify The first conflicts came from a merged PR, then that PR got reverted so we got the conflicts again in reverse 😅. Resolved and should be good for merge

[stitesExpensify]

Classic 🙃 . Thank you for dealing with that!

[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.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stitesExpensify in version: 9.2.28-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.2.28-5 🚀

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

[Krishna2323]

The InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions is applied to all reports which caused performance regression on accounts with thousands of reports. #74364

Fix PR: #74567
More details are in this thread: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C08CZDJFJ77/p1762354238469329

[bernhardoj]

The InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions delays the navigation to the preexisting report, which causes the original report to show as self DM: #75956

[situchan]

When creating a per diem via the “+” button inside a report, transactionReportID is incorrectly set.
More details: #78235 (comment)