[NoQA] Remove call to getReportNameValuePairs() in method canUserPerformWriteAction from ReportUtils.ts part 6 #72585

thelullabyy · 2025-10-14T15:17:31Z

…

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$#67103
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

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

… part 6

codecov · 2025-10-14T15:30:04Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 61.01695% with 23 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/libs/actions/IOU.ts	37.50%	5 Missing ⚠️
...c/components/Search/SearchFiltersChatsSelector.tsx	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
src/hooks/useArchivedReportsIdSet.ts	72.72%	3 Missing ⚠️
src/libs/actions/Report.ts	75.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
.../pages/tasks/TaskShareDestinationSelectorModal.tsx	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...nents/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestReceiptView.tsx	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/components/Search/index.tsx	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/hooks/useSelectedTransactionsActions.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/libs/OptionsListUtils/index.ts	88.88%	1 Missing ⚠️
... and 3 more

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...tachments/AttachmentCarousel/extractAttachments.ts	`70.83% <ø> (ø)`
src/components/MoneyRequestHeader.tsx	`0.62% <ø> (ø)`
...RequestReportView/MoneyRequestReportNavigation.tsx	`33.33% <ø> (+31.37%)`	⬆️
src/hooks/useIsReportReadyToDisplay.ts	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
src/libs/DebugUtils.ts	`68.99% <ø> (-0.07%)`	⬇️
src/libs/Navigation/AppNavigator/AuthScreens.tsx	`53.58% <100.00%> (-1.21%)`	⬇️
src/libs/QuickActionUtils.ts	`41.66% <ø> (-0.69%)`	⬇️
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts	`74.49% <100.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
src/libs/SidebarUtils.ts	`80.49% <ø> (-0.05%)`	⬇️
src/pages/ReportDetailsPage.tsx	`58.33% <ø> (ø)`
... and 15 more

... and 32 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

melvin-bot · 2025-10-16T09:28:26Z

@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]

DylanDylann · 2025-10-17T04:33:57Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

    };
    const report = allReports?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${targetChatReportID}`];
-    const canUserPerformWriteActionVariable = canUserPerformWriteAction(report);
+    const canUserPerformWriteActionVariable = canUserPerformWriteAction(report, false);


Why do we pass false value here?

@DylanDylann It's called in prepareOnboardingOnyxData, i think can't be archived in this case

DylanDylann · 2025-10-17T04:35:37Z

src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

            failureData: deleteExpenseFailureData,
            successData: deleteExpenseSuccessData,
-        } = getDeleteTrackExpenseInformation(splitTransaction?.reportID ?? String(CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID), undeletedTransaction?.transactionID, currentReportAction);
+        } = getDeleteTrackExpenseInformation(splitTransaction?.reportID ?? String(CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID), undeletedTransaction?.transactionID, currentReportAction, undefined);


Why do we pass undefined?

Relating to this matter, I am asking here: #72086 (comment)

I think we can move forward because the rest looks fine

I am really not a fan of passing undefined. Why is that any different (or better) than just not passing anything at all in this case?

@tgolen If we make this parameter optional, contributors might forget to include it even though it’s required (assuming it’s still handled internally as before) which could easily lead to regressions. We’ve already seen similar cases in the past, so I think it’s better to mark it as required. Moreover, in most usages we actually need to pass this value (there are only one or two exceptions)

In this place, it’s a new feature and the author forgot to pass the new parameter. I’ve asked them to simplify the logic here. For this PR, I think it’s fine to temporarily set it as undefined.

OK, so the idea is that if it's required, even to pass undefined, it at least alerts other engineers that they need to make a real decision about passing this parameter or not? They can't just use this method without deciding one way or the other?

I guess that makes sense. It would be nice if there was a better way of doing that, but I am OK with this for now.

Thanks!

src/libs/actions/Report.ts

DylanDylann · 2025-10-17T07:21:53Z

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

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

tgolen · 2025-10-17T14:50:47Z

src/components/Search/SearchFiltersChatsSelector.tsx

    const [searchTerm, debouncedSearchTerm, setSearchTerm] = useDebouncedState('');
    const cleanSearchTerm = useMemo(() => searchTerm.trim().toLowerCase(), [searchTerm]);
    const [draftComments] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_DRAFT_COMMENT, {canBeMissing: true});
+    const [archivedReportsIdSet = new Set<string>()] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_NAME_VALUE_PAIRS, {


Since this pattern is being used in multiple places, it seems like a good candidate for it's own custom hook. There are some instances using archivedReportsIdSetSelector and some that have essentially copies of the selector below.

I searched the code for const [archivedReportsIdSet = new Set<string>()] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_NAME_VALUE_PAIRS, { but there might be others

I agree

cc @thelullabyy

tgolen · 2025-10-17T14:59:10Z

src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

            failureData: deleteExpenseFailureData,
            successData: deleteExpenseSuccessData,
-        } = getDeleteTrackExpenseInformation(splitTransaction?.reportID ?? String(CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID), undeletedTransaction?.transactionID, currentReportAction);
+        } = getDeleteTrackExpenseInformation(splitTransaction?.reportID ?? String(CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID), undeletedTransaction?.transactionID, currentReportAction, undefined);


I am really not a fan of passing undefined. Why is that any different (or better) than just not passing anything at all in this case?

thelullabyy · 2025-10-18T09:20:22Z

@DylanDylann @tgolen Part 5 is reverted and i recreated PR here. I will continue on this once it's merged

thelullabyy · 2025-10-20T18:30:53Z

@DylanDylann Updated. Please help to check

DylanDylann · 2025-10-20T18:41:51Z

@thelullabyy Thanks for update, your update looks fine. Let's me review all again

DylanDylann

Nice 💚

DylanDylann · 2025-10-20T19:02:16Z

@tgolen I’m really looking forward to getting this PR merged — it’s the final one in the [Remove call to getReportNameValuePairs() tasks] 😄

tgolen

Wowie!!! Let's do it!

OSBotify · 2025-10-20T21:08:45Z

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

izarutskaya · 2025-10-21T08:28:18Z

Hi @thelullabyy No QA for this?

OSBotify · 2025-10-21T08:29:10Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/tgolen in version: 9.2.35-0 🚀

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

thelullabyy · 2025-10-21T08:36:33Z

@izarutskaya Yes, the main work in this PR is code cleanup and refactoring

blimpich · 2025-10-21T20:18:40Z

Reverted this here: #73095

OSBotify · 2025-10-21T23:06:34Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.2.35-4 🚀

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

refactor: remove getReportNameValuePairs in canUserPerformWriteAction…

cd02d79

… part 6

melvin-bot bot assigned thelullabyy Oct 14, 2025

thelullabyy added 6 commits October 14, 2025 22:40

update code

c67d409

Merge branch 'main' into fix/67103-part-6

b5841e9

update code

f5d9564

fix type

4f9ede2

Merge branch 'main' into fix/67103-part-6

e7e9c85

fix lint

f0b32ed

thelullabyy referenced this pull request Oct 16, 2025

Add ability to clear all undeletedTransactions

6c160a3

thelullabyy marked this pull request as ready for review October 16, 2025 09:28

thelullabyy requested a review from a team as a code owner October 16, 2025 09:28

melvin-bot bot requested review from DylanDylann and removed request for a team October 16, 2025 09:28

thelullabyy mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2025

Split expense flow (Phase 2 - Editing existing split expenses) #63738

Merged

54 tasks

update

d316541

DylanDylann reviewed Oct 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

thelullabyy added 2 commits October 17, 2025 12:34

update code

7808b54

fix lint

ac791e5

DylanDylann approved these changes Oct 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from tgolen October 17, 2025 07:22

tgolen requested changes Oct 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

joekaufmanexpensify mentioned this pull request Oct 20, 2025

[$1500] [Due for payment 2025-10-31] Remove call to getReportNameValuePairs() in method canUserPerformWriteAction from ReportUtils.ts #67103

Closed

thelullabyy added 4 commits October 21, 2025 00:24

Merge branch 'main' into fix/67103-part-6

72ea982

refactor: create hook to get archivedReportsIdSet

3c80ebc

update code

89a7902

fix lint

7f91168

update code

2aab5a8

fix lint

9ec07ec

DylanDylann mentioned this pull request Oct 20, 2025

Split expense flow (Phase 2 - Reverting existing split expenses) #72086

Merged

54 tasks

DylanDylann approved these changes Oct 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from tgolen October 20, 2025 19:00

tgolen approved these changes Oct 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

tgolen merged commit ec218d0 into Expensify:main Oct 20, 2025
25 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Oct 21, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-10-21 #73066

Closed

47 tasks

thelullabyy changed the title ~~Remove call to getReportNameValuePairs() in method canUserPerformWriteAction from ReportUtils.ts part 6~~ [NoQA] Remove call to getReportNameValuePairs() in method canUserPerformWriteAction from ReportUtils.ts part 6 Oct 21, 2025

This was referenced Oct 21, 2025

[CP Staging] Revert "[NoQA] Remove call to getReportNameValuePairs() in method canUserPerformWriteAction from ReportUtils.ts part 6" #73095

Merged

[RCA #72585] Reports - App crashes when clicking on any table header title while expenses are selected #73081

Closed

[NoQA] Remove call to getReportNameValuePairs() in method canUserPerformWriteAction from ReportUtils.ts part 6 #72585

[NoQA] Remove call to getReportNameValuePairs() in method canUserPerformWriteAction from ReportUtils.ts part 6 #72585

Uh oh!

Conversation

thelullabyy commented Oct 14, 2025

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Oct 14, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Oct 16, 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!

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Oct 17, 2025

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

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!

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

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

thelullabyy commented Oct 20, 2025

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Oct 20, 2025

Uh oh!

DylanDylann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Oct 20, 2025

Uh oh!

tgolen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Oct 20, 2025

Uh oh!

izarutskaya commented Oct 21, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Oct 21, 2025

Uh oh!

thelullabyy commented Oct 21, 2025

Uh oh!

blimpich commented Oct 21, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Oct 21, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

codecov bot commented Oct 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

thelullabyy commented Oct 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading