Self approval stays enabled if all members are removed by multi selection by mkzie2 · Pull Request #73676 · Expensify/App

mkzie2 · 2025-10-28T17:10:12Z

Explanation of Change

Self approval stays enabled if all members are removed by multi selection

Fixed Issues

$ #70286
PROPOSAL: #70286 (comment)

Tests

Workspace members page

Invite some members to the workspace
Enable prevent self-approval rules
Add new approval flow for new members
Go members page
Select and remove all members
Verify that the prevent self-approval rule is disabled and the toggle is locked
Verify that the new approval flow is also removed.

Workspace member detail page

The workspace only has two members, including the owner
Enable prevent self-approval rules
Set the member as approver
Go members page
Open the member detail page
Remove the member
Verify that the prevent self-approval rule is disabled and the toggle is locked
Verify that the default approver is changed to the owner

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same

QA Steps

Workspace members page

Invite some members to the workspace
Enable prevent self-approval rules
Add new approval flow for new members
Go members page
Select and remove all members
Verify that the prevent self-approval rule is disabled and the toggle is locked
Verify that the new approval flow is also removed.

Workspace member detail page

The workspace only has two members, including the owner
Enable prevent self-approval rules
Set the member as approver
Go members page
Open the member detail page
Remove the member
Verify that the prevent self-approval rule is disabled and the toggle is locked
Verify that the default approver is changed to the owner

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-10-28.at.23.32.23.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-10-28.at.23.40.02.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-10-28.at.23.43.02.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-10-28.at.23.41.36.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-10-28.at.23.37.57.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-10-28.at.23.48.13.mov

…tion

melvin-bot · 2025-10-28T17:17:56Z

@dominictb 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]

codecov · 2025-10-28T17:27:11Z

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/pages/workspace/WorkspaceMembersPage.tsx	`76.77% <ø> (+3.15%)`	⬆️
...s/workspace/members/WorkspaceMemberDetailsPage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
...ages/workspace/rules/ExpenseReportRulesSection.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
src/libs/WorkflowUtils.ts	`83.59% <50.00%> (-2.24%)`	⬇️
src/libs/actions/Policy/Policy.ts	`33.27% <25.00%> (-0.26%)`	⬇️
src/libs/actions/Policy/Member.ts	`70.07% <51.35%> (-2.36%)`	⬇️
src/libs/actions/Workflow.ts	`27.67% <0.00%> (-5.66%)`	⬇️
... and 108 files with indirect coverage changes

dominictb · 2025-10-29T19:24:39Z

TS check failed

dominictb · 2025-10-29T19:25:49Z

Warning here

dominictb · 2025-10-30T21:47:45Z

src/libs/actions/Policy/Member.ts

+            updatedWorkflows.forEach((workflow) => {
+                if (workflow?.removeApprovalWorkflow) {
+                    const {removeApprovalWorkflow, ...updatedWorkflow} = workflow;
+                    const onyxDataForRemoveApprovalWorkflow = getRemoveApprovalWorkflowOnyxData(updatedWorkflow, policy);


Make it let and move the onyx update assignment out of if... else... statement

dominictb · 2025-10-30T22:05:56Z

src/libs/actions/Policy/Member.ts

        policyID,
    };

+    // Update "Prevent Self Approvals" after member removal


Suggested change

// Update "Prevent Self Approvals" after member removal

dominictb · 2025-10-30T22:06:26Z

src/libs/actions/Policy/Member.ts

+    const previousEmployeesCount = Object.values(policy?.employeeList ?? {}).filter((employee) => employee.pendingAction !== CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.DELETE).length;
+    const remainingEmployeeCount = previousEmployeesCount - accountIDs.length;
+    if (remainingEmployeeCount === 1 && policy?.preventSelfApproval) {
+        const onyxDataForSetPolicyPreventSelfApproval = getSetPolicyPreventSelfApprovalOnyxData(policyID, false);
+        optimisticData.push(...(onyxDataForSetPolicyPreventSelfApproval.optimisticData ?? []));
+        successData.push(...(onyxDataForSetPolicyPreventSelfApproval.successData ?? []));
+        failureData.push(...(onyxDataForSetPolicyPreventSelfApproval.failureData ?? []));
+    }
+


Move this above const params

dominictb · 2025-10-30T22:08:29Z

src/libs/actions/Workflow.ts

+    const previousEmployeeList = Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(policy.employeeList ?? {}).map(([key, value]) => [key, {...value, pendingAction: null}]));
+    const updatedEmployees = convertApprovalWorkflowToPolicyEmployees({previousEmployeeList, approvalWorkflow, type: CONST.APPROVAL_WORKFLOW.TYPE.REMOVE});


Can we return this from getRemoveApprovalWorkflowOnyxData?

dominictb · 2025-10-30T22:09:01Z

src/libs/actions/Workflow.ts

+    const previousDefaultApprover = getDefaultApprover(policy);
+    const newDefaultApprover = approvalWorkflow.isDefault ? approvalWorkflow.approvers.at(0)?.email : undefined;
+    const previousEmployeeList = Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(policy.employeeList ?? {}).map(([key, value]) => [key, {...value, pendingAction: null}]));
+    const updatedEmployees = convertApprovalWorkflowToPolicyEmployees({
+        previousEmployeeList,
+        approvalWorkflow,
+        type: CONST.APPROVAL_WORKFLOW.TYPE.UPDATE,
+        membersToRemove,
+        approversToRemove,
+        defaultApprover: newDefaultApprover ?? previousDefaultApprover ?? '',
+    });
+
+    // If there are no changes to the employees list, we can exit early
+    if (isEmptyObject(updatedEmployees) && !newDefaultApprover) {
+        return;
+    }


Can we return this from getUpdateApprovalWorkflowOnyxData?

dominictb · 2025-10-30T22:14:30Z

I found a bug that if the workflow for new members include the workspace owner, then when removing all members, all the workflows, including the default one would be removed as well. But that already happens on main. Out of scope.

dominictb · 2025-10-30T22:28:26Z

BUG

Add 2 members
Add a workflow including them
Go offline
Remove each member one by one in member details page
Prevent self approval is not locked

Screen.Recording.2025-10-31.at.05.26.05.mov

mkzie2 · 2025-11-07T09:45:39Z

@dominictb I updated.

heyjennahay

No concern with product change

inimaga · 2025-11-11T13:48:45Z

@dominictb Could you re-review please

dominictb · 2025-11-12T16:45:30Z

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.2025-11-24.at.17.48.33.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-11-24.at.17.39.12-compressed.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-11-24.at.17.32.55-compressed.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-11-12.at.23.51.44-compressed.mov

Screen.Recording.2025-11-12.at.23.52.55-compressed.mov

MacOS: Desktop

dominictb · 2025-11-12T17:02:13Z

@inimaga I'm thinking if we really need the "preemptively lock Prevent self-approval when the workspace has 1 member" part. I see that in OldDot, that's still possible. When that single member (workspace owner) submits an expense, it'll say Oops! Looks like you're submitting to yourself. Approving your own reports is forbidden by your workspace. Please submit this report to someone else or contact your admin to change the person you submit to. as usual.

Do you think we need Product team confirmation on this?

inimaga · 2025-11-14T02:47:51Z

@dominictb I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say.
Are you saying the current behaviour in oldDot allows self-approval if workspace has 1 member but in NewDot it doesn't?

inimaga · 2025-11-18T23:11:57Z

Bump @dominictb

dominictb · 2025-11-19T16:20:19Z

We agreed earlier to disable and lock the "Prevent self-approval" option when the workspace has only 1 member #70286 (comment). But after revising, I don't think it's needed because we can always enable "Prevent self-approval" even when the workspace has 1 member both in NewDot and OldDot.

Are you saying the current behaviour in oldDot allows self-approval if workspace has 1 member but in NewDot it doesn't?

Explained above. It's possible in both OldDot and NewDot.

inimaga · 2025-11-20T13:26:23Z

@dominictb Okay Gotcha. No, I still think we should preemptively disable and lock the "Prevent self-approval" option when the workspace has only 1 member (the owner). So that the user doesn't run into the error displayed of : Oops! Looks like you're submitting to yourself. Approving your own reports is forbidden by your workspace. Please submit this report to someone else or contact your admin to change the person you submit to. and have to go through the extra step of manually disabling it.
When the owner of the workspace adds one more member to the workspace, the field can be re-enabled.

dominictb

🎀

inimaga

lgtm

OSBotify · 2025-11-26T03:52:45Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/inimaga in version: 9.2.64-0 🚀

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

This reverts commit 3f1a831, reversing changes made to e9988a7.

Revert "Merge pull request #73676 from mkzie2/mkzie2-issue/70286"

Revert "Merge pull request #73676 from mkzie2/mkzie2-issue/70286" (cherry picked from commit 24c9140) (cherry-picked to staging by arosiclair)

OSBotify · 2025-11-27T01:21:26Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.2.64-5 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2025-11-27T01:40:15Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/inimaga in version: 9.2.65-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2025-11-28T18:29:41Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.2.65-6 🚀

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

mkzie2 added 2 commits October 29, 2025 00:01

Self approval stays enabled if all members are removed by multi selec…

0f4ce77

…tion

update member detail page

fdabc3e

melvin-bot bot assigned mkzie2 Oct 28, 2025

update test

7ece60c

mkzie2 marked this pull request as ready for review October 28, 2025 17:17

mkzie2 requested a review from a team as a code owner October 28, 2025 17:17

melvin-bot bot requested review from dominictb and removed request for a team October 28, 2025 17:17

resolve spell check

0180d00

mkzie2 added 2 commits October 30, 2025 19:49

Merge branch 'main' into mkzie2-issue/70286

a373e7b

fix lint

7b5932d

dominictb suggested changes Oct 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

mkzie2 added 2 commits November 6, 2025 14:17

Merge branch 'main' into mkzie2-issue/70286

7c192e1

Merge branch 'main' into mkzie2-issue/70286

10ae33b

mkzie2 requested a review from a team as a code owner November 7, 2025 08:14

melvin-bot bot requested review from heyjennahay and removed request for a team November 7, 2025 08:14

fix: incorrect pending action

701afd0

heyjennahay previously approved these changes Nov 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

inimaga requested a review from dominictb November 11, 2025 13:48

resolve conflict

b04cb24

mkzie2 dismissed heyjennahay’s stale review via b04cb24 November 22, 2025 14:37

fix test

b6a13fe

dominictb approved these changes Nov 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from inimaga November 24, 2025 10:42

inimaga approved these changes Nov 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

inimaga merged commit 3f1a831 into Expensify:main Nov 24, 2025
31 checks passed

linhvovan29546 mentioned this pull request Nov 25, 2025

Fix: Approver Field Disappearing and “Expense From” Expanding When Approver Is Removed #75646

Merged

54 tasks

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Nov 26, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-11-26 #76071

Closed

70 tasks

jponikarchuk mentioned this pull request Nov 26, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-12-05] Workflow - The default workflow disappears after removing the default approver #76086

Closed

8 tasks

arosiclair added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 26, 2025

Revert "Merge pull request #73676 from mkzie2/mkzie2-issue/70286"

c1c355c

This reverts commit 3f1a831, reversing changes made to e9988a7.

arosiclair mentioned this pull request Nov 26, 2025

Revert "Merge pull request #73676 from mkzie2/mkzie2-issue/70286" #76153

Merged

51 tasks

inimaga added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 26, 2025

Merge pull request #76153 from Expensify/arosiclair-revert-73676

24c9140

Revert "Merge pull request #73676 from mkzie2/mkzie2-issue/70286"

OSBotify pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 26, 2025

Merge pull request #76153 from Expensify/arosiclair-revert-73676

048b574

Revert "Merge pull request #73676 from mkzie2/mkzie2-issue/70286" (cherry picked from commit 24c9140) (cherry-picked to staging by arosiclair)

inimaga mentioned this pull request Nov 26, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-12-16] [$250] Workflows - Approver field disappears and "Expense from" opens Not here when remove approver #74728

Closed

16 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Nov 27, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-12-05] [$250] Web - Self approval stays enabled if all members are removed by multi selection #70286

Closed

8 tasks

		const previousEmployeeList = Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(policy.employeeList ?? {}).map(([key, value]) => [key, {...value, pendingAction: null}]));
		const updatedEmployees = convertApprovalWorkflowToPolicyEmployees({previousEmployeeList, approvalWorkflow, type: CONST.APPROVAL_WORKFLOW.TYPE.REMOVE});

Conversation

mkzie2 commented Oct 28, 2025

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Oct 28, 2025

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Oct 28, 2025 • edited by github-actions bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

dominictb commented Oct 29, 2025

Uh oh!

dominictb commented Oct 29, 2025

Uh oh!

dominictb Oct 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dominictb Oct 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dominictb Oct 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dominictb Oct 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dominictb Oct 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dominictb commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

dominictb commented Oct 30, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mkzie2 commented Nov 7, 2025

Uh oh!

heyjennahay left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

inimaga commented Nov 11, 2025

Uh oh!

dominictb commented Nov 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

dominictb commented Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

inimaga commented Nov 14, 2025

Uh oh!

inimaga commented Nov 18, 2025

Uh oh!

dominictb commented Nov 19, 2025

Uh oh!

inimaga commented Nov 20, 2025

Uh oh!

dominictb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

inimaga left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 26, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 27, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 27, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 28, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

codecov bot commented Oct 28, 2025 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

dominictb commented Oct 30, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dominictb commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading