Show 'you' instead of 'an admin' in next step when current user is payer

[fahimj]

Explanation of Change

Fixed the next step message for approved expense reports to show personalized text ("you") instead of generic text ("an admin") when the current user is a payer.

Previously, when an admin approved a report and no specific reimbuser was configured in the policy, the next step message would always show "Waiting for an admin to pay expenses" even when the current user was an admin who could pay.

This fix updates NextStepUtils.ts to check if the current user is a payer (using the existing isPayer() function) when generating the APPROVED status next step message, matching the pattern already used in the PROCESSING status case. Now it correctly shows:

• "Waiting for you to pay expenses" - when current user is a payer
• "Waiting for an admin to pay expenses" - when current user is not a payer

Fixed Issues

$ #74503
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Test case 1: Admin approves report (manual reimbursement, no specific reimbuser)

1. Create a workspace with manual reimbursement and advanced approval mode
2. Log in as an admin of that workspace
3. Have another user submit an expense report
4. As the admin, approve the expense report
5. Go offline
6. View the next step message on the approved report
7. Verify the message shows "Waiting for you to pay expenses" (not "Waiting for an admin to pay expenses")

Test case 2: Non-payer views approved report

1. Using the same workspace setup as above
2. Log in as a non-admin user (employee)
3. View an approved expense report
4. Verify the next step message shows "Waiting for [admin name] to pay expenses"

Test case 4: Automated test

1. Run the test: npm test -- --testNamePattern="should mention an admin to pay expenses in optimistic next step message when admin takes control and approves"
2. Verify it passes

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Create a workspace with manual reimbursement and advanced approval mode
2. Have another user submit an expense report (while offline, the report should appear with optimistic data)
3. Log in as an admin of that workspace
4. Turn off your network connection (go offline)
5. As the admin, approve the expense report while still offline
6. View the optimistic next step message on the approved report
7. Verify the message shows "Waiting for you to pay expenses" (not "Waiting for an admin to pay expenses")
8. Turn network back on and verify the message persists correctly after sync

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

[melvin-bot]

@parasharrajat 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]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 33.33333% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts	69.41% <33.33%> (-3.11%)	⬇️

... and 114 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.

[JmillsExpensify]

The text changes in this PR look good from a product perspective!

[github-actions]

Code Review Complete

Review Summary: No code quality or performance violations found.

Analysis Results:

• Files Reviewed: 2 files (src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts, tests/actions/IOUTest.ts)
• Performance Rules Checked: PERF-1 through PERF-6
• Violations Found: 0

Key Observations:

• Logic Correctness: The change properly checks if the current user is a payer using the existing isPayer() function
• Consistency: Follows the same pattern already used in the PROCESSING status case
• Test Coverage: Test updated appropriately to reflect the new behavior
• Code Quality: Clear variable naming (waitingForText) and proper conditional logic
• No Code Duplication: Appropriately consolidates message text construction

The implementation correctly addresses the issue by personalizing the next step message when the current user is a payer, improving user experience.

[parasharrajat]

Going to review the issue first. I am skeptical about these changes. We might be starting a chain of issues. My motive would be limit the changes to our issue.

[fahimj]

Just FYI, I checked commit 7165a14258a (before my merged PR) and was able to reproduce the issue there as well using a workspace where the admin is the only approver. So it seems this isn’t a regression but a separate issue.

[parasharrajat]

Thanks for waiting on this. I will check it shortly...

[parasharrajat]

@fahimj Can you please update this PR with the latest code from main? we now have 2 methods for next step.

[fahimj]

@parasharrajat I think this PR is not needed anymore, since this PR for this same issue has been merged. Should we close this issue?

[parasharrajat]

Aha, I see. Thanks for the update.

[parasharrajat]

@fahimj You can close this PR.