Move enforcement settings to Workflows section

[nyomanjyotisa]

Explanation of Change

Relocate ExpenseReportRulesSection from PolicyRulesPage to WorkspaceWorkflowsPage

Fixed Issues

$ #74752
PROPOSAL: #74752 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

1. Create a workspace
2. Navigate to Workspace > Workflows
3. Verify that the "Expense reports" section (now it's called "Advanced") is displayed on the page

• 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: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1763357922504989
  • 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]

Hey, I noticed you changed src/languages/en.ts in a PR from a fork. For security reasons, translations are not generated automatically for PRs from forks.

If you want to automatically generate translations for other locales, an Expensify employee will have to:

1. Look at the code and make sure there are no malicious changes.
2. Run the Generate static translations GitHub workflow. If you have write access and the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

Alternatively, if you are an external contributor, you can run the translation script locally with your own OpenAI API key. To learn more, try running:

npx ts-node ./scripts/generateTranslations.ts --help

Typically, you'd want to translate only what you changed by running npx ts-node ./scripts/generateTranslations.ts --compare-ref main

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/CONST/index.ts	85.84% <ø> (ø)
...gation/linkingConfig/RELATIONS/WORKSPACE_TO_RHP.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/actions/Policy/Policy.ts	34.02% <ø> (ø)
src/pages/workspace/rules/PolicyRulesPage.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...rkspace/rules/RulesAutoApproveReportsUnderPage.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...s/workspace/rules/RulesAutoPayReportsUnderPage.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/pages/workspace/upgrade/UpgradeIntro.tsx	91.66% <100.00%> (+0.49%)	⬆️
...ges/workspace/workflows/WorkspaceWorkflowsPage.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...ges/workspace/rules/RulesRandomReportAuditPage.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ages/workspace/rules/ExpenseReportRulesSection.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 1 more
... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@dukenv0307 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]

[melvin-bot]

@tgolen 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]

[nyomanjyotisa]

I noticed that the subtitle of the feature doesn’t suit the page after we moved ExpenseReportRulesSection to WorkspaceWorkflowsPage. It looks like this, which seems a bit off to me, IMHO

I changed the subtitle to Add ${featureName} to unlock this feature

Let me know your thoughts on this @dukenv0307

[dukenv0307]

@nyomanjyotisa Bug:

1. Create the WS in offlinle mode
2. Open workflow page
3. Observe the Expense reports section is not greyed out

Screen.Recording.2025-11-17.at.00.00.35.mov

[dukenv0307]

@nyomanjyotisa Can you please ask for ES translation confirmation in Slack? Then add it in

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:

[nyomanjyotisa]

PR updated @dukenv0307

We now wrap ExpenseReportRulesSection with OfflineWithFeedback and disable the feature buttons in the Expense reports section if the policy has a pending ADD action

When a workspace is created in offline mode, we optimistically enable autoReporting, approvalMode, and reimbursementChoice. When going online, the CreateWorkspace API response sets approvalMode to OPTIONAL and reimbursementChoice to reimburseNo, which disables the feature. In offline mode, if a user enables features in the Expense reports section and then goes online, we call SetPolicyPreventSelfApproval and EnablePolicyAutoApprovalOptions, which enable those features. However, since the CreateWorkspace API response disabled the approval feature, the feature appears disabled in settings even though it was actually enabled. Here's what I mean:

New-Expensify.mp4

So based on this, I think we need to disable the toggle if the policy has a pending ADD action

[dukenv0307]

@nyomanjyotisa I can't enable these features in offline mode. But in online mode, I can

In offline mode, if a user enables features in the Expense reports section

Screen.Recording.2025-11-19.at.10.53.48.mov

[nyomanjyotisa]

I can't enable these features in offline mode. But in online mode, I can

Yeah, that's the new behavior after the change. My previous comment shows the behavior before the change. Do you think the current behavior is better?

[JmillsExpensify]

Wow, I'm not sure how we got this far, though this is exactly why we have product review on PRs. This changes a bunch of logic that we shouldn't be touching, and in particular, is a contradiction of several on-going initiatives in #migrate. For instance:

• All the enforcement settings in this PR are Control features. That's why they live in Rules, because that entire feature is behind the paywall.
• Any customer using prevent-self approval, auto-approve or auto-reimburse is being upgraded to Control as part of the "Collect v2" initiative.

As a result, I honestly would prefer that we just pay our the contributor and close this PR. What problem are we solving here?

An alternative would be to continue with moving these to Workflows, though if we do that then we need to add additional logic where anyone on Collect that toggles any of these settings individually will need to be prompted in situ to upgrade to Control.

[tgolen]

@JmillsExpensify Thanks for weighing in. Let's discuss this in the original slack thread that started this.

[JmillsExpensify]

We decided to go with this alt solution.

An alternative would be to continue with moving these to Workflows, though if we do that then we need to add additional logic where anyone on Collect that toggles any of these settings individually will need to be prompted in situ to upgrade to Control.

Accordingly, can you please update this PR with the upgrade considerations for anyone that toggles these settings on Collect.

[nyomanjyotisa]

Accordingly, can you please update this PR with the upgrade considerations for anyone that toggles these settings on Collect

Is this the expected behavior?

New-Expensify.mp4

When user with a Collect workspace tries to enable an enforcement setting, we can saves their chosen setting in Onyx, then navigates them to the upgrade page. After upgrading, when the users click Got it, thanks button, we retrieves the saved setting from Onyx and enables the chosen enforcement setting

[nyomanjyotisa]

@tgolen Thanks for the update!

[nyomanjyotisa]

@dukenv0307 For ExpenseReportRulesSection (or the advanced workflow section), I think we should avoid greying out the header when there is a pending action, similar to how the Reports feature handles the header section. This is the current behavior

MacOS-Chrome.mp4

I think we need to do this because if we wrap ExpenseReportRulesSection with OfflineWithFeedback on the parent WorkspaceWorkflowsPage, we will got double opacity issue

Aside from this, I've tested the functionality in both online and offline mode, and could not find any other issue. Could you please check and review this again? Thanks! @dukenv0307

[dukenv0307]

@nyomanjyotisa Thanks for you update, but I think we shouldn't do that

I think we should avoid greying out the header when there is a pending action

it can cause an inconsistency in this page where all page is greyed out but Advance header. Can you please check how other sections like Make or track payments or Add approval handle this case, then we can do the same?

[nyomanjyotisa]

@dukenv0307 Got it. I updated the Advanced header to also grey out when policy?.pendingAction is set

[dukenv0307]

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.2025-12-08.at.16.21.44.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-12-08.at.16.18.59.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-12-08.at.16.21.16.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-12-08.at.16.15.07.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-12-08.at.16.10.19.mov

[melvin-bot]

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #74752 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

[dukenv0307]

LGTM

[tgolen]

Should this name also be a translated string? I think it should.

[nyomanjyotisa]

Other entries in UPGRADE_FEATURE_INTRO_MAPPING use hardcoded strings for the name field, so I followed the same pattern for consistency. Would you prefer that I update it to use translation keys instead?

[tgolen]

OK, I think we can leave it as-is for this PR, but maybe we should open up a new GH to make them consistent and I do think we want them to be translated keys. I don't know why we wouldn't.

[tgolen]

Won't this cause navigation to happen twice? Once for goBack() and then again navigate()? Is that for sure what we want? It kind of feels like it should be more like this:

                if (route.params.backTo) {
                    Navigation.navigate(route.params.backTo);
                    return;
                }
                Navigation.goBack();

[tgolen]

@nyomanjyotisa This PR picked up a conflict.

[dukenv0307]

@nyomanjyotisa kindly bump

[nyomanjyotisa]

Sorry for the delayed response, I’ve merged with the latest main

I also moved the enforcement setting enabling logic from goBack to confirmUpgrade. This will make the features are enabled in all upgrade modal dismissal scenarios: clicking "Got it, thanks", the header back button, or outside the RHP

Previously, clicking outside the RHP after upgrading wouldn't toggle the feature

[tgolen]

OK, I think we can leave it as-is for this PR, but maybe we should open up a new GH to make them consistent and I do think we want them to be translated keys. I don't know why we wouldn't.

[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/tgolen in version: 9.2.75-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/tgolen in version: 9.2.75-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/tgolen in version: 9.2.77-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 9.2.77-1 🚀

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