Fix: Approver Field Disappearing and “Expense From” Expanding When Approver Is Removed by nabi-ebrahimi · Pull Request #75646 · Expensify/App

nabi-ebrahimi · 2025-11-20T09:54:59Z

Explanation of Change

Update the removeUsers function in WorkspaceMembersPage.tsx to only process workflow updates for actual approvers among the selected employees.

Fixed Issues

$ #74728
PROPOSAL: #74728 (Coment)

Tests

Login with new gmail account
Complete the onboarding process
Create Workspace
Invite 2 members
One of them set as Approver
Go to Members> Select both users> Delete> Confirm
Go to Workflows
Owner of the Workspace should be signed as Approver

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests

QA Steps

Same as Tests

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.1404-08-29.at.2.12.08.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.1404-08-29.at.1.18.12.PM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.1404-08-29.at.2.07.27.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.1404-08-29.at.1.14.01.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.1404-08-29.at.1.10.32.PM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.1404-08-29.at.1.07.32.PM.mov

…se from' behavior when approver is removed

melvin-bot · 2025-11-20T09:55:06Z

@linhvovan29546 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 · 2025-11-20T10:02:59Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/pages/workspace/WorkspaceMembersPage.tsx	`81.28% <100.00%> (+6.13%)`	⬆️
... and 24 files with indirect coverage changes

linhvovan29546 · 2025-11-20T10:06:53Z

@nabi-ebrahimi Please use a for loop instead of forEach

nabi-ebrahimi · 2025-11-20T10:16:56Z

Please use a for loop instead of forEach

@linhvovan29546, thanks for the feedback, applied.

trjExpensify

No qualms with the bug fix 👍

P.S Can you try to make your PR titles more reflective of what code changes the PR is making / fill out the explanation of changes section? Thanks!

linhvovan29546 · 2025-11-21T03:21:39Z

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.2025-11-21.at.11.24.37.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-11-21.at.11.25.54.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-11-21.at.11.19.50.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-11-21.at.11.21.36.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-11-21.at.11.10.43.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-11-21.at.11.16.50.mov

linhvovan29546

@nabi-ebrahimi Could you please update the description and title based on this comment: #75646 (review)?

Also, could you please add a unit test? The idea is that we should not call updateApprovalWorkflow or removeApprovalWorkflowAction for non approver when removeUsers is called in this case.

linhvovan29546 · 2025-11-25T02:31:15Z

@nabi-ebrahimi Any progress? Please let me know if you need any help.

nabi-ebrahimi · 2025-11-25T08:19:58Z

@linhvovan29546 Sorry for the late reply — I was writing the unit tests. It looks like the logic has already been removed from the main branch. Here is the current removeUsers implementation.

App/src/pages/workspace/WorkspaceMembersPage.tsx

Lines 201 to 212 in 1038561

    
               /** 
        
                * Remove selected users from the workspace 
        
                * Please see https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/main/README.md#Security for more details 
        
                */ 
        
               const removeUsers = () => { 
        
                   setRemoveMembersConfirmModalVisible(false); 
        
                   // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-deprecated 
        
                   InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions(() => { 
        
                       setSelectedEmployees([]); 
        
                       removeMembers(policyID, selectedEmployees, policyMemberEmailsToAccountIDs, approvalWorkflows, personalDetails); 
        
                   }); 
        
               };

nabi-ebrahimi · 2025-11-25T08:20:16Z

@linhvovan29546, what is the next step for this PR?

linhvovan29546 · 2025-11-25T08:32:45Z

Okay, I see. They removed that logic in this PR: #73676. It looks like this introduced a bug, so we no longer update the workspace owner to an approver.

inimaga · 2025-12-01T14:58:47Z

@nabi-ebrahimi You should be able to now proceed as normal. Let me know if you have any questions.

…nit test for it

nabi-ebrahimi · 2025-12-02T07:58:27Z

@linhvovan29546, the failing type checks aren’t related to my changes—they appear to have come from this PR and Commit

nabi-ebrahimi · 2025-12-02T07:59:48Z

@linhvovan29546, the PR is now finalized, and I’ve added the unit test as requested. Could you please take another look when you have time? Thank you very much!

linhvovan29546 · 2025-12-02T09:25:09Z

@nabi-ebrahimi Oops, I don’t think the test is correct. The test you added is unnecessary because WorkspaceMembersPage already checks the hasApprovers condition, so testing WorkflowUtils for this isn’t needed. In my previous comment, I meant that we should write the test similar to WorkspaceMembersTest instead.(Apologies if my previous comment wasn’t clear, I missed that part earlier.)

linhvovan29546 · 2025-12-02T09:10:24Z

src/libs/WorkflowUtils.ts

+ * Runs the logic that handles workflow updates for each approver being removed.
+ * Extracted for unit testing.
+ */
+function removeApproveWorkflows(args: RemoveApproveWorkflowsParams) {


I think the name should be removeApprovalWorkflows

Or, to make it easier, you can revert/remove the changes to reduce the amount of code modified, similar to this commit da0824c? So we only need to change one place WorkspaceMembersPage.

linhvovan29546 · 2025-12-02T09:14:27Z

src/libs/WorkflowUtils.ts

+    approvalWorkflows: ApprovalWorkflow[];
+};
+
+/**


/** * Handles the removal or update of approval workflows when members who are approvers are being removed. * For each approver being removed, this function either removes their workflows entirely or updates * them by reassigning to the workspace owner. */

nabi-ebrahimi · 2025-12-02T11:52:01Z

@linhvovan29546, thanks for the review.

based on this

Or, to make it easier, you can revert/remove the changes to reduce the amount of code modified, similar to this commit da0824c? So we only need to change one place WorkspaceMembersPage.

Just to confirm, do you mean that we no longer need the unit test and should revert/remove my changes back to da0824c. Thank you for the clarification.

linhvovan29546 · 2025-12-02T11:56:03Z

We still need ui test and only modify WorkspaceMembersPage

nabi-ebrahimi · 2025-12-02T12:07:36Z

We still need ui test and only modify WorkspaceMembersPage

@linhvovan29546 ui test for the whole page or some specific test cases?

linhvovan29546 · 2025-12-02T12:09:27Z

The idea is that we should not call updateApprovalWorkflow or removeApprovalWorkflowAction for non approver when removeUsers is called in this case.

For this specific test case

…veUsers

nabi-ebrahimi · 2025-12-04T08:38:36Z

@linhvovan29546, the PR is ready for your review. I’ve applied your feedback. Thanks!

linhvovan29546

LGTM! I have two minor feedback

linhvovan29546 · 2025-12-04T08:47:26Z

tests/ui/WorkspaceMembersTest.tsx

    });
+
+    describe('Removing members who are approvers and non-approvers', () => {
+        it('should not call workflow actions when removing only non-approvers', async () => {


The test name says "should not call" but the expectations verify that the functions ARE called. This is contradictory. So this should be should call workflow actions once when removing multiple members including an approver

linhvovan29546 · 2025-12-04T08:49:29Z

tests/ui/WorkspaceMembersTest.tsx

+
+            await waitForBatchedUpdatesWithAct();
+
+            expect(updateWorkflowDataOnApproverRemoval).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);


Add comment // Verify workflow actions are only called once when an approver is removed

nabi-ebrahimi · 2025-12-04T09:27:41Z

@linhvovan29546, thanks for the review, applied latest feedback. thanks

inimaga

Looks good. Thanks both!

OSBotify · 2025-12-04T23:03:25Z

✋ 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 · 2025-12-05T18:29:00Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/inimaga in version: 9.2.73-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2025-12-09T09:58:03Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 9.2.73-5 🚀

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

fix(workflows): preserve Approver field visibility and correct 'Expen…

7ca3d2b

…se from' behavior when approver is removed

nabi-ebrahimi requested review from a team as code owners November 20, 2025 09:55

melvin-bot bot assigned nabi-ebrahimi Nov 20, 2025

melvin-bot bot requested review from linhvovan29546 and trjExpensify and removed request for a team November 20, 2025 09:55

replaced foreach by for of

da0824c

trjExpensify previously approved these changes Nov 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

linhvovan29546 reviewed Nov 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into fix/workflow-approver-field-disappears

10cce02

inimaga mentioned this pull request Dec 1, 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

nabi-ebrahimi added 2 commits December 2, 2025 11:41

Merge branch 'main' into fix/workflow-approver-field-disappears

d76ab68

extracted main part of removeUsers to a external function and write u…

9cfebe6

…nit test for it

nabi-ebrahimi dismissed trjExpensify’s stale review via 9cfebe6 December 2, 2025 07:21

linhvovan29546 reviewed Dec 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

nabi-ebrahimi added 5 commits December 3, 2025 09:47

Merge branch 'main' into fix/workflow-approver-field-disappears

56b585a

reverted extracted codes

4f78e52

added ui test to not call workflow actions for non approver when remo…

a2cecab

…veUsers

Merge branch 'main' into fix/workflow-approver-field-disappears

ecc5c34

fixed eslint failure

6740499

linhvovan29546 reviewed Dec 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

minor change

245f71d

linhvovan29546 approved these changes Dec 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from inimaga December 4, 2025 10:01

inimaga approved these changes Dec 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

inimaga merged commit f285ce0 into Expensify:main Dec 4, 2025
31 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Dec 5, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-12-05 #76837

Closed

73 tasks

linhvovan29546 mentioned this pull request Dec 16, 2025

49954 approval workflow editing #54178

Merged

49 tasks


		await waitForBatchedUpdatesWithAct();

		expect(updateWorkflowDataOnApproverRemoval).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);

Conversation

nabi-ebrahimi commented Nov 20, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 20, 2025

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Nov 20, 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!

linhvovan29546 commented Nov 20, 2025

Uh oh!

nabi-ebrahimi commented Nov 20, 2025

Uh oh!

trjExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Nov 21, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Nov 25, 2025

Uh oh!

nabi-ebrahimi commented Nov 25, 2025

Uh oh!

nabi-ebrahimi commented Nov 25, 2025

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Nov 25, 2025

Uh oh!

inimaga commented Dec 1, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nabi-ebrahimi commented Dec 2, 2025

Uh oh!

nabi-ebrahimi commented Dec 2, 2025

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Dec 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 Dec 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nabi-ebrahimi commented Dec 2, 2025

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Dec 2, 2025

Uh oh!

nabi-ebrahimi commented Dec 2, 2025

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Dec 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nabi-ebrahimi commented Dec 4, 2025

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 Dec 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 Dec 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nabi-ebrahimi commented Nov 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Nov 20, 2025 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

linhvovan29546 commented Nov 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

linhvovan29546 left a comment •

edited

Loading

inimaga commented Dec 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

linhvovan29546 commented Dec 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

linhvovan29546 Dec 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

linhvovan29546 commented Dec 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading