fix: show tag validation error when moving expenses between workspaces by marufsharifi · Pull Request #76016 · Expensify/App

marufsharifi · 2025-11-25T12:33:40Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #74589
PROPOSAL: #74589 (Comment)

Tests

Four Scenarios

A. Moving an Expense from a Single-Level Workspace Report to a Multi-Level Workspace Report

Start with an expense in a report under Workspace A, with TagA applied.
Ensure Workspace B uses multi-level tags, where TagA is unavailable (it belongs to a different tag set), and has an empty report.
Switch to offline mode.
Move the expense from Workspace A’s report to a report in Workspace B.
Resolve all required tags across all relevant fields.
Verify that RBR is displayed in the LHN due to a tagOutOfPolicy violation.

B. Moving an Expense from a Multi-Level Workspace Report to a Single-Level Workspace Report

Ensure Workspace A has single-level tags and an empty report.
Start with an expense in Workspace B, which uses multi-level tags, where the tag values do not exist in Workspace A.
Switch to offline mode.
Move the expense from Workspace B’s report to a report in Workspace A.
Verify that a “Tag no longer available” violation error is shown and that RBR appears in the LHN.

C. Moving an Expense from a Single-Level Workspace Report to Another Single-Level Workspace Report

Start with an expense in a report under Workspace A, with TagA applied.
Ensure Workspace B has single-level tags and an empty report, but does not include TagA as an available tag value.
Switch to offline mode.
Move the expense from Workspace A’s report to a report in Workspace B.
Verify that a “Tag no longer available” violation error is displayed and that RBR appears in the LHN.

D. Moving an Expense from a Multi-Level Workspace Report to Another Multi-Level Workspace Report

Ensure Workspace A uses multi-level tags and has an empty report.
Ensure Workspace B also uses multi-level tags, but with a different tag set.
Create an expense in Workspace B.
Switch to offline mode.
Move the expense from Workspace B’s report to a report in Workspace A.
Resolve any required tag violations across all affected fields, if present.
Verify that a “Tag no longer available” violation error is displayed and that RBR appears in the LHN.

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

a-n.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.1404-08-29.at.4.15.07.PM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.1404-09-04.at.4.25.53.PM.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.1404-09-04.at.4.34.40.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

1-web.mp4

2-web.mp4

3-web.mp4

4-web.mp4

melvin-bot · 2025-11-25T12:33:46Z

@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 · 2025-11-25T12:43:01Z

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/libs/Violations/ViolationsUtils.ts	`67.27% <100.00%> (-0.71%)`	⬇️
... and 15 files with indirect coverage changes

parasharrajat · 2025-11-29T15:00:16Z

src/libs/Violations/ViolationsUtils.ts


        // Calculate client-side tag violations
-        const policyRequiresTags = !!policy.requiresTag && !isSelfDM;
+        const policyRequiresTags = (!!policy.requiresTag || !!updatedTransaction?.tag) && !isSelfDM;


Why are we doing this? What is the impact of this change.

in offline mode when the target workspace uses a single-level tag, policy.requiresTag is falsy, causing the tag-violation check to be skipped.

that fixed the second issue in this comment

which violation?

tag value violation, one of them is tag-out-of-policy.

parasharrajat · 2025-11-29T15:00:31Z

src/libs/Violations/ViolationsUtils.ts

        newTransactionViolations.push({
            name: CONST.VIOLATIONS.SOME_TAG_LEVELS_REQUIRED,
            type: CONST.VIOLATION_TYPES.VIOLATION,
+            showInReview: true,


I didn't get how this flag is used.

If we don't set this flag, it won't show the RBR on LHN, on offline mode.

It does not look like the issue talks about showing RBR. If we are making this change, we first need to confirm this and enable it for all violations for all fields which will out of scope of this PR. @cristipaval What do you say?

let's test if the RBR shows if we do similar steps to a different field and make it consistent

@cristipaval, I am sure the BE value contains this change, and I proposed it to make FE and BE consistent. Okay, I will test other fields as well, thanks

@parasharrajat, @cristipaval, we already do this for overLimit violation of the amount.

App/src/libs/Violations/ViolationsUtils.ts

Lines 427 to 435 in f9a937a

newTransactionViolations.push({

name: shouldCategoryShowOverLimitViolation ? CONST.VIOLATIONS.OVER_CATEGORY_LIMIT : CONST.VIOLATIONS.OVER_LIMIT,

data: {

formattedLimit: CurrencyUtils.convertAmountToDisplayString(shouldCategoryShowOverLimitViolation ? categoryOverLimit : policy.maxExpenseAmount, policy.outputCurrency),

},

type: CONST.VIOLATION_TYPES.VIOLATION,

showInReview: true,

});

}

This record demonstrates that the same behavior happens for amount field when target workspace has expense amount limit set.

Screen.Recording.1404-09-11.at.10.05.39.PM.mov

thanks! @parasharrajat, this is on you again 🙏

marufsharifi · 2025-11-29T15:21:37Z

@parasharrajat, thank you for the review. I’ve responded to your questions, and please feel free to let me know if you need any additional details.

JmillsExpensify

It should show Tag no longer available violation error

This is correct and approved by product

marufsharifi · 2025-12-04T07:32:35Z

@parasharrajat, could you please continue reviewing here again when you get a chance? Thanks

marufsharifi · 2025-12-09T07:38:50Z

@parasharrajat, friendly bump to continue reviewing. thanks

parasharrajat · 2025-12-11T15:29:38Z

Will be testing it today or tomorrow.

marufsharifi · 2025-12-16T03:50:45Z

@parasharrajat, Quick bump. thanks

parasharrajat · 2025-12-16T07:53:43Z

Checking...

marufsharifi · 2025-12-18T05:00:21Z

@parasharrajat Quick bump, thanks

marufsharifi · 2025-12-22T12:52:35Z

@parasharrajat kindly bump, thanks

parasharrajat · 2025-12-23T15:13:40Z

@marufsharifi Can you please merge main?

marufsharifi · 2025-12-23T17:37:02Z

@marufsharifi Can you please merge main?

@parasharrajat, thanks for the review. Merged the main.

marufsharifi · 2025-12-30T06:41:55Z

@parasharrajat, Quick bump, thanks.

parasharrajat · 2025-12-30T09:12:03Z

Thanks for the bump. I will review this soon. If possible, today, but I might not have time to look into this today due to an event.

marufsharifi · 2026-01-04T07:02:44Z

@parasharrajat, kindly bump.

parasharrajat · 2026-01-04T12:34:34Z

So I noticed that when the required tag violation is active on any of the multi-level tags, tag out of policy violation does not show up.

04.01.2026_18.03.20_REC.mp4

parasharrajat · 2026-01-05T09:10:47Z

@marufsharifi Can you look into ⬆️ issue?

marufsharifi · 2026-01-05T09:48:58Z

@parasharrajat, Thanks for the review. Could you please check this comment? It should be displayed after all the required tags were resolved. first. thanks

parasharrajat · 2026-01-05T10:27:54Z

yes, But in this case the department tag field does not have required violation so it should show tag out of policy. How does backend bahave here?

marufsharifi · 2026-01-05T10:31:13Z

@parasharrajat, Okay, I will update the FE, but the BE needs to be updated to work the same as well. thanks

marufsharifi · 2026-01-05T10:33:02Z

yes, But in this case the department tag field does not have required violation so it should show tag out of policy. How does backend bahave here?

@parasharrajat, the BE behaves exactly as you are seeing. here

parasharrajat · 2026-01-05T10:41:37Z

Then it's fine.

marufsharifi · 2026-01-05T11:04:13Z

@parasharrajat, thanks. Does this task still need any changes from my side?

parasharrajat · 2026-01-05T11:54:50Z

Testing further...

parasharrajat · 2026-01-05T13:32:52Z

@marufsharifi I checked that #76016 (comment) was the original issue reported in #74589 (comment)

If that is not changed, then the main issue is not solved. LHN RBR are additional changes.

I see that the current behaviour in this vid is present on staging as well.

parasharrajat · 2026-01-05T13:37:41Z

So we are fixing multi-level workspace to single level move flow.

@marufsharifi Can you please update test steps to mention different test steps for all flows as you mentioned here #74589 (comment)

parasharrajat · 2026-01-05T13:42:59Z

Discussing internally.

parasharrajat · 2026-01-06T11:18:58Z

@marufsharifi Can you update the test steps #76016 (comment)?

marufsharifi · 2026-01-06T12:49:55Z

@parasharrajat, thanks for your patience. I have updated the test steps to cover all four scenarios. thanks

marufsharifi · 2026-01-06T12:50:49Z

@parasharrajat, should I create video records for all four senorios in all platforms? thanks

parasharrajat · 2026-01-06T14:15:30Z

Go ahead. No harm for me.

marufsharifi · 2026-01-07T10:54:04Z

A. Moving an Expense from a Single-Level Workspace Report to a Multi-Level Workspace Report

s-m.mov

B. Moving an Expense from a Multi-Level Workspace Report to a Single-Level Workspace Report

m-s.mov

C. Moving an Expense from a Single-Level Workspace Report to Another Single-Level Workspace Report

s-s.mov

D. Moving an Expense from a Multi-Level Workspace Report to Another Multi-Level Workspace Report

m-m.mp4

parasharrajat · 2026-01-07T19:32:16Z

Thanks for waiting. This is looking good. I will complete the checklist in the morning.

parasharrajat · 2026-01-08T09:28:54Z

Screenshots

🔲 iOS / native

08.01.2026_14.54.14_REC.mp4

🔲 iOS / Safari

08.01.2026_14.36.14_REC.mp4

🔲 MacOS / Chrome

08.01.2026_14.20.37_REC.mp4

🔲 Android / Chrome

Facing debugging issues.

🔲 Android / native

08.01.2026_15.47.10_REC.mp4

parasharrajat

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 tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- 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 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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
- 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.js 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 form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label 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.
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.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

OSBotify · 2026-01-08T12:23:22Z

✋ 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 · 2026-01-08T16:48:05Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.2.96-1 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-01-09T18:17:03Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/arosiclair in version: 9.2.96-6 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-01-09T19:13:25Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/arosiclair in version: 9.2.96-6 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-01-09T19:20:21Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/arosiclair in version: 9.2.96-6 🚀

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

fix: show tag validation error when moving expenses between workspaces

fa3db2c

marufsharifi requested review from a team as code owners November 25, 2025 12:33

melvin-bot bot assigned marufsharifi Nov 25, 2025

melvin-bot bot requested a review from parasharrajat November 25, 2025 12:33

melvin-bot bot requested review from JmillsExpensify and removed request for a team November 25, 2025 12:33

fixed unit test failure

65eaa55

parasharrajat suggested changes Nov 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

JmillsExpensify reviewed Dec 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into fix/tag-validation-after-expense-move

8d9b42d

Merge branch 'main' into fix/tag-validation-after-expense-move

1ef105c

marufsharifi mentioned this pull request Jan 7, 2026

[$250] Tags - No "Tag no longer valid" after deleting tags, shown only after creating a new tag #75191

Closed

16 tasks

parasharrajat approved these changes Jan 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from cristipaval January 8, 2026 10:28

cristipaval approved these changes Jan 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

cristipaval merged commit 883e8ec into Expensify:main Jan 8, 2026
30 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jan 8, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-01-08 #79110

Closed

76 tasks

lanitochka17 mentioned this pull request Jan 8, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-01-28] [Due for payment 2026-01-20] Tag - App crashes when import multi-level tags #79136

Closed

7 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-01-16] [$250] Tag validation missing after moving expense between workspaces #74589

Closed

16 tasks

	newTransactionViolations.push({
	name: shouldCategoryShowOverLimitViolation ? CONST.VIOLATIONS.OVER_CATEGORY_LIMIT : CONST.VIOLATIONS.OVER_LIMIT,
	data: {
	formattedLimit: CurrencyUtils.convertAmountToDisplayString(shouldCategoryShowOverLimitViolation ? categoryOverLimit : policy.maxExpenseAmount, policy.outputCurrency),
	},
	type: CONST.VIOLATION_TYPES.VIOLATION,
	showInReview: true,
	});
	}

Conversation

marufsharifi commented Nov 25, 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 25, 2025

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Nov 25, 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!

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marufsharifi 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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Nov 29, 2025

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Dec 4, 2025

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Dec 9, 2025

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Dec 11, 2025

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Dec 16, 2025

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Dec 16, 2025

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Dec 18, 2025

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Dec 22, 2025

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Dec 23, 2025

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Dec 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Dec 30, 2025

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Dec 30, 2025

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Jan 4, 2026

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jan 4, 2026

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jan 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

marufsharifi commented Nov 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Nov 25, 2025 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

marufsharifi Dec 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

marufsharifi commented Dec 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

parasharrajat commented Jan 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

parasharrajat commented Jan 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

parasharrajat commented Jan 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading