[NewFeature] Add ability to require attendees based on category selection

[ikevin127]

Explanation of Change

We’re expanding support for required category fields and coding. Specifically, we’ll add more category-based rules within each NewDot category. For example: “If the category is Meals & Entertainment, then require the Attendees field.”

Scope:

• Make Description hint field more discoverable: Specifically, we'll move Description hint field below Payroll code and above Delete category
• Add a Require fields push row: This new row contains options for both Require description and Require attendees, like so
• Require attendees logic: We'll flag an Attendees violation on an expense when either of the following is true:
  • The attendees array is empty, or
  • The length of the attendees array minus the expense creator is zero.
• Inline violation: If a member doesn't add multiple attendees when required for a given category, we'll show an inline violation using standard patterns, like so Attendees required for this category.

👁️ See issue OP / screenshots for more details / UI representation.

Fixed Issues

$ #76155
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Preconditions:

• Must be on a Control policy.
• Must Workspace Settings > More features > Rules enabled.
• Must have Workspace Settings > Rules > Attendee tracking enabled.
• Must have Settings > Troubleshoot > Use Staging Server enabled (this because BE not deployed to production yet).

I. Enable Attendees Required for Category

1. Navigate to Workspace Settings → Categories → [Category] Settings.
2. Verify that the "Required fields" row is showing.
3. Click on "Required fields" and verify that:

• the header copy reads "This will apply to all expenses categorized as {Category}"
• there are 2 ON / OFF toggles present: Require description / Require attendees

4. Enable Require attendees.
5. Create an expense with that [Category], verify violation appears when no attendees (besides yourself) are added.
6. Add an attendee, verify violation clears.

II. Confirmation Page Validation

1. Create a new expense from FAB.
2. Select a category with attendees required.
3. Attempt to submit without adding attendees.
4. Verify error message "Attendees required for this category" appears.
5. Add an attendee and verify submission proceeds.

III. Existing Expense Violation Display

1. View an existing expense with the category that now requires attendees.
2. Verify the attendees field shows an error indicator.
3. Verify editing attendees to add someone clears the violation.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

I. Offline Toggle

1. Go to Category Settings → Require fields.
2. Go offline.
3. Toggle "Require attendees".
4. Verify optimistic UI update shows pending state.
5. Verify going back online syncs the change.

II. Offline Expense Creation

1. Go offline.
2. Create expense with category requiring attendees (no attendees added).
3. Verify local validation blocks submission with error.
4. Add attendee offline, verify expense can be created.
5. Go online and verify expense syncs correctly.

III. Offline Category Change

1. Create an expense with category A (no attendees required).
2. Go offline.
3. Edit expense and change to category B (attendees required).
4. Verify violation appears immediately.
5. Verify adding attendee clears violation while still offline.

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
• 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/p1764828731154999
  • 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: HybridApp

android-hybrid.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-mweb.mp4

iOS: HybridApp

ios-hybrid.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-mweb.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

[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

❌ 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/CONST/index.ts	84.54% <ø> (ø)
src/SCREENS.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
.../components/MoneyRequestConfirmationListFooter.tsx	84.38% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
src/libs/API/types.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...gation/linkingConfig/RELATIONS/WORKSPACE_TO_RHP.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/Navigation/linkingConfig/config.ts	75.00% <ø> (ø)
src/ROUTES.ts	13.22% <0.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
src/hooks/useViolations.ts	3.17% <50.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
...gation/AppNavigator/ModalStackNavigators/index.tsx	8.52% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts	71.63% <66.66%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
... and 10 more
... and 14 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@shubham1206agra 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]

[ikevin127]

@shubham1206agra To be noted before starting review that BE is only on staging at the moment (mentioned in tests precondition), and that we have a situation which wasn't decided on yet, even though I went with Option 2.

[trjExpensify]

Part of a WN project, so no qualms there.

A couple of things from me:

1. I don't think this second error message is required here, can we remove it?

2. The copy of the error "Attendees required for this category" appearing when one attendee is always populated in the field is a bit confusing. I think we could update it to something that's more clear to reflect that multiple attendees are required, like:

Multiple attendees required for this category

CC: @jamesdeanexpensify

[JmillsExpensify]

Yeah, I think I agree with that. I started with Attendees plural because that matches the enablement flow, though it's a fair point that we probably need something a bit more specific for employees. Multiple attendees sounds good to me.

[jayeshmangwani]

@ikevin127, we can briefly see the violation error when we don’t include yourself in the attendee list.

Steps to reproduce:

1. In WS expense chat, Create expense -> add an amount -> add a merchant -> select a Category that has rules set for Attendees.
2. Select another attendee and deselect yourself.
3. Create the expense.

You’ll notice that in the preview, the violation error appears for a moment until the backend sends the response.

violation-flicker.mov

---

I’m also attaching the offline video below, in the offline case, the violation error stays visible until the device reconnects to the internet.

offline-bug.mov

[JS00001]

Code looks good, one question

[ikevin127]

ℹ️ The failing lint issue related to reportAttributes.ts is not related to this PRs changes - is been handled in PR #77581.

[jayeshmangwani]

@ikevin127 Not a major issue, but I noticed that when we select only ourselves, we see the Review required error message in the preview. I think that when there’s only one error to the report, the preview should instead show Multiple attendees required for this category.

[jayeshmangwani]

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
• 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

Android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

mweb-chrome.mov

iOS: HybridApp

iOS.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

mweb-safari.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

[jayeshmangwani]

LGTM 🚀

[ikevin127]

Not a major issue, but I noticed that when we select only ourselves, we see the Review required error message in the preview. I think that when there’s only one error to the report, the preview should instead show Multiple attendees required for this category.

✅ I think that's expected as it notifies the user that review is required at report level - and once report is opened the user will see exactly what the issue is - I think this is how the violations system was designed to work at report level.

But if that's not the case and we need to handle this differently - I can always follow-up on it.

❌ Asked on Slack about the isTrackExpenseReport deprecation (unrelated to this PRs changes) failing the lint.

[JS00001]

@ikevin127 Would you mind pinging me when you get a response in slack so I can review this?

[ikevin127]

@JS00001 We got response in Slack thread, a PR was merged to fix the failing workflow.

🟢 Rady to merge!

[JS00001]

Why was this changed?

[ikevin127]

I performed npm i because lint was failing locally after this PR added the:

// eslint-disable-next-line rulesdir/no-deep-equal-in-memo -- selectedParticipants is derived with .map() which creates new array references

rule in 2 of the files we're changing in this PR - I had to install modules to have lint not fail locally. The change was already approved here.

Addressed

[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/JS00001 in version: 9.2.82-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/JS00001 in version: 9.2.82-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/JS00001 in version: 9.2.82-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/JS00001 in version: 9.2.84-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 9.2.84-8 🚀

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