The user is redirected to the WS room, not to the report details by mkzie2 · Pull Request #76827 · Expensify/App

mkzie2 · 2025-12-05T15:18:31Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed a bug where after creating the expense, the user is redirected to the WS room, not to the report details

Fixed Issues

$ #76598
PROPOSAL: #76598 (comment)

Tests

Log in with your new HT account
Create a WS
Go to the WS room
Create any manual expense
Go to the details of the created expense
Create a new expense via + Menu
Enter any amount - continue
On the “Confirm details” page, add any number to the end of the address in the browser address bar - enter
Verify that: User is landed in confirm details page.
Add a Merchant
Complete the creation of the expense.
Verify that: After creating an expense via the report details, the user is redirected back to the report details.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Log in with your new HT account
Create a WS
Go to the WS room
Create any manual expense
Go to the details of the created expense
Create a new expense via + Menu
Enter any amount - continue
On the “Confirm details” page, add any number to the end of the address in the browser address bar - enter
Verify that: User is landed in confirm details page.
Add a Merchant
Complete the creation of the expense.
Verify that: After creating an expense via the report details, the user is redirected back to the report details.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-12-08.at.19.02.24.mov

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-12-08.at.19.03.51.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-12-08.at.19.08.20.mov

codecov · 2025-12-05T15:27:03Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...es/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx	`49.55% <100.00%> (+0.22%)`	⬆️
.../pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepCategory.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 14 files with indirect coverage changes

melvin-bot · 2025-12-08T12:09:29Z

@ikevin127 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 · 2025-12-09T00:57:42Z

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
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 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.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 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.
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: mWeb Chrome

android-mweb.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-mweb.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

ikevin127 · 2025-12-09T00:59:08Z

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepCategory.tsx

-
-    const policyIdReal = getIOURequestPolicyID(transaction, reportReal);
+    const transactionReport = getReportOrDraftReport(transaction?.reportID);
+    const report = reportReal ?? reportDraft ?? transactionReport;


@mkzie2 I noticed 2 potential issues:

you memoized this below in IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx but didn't memoize it here

you used transactionReport as 3rd fallback here while not using it in IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx

mind clarifying / updating (if needed) ?

@ikevin127 In IOURequestStepConfirmation we used it in 2 places so I created reportWithDraftFallback, actually for report, we still use transactionReport as the fallback if reportWithDraftFallback is undefined

https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/76827/files#diff-5e5fc302dd5db871d26e30f810bc0606beccb7f50ae6ed6535cd93aaee98c280R180

ikevin127 · 2025-12-09T01:03:09Z

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx

     */
    const transactionReport = getReportOrDraftReport(transaction?.reportID);
+    const reportWithDraftFallback = useMemo(() => reportReal ?? reportDraft, [reportDraft, reportReal]);
    const shouldUseTransactionReport =


🟡 NAB: Complex Boolean Condition Readability (Minor)

The condition for shouldUseTransactionReport has become more complex with this change, it now has 3 levels of nesting with both && and || operators, making it difficult to understand at a glance. Per Expensify's STYLE.md, code should be readable and maintainable.

Suggested Fix: Extract conditions into descriptive named variables:

const isTransactionReportValidForUse = !(isProcessingReport(transactionReport) && !policyReal?.harvesting?.enabled) && isReportOutstanding(transactionReport, policyReal?.id, undefined, false); const hasNoFallbackReport = !reportWithDraftFallback; const shouldUseTransactionReport = transactionReport && (isTransactionReportValidForUse || hasNoFallbackReport);

ikevin127 · 2025-12-09T01:05:34Z

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx

     * Also if the report was submitted and delayed submission is on, then we should use an initial report
     */


🟡 Issue: The existing comment at lines 171-174 no longer fully describes the new logic

Why it matters: The comment doesn't explain the new condition !reportWithDraftFallback. This is the key fix in the PR - using transactionReport when neither reportReal nor reportDraft exist.

Suggested Fix:

/* * We want to use a report from the transaction if it exists * Also if the report was submitted and delayed submission is on, then we should use an initial report * Additionally, if neither reportReal nor reportDraft exist, we fallback to the transactionReport * to ensure proper navigation after expense creation. */

ikevin127 · 2025-12-09T01:18:09Z

✅ Reviewer checklist completed. 🔄 Awaiting on comments to be addressed before approving.

mkzie2 · 2025-12-09T15:39:45Z

@ikevin127 Comments resolved.

ikevin127

🟢 LGTM - Thanks for the updates!

OSBotify · 2025-12-09T21:48:20Z

✋ 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 · 2025-12-10T22:06:44Z

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

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

OSBotify · 2025-12-10T23:59:58Z

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

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

OSBotify · 2025-12-12T19:01:51Z

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

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

OSBotify · 2025-12-12T22:07:05Z

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

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

fix: user is not redirected to report details

64b4d99

melvin-bot bot assigned mkzie2 Dec 5, 2025

Merge branch 'main' into mkzie2-issue/76598

f01859d

mkzie2 marked this pull request as ready for review December 8, 2025 12:09

mkzie2 requested review from a team as code owners December 8, 2025 12:09

melvin-bot bot requested review from ikevin127 and joekaufmanexpensify December 8, 2025 12:09

melvin-bot bot removed request for a team December 8, 2025 12:09

mkzie2 mentioned this pull request Dec 8, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-12-19] [$250] Report - The user is redirected to the WS room, not to the report details #76598

Closed

8 tasks

joekaufmanexpensify previously approved these changes Dec 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

ikevin127 reviewed Dec 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

mkzie2 added 2 commits December 9, 2025 14:02

Merge branch 'main' into mkzie2-issue/76598

ba839dd

apply suggestions

d2a26cc

mkzie2 dismissed joekaufmanexpensify’s stale review via d2a26cc December 9, 2025 15:39

Merge branch 'main' into mkzie2-issue/76598

332da3c

ikevin127 approved these changes Dec 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from stitesExpensify December 9, 2025 19:42

stitesExpensify approved these changes Dec 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

stitesExpensify merged commit 4f4b76a into Expensify:main Dec 9, 2025
31 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Dec 10, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-12-10 #77285

Closed

94 tasks

		* Also if the report was submitted and delayed submission is on, then we should use an initial report
		*/

Conversation

mkzie2 commented Dec 5, 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!

codecov bot commented Dec 5, 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!

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 8, 2025

Uh oh!

ikevin127 commented Dec 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

ikevin127 Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mkzie2 Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ikevin127 Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mkzie2 Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ikevin127 Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mkzie2 Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ikevin127 commented Dec 9, 2025

Uh oh!

mkzie2 commented Dec 9, 2025

Uh oh!

ikevin127 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Dec 9, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Dec 10, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Dec 10, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Dec 12, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Dec 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

mkzie2 commented Dec 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Dec 5, 2025 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

ikevin127 commented Dec 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading