[NO QA] Preserve original creation timestamp during partial approval by hoangzinh · Pull Request #78142 · Expensify/App

hoangzinh · 2025-12-19T16:38:57Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #77988
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Sign in ND
Go to workspace chat
Submit 2 expenses
Hold one of them
Tap the "Approve" button => Only approve unheld expenses
Verify that the held expenses are moved to a new report
Open that new report
Verify App opens normally

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Sign in ND
Go to workspace chat
Submit 2 expenses
Hold one of them
Go to offline
Tap the "Approve" button => Only approve unheld expenses
Verify that the created value of new report (that contains held expenses) same as the original report creation timestamps
Open that new report
Verify App opens normally

QA Steps

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

N/A

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-12-20.at.16.25.04.android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-12-20.at.16.28.14.android.c.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-12-20.at.16.35.07.ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-12-20.at.16.32.05.ios.s.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-12-20.at.16.19.34.web.mov

- Added getReportOriginalCreationTimestamp helper function to extract original timestamp from CREATED action - Updated approveMoneyRequest to use original timestamp when creating new reports during partial approval - Updated getPayMoneyRequestParams to preserve timestamp for payment flows - Modified buildOptimisticExpenseReport and buildOptimisticIOUReport to accept createdTimestamp parameter - Updated getReportFromHoldRequestsOnyxData to pass timestamp through optimistic data - Added comprehensive unit tests for timestamp preservation logic - Fixed issue Expensify#77988 where new reports during partial approval used current time instead of original report's creation timestamp

codecov · 2025-12-19T16:47:39Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts	`72.66% <100.00%> (ø)`
src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts	`65.86% <100.00%> (+0.06%)`	⬆️
src/pages/home/ReportScreen.tsx	`68.96% <ø> (ø)`
... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes

- Combined duplicate type imports from react-native-onyx into a single import statement - Resolved ESLint import/no-duplicates error

melvin-bot · 2025-12-20T09:38:24Z

@truph01 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 · 2025-12-20T09:38:28Z

@jjcoffee @cristipaval One of you needs to 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]

truph01 · 2025-12-20T09:52:24Z

Does this need a C+ review? I saw that it was assigned to me and then reassigned to someone else. If it does require C+, I’m available to review it now.

jjcoffee · 2025-12-23T14:20:34Z

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-app-2025-12-23_15.58.53.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-chrome-2025-12-23_16.01.41.mp4

iOS: HybridApp

ios-app-2025-12-23_15.54.34.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-safari-2025-12-23_15.30.29.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

desktop-chrome-2025-12-23_15.27.27.mp4

jjcoffee · 2025-12-23T14:36:29Z

BUG: The current time is used instead if re-using the report that the held expense is moved to (and then going through the same steps again). Going back online reverts it to the correct timestamp.

ios-safari-2025-12-23_15.30.29.mp4

Full steps:

Go to workspace chat
Create 2 expenses
Hold one of them
Go offline
Tap the "Approve" button => Only approve unheld expenses
Open the new report that the held expense was moved to
Add another expense
Tap Approve => Only approve unheld expenses
Open the new report that the held expense was moved to and check the created timestamp

(Note I have an instant submit workspace, but I don't think that's the cause).

jjcoffee

Tests well and code looks good. Just this bug to sort out.

…refs Expensify#77988, PR Expensify#78142)

hoangzinh · 2025-12-24T09:27:41Z

Preserve timestamp when creating report for unapproved transactions (…

Nice catch. I fixed in this commit d32fcfd

jjcoffee · 2025-12-30T13:31:03Z

@hoangzinh You have conflicts.

jjcoffee · 2025-12-30T13:46:28Z

I fixed in this commit d32fcfd

Tests well!

hoangzinh · 2025-12-30T21:53:06Z

@hoangzinh You have conflicts.

Resolved conflicts @jjcoffee

jjcoffee

LGTM!

cristipaval · 2026-01-05T10:07:59Z

@hoangzinh could you please resolve conflicts?

cristipaval · 2026-01-05T19:56:09Z

can't believe it. Conflicts again 😢

hoangzinh · 2026-01-05T22:21:40Z

@cristipaval conflict is resolved 🙏

OSBotify · 2026-01-06T10:19:07Z

✋ 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 · 2026-01-06T14:09:46Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.2.94-0 🚀

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

…refs Expensify#77988, PR Expensify#78142)

…timestamp-partial-approval [NO QA] Preserve original creation timestamp during partial approval

OSBotify · 2026-01-07T13:40:38Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/arosiclair in version: 9.2.94-4 🚀

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

situchan · 2026-01-11T02:43:28Z

tests/actions/IOUTest.ts

        });
    });
+
+    describe('getReportOriginalCreationTimestamp', () => {


This unit test caused regression of flaky tests
#79215
#79143

melvin-bot bot assigned hoangzinh Dec 19, 2025

hoangzinh changed the title ~~Fix: Preserve original creation timestamp during partial approval~~ Preserve original creation timestamp during partial approval Dec 19, 2025

Fix: Remove duplicate react-native-onyx imports in IOUTest

f53d97a

- Combined duplicate type imports from react-native-onyx into a single import statement - Resolved ESLint import/no-duplicates error

hoangzinh changed the title ~~Preserve original creation timestamp during partial approval~~ [NO QA] Preserve original creation timestamp during partial approval Dec 20, 2025

hoangzinh marked this pull request as ready for review December 20, 2025 09:38

hoangzinh requested review from a team as code owners December 20, 2025 09:38

melvin-bot bot requested review from a team, heyjennahay and truph01 and removed request for a team and truph01 December 20, 2025 09:38

melvin-bot bot requested review from cristipaval and jjcoffee December 20, 2025 09:38

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team December 20, 2025 09:38

hoangzinh mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2025

[Due for payment 2026-01-14] [$250] [AA Hold] Set proper creation timestamp to the new report optimistically created for the unapproved expenses at partial approval #77988

Closed

jjcoffee suggested changes Dec 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

Preserve timestamp when creating report for unapproved transactions (…

d32fcfd

…refs Expensify#77988, PR Expensify#78142)

Merge branch 'main' into 77988-fix/preserve-timestamp-partial-approval

9df847e

jjcoffee approved these changes Jan 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

cristipaval approved these changes Jan 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

cristipaval previously approved these changes Jan 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into 77988-fix/preserve-timestamp-partial-approval

8bea895

hoangzinh dismissed cristipaval’s stale review via 8bea895 January 5, 2026 14:34

Merge branch 'main' into 77988-fix/preserve-timestamp-partial-approval

0533a13

cristipaval approved these changes Jan 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

cristipaval merged commit e61f813 into Expensify:main Jan 6, 2026
30 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-01-06 #78900

Closed

53 tasks

abzokhattab pushed a commit to abzokhattab/App that referenced this pull request Jan 6, 2026

Preserve timestamp when creating report for unapproved transactions (…

b390a18

…refs Expensify#77988, PR Expensify#78142)

abzokhattab pushed a commit to abzokhattab/App that referenced this pull request Jan 6, 2026

Merge pull request Expensify#78142 from hoangzinh/77988-fix/preserve-…

3ee03e1

…timestamp-partial-approval [NO QA] Preserve original creation timestamp during partial approval

hoangzinh mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2026

Display a system message explaining report creation for moving unapproved expenses from the original report #78267

Merged

53 tasks

situchan reviewed Jan 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

situchan mentioned this pull request Jan 11, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-01-21] Investigate workflow job failing on main: test / test (job 2) #79215

Closed

Conversation

hoangzinh commented Dec 19, 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 19, 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 20, 2025

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 20, 2025

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Dec 20, 2025

Uh oh!

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

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

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

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jjcoffee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hoangzinh commented Dec 24, 2025

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Dec 30, 2025

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Dec 30, 2025

Uh oh!

hoangzinh commented Dec 30, 2025

Uh oh!

jjcoffee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cristipaval commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

cristipaval commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

hoangzinh commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jan 6, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jan 6, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan Jan 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

hoangzinh commented Dec 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Dec 19, 2025 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

jjcoffee commented Dec 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jjcoffee commented Dec 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading