Fix split label showing for single participant splits by mukhrr · Pull Request #79812 · Expensify/App

mukhrr · 2026-01-17T10:18:13Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #73732
PROPOSAL: #73732 (comment)

Tests

Go to workspace chat
Create an expense.
Open the expense report.
Click More > Split > Save.
Open any split.
Click Report.
Click Create report.
On the current split, click Submit and Approve.
Open the split which is moved to a new report from Step 7.
Click Amount.
Click on the highlighted split > click Remove split > Save.
Open the approved report from Step 8.
Click More > Unapprove.
Click More > Edit splits.
Add a new split and save it.
Open the new split from Step 16.
Click Amount.
Click on the highlighted split (the current split).
Click Remove split > Save.

Verify "Amount" field no longer shows "Split" indicator
Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

The same as tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android_native.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android_mWeb.mp4

iOS: Native

ios_native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios_mWeb.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mp4

codecov · 2026-01-17T10:36:33Z

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/actions/SplitExpenses.ts	`73.77% <100.00%> (+3.08%)`	⬆️
src/components/MoneyRequestHeader.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts	`83.03% <0.00%> (-0.30%)`	⬇️
...c/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx	`0.23% <0.00%> (-0.21%)`	⬇️
src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 15 files with indirect coverage changes

melvin-bot · 2026-01-17T10:45:51Z

@jjcoffee 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]

src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

JmillsExpensify

Woo, those testing steps are a doozy! Thanks though, product spec look good.

jjcoffee · 2026-01-21T14:38:46Z

@mukhrr Are there simpler steps to reproduce the same issue? Also you have conflicts 🙏

mukhrr · 2026-01-21T14:45:50Z

@jjcoffee I don't think so. Resolved conflicts.

jjcoffee · 2026-01-21T14:52:16Z

@garrettmknight or @JmillsExpensify Just to double confirm the change here. We'll now never show the Split label if only one transaction is left, which changes quite a few behaviours other than simply the final expected behaviour on the issue.

For one thing, since we're not touching isExpenseSplit here, there are cases where the Split indicator would not display, whilst e.g. More->Edit splits will show.

Also in step 12, the Split indicator is already removed, rather than at the end of the steps as in the issue.

It's probably easier to understand with a video, this one starts from step 10.

desktop-chrome-2026-01-21_15.40.17.mp4

jjcoffee · 2026-01-21T15:05:19Z

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-2026-01-21_16.33.41.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-chrome-2026-01-21_16.40.23.mp4

iOS: HybridApp

ios-app-2026-01-21_16.15.07.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-safari-2026-01-21_16.24.15.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

desktop-chrome-2026-01-21_15.40.17.mp4

jjcoffee · 2026-01-21T15:43:02Z

Also noting that there's a bug also on staging where if you sign out and back in (or clear cache and restart) tapping on the Amount field of the original expense (the one left over after all the OP steps are completed) leads to a not found page.

garrettmknight · 2026-01-23T18:48:19Z

For one thing, since we're not touching isExpenseSplit here, there are cases where the Split indicator would not display, whilst e.g. More->Edit splits will show.

Do you have specific cases here?

Also in step 12, the Split indicator is already removed, rather than at the end of the steps as in the issue.

I'm not sure I'm following, maybe that means it's not a big enough deal for me to notice. 😅 Can you rewrite the final steps in the way you think it should be working?

mukhrr · 2026-01-29T02:18:37Z

@jjcoffee kindly bump on this

jjcoffee · 2026-01-29T10:19:09Z

@mukhrr Sorry I'm out sick at the moment, if you're able to reply to @garrettmknight's questions it might help move things along in the meantime.

jjcoffee · 2026-02-02T13:07:30Z

For one thing, since we're not touching isExpenseSplit here, there are cases where the Split indicator would not display, whilst e.g. More->Edit splits will show.

Do you have specific cases here?

@garrettmknight For example, the steps for this PR (and the original issue) will result in the Split indicator not showing, but More->Edit splits will still show.

Also in step 12, the Split indicator is already removed, rather than at the end of the steps as in the issue.

I'm not sure I'm following, maybe that means it's not a big enough deal for me to notice. 😅 Can you rewrite the final steps in the way you think it should be working?

In this PR, we remove the Split indicator as soon as there is only one transaction left (so if you have 2 splits and remove one, we stop showing the indicator, which happens at step 12). I'm unsure this is correct as it would remove the indicator earlier than in the original issue's expected result (which is that it should be hidden by the end of the steps). The video here starts at step 10, so you can see (around 00:16) that the remaining transaction no longer has a Split indicator.

mukhrr · 2026-02-02T13:12:39Z

@jjcoffee oh sorry.. I forgot to update here

@mukhrr Sorry I'm out sick at the moment, if you're able to reply to @garrettmknight's questions it might help move things along in the meantime.

garrettmknight · 2026-02-03T16:07:19Z

@garrettmknight For example, the steps for this PR (and the original issue) will result in the Split indicator not showing, but More->Edit splits will still show.

Huh, that's unexpected. Effectively, if someone submits one split and deletes the other, the submitted split is no longer a split; it's just an expense whose amount has been reduced from the original. So I'd expect that after step 12 (Click on the highlighted split > click Remove split > Save), the expense no longer has 'Edit splits' or the dot-Split label on it.

In this PR, we remove the Split indicator as soon as there is only one transaction left (so if you have 2 splits and remove one, we stop showing the indicator, which happens at step 12). I'm unsure this is correct as it would remove the indicator earlier than in the original issue's expected result (which is that it should be hidden by the end of the steps). The video #79812 (comment) starts at step 10, so you can see (around 00:16) that the remaining transaction no longer has a Split indicator.

I don't think Edit split should show on this either since we've effectively reverted it.

mukhrr · 2026-02-04T02:54:23Z

@jjcoffee I pushed changes. Could you, pls, review once more?! thanks

mukhrr · 2026-02-07T17:29:30Z

@jjcoffee kindly bump here

jjcoffee · 2026-02-09T10:52:43Z

@mukhrr After step 13, tapping the amount field opens the split editor as if the current split has additional splits (the original amount was actually 10 EUR in this case).

desktop-chrome-amount-edit-2026-02-09_11.22.36.mp4

mukhrr · 2026-02-10T17:27:22Z

@jjcoffee ah good catch 👍 can you pls check it now?! thanks

jjcoffee · 2026-02-11T10:07:13Z

if someone submits one split and deletes the other, the submitted split is no longer a split; it's just an expense whose amount has been reduced from the original

@garrettmknight Sorry, just another confirmation... if the expense is not submitted and we remove one of the splits, should the Split indicator show?

mukhrr · 2026-02-17T17:33:23Z

@jjcoffee yes, sure.

We check for isExpenseSplit to show Split indicator:

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Lines 512 to 514 in 4d0f402

    
           if (isExpenseSplit) { 
        
               amountDescription += ` ${CONST.DOT_SEPARATOR} ${translate('iou.split')}`; 
        
           }

And it checks if transaction.comment.source is split to make function return true.

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Lines 2581 to 2583 in 4d0f402

    
           if (!originalTransaction) { 
        
               return !!transaction?.comment?.originalTransactionID && transaction?.comment?.source === 'split'; 
        
           }

We split an expense -> both expenses has transaction.comment.source : split on BE
We split an expense -> remove one of them -> another expense now doesn't have transaction.comment.source on BE which causes not to show Split indicator

@garrettmknight Sorry, just another confirmation... if the expense is not submitted and we remove one of the splits, should the Split indicator show?

So yes, we need BE change to show Split indicator in this case.

JmillsExpensify · 2026-02-21T13:22:52Z

On-going review

mukhrr · 2026-02-25T05:29:39Z

@jjcoffee should we continue or hold this as of BE?

jjcoffee · 2026-02-25T13:51:28Z

@mukhrr Sorry, this is getting a bit tricky to follow 😄

We split an expense -> remove one of them -> another expense now doesn't have transaction.comment.source on BE which causes not to show Split indicator

I think this is the correct behaviour (if the RevertSplitTransaction command is being sent, I think it's out of scope for this PR to touch it).

if someone submits one split and deletes the other, the submitted split is no longer a split; it's just an expense whose amount has been reduced from the original

@garrettmknight Sorry, just another confirmation... if the expense is not submitted and we remove one of the splits, should the Split indicator show?

I think it technically still should, the split hasn't been reverted.

@garrettmknight Could you confirm? Currently on staging removing one of the splits on an unsubmitted expense always reverts it. I assume this is correct behaviour, but if it's not I think it's not super relevant to this PR.

jjcoffee · 2026-02-25T13:51:45Z

@mukhrr Could you fix failing checks in the meantime?

…en utility function

…equestView selector in useCallback

mukhrr · 2026-03-02T07:16:15Z

@garrettmknight kindly bump here

@garrettmknight Could you confirm? Currently on staging removing one of the splits on an unsubmitted expense always reverts it. I assume this is correct behaviour, but if it's not I think it's not super relevant to this PR.

garrettmknight · 2026-03-04T18:16:01Z

@garrettmknight Could you confirm? Currently on staging removing one of the splits on an unsubmitted expense always reverts it. I assume this is correct behaviour, but if it's not I think it's not super relevant to this PR.

Got it. Generally, if we revert the split, we should remove the Split label. If removing the second-to-last split when all are unsubmitted always reverts then we shouldn't show the split.

mukhrr · 2026-03-04T23:53:46Z

@jjcoffee I think we can proceed now

jjcoffee

LGTM!

lakchote

LGTM

github-actions · 2026-03-09T15:22:32Z

🚧 @lakchote has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

OSBotify · 2026-03-09T15:25:14Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

github-actions · 2026-03-09T15:27:13Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #79812.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-ed72806-b9c28a3-f428a5a5f59aa0b49417b7702ab39c96b74d84a2/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-ed72806-b9c28a3-c0d4556c6ed7853514f602451bf3f0e803b9be52/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://79812.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-03-09T21:25:55Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.3.34-0 🚀

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

mitarachim · 2026-03-09T21:34:06Z

Deploy Blocker #84643 was identified to be related to this PR.

jponikarchuk · 2026-03-10T14:28:33Z

Deploy Blocker #84748 was identified to be related to this PR.

OSBotify · 2026-03-10T18:48:01Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.3.34-2 🚀

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

melvin-bot bot assigned mukhrr Jan 17, 2026

mukhrr marked this pull request as ready for review January 17, 2026 10:45

mukhrr requested review from a team as code owners January 17, 2026 10:45

melvin-bot bot requested review from JmillsExpensify and jjcoffee January 17, 2026 10:45

melvin-bot bot removed request for a team January 17, 2026 10:45

mukhrr mentioned this pull request Jan 17, 2026

[Payment due] [$250] Expense - Amount field still shows "Split" after reverting split of previously approved expense #73732

Closed

8 tasks

github-actions bot reviewed Jan 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JmillsExpensify previously approved these changes Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

mukhrr dismissed JmillsExpensify’s stale review via c63fda9 January 21, 2026 14:45

mukhrr added 2 commits February 25, 2026 11:04

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin' into fix/73732

dadcb62

fix: correct typo in comment (ztransaction -> transaction)

6ed83cc

mukhrr added 5 commits February 25, 2026 19:19

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin' into fix/73732

c09da49

Refactor hasMultipleSplits logic into reusable hasMultipleSplitChildr…

ca3a602

…en utility function

Add missing dependencies to MoneyReportHeader useMemo and wrap MoneyR…

1e0659c

…equestView selector in useCallback

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin' into fix/73732

c94c4dc

prettier fix

5f76c9e

jjcoffee approved these changes Mar 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from lakchote March 9, 2026 14:08

lakchote approved these changes Mar 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

lakchote merged commit ed72806 into Expensify:main Mar 9, 2026
30 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Mar 9, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-03-09 #84634

Closed

75 tasks

mitarachim mentioned this pull request Mar 9, 2026

Expense - Error shows up after editing amount of reverted split to higher amount #84643

Closed

7 tasks

jponikarchuk mentioned this pull request Mar 10, 2026

Web - Expense report - "Edit splits" option missing after moving split to a new report #84748

Closed

7 tasks

lakchote mentioned this pull request Mar 10, 2026

Revert "Fix split label showing for single participant splits" #84749

Closed

Conversation

mukhrr commented Jan 17, 2026 • 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 Jan 17, 2026 • 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 Jan 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

mukhrr commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Jan 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

garrettmknight commented Jan 23, 2026

Uh oh!

mukhrr commented Jan 29, 2026

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Jan 29, 2026

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Feb 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mukhrr commented Feb 2, 2026

Uh oh!

garrettmknight commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

mukhrr commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

mukhrr commented Feb 7, 2026

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Feb 9, 2026

Uh oh!

mukhrr commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Feb 11, 2026

Uh oh!

mukhrr commented Feb 17, 2026

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify commented Feb 21, 2026

Uh oh!

mukhrr commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

mukhrr commented Mar 2, 2026

Uh oh!

garrettmknight commented Mar 4, 2026

Uh oh!

mukhrr commented Mar 4, 2026

Uh oh!

jjcoffee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lakchote left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mukhrr commented Jan 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 17, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

jjcoffee commented Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jjcoffee commented Feb 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading