Simplify computation of report name for certain types by sosek108 · Pull Request #81513 · Expensify/App

sosek108 · 2026-02-05T11:46:28Z

Explanation of Change

Add early return to computeReportName for report of types:

const set<string> Report::CUSTOM_NAME_TYPES = {
    Report::TYPE_EXPENSE,
    Report::TYPE_INVOICE,
    Report::TYPE_BILL,
    Report::TYPE_PAYCHECK,
    Report::TYPE_TRIP,
};

These types does not require frontend computation, as their value is stored in reportName

Fixed Issues

$ #81339
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Verify if report names are correct

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

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

In various place check if names of reports are correct. This is especially for expenses and invoices

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:
- 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: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

melvin-bot · 2026-02-05T11:46:40Z

@Pujan92 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/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 390694dca4

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts

neil-marcellini

Good start - a couple things.

neil-marcellini · 2026-02-05T16:21:19Z

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts


 let allPersonalDetails: OnyxEntry<PersonalDetailsList>;

+const staticReportNameTypes = [


can we please call this CUSTOM_NAME_TYPES to match the backend? Or if you think that's too vague we could call it something that captures the idea that these report types have their report names computed by the backend according to the policy's report title formula

suggest: BACKEND_GENERATED_NAME_TYPES

CUSTOM_NAME_TYPES is indeed to vague. This name is not informative for people that does not work on backend

Still needs renaming

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 674ad74aea

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-02-06T11:55:21Z

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts

+    if (report?.reportName && shouldReturnStaticReportName(report)) {
+        return isArchivedNonExpense ? generateArchivedReportName(report?.reportName) : report?.reportName;
+    }


Preserve new‑dot invoice naming logic

For invoice reports, this early return now bypasses getInvoiceReportName, which intentionally ignores report.reportName for new‑dot invoices (it uses isNewDotInvoice(...) to compute a money‑request style name). If a new‑dot invoice still has a legacy reportName populated, the UI will now display that stale/old‑dot name instead of the computed payer/amount format. This shows up specifically for invoice reports whose chatReportID points to an invoice room (new‑dot) and reportName is present.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@neil-marcellini there is complex computation of name for invoice reports done later in computeReportName. I'm starting to doubt if our early check can be done so easily

Also tests are failing with this check so there is something I'm missing

As there is a computation available for the invoice report, returning early will cause an issue in the name(check report field value).

As mentioned before, I'll leave only TYPE.EXPENSE on our early return check

neil-marcellini · 2026-02-06T19:23:13Z

(Neil's AI agent) @sosek108 Here are manual test steps for creating each custom name report type, to verify report.reportName is always set:

1. Expense (`CONST.REPORT.TYPE.EXPENSE`)

New Expensify:

Log in and join/create a workspace
Click + → Submit Expense, enter an amount, select the workspace
Submit — an expense report is created
Verify reportName is set (e.g. "{policyName} owes $X.XX")

Classic: Reports tab → New Report (defaults to expense) → add an expense → verify name

2. Invoice (`CONST.REPORT.TYPE.INVOICE`)

New Expensify:

Click + → Send Invoice, fill in details, send
Verify reportName is set

Classic: Reports tab → New Report → change type to Invoice → add line items → verify name

⚠️ Note: Invoice has complex frontend naming via getInvoiceReportName() — recommend excluding from the early return list.

3. Bill (`UNSUPPORTED_TYPE.BILL`)

New Expensify: ❌ Not supported (filtered out in UI)

Classic:

Send an Invoice to another user
Log in as the recipient → accept the invoice
A Bill is auto-created (can't create manually)
Default name: "New Bill"

4. Paycheck (`UNSUPPORTED_TYPE.PAYCHECK`)

New Expensify: ❌ Not supported (filtered out in UI)

Classic:

Log in as a workspace admin
Reports tab → New Report → change type to Paycheck
Default name: "[Draft Paycheck] Employee Deductions"

5. Trip (`UNSUPPORTED_TYPE.TRIP`)

New Expensify: ❌ Not supported as a report type (trip is a chat type in NewDot)

Classic:

Reports tab → New Report → change type to Trip
Or: auto-created via Spotnana travel booking
Default name: "New Trip"

Summary: All 5 types get reportName set by the backend (with defaults). The unsupported types (bill, paycheck, trip) are Classic-only and always backend-generated. The main risk is invoice which has frontend naming overrides in NewDot.

neil-marcellini

Thanks for the investigation. It looks like we should only skip the computation for expense reports and call it good.

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts

sosek108

Left only TYPE.EXPENSE in early return. Although tests are failing so I'll be investigating this

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts

sosek108 · 2026-02-09T12:11:30Z

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts

+    if (report?.reportName && shouldReturnStaticReportName(report)) {
+        return isArchivedNonExpense ? generateArchivedReportName(report?.reportName) : report?.reportName;
+    }


As mentioned before, I'll leave only TYPE.EXPENSE on our early return check

…ticReportName check to resolve tests

neil-marcellini

I'm not sure if this was totally ready for review, but it looks like it's headed in the right direction.

We still need some naming changes, and then I don't even know if we need a separate function since we're only checking for one report type now. It should be easy to get this ready soon.

neil-marcellini · 2026-02-10T19:11:31Z

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts


 let allPersonalDetails: OnyxEntry<PersonalDetailsList>;

+const staticReportNameTypes = [


Still needs renaming

sosek108 · 2026-02-11T09:25:06Z

I'm not sure if this was totally ready for review, but it looks like it's headed in the right direction.

We still need some naming changes, and then I don't even know if we need a separate function since we're only checking for one report type now. It should be easy to get this ready soon.

@neil-marcellini Done. I'm not sure but somehow I did not pushed my changes and was sure I did. Sorry about that.

I agree we don't need this additional function so I removed it and just check the type in place

codecov · 2026-02-11T09:30:33Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts	`79.94% <100.00%> (+0.11%)`	⬆️
... and 8 files with indirect coverage changes

neil-marcellini

Thanks, I think we can go ahead and merge this. I would like to see a follow-up for an additional optimization, but I don't want to block this any longer.

neil-marcellini · 2026-02-11T18:26:15Z

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts

        return parentReportActionBasedName;
    }

+    if (report?.reportName && report.type === CONST.REPORT.TYPE.EXPENSE) {


NAB: in a follow-up pull request, can we please move this check all the way to the top of the function for better optimization? I don't think we need the "is archived non-expense" check, because this is already within the check that the report type is an expense report.

I agree, that indeed we don't need to check isArchivedNonExpenseReport so I'll move this after if (report?.reportName && report.type === CONST.REPORT.TYPE.EXPENSE) check.

But if we do our check before this:

if (parentReportActionBasedName) { return parentReportActionBasedName; }

unit tests will break as it's assumed that there are some special cases based on parent report's actions

Follow up: #82382

neil-marcellini · 2026-02-11T18:28:20Z

simple change, No C+ review needed.

github-actions · 2026-02-11T18:31:58Z

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

github-actions · 2026-02-11T18:35:40Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #81513.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-6db414c-e7fd5d7065cf1c6be8fe767bbc6cf1d26bbe6aa0/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-6db414c-86ed1c2dedabf3b5bdf984bc4464f19c84e7496d/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://81513.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-02-11T18:35:42Z

✋ 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 · 2026-02-12T15:48:07Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/neil-marcellini in version: 9.3.18-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-02-13T18:48:49Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.3.18-8 🚀

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

Simplyfy computation of report name for certain types

390694d

melvin-bot bot assigned sosek108 Feb 5, 2026

sosek108 marked this pull request as ready for review February 5, 2026 11:46

sosek108 requested review from a team as code owners February 5, 2026 11:46

melvin-bot bot requested review from Pujan92 and heyjennahay and removed request for a team February 5, 2026 11:46

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team February 5, 2026 11:46

adhorodyski reviewed Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

sosek108 added 2 commits February 5, 2026 15:05

Merge branch 'main' into reports/simplify-computation

2cc2740

Fixes from review

674ad74

neil-marcellini self-requested a review February 5, 2026 16:18

neil-marcellini requested changes Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

neil-marcellini mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2026

[Tracking] Custom Report Names on New Expensify #44340

Closed

22 tasks

sosek108 marked this pull request as draft February 6, 2026 11:41

sosek108 marked this pull request as ready for review February 6, 2026 11:41

github-actions bot reviewed Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into reports/simplify-computation

a77b946

neil-marcellini requested changes Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/libs/ReportNameUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

sosek108 added 2 commits February 9, 2026 13:05

Merge branch 'main' into reports/simplify-computation

7d1141d

Only EXPENSE is left in early return check in computeReportName

8b6b16b

sosek108 commented Feb 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

sosek108 added 3 commits February 10, 2026 11:08

Merge branch 'main' into reports/simplify-computation

420789a

Move computeReportNameBasedOnReportAction higher than shouldReturnSta…

2d01fc7

…ticReportName check to resolve tests

Merge branch 'main' into reports/simplify-computation

1764c72

neil-marcellini requested changes Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

sosek108 added 3 commits February 11, 2026 10:19

Merge branch 'main' into reports/simplify-computation

6227b43

simplify the check

1059ffc

prettier fixes

d349a8b

sosek108 changed the title ~~Simplyfy computation of report name for certain types~~ Simplify computation of report name for certain types Feb 11, 2026

neil-marcellini approved these changes Feb 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

neil-marcellini merged commit 6db414c into Expensify:main Feb 11, 2026
29 of 31 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Feb 12, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-02-12 #82262

Closed

This was referenced Feb 13, 2026

Follow up: Simplify computation of report name for certain types #82382

Merged

[Due for payment 2026-03-02] Restrict the usage of computeReportName from ReportNameUtils file as there are multiple usage outside of reportAttributes file. #81339

Closed


		let allPersonalDetails: OnyxEntry<PersonalDetailsList>;

		const staticReportNameTypes = [

Conversation

sosek108 commented Feb 5, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

neil-marcellini left a comment

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!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot Feb 6, 2026

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!

neil-marcellini commented Feb 6, 2026

1. Expense (CONST.REPORT.TYPE.EXPENSE)

2. Invoice (CONST.REPORT.TYPE.INVOICE)

3. Bill (UNSUPPORTED_TYPE.BILL)

4. Paycheck (UNSUPPORTED_TYPE.PAYCHECK)

5. Trip (UNSUPPORTED_TYPE.TRIP)

Uh oh!

neil-marcellini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sosek108 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

neil-marcellini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sosek108 commented Feb 11, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Feb 11, 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!

neil-marcellini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

1. Expense (`CONST.REPORT.TYPE.EXPENSE`)

2. Invoice (`CONST.REPORT.TYPE.INVOICE`)

3. Bill (`UNSUPPORTED_TYPE.BILL`)

4. Paycheck (`UNSUPPORTED_TYPE.PAYCHECK`)

5. Trip (`UNSUPPORTED_TYPE.TRIP`)

codecov bot commented Feb 11, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading