fix: fall back to Onyx transactions for grouped view actions and default merchant sort to ASC by TaduJR · Pull Request #82053 · Expensify/App

TaduJR · 2026-02-10T21:45:42Z

Explanation of Change

Fix 1: Grouped view action capabilities

In grouped search views (Top Merchants, Top Categories, etc.), searchResults.data only contains group-level keys (group_123), not individual transaction keys (transactions_456). Two code paths in Search/index.tsx
used searchResults.data to look up transactions for computing action capabilities (split, hold, reject). These lookups returned undefined in grouped views, causing isSplitAction to fail and the Split option to
disappear after selection.

Added ?? transactions?.[key] fallback to the Onyx transactions collection in both paths:

useEffect selection refresh — prevents overwriting correct canSplit: true
toggleTransaction GROUP checkbox path — enables actions when clicking a group checkbox

Fix 2: Merchant sort order defaults

createTopSearchMenuItem hardcoded category-specific defaults (sortBy: GROUP_CATEGORY, sortOrder: ASC), but merchants fell through to GROUP_TOTAL / DESC. This meant the Merchant column started inactive, and
SortableHeaderText defaulted inactive columns to DESC on first click — giving Z-A instead of A-Z.

Replaced the category-only ternary with a generic groupByToSortColumn map so merchants also default to sortBy: GROUP_MERCHANT, sortOrder: ASC, matching the parser defaults and category behavior.

Fixed Issues

$ #80767
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Test Case 1: Grouped view action capabilities

Navigate to Top Merchants (or Top Categories) grouped view
Expand a merchant group to see individual transactions
Select a single transaction by clicking its checkbox
Verify the Split option appears in the action bar and persists
Click the group-level checkbox to select all transactions in a group
Verify Hold and Reject options appear correctly (Split should not appear for multiple selections)
Deselect all, then select a single transaction and click Split
Complete the split (adjust amounts, save)
Verify you are navigated back to the grouped view (not a "Hmm... it's not here" page)
Verify that opening the split expenses shows their correct data
Verify the merchant group counts and totals update correctly

Test Case 2: Merchant sort order defaults

Navigate to Top Merchants grouped view
Verify merchants are sorted A-Z on initial load with the Merchant column header active
Click the Merchant column header
Verify merchants sort Z-A (descending arrow shown)
Click the Merchant column header again
Verify merchants sort A-Z (ascending arrow shown)
Navigate to Top Categories and verify the same A-Z default and toggle behavior still works

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests

QA Steps

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

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-02-27.at.7.24.02.in.the.evening.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Android-mWeb.mp4

iOS: Native

iOS-Native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-02-27.at.5.30.43.in.the.afternoon.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Mac-Chrome.mp4

…n capabilities

…avior

melvin-bot · 2026-02-10T21:45:49Z

@dukenv0307 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/SearchUIUtils.ts

src/components/Search/index.tsx

…ts-Release-2-Top-Merchants-Add-group-by-merchant-and-suggested-search # Conflicts: # src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts

codecov · 2026-02-10T22:10:01Z

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/SearchUIUtils.ts	`59.49% <100.00%> (+0.06%)`	⬆️
src/components/Search/index.tsx	`26.88% <0.00%> (-0.18%)`	⬇️
... and 15 files with indirect coverage changes

dukenv0307 · 2026-02-11T03:18:52Z

@TaduJR Should I review this PR?

TaduJR · 2026-02-11T06:03:56Z

@TaduJR Should I review this PR?

Thanks for the help @dukenv0307 🙏

But @ShridharGoel will handle this as part of follow up

joekaufmanexpensify

Related to WN project

trjExpensify · 2026-02-25T17:03:51Z

@ShridharGoel also ready for review.

ShridharGoel · 2026-02-27T12:08:19Z

src/components/Search/index.tsx

-                    const itemTransaction = searchResults?.data?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${transactionItem.transactionID}`] as OnyxEntry<Transaction>;
-                    const originalItemTransaction = searchResults?.data?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${itemTransaction?.comment?.originalTransactionID}`];
+                    const itemTransaction = (searchResults?.data?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${transactionItem.transactionID}`] ??
+                        transactions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${transactionItem.transactionID}`]) as OnyxEntry<Transaction>;


We should also include transactions in the deps.

transactions is intentionally excluded. It's the entire Onyx transaction collection useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION and updates on every transaction change app-wide.

I think adding it would cause expensive useEffect to re-run for unrelated transaction changes.

WDYT?

But then the effect won’t re-run when only Onyx transactions change which might lead to stale data. Wouldn't it be a problem? Or instead of the full transactions collection, is it feasible to use a narrowed subscription/selector ?

I verified with debug loggers. On a page load with 3 Open expenses, transactions (the full Onyx collection) fires ~30+ times from property-only changes while hasTransactionsIDsChange=false every time meaning these are all property updates on existing transactions, not new/deleted ones.

Adding transactions to deps wouldn't fix stale data either filteredData (which drives the iteration inside the effect) is built from the search snapshot, not live Onyx. So the effect would re-run ~30+ extra times but still iterate stale snapshot data.

A narrowed selector has a circular dependency problem: we'd need filteredData transaction IDs to build the selector, but the effect depends on filteredData. I tried to search but there's also no existing codebase pattern using a selector on a full collection key.

So I think the ?? transactions fallback is only a lookup for grouped views where searchResults.data lacks individual transaction keys it's read at execution time with whatever value it has, not a reactivity source.

ShridharGoel · 2026-02-27T12:08:45Z

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

Screen.Recording.2026-02-27.at.6.19.15.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-02-27.at.6.24.54.PM.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-02-27.at.6.10.31.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-02-27.at.6.15.37.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-02-27.at.6.00.33.PM.mov

Screen.Recording.2026-02-27.at.6.02.51.PM.mov

ShridharGoel · 2026-02-27T12:27:05Z

Verify Split, Hold, and Reject options appear correctly

The split option shouldn't show for multiple selected expenses, right?

ShridharGoel · 2026-02-27T12:55:43Z

Kindly add the pending recordings as well

TaduJR · 2026-02-27T14:25:06Z

The split option shouldn't show for multiple selected expenses, right?

Yes that is correct

ShridharGoel · 2026-02-27T15:10:11Z

The split option shouldn't show for multiple selected expenses, right?

Yes that is correct

Can you update the test then? It says to select multiple expenses and then verify that the split option shows.

TaduJR · 2026-02-27T16:39:34Z

Kindly add the pending recordings as well

Done.

Can you update the test then? It says to select multiple expenses and then verify that the split option shows.

Done.

melvin-bot · 2026-02-27T18:08:01Z

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #80767 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

dangrous

LGTM!

github-actions · 2026-02-27T20:40:53Z

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

OSBotify · 2026-02-27T20:45:02Z

✋ 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 · 2026-02-27T20:56:04Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #82053.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-6568bcb-7ab88ad-73660a876eb9e736bcb51e8cd950b81891ee8841/index.html	❌ FAILED ❌
	The QR code can't be generated, because the iOS build failed

Web 🕸️
https://82053.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-03-02T23:01:53Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/dangrous in version: 9.3.28-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-03-04T03:16:41Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/dangrous in version: 9.3.30-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-03-04T18:07:02Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.3.30-3 🚀

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

TaduJR added 2 commits February 11, 2026 00:35

fix: fall back to Onyx transactions collection for grouped view actio…

10687df

…n capabilities

fix: default merchant sort to groupMerchant ASC matching category beh…

f0e1354

…avior

TaduJR requested review from a team as code owners February 10, 2026 21:45

melvin-bot bot assigned TaduJR Feb 10, 2026

melvin-bot bot requested review from dukenv0307 and joekaufmanexpensify and removed request for a team February 10, 2026 21:45

github-actions bot reviewed Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

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

github-actions bot reviewed Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/components/Search/index.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

TaduJR added 4 commits February 11, 2026 00:48

Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/TaduJR/App into feat-Insigh…

f701771

…ts-Release-2-Top-Merchants-Add-group-by-merchant-and-suggested-search # Conflicts: # src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts

refactor: move groupByToSortColumn to module-level constant

0aaaf88

chore: run prettier

abe37dd

fix: inline template literals to preserve PrefixedRecord key types

9569cd1

TaduJR added 2 commits February 11, 2026 01:10

chore: run prettier

7a91484

test: add sort default tests for Top Categories and Top Merchants

2e33df1

joekaufmanexpensify approved these changes Feb 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

trjExpensify requested review from ShridharGoel and removed request for dukenv0307 February 25, 2026 17:03

ShridharGoel reviewed Feb 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

ShridharGoel approved these changes Feb 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from dangrous February 27, 2026 18:08

dangrous approved these changes Feb 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

dangrous merged commit 6568bcb into Expensify:main Feb 27, 2026
33 of 38 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Mar 2, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-03-02 #83947

Closed

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-03-11] [Insights] Splitting an expense doesn't update the merchant list, and the older expense shows "not here" page #80767

Closed

Conversation

TaduJR commented Feb 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fix 1: Grouped view action capabilities

Fix 2: Merchant sort order defaults

Fixed Issues

Tests

Test Case 1: Grouped view action capabilities

Test Case 2: Merchant sort order defaults

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Feb 10, 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!

dukenv0307 commented Feb 11, 2026

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Feb 11, 2026

Uh oh!

joekaufmanexpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel Feb 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TaduJR Feb 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel Feb 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TaduJR Feb 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel commented Feb 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel commented Feb 27, 2026

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel commented Feb 27, 2026

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Feb 27, 2026

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel commented Feb 27, 2026

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Feb 27, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 27, 2026

Uh oh!

dangrous left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 27, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 27, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 27, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 2, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 4, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

TaduJR commented Feb 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Feb 10, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

ShridharGoel commented Feb 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading