fix: Confirm page shows Amount field with 0.00 amount when receipt is scanning v2 by nkdengineer · Pull Request #82672 · Expensify/App

nkdengineer · 2026-02-17T15:21:14Z

Explanation of Change

fix: Confirm page shows Amount field with 0.00 amount when receipt is scanning

Fixed Issues

$ #80287
PROPOSAL: #80287 (comment)

Tests

Go to self DM.
Go offline.
Create a scan expense.
Click Submit it to someone.
Select any participant
Verify that the amount on confirmation page displays scanning... text.

Expense - Amount field and green button shows "Scanning" instead of expense amount #82277

Go to self DM.
Go offline.
Create a scan expense.
Click Submit it to someone.
Select workspace chat.
On confirm page, click Amount.
Enter amount and save it.
Verify that the amount is shown
Verify that the green button shows the correct amount

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same

QA Steps

Same as test

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-02-02.at.16.39.18.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-02-02.at.16.35.44.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-02-02.at.16.45.24.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-02-02.at.16.41.00.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-02-02.at.16.34.25.mov

Screen.Recording.2026-03-03.at.21.52.35.mov

…h 0.00 amount when receipt is scanning""

codecov · 2026-02-17T15:27:59Z

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/IOU/index.ts	`73.17% <100.00%> (+0.06%)`	⬆️
src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationList.tsx	`61.60% <60.00%> (-0.10%)`	⬇️
... and 12 files with indirect coverage changes

nkdengineer · 2026-02-18T16:15:27Z

@brunovjk Should we update the receipt status when editing the draft transaction like we did when updating the field of scan transaction. The current problem with the regression is that the receipt's state isn't updated when the amount is edited, and the merchant is still empty, so isScanning returns true

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Lines 835 to 845 in 3a0446b

    
           if ( 
        
               shouldUpdateReceiptState && 
        
               shouldStopSmartscan && 
        
               transaction?.receipt && 
        
               Object.keys(transaction.receipt).length > 0 && 
        
               transaction?.receipt?.state !== CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.OPEN && 
        
               updatedTransaction.receipt 
        
           ) { 
        
               updatedTransaction.receipt.state = CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.OPEN; 
        
           }

nkdengineer · 2026-02-23T05:20:58Z

@brunovjk Friendly bump.

brunovjk · 2026-02-23T15:18:44Z

Thanks for the bump, I'll review it ASAP. If not today, then tomorrow morning.

brunovjk · 2026-02-25T16:10:49Z

Sorry for the delay. @nkdengineer, can you confirm if I understood correctly? You want to get back with our original PR and then create another one to update the receipt's status? Thank you.

nkdengineer · 2026-02-25T16:12:54Z

I'm asking you to share your thought about this solution before implementing it.

brunovjk · 2026-02-26T14:45:48Z

Sorry for the delay @nkdengineer, yes your approach makes sense to me, I don't see any downsides right now, implement what you think and I'll review/test it more carefully, is that ok? Thank you.

melvin-bot · 2026-03-03T15:05:46Z

@brunovjk 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]

nkdengineer · 2026-03-03T15:05:50Z

@brunovjk This is ready for review.

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 6d5ab200ed

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 · 2026-03-03T15:14:03Z

src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts

+    if (!isDraft) {
+        return;
+    }
+    Onyx.merge(`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_DRAFT}${transactionID}`, {receipt: {state: CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.OPEN}});


Only mark receipt OPEN when a receipt exists

setMoneyRequestReceiptState() now unconditionally writes receipt.state = OPEN for every draft update, so non-scan drafts (for example from IOURequestStepAmount) are treated as if they already have a receipt even when no file was attached. Because hasReceipt() returns true whenever receipt.state is present, downstream checks that rely on !hasReceipt(...) (including receipt-required violation logic in ViolationsUtils) can be skipped, which can hide required-receipt enforcement for control policies after simple edits like amount/merchant/date.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@nkdengineer what do you think of this comment? I ran some tests and didn't find any regressions.

brunovjk · 2026-03-05T14:13:14Z

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 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

82672_android_native.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Uploading 82672_android_web.mov…

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

Uploading 82672_ios_web.mov…

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Uploading 82672_web_chrome.mov…

brunovjk · 2026-03-05T14:13:59Z

@nkdengineer do you think the "Jest Unit Tests" warnings are related to our PR? Also could you update the PR title? No rush. Thanks.

nkdengineer · 2026-03-09T15:12:58Z

@brunovjk I updated.

github-actions · 2026-03-11T22:14:45Z

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

github-actions · 2026-03-11T22:19:26Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #82672.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-c870e68-3d8daef-099d81665ef12600a5f8ac96537ab5e10588fd80/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-c870e68-3d8daef-ae8b58dc5f8cb54e133be47276fdc45cb2f262bb/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://82672.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-03-11T22:20:48Z

✋ 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 · 2026-03-12T23:17:11Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/tylerkaraszewski in version: 9.3.37-0 🚀

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

lanitochka17 · 2026-03-13T00:04:01Z

Deploy Blocker #83706 was identified to be related to this PR.

lanitochka17 · 2026-03-13T00:35:35Z

Deploy Blocker ##85152 was identified to be related to this PR.

srikarparsi · 2026-03-13T17:24:56Z

Reverting this PR due to this issue

This is a recommendation from AI:

The fix should guard setMoneyRequestReceiptState to only set receipt state when the draft transaction already has a receipt.source (an actual receipt is attached).

OSBotify · 2026-03-16T10:05:37Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.3.37-10 🚀

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

Revert "[CP Staging] Revert "fix: Confirm page shows Amount field wit…

3551bd6

…h 0.00 amount when receipt is scanning""

melvin-bot bot assigned nkdengineer Feb 17, 2026

nkdengineer added 2 commits March 3, 2026 21:23

Merge branch 'main' into revert-82403-revert-81156-fix/80287

ae77fec

fix regression

6d5ab20

nkdengineer marked this pull request as ready for review March 3, 2026 15:05

nkdengineer requested review from a team as code owners March 3, 2026 15:05

melvin-bot bot requested review from brunovjk and trjExpensify and removed request for a team and trjExpensify March 3, 2026 15:05

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team March 3, 2026 15:05

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Mar 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

nkdengineer changed the title ~~Revert "[CP Staging] Revert "fix: Confirm page shows Amount field with 0.00 amount when receipt is scanning""~~ fix: Confirm page shows Amount field with 0.00 amount when receipt is scanning v2 Mar 9, 2026

Merge branch 'main' into revert-82403-revert-81156-fix/80287

717b78d

brunovjk approved these changes Mar 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from tylerkaraszewski March 10, 2026 12:04

brunovjk mentioned this pull request Mar 10, 2026

[$250] Expense - Confirm page shows Amount field with 0.00 amount when receipt is scanning #80287

Open

7 tasks

tylerkaraszewski approved these changes Mar 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

tylerkaraszewski merged commit c870e68 into Expensify:main Mar 11, 2026
30 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Mar 12, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-03-12 #85146

Closed

87 tasks

This was referenced Mar 13, 2026

Split Expense - The error “Receipt is missing” is displayed when performing a split. #85152

Closed

Expense - Report RHP re-renders every time clicking Create expense #85155

Closed

srikarparsi mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2026

[CP Staging] Revert "fix: Confirm page shows Amount field with 0.00 amount when receipt is scanning v2" #85256

Merged

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2026

Expense-Creating distance manual expense shows unexpected error. #85173

Closed

7 tasks

Conversation

nkdengineer commented Feb 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 Feb 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!

nkdengineer commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Feb 23, 2026

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Feb 23, 2026

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Feb 26, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot Mar 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

brunovjk Mar 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Mar 5, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 11, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 11, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 11, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

lanitochka17 commented Mar 13, 2026

Uh oh!

lanitochka17 commented Mar 13, 2026

Uh oh!

srikarparsi commented Mar 13, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

nkdengineer commented Feb 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Feb 17, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading