Fix duplicate card entries and missing assigned cards for commercial feeds by fedirjh · Pull Request #82788 · Expensify/App

fedirjh · 2026-02-18T12:33:49Z

Explanation of Change

Duplicate entries for CDF commercial feeds — Commercial feeds (CDF) can have outdated card names (e.g., XXXXXXXXXXX1234) while cardList has the up-to-date name (e.g., 111222XXXX31234). Since neither the name nor the encryptedCardNumber matched, the same card appeared twice.

How it's fixed:

Added resolveCardListEntry with a cascading lookup to link assigned cards to their cardList counterpart:

encryptedCardNumber — exact match against cardList values
cardName — normalized name match against cardList keys
lastFourPAN — last-4-digit suffix match (only when exactly 1 cardList entry matches, to avoid ambiguity)

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/600254
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Navigate to Settings > Workspaces > [workspace] > Company Cards
Verify no duplicate entries for CDF commercial feeds with outdated card names
Verify unassigned cards from cardList/accountList still appear correctly

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

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

Navigate to Settings > Workspaces > [workspace] > Company Cards
Verify no duplicate entries for CDF commercial feeds with outdated card names
Verify unassigned cards from cardList/accountList still appear correctly

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Before the fix

After the fix

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

…ames

…ssigned cards

melvin-bot · 2026-02-18T12:40:01Z

@linhvovan29546 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]

fedirjh · 2026-02-18T12:42:21Z

@MelvinBot Please review this PR.

MelvinBot · 2026-02-18T12:44:24Z

Code Review

Overall, the approach is sound — the cascading lookup in resolveCardListEntry is a clean way to reconcile stale CDF card names with the up-to-date cardList, and the test coverage for the new scenarios is thorough.

A few observations:

1. Potential issue: `resolveCardListEntry` enriches `cardName` but `buildCompanyCardEntries` ignores it

In resolveCardListEntry (line 74), when the lastFourPAN path succeeds, the function returns a new card with both cardName and encryptedCardNumber updated from the cardList entry:

const [name, encrypted] = matches.at(0) ?? [cardName, encryptedCardNumber];
return {...card, cardName: name, encryptedCardNumber: encrypted};

But in buildCompanyCardEntries (line 97), the entry is pushed with card.cardName (the original), not resolved.cardName:

entries.push({cardName: card.cardName, encryptedCardNumber, isAssigned: true, assignedCard: card});

This means the cardName enrichment from resolveCardListEntry is deliberately discarded — only the encryptedCardNumber is used. This is consistent with the test expectations (tests verify the original stale name is preserved). However, it means the cardName field on the spread object returned by resolveCardListEntry is dead code. Consider either:

Not setting cardName in the returned object (just return {...card, encryptedCardNumber: encrypted}) to make the intent clearer, or
Adding a brief comment at line 97 explaining why card.cardName is used instead of resolved.cardName

2. The `coveredNames` set only tracks original card names

At line 98, coveredNames.add(normalizeCardName(card.cardName)) adds the original (stale) card name. If the cardList entry has a different name (e.g., 111222XXXX31234 vs XXXXXXXXXXX1234), the cardList name is not added to coveredNames. The deduplication in Phase 2 (line 106) relies on coveredEncrypted to suppress the cardList entry. This works correctly because resolveCardListEntry resolves the encryptedCardNumber, which then gets added to coveredEncrypted at line 100. Good.

However, if resolveCardListEntry fails to resolve (e.g., ambiguous lastFourPAN), the cardList entry will appear as an unassigned duplicate alongside the assigned card with the stale name. The test at line 641 ("should not resolve via lastFourPAN when multiple cardList entries share the same last 4 digits") confirms this is the intended behavior — both cardList entries appear as unassigned plus the assigned card, totaling 3 entries. This seems acceptable since ambiguity means we can't confidently link them.

3. Minor: unnecessary fallback in `matches.at(0)`

At line 73:

const [name, encrypted] = matches.at(0) ?? [cardName, encryptedCardNumber];

The ?? [cardName, encryptedCardNumber] fallback can never be reached because line 69 already returns early if matches.length !== 1. If matches.length === 1, .at(0) will always return the element. The fallback satisfies TypeScript's null check but could be simplified with a non-null assertion (matches.at(0)!) or matches[0] to be more explicit that this is a type-narrowing concern, not a runtime concern.

4. Test quality

The new test suite (CDF stale card name resolution via cascading lookup) is well-structured and covers:

encryptedCardNumber match (no resolution needed)
lastFourPAN resolution (happy path)
Mixed cards (both paths exercised simultaneously)
Ambiguous lastFourPAN (safety valve)
Non-matching encryptedCardNumber cascading to lastFourPAN

The removal of // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/naming-convention comments and addition of the file-level /* eslint-disable */ is a nice cleanup.

Summary

The core logic is correct and handles the edge cases well. The main suggestion is a minor clarity improvement around the unused cardName enrichment in resolveCardListEntry. No blocking issues.

src/hooks/useCompanyCards.ts

…n of card names and encrypted numbers

…g lastFourPAN

…me and encrypted number

…lues for clarity

joekaufmanexpensify

Good for product

linhvovan29546 · 2026-02-19T04:33:48Z

@fedirjh Could you please add the screenshot to the PR description?

linhvovan29546 · 2026-02-19T04:43:53Z

NAB: I noticed a inconsistency in the card name display. Before the fix, the assigned card shows -1234 (last 4 digits visible). After the fix, it displays -31234 (last 5 digits visible) because resolveCardListEntry replaces the card's cardName with the cardList key.

Is this the intended behavior? The card name format changes from the stale CDF format (e.g., XXXXXXXXXXX1234) to the bank's updated format (e.g., 111222XXXX31234), which may look inconsistent to users if other cards in the same feed still show the old format.

Before	After

This is the script I used to testing:

🧪 Testing script

Script

/**
 * Browser console script to inject dummy company card data into Onyx
 * for testing duplicate CDF card resolution.
 *
 * Usage:
 *   1. Open the app at https://dev.new.expensify.com:8082/
 *   2. Log in and navigate to a workspace's Company Cards page
 *   3. Note the policyID from the URL (e.g., /settings/workspaces/ABC123/company-cards)
 *   4. Open browser DevTools console
 *   5. Paste this entire script and press Enter
 *   6. Call: injectDummyCompanyCards('YOUR_POLICY_ID')
 *   7. The script clears API error states so cards render correctly
 *
 * What this creates:
 *   A CDF (Visa) feed with cards that exercise the cascading lookup logic:
 *
 *   Assigned cards:
 *     - Card 8340: stale name 'XXXXXXXXXXX1234', lastFourPAN='1234' → should resolve to '111222XXXX31234' (unique match)
 *     - Card 8341: encryptedCardNumber matches cardList directly → should NOT duplicate
 *     - Card 8342: lastFourPAN='6666' matches 2 cardList entries → ambiguous, should NOT resolve
 *
 *   Unassigned cards in cardList:
 *     - '555000XXXX95555' → no assigned card, shows as unassigned
 *     - '666000XXXX46666' and '777000XXXX46666' → unmatched (card 8342 is ambiguous), show as unassigned
 *
 *   Expected result WITH fix: 6 total entries (3 assigned + 3 unassigned), no duplicates
 *   Expected result WITHOUT fix: 8 entries (duplicates for cards 8340 and 8341)
 */

window.injectDummyCompanyCards = async function (policyID) {
    if (!window.Onyx) {
        console.error('window.Onyx not found. Make sure you are running a dev build.');
        return;
    }

    const domainID = 99999;
    const feedName = 'vcf'; // Visa Commercial Feed
    const feedWithDomainID = `${feedName}#${domainID}`;

    // 1. Set the policy's workspaceAccountID
    await window.Onyx.merge(`policy_${policyID}`, {
        workspaceAccountID: domainID,
    });

    // 2. Inject CardFeeds — tells the app a VCF feed exists for this workspace
    //    Also explicitly clear cardFeedsStatus errors and isLoading so the UI doesn't show
    //    a blocking error view (the failed API call sets errors here).
    await window.Onyx.merge(`sharedNVP_private_domain_member_${domainID}`, {
        isLoading: false,
        settings: {
            companyCards: {
                [feedName]: {
                    pending: false,
                    liabilityType: 'personal',
                    preferredPolicy: policyID,
                    domainID,
                },
            },
            companyCardNicknames: {
                [feedName]: 'Test Visa CDF Feed',
            },
            cardFeedsStatus: {
                [feedName]: {
                    isLoading: false,
                    errors: null,
                },
            },
        },
    });

    // 3. Inject WorkspaceCardsList — has cardList (bank-provided) + assigned card entries
    await window.Onyx.merge(`cards_${domainID}_${feedName}`, {
        // cardList: bank-provided card numbers mapped to encrypted values
        cardList: {
            '111222XXXX31234': 'v1:2D0EF0C3C834A6C5721225BAB4996799',
            '888222XXXX74444': 'v1:148EECFC15D818ACBC0D707FD0C44CC3',
            '555000XXXX95555': 'v1:UNASSIGNED_CARD_ENCRYPTED',
            '666000XXXX46666': 'v1:ANOTHER_AMBIGUOUS_A',
            '777000XXXX46666': 'v1:ANOTHER_AMBIGUOUS_B',
        },

        // Card 8340: stale CDF name, but lastFourPAN='1234' uniquely matches cardList
        8340: {
            cardID: 8340,
            accountID: 11,
            bank: feedName,
            cardName: 'XXXXXXXXXXX1234',
            lastFourPAN: '1234',
            domainName: `expensify-policy://${policyID}`,
            state: 3,
            fraud: 'none',
            lastUpdated: '',
        },

        // Card 8341: encryptedCardNumber directly matches a cardList value
        8341: {
            cardID: 8341,
            accountID: 8393,
            bank: feedName,
            cardName: '888222XXXXX4444',
            encryptedCardNumber: 'v1:148EECFC15D818ACBC0D707FD0C44CC3',
            lastFourPAN: '4444',
            domainName: `expensify-policy://${policyID}`,
            state: 3,
            fraud: 'none',
            lastUpdated: '',
        },

        // Card 8342: lastFourPAN='6666' matches 2 cardList entries — ambiguous, should NOT resolve
        8342: {
            cardID: 8342,
            accountID: 22,
            bank: feedName,
            cardName: 'XXXXXXXXXXX6666',
            lastFourPAN: '6666',
            domainName: `expensify-policy://${policyID}`,
            state: 3,
            fraud: 'none',
            lastUpdated: '',
        },
    });

    // 4. Set the selected feed for this workspace
    await window.Onyx.merge(`lastSelectedFeed_${policyID}`, feedWithDomainID);

    // 5. Clear errors again after a delay — the API failure response arrives async
    //    and may overwrite our initial clear with new errors.
    const clearErrors = () =>
        window.Onyx.merge(`sharedNVP_private_domain_member_${domainID}`, {
            isLoading: false,
            settings: {
                cardFeedsStatus: {
                    [feedName]: {
                        isLoading: false,
                        errors: null,
                    },
                },
            },
        });

    setTimeout(clearErrors, 1000);
    setTimeout(clearErrors, 3000);
    setTimeout(clearErrors, 6000);

    console.log('%c Dummy company card data injected!', 'color: green; font-weight: bold');
    console.log('');
    console.log('Expected WITH fix (6 entries, no duplicates):');
    console.log('  Assigned:');
    console.log('    - "111222XXXX31234" (was "XXXXXXXXXXX1234", resolved via lastFourPAN)');
    console.log('    - "888222XXXXX4444" (linked by encryptedCardNumber, keeps name)');
    console.log('    - "XXXXXXXXXXX6666" (ambiguous, NOT resolved)');
    console.log('  Unassigned:');
    console.log('    - "555000XXXX95555"');
    console.log('    - "666000XXXX46666"');
    console.log('    - "777000XXXX46666"');
    console.log('');
    console.log('Bug WITHOUT fix (8 entries, duplicates):');
    console.log('    - "XXXXXXXXXXX1234" + "111222XXXX31234" (duplicate!)');
    console.log('    - "888222XXXXX4444" + "888222XXXX74444" (duplicate!)');
    console.log('');
    console.log(`Navigate to: Settings > Workspaces > [workspace] > Company Cards`);
};

console.log('Run: injectDummyCompanyCards("YOUR_POLICY_ID")');

fedirjh · 2026-02-19T23:52:34Z

NAB: I noticed a inconsistency in the card name display. Before the fix, the assigned card shows -1234 (last 4 digits visible). After the fix, it displays -31234 (last 5 digits visible) because resolveCardListEntry replaces the card's cardName with the cardList key.

I think the test may not be accurate; the backend should return the same suffix for all cards. So other cards should be displayed with the last 5 digits as well.

Is this the intended behavior? The card name format changes from the stale CDF format (e.g., XXXXXXXXXXX1234) to the bank's updated format (e.g., 111222XXXX31234), which may look inconsistent to users if other cards in the same feed still show the old format.

This is expected as well, we have seen same behaviour in https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/600254#issuecomment-3917763404.

linhvovan29546 · 2026-02-20T13:39:16Z

I'm blocked by this bug. I'll test the PR once it's resolved.

…le entry for clarity

linhvovan29546 · 2026-02-21T08:00:43Z

Bug: App crashes when opening Company Card (crash after commit 5f39330)

Precondition: My workspace contains one company card.

Error: TypeError: matchedCard is not iterable

…hook

…improved readability

fedirjh · 2026-02-21T14:38:25Z

Bug: App crashes when opening Company Card

Fixed with 32c668a

linhvovan29546 · 2026-02-21T14:44:29Z

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.

Before:

After:

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

Simulator Screenshot - iPhone 16 Pro Max - 2026-02-21 at 22 02 40

iOS: mWeb Safari

Simulator Screenshot - iPhone 16 Pro Max - 2026-02-21 at 21 59 24

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

melvin-bot · 2026-02-21T15:12:41Z

🎯 @linhvovan29546, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

An E/App issue has been created to issue payment here: #83135.

github-actions · 2026-02-21T18:20:48Z

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

github-actions · 2026-02-21T18:24:13Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #82788.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-65530bf-08338eb-dcfabce0c3332c6a8d570fd85d35a211b2ffac88/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-65530bf-08338eb-67ab6d4dd02b5bf2e1035bea9eddce420de8fb0b/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://82788.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-02-21T18:26:17Z

✋ 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 · 2026-02-24T01:18:17Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/carlosmiceli in version: 9.3.25-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	failure ❌
🍎 iOS 🍎	cancelled 🔪

m-natarajan · 2026-02-24T22:23:51Z

@fedirjh @carlosmiceli @joekaufmanexpensify Can this one please be tested internally, We don't have access to CDF commercial feeds

joekaufmanexpensify · 2026-02-25T13:13:56Z

I can QA it with the affected customer's account 👍

joekaufmanexpensify · 2026-02-25T13:18:23Z

Not working as expected. Discussing.

OSBotify · 2026-02-25T15:51:51Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.3.25-13 🚀

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

carlosmiceli · 2026-02-25T17:30:02Z

@m-natarajan mmm, why was this deployed to production without QA being complete?

brianlee-expensify · 2026-03-04T19:57:59Z

@m-natarajan any updates regarding @carlosmiceli's latest comment?

@carlosmiceli confirming that the issue is being fixed here now?

carlosmiceli · 2026-03-04T22:56:18Z

@brianlee-expensify yes, just waiting for the PR to be reviewed, just bumped the C+.

m-natarajan · 2026-03-05T16:03:22Z

@carlosmiceli @brianlee-expensify Not sure, was waiting for answer #82788 (comment)
@puneetlath can you please help here

puneetlath · 2026-03-05T17:50:52Z

I checked this off the checklist since Joe had QA'd it and opened a discussion for what wasn't working. Do you think I should have done differently?

fedirjh added 4 commits February 18, 2026 13:03

feat: add function to resolve encrypted card numbers for stale card n…

d15d633

…ames

test: add unit tests for resolving stale card names using lastFourPAN

75d3156

refactor: enhance card resolution logic to use cascading lookup for a…

1ab1f52

…ssigned cards

test: expand unit tests for cascading card name resolution logic

1c1a7fc

melvin-bot bot assigned fedirjh Feb 18, 2026

fedirjh requested review from carlosmiceli and chrispader February 18, 2026 12:34

fedirjh marked this pull request as ready for review February 18, 2026 12:39

fedirjh requested review from a team as code owners February 18, 2026 12:39

melvin-bot bot requested review from linhvovan29546 and removed request for a team February 18, 2026 12:39

melvin-bot bot requested review from joekaufmanexpensify and removed request for a team February 18, 2026 12:40

github-actions bot reviewed Feb 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/hooks/useCompanyCards.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

github-actions bot reviewed Feb 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/hooks/useCompanyCards.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fedirjh added 6 commits February 18, 2026 14:02

refactor: update company card entry logic to ensure correct resolutio…

e493c37

…n of card names and encrypted numbers

refactor: improve card resolution logic by handling cases with missin…

8326ff7

…g lastFourPAN

refactor: simplify card resolution by providing default values for na…

9dcf604

…me and encrypted number

refactor: streamline card entry creation by destructuring resolved va…

82ab957

…lues for clarity

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into fix-commercial-feed

56ce84e

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into fix-commercial-feed

d6cf4ce

joekaufmanexpensify previously approved these changes Feb 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

fedirjh dismissed joekaufmanexpensify’s stale review via 89c35ea February 20, 2026 14:48

fedirjh added 2 commits February 20, 2026 16:06

refactor: enhance card resolution logic by limiting matches to a sing…

5f39330

…le entry for clarity

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into fix-commercial-feed

62a2559

fedirjh requested a review from linhvovan29546 February 20, 2026 15:25

fedirjh added 2 commits February 21, 2026 15:28

fix: handle unmatched cardList entries gracefully in useCompanyCards …

32c668a

…hook

refactor: simplify mock implementations in useCompanyCards tests for …

6ffce12

…improved readability

linhvovan29546 approved these changes Feb 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2026

Payment issue for E/App PR#82788 #83135

Open

carlosmiceli approved these changes Feb 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

carlosmiceli merged commit 65530bf into Expensify:main Feb 21, 2026
30 checks passed

fedirjh deleted the fix-commercial-feed branch February 21, 2026 18:38

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Feb 23, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-02-23 #83247

Closed

joekaufmanexpensify mentioned this pull request Mar 12, 2026

Fix duplicate assign card rows for commercial feed cards #83737

Merged

52 tasks

Conversation

fedirjh commented Feb 18, 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

Before the fix

After the fix

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

fedirjh commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Feb 18, 2026

Code Review

1. Potential issue: resolveCardListEntry enriches cardName but buildCompanyCardEntries ignores it

2. The coveredNames set only tracks original card names

3. Minor: unnecessary fallback in matches.at(0)

4. Test quality

Summary

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

joekaufmanexpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Feb 19, 2026

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Feb 19, 2026

Script

Uh oh!

fedirjh commented Feb 19, 2026

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Feb 21, 2026

Uh oh!

fedirjh commented Feb 21, 2026

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Feb 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 21, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 21, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 21, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 21, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

m-natarajan commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

joekaufmanexpensify commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

joekaufmanexpensify commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

carlosmiceli commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

brianlee-expensify commented Mar 4, 2026

Uh oh!

carlosmiceli commented Mar 4, 2026

Uh oh!

m-natarajan commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

puneetlath commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

fedirjh commented Feb 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading

1. Potential issue: `resolveCardListEntry` enriches `cardName` but `buildCompanyCardEntries` ignores it

2. The `coveredNames` set only tracks original card names

3. Minor: unnecessary fallback in `matches.at(0)`

linhvovan29546 commented Feb 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading