Add Explain link to MOVED_TRANSACTION report actions by MelvinBot · Pull Request #84279 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-03-05T13:56:06Z

Explanation of Change

When Concierge automatically moves a transaction between reports (e.g., extracting an expense with policy violations during harvesting so the remaining expenses can be submitted), the backend now includes a reasoning field in the MOVED_TRANSACTION report action's originalMessage. This PR adds support for rendering the "Explain" link on those actions, allowing users to ask Concierge why their expense was moved — the same UX that already exists for auto-categorization (MODIFIED_EXPENSE) and auto-submission (SUBMITTED).

Changes:

OriginalMessage.ts — Added optional reasoning field to OriginalMessageMovedTransaction type
MovedTransactionAction.tsx — When hasReasoning(action) is true, renders ReportActionItemMessageWithExplain (with sparkle icon + Explain link) instead of plain ReportActionItemBasicMessage. Backwards-compatible: old moves without reasoning render unchanged.
PureReportActionItem.tsx — Passes childReport and originalReport props to MovedTransactionAction (needed by ReportActionItemMessageWithExplain for the Explain thread flow)

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/603700

Tests

Prerequisite: Trigger an automated MOVED_TRANSACTION report action with reasoning:

Create (or use) a workspace with Delayed Submission enabled (Settings > Workspace > Workflows > Delayed submission)
Add a workspace rule that will trigger a violation (e.g., Settings > Workspace > Rules > set a max expense amount like $10)
Create a report on that workspace with at least two expenses: one that violates the rule (e.g., $50 expense exceeding the $10 max) and one that is clean (e.g., $5 expense)
Wait for Concierge to harvest the report on the delayed submission schedule (or trigger harvesting manually on dev)
After harvesting, the violating expense will be moved to a new report and the clean expense's report will be submitted. The moved expense's transaction thread will have a MOVED_TRANSACTION action with reasoning in its originalMessage.

Test steps:

Open the transaction thread for the expense that was moved by Concierge during harvesting (from the prerequisite above)
Verify the "moved this expense from..." message displays a sparkle icon and an "Explain" link
Tap the "Explain" link
Verify a child thread opens with Concierge and "Please explain this to me." is posted
Verify Concierge responds with an explanation of why the expense was moved
Open a transaction thread where the expense was moved manually (no reasoning)
Verify the "moved this expense from..." message renders as plain muted text without an Explain link (existing behavior)
Verify the context menu on a MOVED_TRANSACTION action with reasoning shows the "Explain" option

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

The Explain link opens a child thread and posts a message — this follows the same offline behavior as the existing Explain feature on MODIFIED_EXPENSE and SUBMITTED actions. When offline, the thread creation and message should be queued and sent when connectivity is restored.

QA Steps

Prerequisite: Trigger an automated MOVED_TRANSACTION report action with reasoning on staging:

On staging, create (or use) a workspace with Delayed Submission enabled (Settings > Workspace > Workflows > Delayed submission)
Add a workspace rule that will trigger a violation (e.g., Settings > Workspace > Rules > set a max expense amount like $10)
Create a report on that workspace with at least two expenses: one that violates the rule (e.g., $50 expense exceeding the $10 max) and one that is clean (e.g., $5 expense)
Wait for Concierge to harvest the report (this happens automatically on the delayed submission schedule). After harvesting, the violating expense will be moved to a new report with a MOVED_TRANSACTION action that includes reasoning.

Test steps:

Open the transaction thread for the moved expense (from the prerequisite above)
Verify the "moved this expense from..." message has a sparkle icon and "Explain" link
Tap "Explain" and verify Concierge explains why the expense was moved
Open a manually-moved expense thread and verify no Explain link appears

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

When Concierge automatically moves a transaction (e.g. due to policy violations during harvesting), the backend now includes a reasoning field in the MOVED_TRANSACTION action. This change renders the Explain link on those actions so users can ask Concierge why their expense was moved. Co-authored-by: Alex Beaman <Beamanator@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-authored-by: Alex Beaman <Beamanator@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-03-05T13:59:01Z

Fixed the failing Prettier check. The ternary expression in MovedTransactionAction.tsx (line 62-64) needed to be collapsed to a single line per Prettier's formatting rules.

MelvinBot · 2026-03-05T14:09:14Z

The failing check (test (job 5)) is unrelated to this PR's code changes — it's an infrastructure/network failure.

Analysis: The job failed during "Set up job" before any tests ran. GitHub Actions couldn't download the 1Password/load-secrets-action dependency due to a transient network error: Error while copying content to a stream. This was retried twice with backoff and failed all attempts.

Evidence: The failure occurred at the action download phase, not during test execution. The PR changes (MovedTransactionAction.tsx, PureReportActionItem.tsx, OriginalMessage.ts) were never reached. All other test jobs (1-4, 6-8) passed successfully.

Next step: Please re-run the failed job — it should pass on retry since this was a transient network issue.

codecov · 2026-03-05T14:53:44Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...onents/ReportActionItem/MovedTransactionAction.tsx	`100.00% <100.00%> (+100.00%)`	⬆️
src/pages/inbox/report/PureReportActionItem.tsx	`56.65% <ø> (+0.12%)`	⬆️
... and 13 files with indirect coverage changes

melvin-bot · 2026-03-05T15:48:44Z

@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]

Beamanator · 2026-03-05T15:49:33Z

Sorry @brunovjk - assigned @huult from slack convo 🙏

Beamanator · 2026-03-05T15:50:12Z

@MelvinBot please add automatic tests to this PR

huult · 2026-03-05T15:50:27Z

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

Screen.Recording.2026-03-06.at.23.18.52.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-03-06.at.23.20.46.mp4

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-03-06.at.23.25.06.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-06.at.23.29.33.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-06.at.23.12.41.mp4

Screen.Recording.2026-03-06.at.23.14.29.mp4

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: e1abca43cb

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 · 2026-03-05T15:58:20Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/MovedTransactionAction.tsx

+    if (hasReasoning(action)) {
+        return (
+            <ReportActionItemMessageWithExplain


Keep pending-delete formatting when reasoning is present

The new hasReasoning(action) early return bypasses the isPendingDelete branch, so a MOVED_TRANSACTION action with reasoning from a report marked pendingFields.preview=DELETE no longer renders with the deleted (<del>) styling and text-only fallback. In that state, users will see an active-looking message (including links/Explain) for an action that should still appear as deleted, which is a regression from the previous behavior in this component.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Yeah I considered that, but I believe the other callers of ReportActionItemMessageWithExplain act the same

Unit tests for the hasReasoning utility covering: non-empty reasoning, missing reasoning, empty string reasoning, and null/undefined actions. UI tests for MOVED_TRANSACTION actions verifying the Explain link renders when reasoning is present and is absent when reasoning is not present. Co-authored-by: Alex Beaman <Beamanator@users.noreply.github.com>

melvin-bot · 2026-03-05T15:59:44Z

@ZhenjaHorbach 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]

MelvinBot · 2026-03-05T15:59:47Z

Added automatic tests in a313014:

Unit tests (tests/unit/ReportActionsUtilsTest.ts) — hasReasoning utility:

Returns true when the action has a non-empty reasoning field
Returns false when the action has no reasoning field
Returns false when reasoning is an empty string
Returns false when the action is null or undefined

UI tests (tests/ui/PureReportActionItemTest.tsx) — MOVED_TRANSACTION action rendering:

Renders plain "moved this expense" message without Explain link when action has no reasoning
Renders "moved this expense" message with Explain link when action has reasoning

All 6 tests pass locally.

Beamanator · 2026-03-05T17:49:55Z

@MelvinBot pull main and resolve conflicts

Resolved conflict in tests/unit/ReportActionsUtilsTest.ts by keeping both the new isRejectedAction tests from main and the hasReasoning tests from this branch. Co-authored-by: Alex Beaman <Beamanator@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-03-05T18:12:18Z

Merged main and resolved conflicts in ae43038.

The only conflict was in tests/unit/ReportActionsUtilsTest.ts — both main and this branch added new test suites at the end of the file. Resolved by keeping both: the isRejectedAction tests from main and the hasReasoning tests from this branch.

huult · 2026-03-05T18:15:01Z

Please ping me when it's ready

melvin-bot · 2026-03-06T16:47:11Z

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

An E/App issue has been created to issue payment here: #84425.

huult · 2026-03-06T16:49:10Z

It seems no internal engineer is assigned.

…nToMovedTransaction

MelvinBot · 2026-03-09T11:58:41Z

The failing check (Reassure Performance Tests) is unrelated to this PR.

Analysis: The error is TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'default') at addTrailingForwardSlash in src/libs/ReportUtils.ts:9722, called from getReportIDFromUrl. This is a test environment issue where ROUTES.REPORT is undefined during module initialization — it has nothing to do with the files changed in this PR (MovedTransactionAction.tsx, PureReportActionItem.tsx, OriginalMessage.ts, and test files).

Evidence: The same perf-tests check is also failing on main (run 22852014430) and on other unrelated branches (e.g., @zfurtak/change-select-icons — run 22851829367). This is a pre-existing failure across the repo, not introduced by this PR.

melvin-bot · 2026-03-09T12:01:10Z

@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]

Beamanator · 2026-03-09T12:08:31Z

@Beamanator Could you check 0:12 in the video? There is a brief blank moment after the text message renders. I think we may need to improve it. This issue happens on Android and iOS mobile (mWeb and native).

Yeah this is the same for all Explain functions for now, will upgrade in the near future 👍

Tried adding an internal reviewer, sorry @jjcoffee - will post in slack to get one

…nToMovedTransaction

Beamanator · 2026-03-09T12:28:59Z

perf tests most likely fixed in #84571

MelvinBot · 2026-03-09T12:37:07Z

The failing check (perf-tests) was caused by the branch being slightly behind main. The perf-test CI merges main into the PR commit during its run, and the stale state of the branch caused a duplicate isSelfTourViewed declaration in MoneyRequestReportPreviewContent.tsx — a file not changed by this PR.

The latest merge commit (092bd6a) brought the branch up to date with main, and all checks are now passing (perf-tests, all 8 test jobs, typecheck, ESLint, Prettier, etc.). The only remaining pending items are two iOS builds which are unrelated. No code fix was needed.

github-actions · 2026-03-09T12:57:25Z

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

github-actions · 2026-03-09T13:01:54Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #84279.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-7c33657-b9c28a3-f428a5a5f59aa0b49417b7702ab39c96b74d84a2/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-7c33657-b9c28a3-c0d4556c6ed7853514f602451bf3f0e803b9be52/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://84279.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-03-09T13:04:59Z

✋ 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 · 2026-03-09T21:27:37Z

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

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

lanitochka17 · 2026-03-10T15:21:28Z

The QA team isn't receiving any movement message from the concierge. Do I need a special account for this?

Screenrecorder-2026-03-10-20-09-54-213.mp4

huult · 2026-03-10T16:14:35Z

@lanitochka17 Which option did you choose for Delay Submission? Daily, weekly, or something else?

lanitochka17 · 2026-03-10T17:26:58Z

@huult Daily

OSBotify · 2026-03-10T18:49:43Z

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

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

huult · 2026-03-18T01:53:18Z

@Beamanator It seems MelvinBot didn’t create a payment ticket. Could you please create one?

Beamanator · 2026-03-18T17:07:03Z

oh wtf! yeah will check it out

huult · 2026-03-19T00:50:58Z

Thank you

huult · 2026-03-20T02:45:04Z

@Beamanator Sorry, we already have a ticket for the payment. My mistake

MelvinBot assigned Beamanator Mar 5, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team March 5, 2026 13:56

Fix: Apply Prettier formatting to MovedTransactionAction

e1abca4

Co-authored-by: Alex Beaman <Beamanator@users.noreply.github.com>

Beamanator requested a review from huult March 5, 2026 15:48

Beamanator marked this pull request as ready for review March 5, 2026 15:48

Beamanator requested a review from a team as a code owner March 5, 2026 15:48

melvin-bot bot requested review from brunovjk and trjExpensify and removed request for a team March 5, 2026 15:48

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team March 5, 2026 15:48

Beamanator removed the request for review from brunovjk March 5, 2026 15:49

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Mar 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner March 5, 2026 15:59

melvin-bot bot requested review from ZhenjaHorbach and removed request for a team March 5, 2026 15:59

Merge main into claude-addExplainToMovedTransaction

ae43038

Resolved conflict in tests/unit/ReportActionsUtilsTest.ts by keeping both the new isRejectedAction tests from main and the hasReasoning tests from this branch. Co-authored-by: Alex Beaman <Beamanator@users.noreply.github.com>

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2026

Payment issue for E/App PR#84279 #84425

Closed

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:Expensify/App into claude-addExplai…

0ac0505

…nToMovedTransaction

Beamanator requested a review from a team March 9, 2026 12:01

melvin-bot bot requested review from jjcoffee and removed request for a team March 9, 2026 12:01

Beamanator removed the request for review from jjcoffee March 9, 2026 12:08

JS00001 approved these changes Mar 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:Expensify/App into claude-addExplai…

092bd6a

…nToMovedTransaction

Beamanator merged commit 7c33657 into main Mar 9, 2026
32 checks passed

Beamanator deleted the claude-addExplainToMovedTransaction branch March 9, 2026 12:56

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Mar 9, 2026

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

Closed

75 tasks

Conversation

MelvinBot commented Mar 5, 2026 • edited by Beamanator 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!

MelvinBot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 5, 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 Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Beamanator commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Beamanator commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

huult commented Mar 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

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 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Beamanator Mar 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Beamanator commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

huult commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 6, 2026

Uh oh!

huult commented Mar 6, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Beamanator commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Beamanator commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

lanitochka17 commented Mar 10, 2026

Uh oh!

huult commented Mar 10, 2026

Uh oh!

lanitochka17 commented Mar 10, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 10, 2026

MelvinBot commented Mar 5, 2026 •

edited by Beamanator

Loading

codecov bot commented Mar 5, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

huult commented Mar 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading