Fix: Manually edited amount during receipt scanning is not saved

[marufsharifi]

Explanation of Change

• Before: the UI could still show Scanning... if backend receipt processing remained in SCANNING, even after the user changed the amount.
• After: once a valid manual amount edit exists (modifiedAmount), we stop showing the scanning state immediately.

Fixed Issues

$ #81316
PROPOSAL: #81316 (comment)

Tests

1. Create an expense by uploading a receipt and start SmartScanning it
2. Before the scan completes, manually change the amount on the expense
3. Verify the expense amount remains the manually entered value.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests.

QA Steps

Same as Tests.

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

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
• If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-03-07.at.11.04.42.AM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-03-07.at.11.13.12.AM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-03-07.at.10.29.52.AM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-07.at.10.33.10.AM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-07.at.10.14.10.AM.mov

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts	83.18% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
... and 14 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@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]

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 63770b2740

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Restrict manual-amount override to UI-only scanning state

This new early return changes the global isScanning() predicate, not just the UI label, so any transaction with receipt.state still SCAN_READY/SCANNING but a non-empty modifiedAmount is now treated as “not scanning” everywhere. That affects non-visual flows that rely on isScanning (for example approval gating in canApproveIOU and merge eligibility), allowing users to submit/approve/merge while SmartScan is still running and may still mutate fields afterward. This should be scoped to display logic (or use a dedicated UI selector) instead of changing the shared scanning primitive.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[marufsharifi]

I don’t think this is a blocker.

isScanning() is a user-facing helper, not a raw backend-state helper. Its docstring says background audit scanning should not be shown to the user.

We already have isReceiptBeingScanned(), and that is used in places where the backend scan state matters more directly.

So once modifiedAmount exists, the transaction should no longer be treated as scanning in the UI.

[jjcoffee]

affects non-visual flows that rely on isScanning (for example approval gating in canApproveIOU and merge eligibility)

@JmillsExpensify Agree with @marufsharifi here, but just wanted to double check that we're not missing anything. I'm guessing once a manual amount is set on a scanning expense, it should become ready to be approved, merged, etc.?

[marufsharifi]

@jjcoffee, kindly bump. thanks.

[JmillsExpensify]

Outline product behavior is in line with intended spec.

[jjcoffee]

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

android-app-2026-03-09_15.50.14.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-chrome-2026-03-09_15.53.35.mp4

iOS: HybridApp

ios-app-2026-03-09_15.28.16.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-safari-2026-03-09_15.32.55.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

desktop-chrome-2026-03-09_15.13.57.mp4

[jjcoffee]

@marufsharifi Could you address the codecov report?

[marufsharifi]

@marufsharifi Could you address the codecov report?

@jjcoffee, could you please explain a little, which senorios or test cases should be covered? Thanks.

[jjcoffee]

@marufsharifi If you click the file linked in the report, you can see where your changes have reduced coverage. Ideally we'd have a test covering your changes.

[jjcoffee]

LGTM! Assuming @JmillsExpensify agrees with the behaviour here.

[JmillsExpensify]

I do though I'll also flag this PR to @Expensify/product-pr for visibility. Anyone disagree?

[twisterdotcom]

Is this the Q:

I'm guessing once a manual amount is set on a scanning expense, it should become ready to be approved, merged, etc.?

I think there are, and will be more and more in the future, violations which rely on complete SmartScan data (duplicate detection, itemized receipt etc), so I think we always need to wait for a SmartScan to fully complete before an expense is ready to be approved, submitted, merged, split etc.

[trjExpensify]

Is this question in the context of the "background" SmartScanning for SmartScanEverything receipt audit? If so, that has historically been completely invisible to the submitter on the frontend when they "stop" the smartscanning process and enter the details manually themselves. I would think we maintain the same experience, so the expense isn't blocked on submission or anything for that background process to complete?

[twisterdotcom]

so the expense isn't blocked on submission or anything for that background process to complete?

I think we should be blocking on this though. It made sense when SmartScans could take 20 minutes, but it doesn't now. We have a few minutes to get a full set of SmartScan data with which to process violations for users. Admins would expect expenses that have violations. would show violations to users and submitters.

[trjExpensify]

The receipt audit violations are approver/admin only, no? 🤔

I don't think we should block on background SmartScanning in a flow where a user has explicitly stopped the SmartScanning process to enter the details themselves manually. It's very confusing.

[twisterdotcom]

The receipt audit violations are approver/admin only, no?

Yes, but the itemized receipt violation isn't. The new Duplicate Detection logic won't be. The prohibited expenses violations aren't. Any new SmartScan data based violation will be dependent on SmartScan completing.

[trjExpensify]

Yeah, if we're going to block submitting a report because we're smartscanning the manually attached receipt in the background for a plethora of reasons, we're going to need a new and clear UI pattern to communicate what is going on.

[jjcoffee]

Sounds like that's better suited to a separate/follow-up issue then?

[twisterdotcom]

Yes, okay I think this is fine. We can probably test this now with an itemised receipt or prohibited expense violation. I will take one for the team and go buy some alcohol and smartscan the line item and POS receipt.

[jjcoffee]

@mjasikowski I think this is all yours then!

[github-actions]

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

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #84484.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-3fec5bc-3d8daef-099d81665ef12600a5f8ac96537ab5e10588fd80/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-3fec5bc-3d8daef-ae8b58dc5f8cb54e133be47276fdc45cb2f262bb/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://84484.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

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

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

[OSBotify]

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

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