fix: Receipt section isn't grayed out by nkdengineer · Pull Request #85202 · Expensify/App

nkdengineer · 2026-03-13T08:08:19Z

Explanation of Change

fix: Receipt section isn't grayed out

Fixed Issues

$ #84314
PROPOSAL: #84314 (comment)

Tests

Go to DM/Workspace chat that has no unsettled expense
Go offline
Submit an expense
Click on the expense preview to go to expense report (combined report)
Take note of the grayness
Submit another expense
Click on any of the expenses.
Verify that the receipt is grayed out

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.2026-03-13.at.15.03.41.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-03-13.at.14.57.26.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-03-13.at.15.01.15.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-13.at.14.58.30.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-13.at.14.55.00.mov

melvin-bot · 2026-03-13T08:30:16Z

@Krishna2323 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: f98308b101

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 · 2026-03-13T08:39:59Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestReceiptView.tsx

+            return undefined;
+        }
+        if (isDisplayedInWideRHP) {
+            return transaction?.pendingFields?.[fieldPath] ?? pendingAction;


Restrict wide-RHP receipt fallback to relevant pending fields

In wide RHP, getPendingFieldAction now falls back to the transaction-level pendingAction whenever pendingFields[fieldPath] is empty, which makes the receipt area appear pending for unrelated offline edits. For example, if only amount is edited offline (pendingAction: UPDATE, no pendingFields.receipt), the receipt section still gets UPDATE and is grayed out even though receipt was untouched. This is a regression in single-transaction wide-RHP flows and should be limited to receipt-related pending state (or at least ADD cases) instead of any pending action.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@nkdengineer please check

@nkdengineer bump

For example, if only amount is edited offline (pendingAction: UPDATE, no pendingFields.receipt)

@Krishna2323 It's incorrect because when editing the field, we don't change the transaction's pendingAction, we only update the pendingFields of the changed field.

JmillsExpensify

Fix looks good to me.

Krishna2323 · 2026-03-17T17:51:20Z

@nkdengineer could you please merge main again? There was an issue on iOS native: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C05LX9D6E07/p1773753991898119

nkdengineer · 2026-03-17T17:54:30Z

@Krishna2323 Done.

Krishna2323 · 2026-03-17T18:05:05Z

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
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

android_native.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android_chrome.mp4

iOS: HybridApp

ios_native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios_safari.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web_chrome.mp4

Krishna2323

LGTM! 🚀

github-actions · 2026-03-18T07:46:49Z

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

github-actions · 2026-03-18T07:52:08Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #85202.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-2063a58-84e475f-77d09b73609720c3600ee9a5e3eae06352e51080/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-2063a58-84e475f-504ddab03ed9b6fbb0e6cb65555a77d56cfbdb77/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://85202.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-03-18T08:00:40Z

✋ 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 · 2026-03-18T13:30:09Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.3.40-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-03-18T14:06:10Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.3.40-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-03-23T09:27:45Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.3.41-4 🚀

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

fix: Receipt section isn't grayed out

f98308b

melvin-bot bot assigned nkdengineer Mar 13, 2026

nkdengineer marked this pull request as ready for review March 13, 2026 08:30

nkdengineer requested review from a team as code owners March 13, 2026 08:30

melvin-bot bot requested a review from Krishna2323 March 13, 2026 08:30

melvin-bot bot requested review from JmillsExpensify and removed request for a team March 13, 2026 08:30

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Mar 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

JmillsExpensify reviewed Mar 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into fix/84314

4d091d9

Merge branch 'main' into fix/84314

6cde912

Krishna2323 approved these changes Mar 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from grgia March 17, 2026 18:06

grgia approved these changes Mar 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

grgia merged commit 2063a58 into Expensify:main Mar 18, 2026
32 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Mar 18, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-03-18 #85646

Closed

100 tasks

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Mar 18, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-03-30] [$250] Expenses - Uploaded receipt is not displayed when create manual expense #85669

Open

7 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Mar 23, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-03-30] [$250] Expense - Receipt section isn't grayed out #84314

Open

7 tasks

Conversation

nkdengineer commented Mar 13, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 13, 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 13, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 Mar 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 Mar 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nkdengineer Mar 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nkdengineer Mar 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 commented Mar 17, 2026

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Mar 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 commented Mar 17, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants