Fix duplicate report blockers: preserve negative amounts and handle deleted workspaces by Krishna2323 · Pull Request #86098 · Expensify/App

Krishna2323 · 2026-03-23T13:26:39Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #82153
$ #86093
$ #86095
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Same as QA Steps
Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

Test 1:

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to workspace chat.
Create an expense with negative amount.
Open the expense.
Click More > Duplicate expense.
Open the duplicated expense.

Test 2:

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to workspace chat.
Create two expenses.
Delete the workspace.
Create a new workspace.
Open the expense report from the deleted workspace.
Click More > Duplicate report.
Open the new workspace chat.
Open the reports with RBR in LHN.

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

Monosnap.screencast.2026-03-23.19-01-14.mp4

…eleted workspaces Signed-off-by: krishna2323 <belivethatkg@gmail.com>

melvin-bot · 2026-03-23T13:34:14Z

@hungvu193 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]

codecov · 2026-03-23T13:35:32Z

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/PerDiem.ts	`70.56% <ø> (ø)`
src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts	`72.79% <ø> (ø)`
src/libs/actions/IOU/Duplicate.ts	`95.74% <85.71%> (-0.36%)`	⬇️
src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 12 files with indirect coverage changes

hungvu193 · 2026-03-23T13:37:52Z

on it 👀

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: a9f4dd4fc1

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 · 2026-03-23T13:47:48Z

src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx

-                const targetPolicyForDuplicate = policy ?? defaultExpensePolicy;
-                const targetChatForDuplicate = policy ? chatReport : activePolicyExpenseChat;
+                const isSourcePolicyValid = !!policy && isPolicyAccessible(policy, currentUserLogin ?? '');
+                const targetPolicyForDuplicate = isSourcePolicyValid ? policy : defaultExpensePolicy;


Preserve distance/per-diem rows when rerouting deleted-workspace copies

When policy is inaccessible we now reroute the duplicate into defaultExpensePolicy, which makes duplicateReport() treat every deleted-workspace copy as cross-workspace. In src/libs/actions/IOU/Duplicate.ts:846-847, cross-workspace duplication drops all distance and per-diem transactions, so a deleted-workspace report containing those expenses will still duplicate as an empty/partial report instead of preserving its contents. This only affects deleted-workspace reports with distance or per-diem items, but it leaves that workflow broken.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

I tried to find a reason for the logic below, but it seems really weird and I couldn’t find any references. @hungvu193 Do you remember anything about this?

App/src/libs/actions/IOU/Duplicate.ts

Lines 846 to 848 in 5f7e6bc

if (isCrossWorkspace && (isPerDiemRequest(transaction) || isDistanceRequest(transaction))) {

return false;

}

cc: @Valforte

I guess when it's cross workspace, they have different rate, mileage/custom units...etc, so you filtered it out? @Krishna2323

I think so but can't recall 😭

That filter makes sense with what @hungvu193 commented. There's also the issue that Per diem, distance and time can be disable in the workspace. What happens if the user tries to duplicate and there are different rates? Will the original rate be used or the rate of the target workspace? If it's the second I believe we can allow the duplication.

src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx

hungvu193 · 2026-03-23T14:23:38Z

@Krishna2323 Can you check this one?

Bug: "Duplicate expense" does nothing with Expense that has pending deleted transaction:

Create expense with 2 transactions.
Turn on the offline mode > Delete one of them.
More > Duplicate expense

Screen.Recording.2026-03-23.at.21.21.29.mov

Krishna2323 · 2026-03-23T14:26:10Z

@hungvu193 I think that isn't related to the PR, the single duplicate feature was buggy even before the implementation.

hungvu193 · 2026-03-23T14:31:56Z

@Krishna2323 Please check the AI comment then we're good to go 👍

Krishna2323 · 2026-03-23T14:38:27Z

@hungvu193 could you please check this comment?

hungvu193 · 2026-03-23T15:17:00Z

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: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-23.at.21.18.11.mov

Screen.Recording.2026-03-23.at.21.30.22.mov

…t creation Signed-off-by: krishna2323 <belivethatkg@gmail.com>

github-actions · 2026-03-23T19:41:33Z

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

github-actions · 2026-03-23T19:46:01Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #86098.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-39d4768-d6051eb-695dba489635c9790dd4303a68636b672c19b701/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-39d4768-d6051eb-7530cdadd64ffeda4ac4e1d597322c10f5bae0b6/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://86098.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-03-23T19:50:17Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

Fix duplicate report blockers: preserve negative amounts and handle deleted workspaces (cherry picked from commit 39d4768) (cherry-picked to staging by francoisl)

OSBotify · 2026-03-23T20:48:56Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.3.42-1 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

OSBotify · 2026-03-24T11:48:19Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.3.42-3 🚀

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

Fix duplicate report blockers: preserve negative amounts and handle d…

a9f4dd4

…eleted workspaces Signed-off-by: krishna2323 <belivethatkg@gmail.com>

melvin-bot bot assigned Krishna2323 Mar 23, 2026

This was referenced Mar 23, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-03-31] [RCA #83896] Expense - Negative amount is changed to positive amount after duplicating expense #86093

Closed

[Due for payment 2026-03-31] [RCA #83896] Expense - Error when duplicating report from deleted workspace #86095

Closed

Krishna2323 marked this pull request as ready for review March 23, 2026 13:34

Krishna2323 requested review from a team as code owners March 23, 2026 13:34

melvin-bot bot requested review from hungvu193 and trjExpensify and removed request for a team March 23, 2026 13:34

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Mar 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

hungvu193 approved these changes Mar 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from Valforte March 23, 2026 15:21

Krishna2323 mentioned this pull request Mar 23, 2026

[RCA #83896] Expense - Second expense shows error when duplicating report on instant submit workflow #86091

Closed

7 tasks

Add shouldDeferAutoSubmit to defer auto-submit during duplicate repor…

2d7ab7c

…t creation Signed-off-by: krishna2323 <belivethatkg@gmail.com>

Valforte approved these changes Mar 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into krishna2323/issue/86091

17e93af

Valforte merged commit 39d4768 into Expensify:main Mar 23, 2026
30 checks passed

OSBotify added the CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging label Mar 23, 2026

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Mar 23, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-03-23 #86080

Closed

70 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Mar 24, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-03-31] [Duplicate Report] Implement core "Duplicate report" action logic #82153

Open

	if (isCrossWorkspace && (isPerDiemRequest(transaction) \|\| isDistanceRequest(transaction))) {
	return false;
	}

Conversation

Krishna2323 commented Mar 23, 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

Test 1:

Test 2:

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 23, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 23, 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!

hungvu193 commented Mar 23, 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 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 Mar 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hungvu193 Mar 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 Mar 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Valforte Mar 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Mar 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 commented Mar 23, 2026

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Mar 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 commented Mar 23, 2026

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Mar 23, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 23, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 23, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 23, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 23, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 24, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Krishna2323 commented Mar 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Mar 23, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

hungvu193 Mar 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading