Add billing restriction check for Per Diem move-to-new-report

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

When a Per Diem expense is moved to a "New report" via the "Move expense" action, the createReport function in both IOURequestEditReport.tsx and IOURequestStepReport.tsx returns early for Per Diem transactions without checking shouldRestrictUserBillableActions(). This allows Per Diem expenses to bypass the billing grace period restriction and create new reports when they should be blocked.

This PR adds the shouldRestrictUserBillableActions check inside the Per Diem early-return path in both files, mirroring the existing check already used for non-Per-Diem expenses in the same functions.

Fixed Issues

$ #86579
PROPOSAL: #86579 (comment)

Tests

1. Have at least 2 workspaces with Per Diem enabled
2. Create a Per Diem expense in a workspace chat
3. Apply billing restriction: Onyx.merge('sharedNVP_private_billingGracePeriodEnd_[accountID]', {value: 1})
4. Open the Per Diem expense
5. Click "Move expense"
6. Click "New report"
7. Verify user is redirected to the restricted action page instead of creating a new report
8. Also verify that non-Per-Diem expenses still correctly show the restricted action page when clicking "New report"
9. Verify that without billing restriction, Per Diem "Move expense" → "New report" still works normally

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — Billing restriction state is stored locally in Onyx and the restriction check is synchronous. Offline behavior is unchanged.

QA Steps

1. Have at least 2 workspaces with Per Diem enabled
2. Create a Per Diem expense in a workspace chat
3. Apply billing restriction: Onyx.merge('sharedNVP_private_billingGracePeriodEnd_[accountID]', {value: 1})
4. Open the Per Diem expense → Click "Move expense" → Click "New report"
5. Verify: The restricted action page is shown (not a new report)
6. Remove billing restriction: Onyx.merge('sharedNVP_private_billingGracePeriodEnd_[accountID]', null)
7. Repeat step 4
8. Verify: A new report is created normally

• 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

N/A — Logic-only change, no UI modifications

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/A — Logic-only change, no UI modifications

iOS: Native

N/A — Logic-only change, no UI modifications

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/A — Logic-only change, no UI modifications

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

N/A — Logic-only change, no UI modifications

[codecov]

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
...rc/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestEditReport.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...rc/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepReport.tsx	70.76% <0.00%> (-1.11%)	⬇️
... and 16 files with indirect coverage changes

[dukenv0307]

@MelvinBot can we move the logic of shouldRestrictUserBillableActions to the top?

[MelvinBot]

Moved the shouldRestrictUserBillableActions check to the top of createReport in both files. Instead of duplicating the check inside the per-diem and non-per-diem branches, there's now a single check at the top that computes the correct restrictionPolicyID based on the transaction type.

[dukenv0307]

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

Screen.Recording.2026-03-30.at.09.42.00.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-03-30.at.09.37.00.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-03-30.at.09.39.33.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-30.at.09.37.10.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-30.at.09.35.37.mov

[dukenv0307]

@MelvinBot open the PR

[melvin-bot]

@dukenv0307 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]

Done — PR is now marked as ready for review.

[melvin-bot]

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #86579 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

[francoisl]

I think it's a little weird to block users from creating new reports in this case, but at least it's consistent with how we block from manually creating an expenses or report. Do you agree from a product standpoint @joekaufmanexpensify?

[francoisl]

Ugh there's a conflict, @dukenv0307 can you ask Melvin to fix it? I think it should be able to 🤞

[dukenv0307]

@MelvinBot resolve the conflicts

[melvin-bot]

@dukenv0307 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]

Resolved the merge conflicts in both files:

• src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestEditReport.tsx
• src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepReport.tsx

What happened: main added a shouldRestrictUserBillableActions check before handleCreateReport() for non-Per-Diem expenses. This PR had already moved that check to the top of createReport() to cover both Per Diem and non-Per-Diem cases. The resolution keeps the consolidated check at the top and removes the now-redundant one from main.

I also fixed the variable names in the top-of-function check (ownerBillingGraceEndPeriod → ownerBillingGracePeriodEnd, userBillingGraceEndPeriods → userBillingGracePeriodEnds) to match the actual hook declarations.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Good for product

[github-actions]

🚧 @francoisl 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 #86616.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-5f16ac7-d66f7bc-31740b28bd872963963f8d49964714f6b5de080d/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-5f16ac7-d66f7bc-9c179f25ee0dea4877f8be6f7fc74f57c9da9bef/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://86616.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/francoisl in version: 9.3.52-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[MelvinBot]

No help site changes are required for this PR.

This is a purely internal logic fix that moves an existing billing restriction check (shouldRestrictUserBillableActions) earlier in the createReport function so it also covers Per Diem transactions. There are no changes to:

• User-facing UI, terminology, or labels
• User workflows or steps documented in help articles
• Feature availability or new functionality

The existing Per Diem help articles (Per-Diem-Expenses.md, Configure-Per-Diem-in-a-workspace.md) document how to create and configure Per Diem expenses — they don't cover internal billing enforcement behavior, which is what this fix addresses.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.3.52-9 🚀

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