fixed custom report deploy blockers

[mukhrr]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #86786
#86820
#86784
#86807
PROPOSAL:

Tests

#86786

1. Login with new account
2. Create 2 expenses (make sure to change curreny when creating)
3. Go to Report/Reports
4. Open report

• Verify you see Exchange Rate and Original amount columns

5. CLick Columns

• Verify Exchange Rate and Original amount are selected

#86820

1. Login with new account
2. Create 2 expenses
3. Go to Report/Reports
4. CLick Columns and Save

• Verify there is no space between Amount and chevron right icon in the end of row

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// 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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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

REC-20260303100105.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

REC-20260303100105.mp4

iOS: Native

ios_native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios_mWeb.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@Pujan92 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]

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/SearchUIUtils.ts	66.19% <78.57%> (-1.98%)	⬇️
...stReportView/MoneyRequestReportTransactionList.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...pages/settings/Report/ReportDetailsColumnsPage.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/libs/CardUtils.ts	79.30% <0.00%> (-2.96%)	⬇️
... and 600 files with indirect coverage changes

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 24e66578cc

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".

[mukhrr]

@QichenZhu pls, let's try to review and merge this as soon as possible before reverting this big PR #83981

[Pujan92]

@trjExpensify Plz assign @QichenZhu if they are going to review this PR

[JS00001]

@mukhrr can you work on the other two blockers here as well?

[JS00001]

Hmm, @mukhrr this PR fixes two issues, and is pretty large, so I don't think that we should CP this one. Do you have a way to easily disable the feature that we can CP?

[mukhrr]

@mukhrr can you work on the other two blockers here as well?

I think the rest two are expected. pls see #86784 (comment) and #86807 (comment)

[mukhrr]

Hmm, @mukhrr this PR fixes two issues, and is pretty large, so I don't think that we should CP this one. Do you have a way to easily disable the feature that we can CP?

I think we can remove Columns button for now as we did last time.

[JS00001]

@mukhrr great, could you create a PR for that please?

[JS00001]

Then we can merge this fix to main right after

[mukhrr]

@mukhrr great, could you create a PR for that please?

@JS00001 here it is #86872

[JS00001]

@mukhrr lets also fix this here (cc @trjExpensify )

We should be using: convertedAmount should be used as amount and amount should be used as originalAmount. For the report view specifically, we should show the amount as the amount converted to the reports currency

[mukhrr]

should be using: convertedAmount should be used as amount and amount should be used as originalAmount. For the report view specifically, we should show the amount as the amount converted to the reports currency

@JS00001 this is not the issue as deploy blocker, isn't it?

[JS00001]

I dont think so, no, its an issue tom just realized

[trjExpensify]

Right, I think it would block sending this feature to prod though as this is super confusing with two columns with the same amount values:

[QichenZhu]

@mukhrr can you work on the other two blockers here as well?

I think the rest two are expected. pls see #86784 (comment) and #86807 (comment)

@mukhrr please note that zero original amount is different from empty. If the expense was created as zero (amount is 0) and has been modified (modifiedAmount is not ''), we should show zero as the original amount.

I'm not sure if we should treat a zero tax amount as empty though.

cc @trjExpensify @JS00001

[trjExpensify]

I'm not sure if we should treat a zero tax amount as empty though.

If a 0% tax rate has been applied on an expense, I'd expect it to be populated I think. What does the data say for an expense that has had that treatment? Is taxAmount 0 or ''?

[QichenZhu]

What does the data say for an expense that has had that treatment? Is taxAmount 0 or ''?

If a 0% tax rate has been applied, taxAmount is 0.
If the tax feature is not enabled in the workspace, taxAmount is null.

[trjExpensify]

Cool yeah, so same logic then I think. 👍

[mukhrr]

@QichenZhu I think you can review this now, pls =)

[trjExpensify]

@QichenZhu can you do that today, please?

[QichenZhu]

@QichenZhu can you do that today, please?

Working on it now, but need to figure out the expected behaviour first, so won't finish today.

I suggest we take our time and handle it carefully after the long weekend to avoid further regressions.

[QichenZhu]

@trjExpensify @JS00001 according to regression issue #86784, the tester thinks the original amount should show the value before editing. Is that the expected behavior, and why would the user expect to see the amount before editing?

[JS00001]

I'll leave that one to tom

[trjExpensify]

Mhm, I think they are wrong.

[mukhrr]

So for example with a UZS report:

• User creates $90 USD expense → Amount: UZS 1,098,000 / Original amount: $90
• User edits to $100 USD → Amount: UZS 1,220,000 / Original amount: $100

Is this expected? @QichenZhu @trjExpensify

[mukhrr]

So for example with a UZS report:

• User creates $90 USD expense → Amount: UZS 1,098,000 / Original amount: $90
• User edits to $100 USD → Amount: UZS 1,220,000 / Original amount: $100

Is this expected? @QichenZhu @trjExpensify

@trjExpensify kindly bump

[trjExpensify]

Yes:

2026-04-09_12-22-22.mp4

[trjExpensify]

@QichenZhu are you going to complete your review today?