[CP Staging] Fix: Update the condition to correctly display user options on the reject reason screen by truph01 · Pull Request #86843 · Expensify/App

truph01 · 2026-04-01T07:40:50Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #86811
$ #86812
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Test 1:

Precondition:
- User A invites User B and User C to the workspace.
- Edit default approval workflow so that User B is the first approver and User A is the last approver.

Go to ND
[User C] Create an expense in workspace chat and click Submit.
[User B] Open User C's expense report and click Approve.
[User A] Open User C's expense report.
[User A] Click More > Reject.
[User A] Enter reason, select Last approver and click Reject expense.
[User B] Open User C's expense report.
[User B] Click More > Reject.
Verify: [User B] Last approver should not have the option to reject the expense to themselves.

Test 2

Precondition:
- User A invites User B and User C to the workspace.
- Edit default approval workflow so that User B is the first approver and User A is the second approver.

Go to ND
[User B] Create an expense in workspace chat.
[User B] Click Submit > Approve.
[User A] Open User B's expense report.
[User A] Click More > Reject.
Verify: [User A] There is no user option in reject reason screen.

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

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-04-01.at.14.40.05.mov

melvin-bot · 2026-04-01T07:40:58Z

@linhvovan29546 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]

melvin-bot · 2026-04-01T07:41:03Z

@lakchote 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]

src/pages/RejectExpenseReportPage.tsx

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 9dbdb04ac0

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".

src/pages/RejectExpenseReportPage.tsx

linhvovan29546 · 2026-04-01T08:02:56Z

[User B] Enter reason, select Last approver and click Reject expense.
Verify: [User B] Last approver should not have the option to reject the expense to themselves.

@truph01 The new change doesn’t show the selection, could you please update the test steps?

truph01 · 2026-04-01T08:05:00Z

@linhvovan29546 I removed this step:

[User B] Enter reason, select Last approver and click Reject expense.

codecov · 2026-04-01T08:06:00Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/pages/RejectExpenseReportPage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 14 files with indirect coverage changes

linhvovan29546 · 2026-04-01T08:09:13Z

#86812

I still reproduce this issue #86812

truph01 · 2026-04-01T08:13:55Z

@linhvovan29546

I still reproduce this issue #86812

@linhvovan29546 Could you pull the latest and try again?

linhvovan29546 · 2026-04-01T08:19:42Z

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.

Screen.Recording.2026-04-01.at.15.20.10.mov

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

N/A – no UI impact

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/A – no UI impact

iOS: HybridApp

N/A – no UI impact

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/A – no UI impact

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-04-01.at.15.20.10.mov

lakchote

LGTM

github-actions · 2026-04-01T08:46:13Z

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

github-actions · 2026-04-01T08:51:06Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #86843.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-4b7bfb6-0d1a3c2-f47967938cec7868ebf296ed32babe1d0ea4784d/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-4b7bfb6-0d1a3c2-da60a9ab71940c0872d669d49a2e25624981029e/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://86843.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-04-01T08:53:53Z

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

[CP Staging] Fix: Update the condition to correctly display user options on the reject reason screen (cherry picked from commit 4b7bfb6) (cherry-picked to staging by lakchote)

OSBotify · 2026-04-01T10:26:02Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.3.51-2 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-04-01T10:28:33Z

I reviewed the changes in this PR and the help site articles under docs/articles/.

Summary

This PR is a one-line bug fix in src/pages/RejectExpenseReportPage.tsx that updates the hasPreviousApprover condition to prevent showing the current user or the expense submitter as "reject to" options on the reject reason screen. It does not introduce new features, change workflows, or modify any user-facing labels/copy.

Help Site Impact

No help site changes are required.

The relevant articles already describe the reject workflow at the correct level of abstraction:

Approve-Expenses.md — Documents the steps as "Select Reject and enter a reason"
Understanding-Report-Statuses-and-Actions.md — Describes rejecting an expense "back to the submitter with a reason"

Neither article documents the specific user options displayed on the reject screen, so this bug fix to the display logic doesn't create any documentation gap. The documented behavior (reject → enters a reason → submitter is notified → expense can be resubmitted) remains accurate.

OSBotify · 2026-04-02T19:57:30Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.3.51-10 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-04-02T20:22:13Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.3.52-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-04-02T20:23:41Z

No help site changes are required.

This PR fixes a single condition in RejectExpenseReportPage.tsx that determines when the "previous approver" option appears on the reject reason screen. It prevents showing invalid options (rejecting to yourself or to the submitter) — a pure bug fix with no impact on documented user flows.

The existing help site article Approve-Expenses.md (lines 104–112) describes the reject flow at the right level of abstraction and does not need updating.

OSBotify · 2026-04-07T01:13:10Z

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

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

truph01 added 2 commits April 1, 2026 13:51

fix: Last approver can reject expense to themselves

5b9e96b

fix: Empty space on Reject page

9dbdb04

truph01 requested review from a team as code owners April 1, 2026 07:40

melvin-bot bot assigned truph01 Apr 1, 2026

melvin-bot bot requested review from heyjennahay and linhvovan29546 and removed request for a team April 1, 2026 07:40

melvin-bot bot requested review from a team and lakchote and removed request for a team April 1, 2026 07:40

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team April 1, 2026 07:41

linhvovan29546 reviewed Apr 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/pages/RejectExpenseReportPage.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fix: remove console log

8b57f58

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Apr 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/pages/RejectExpenseReportPage.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

truph01 added 2 commits April 1, 2026 14:52

fix: update hasPreviousApprover

915e25a

fix: typecheck

4b96445

fix: update hasPreviousApprover

a23bcb0

linhvovan29546 approved these changes Apr 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

lakchote approved these changes Apr 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

lakchote changed the title ~~Fix: Update the condition to correctly display user options on the reject reason screen~~ [CP Staging] Fix: Update the condition to correctly display user options on the reject reason screen Apr 1, 2026

lakchote merged commit 4b7bfb6 into Expensify:main Apr 1, 2026
34 checks passed

OSBotify added the CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging label Apr 1, 2026

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Apr 1, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-03-31 #86774

Closed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-04-02 #86989

Closed

This was referenced Apr 7, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-04-14] Expense - Last approver can reject expense to themselves which results in error #86811

Closed

[Due for payment 2026-04-14] Empty space on Reject page when rejecting expense from first approver as second approver #86812

Closed

Conversation

truph01 commented Apr 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Test 1:

Test 2

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Apr 1, 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!

linhvovan29546 commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Apr 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

lakchote left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Apr 1, 2026

Summary

Help Site Impact

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

truph01 commented Apr 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Apr 1, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

linhvovan29546 commented Apr 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading