[cp stag] fix: Hide pay button for non-reimbursable transactions report with 0 amount

[samranahm]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #87112
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Member create an non-reimburable expense with 0 amount and submit
2. Admin approve the report
3. Verify pay button does not appear anywhere for non-reimbursable report with 0 amount

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

same as test

// 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 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

macOS.Chrome.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@shubham1206agra 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]

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR prevents showing payment actions for expense reports that contain only non-reimbursable transactions when the net amount is 0, avoiding a “nothing happens” UX when attempting to pay/mark as paid.

Changes:

• Update pay-action eligibility checks to require a non-zero non-reimbursable spend when the report contains only non-reimbursable transactions.
• Hide the Pay button in report preview/header when the report has only non-reimbursable transactions and the report total is 0.
• Tighten canIOUBePaid(..., onlyShowPayElsewhere=true) behavior for only-non-reimbursable reports with 0 amount.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
src/libs/ReportPrimaryActionUtils.ts	Prevents PAY primary action for only-non-reimbursable reports when non-reimbursable spend is 0.
src/libs/ReportPreviewActionUtils.ts	Prevents PAY preview action for only-non-reimbursable reports when non-reimbursable spend is 0.
src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts	Disables “pay elsewhere” eligibility for only-non-reimbursable reports when non-reimbursable spend is 0.
src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestReportPreview/PayActionButton.tsx	Hides the Pay button in the report preview for only-non-reimbursable reports with total 0.
src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx	Hides the Pay button in the money report header for only-non-reimbursable reports with total 0.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Code Review

Missed file: src/components/MoneyReportHeaderPrimaryAction/PayPrimaryAction.tsx:91 has the identical pattern but was not updated:

const shouldShowPayButton = isPaidAnimationRunning || canIOUBePaid || onlyShowPayElsewhere || reportHasOnlyNonReimbursableTransactions;

This should be:

const shouldShowPayButton = isPaidAnimationRunning || canIOUBePaid || onlyShowPayElsewhere || (reportHasOnlyNonReimbursableTransactions && (moneyRequestReport?.total ?? 0) !== 0);

Without this, the bug is still reproducible wherever PayPrimaryAction renders.

Rest of the changes look correct. The total !== 0 vs nonReimbursableSpend !== 0 difference between UI components and utility functions is fine — for reports with only non-reimbursable transactions, total === nonReimbursableTotal, so both are equivalent when checking for zero.

[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/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/ReportPreviewActionUtils.ts	92.98% <100.00%> (+0.32%)	⬆️
src/libs/ReportPrimaryActionUtils.ts	92.03% <100.00%> (+0.18%)	⬆️
src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts	75.95% <100.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
...oneyReportHeaderPrimaryAction/PayPrimaryAction.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...Item/MoneyRequestReportPreview/PayActionButton.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 24 files with indirect coverage changes

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Swish!

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".

[situchan]

@samranahm please address review above

[samranahm]

On it, writing unit test.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Good with me 👍

[samranahm]

@situchan Please take a look.

[situchan]

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: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-04-04.at.3.31.45.AM.mov

[situchan]

NAB: It's same value under reportHasOnlyNonReimbursableTransactions = true but nonReimbursableTotal is more accurate.

[samranahm]

@situchan when reportHasOnlyNonReimbursableTransactions is true moneyRequestReport. total will always be same nonReimbursableTotal, but if you prefer nonReimbursableTotal we can switch to that since it would be more precise and self-documenting. Although the behaviour would remain same.

[situchan]

yes, it's fine. Melvin raised the same concern here but not blocker since we're just checking if equals to 0

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No, they are not exactly the same value. nonReimbursableSpend is the negated version of moneyRequestReport.total for expense reports.

In ReportUtils.ts:4394-4402:

let nonReimbursableSpend = moneyRequestReport.nonReimbursableTotal ?? 0;
let totalSpend = moneyRequestReport.total ?? 0;
// ...
nonReimbursableSpend = isExpenseReport(moneyRequestReport) ? nonReimbursableSpend * -1 : Math.abs(nonReimbursableSpend);
totalSpend = isExpenseReport(moneyRequestReport) ? totalSpend * -1 : Math.abs(totalSpend);

So for an expense report with only non-reimbursable transactions:

• moneyRequestReport.total is stored as a negative (e.g., -500)
• nonReimbursableSpend after the function runs is nonReimbursableTotal * -1 (e.g., 500)

They differ in sign (and nonReimbursableSpend comes from nonReimbursableTotal, not total). However, for the !== 0 check in this PR, both are equivalent — if one is zero, the other is also zero, so the behavioral outcome is the same.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Hooray!

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".

[samranahm]

@cristipaval could you please take a look?
cc: @jasperhuangg

[github-actions]

🚧 @jasperhuangg 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 #87117.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-d45207d-e142ed2-91d86ca4d0a1c0bbc2479d3688ed7b011abc346f/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-d45207d-e142ed2-9f19684525d7c2004045489437d18c437305242d/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://87117.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]

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.3.52-8 🚀

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 PR fixes a bug where the Pay button incorrectly appeared on non-reimbursable expense reports with a $0 total. I reviewed all relevant help site articles:

1. Understanding Report Statuses and Actions — Already correctly states: "Approved is the final status for reports containing only non-reimbursable (e.g. company card) expenses." This aligns with the fix (no Pay action for these reports).

2. Expense and Report Actions — Describes Pay as appearing "after the report is approved" for the Payer. Generic enough that it doesn't conflict with hiding Pay for $0 non-reimbursable reports.

3. Pay Expenses — Covers payment methods and workflows. No mention of non-reimbursable edge cases; no conflict.

The existing documentation already correctly implies that non-reimbursable reports don't need a Pay action. The bug was purely in the UI code, not a documented feature change.

[OSBotify]

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

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.3.53-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android

[MelvinBot]

I reviewed all help site articles under App/docs/articles that relate to the Pay button, report statuses, non-reimbursable expenses, and payment workflows. Here's my assessment:

PR Change: Hides the Pay button for non-reimbursable expense reports when the total is $0.

Articles Reviewed:

• new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Understanding-Report-Statuses-and-Actions.md
• new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Expense-and-Report-Actions.md
• new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Pay-Expenses.md
• new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Reimbursement-Payment-Methods.md
• new-expensify/workspaces/Workspace-Rules.md

Conclusion: No help site changes are required.

The existing articles describe the Pay button at a high level (e.g., "Pay appears after the report is approved for the Payer") and correctly note that "Approved is the final status for reports containing only non-reimbursable (e.g. company card) expenses." None of the articles make claims that contradict the new behavior — they don't state that a Pay button will appear for $0 non-reimbursable reports. This is a narrow edge-case fix that falls within the existing documentation's scope without conflicting with it.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.3.53-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.3.53-7 🚀

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