[Due for payment 2025-09-17] [Due for payment 2025-09-16] [$250] Reports - Details of last created expense, are not seen on preview on "Submit" while offline

[mitarachim]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 9.1.97-1
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: https://test-management.browserstack.com/projects/2219752/test-runs/TR-352/folder/13176922/41237518/849028398
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): ibellicotest+1626@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Motorola MotoG60 / Android 12 / Chrome ( mWeb / Hybrid app) - Windows 10 / Chrome
App Component: Search

Action Performed:

Prerequisite: Account has at least one workspace created.
Prerequisite 2: Delayed submissions enabled.
Prerequisite 3: No expenses with "Draft" status.

1. Open the Expensify app.
2. Navigate to "Reports"
3. Navigate to "Submit" if not already on that section.
4. Turn off internet connection.
5. Tap on "Create Report"
6. Add a manual expense to report.
7. Return to "Reports"
8. Note that the new created report shows total amount, but a "This report has no expenses" message is seen instead of the expense details.
9. Tap on FAB and select "Create Expense"
10. Create a new manual expense and submit it to the same workspace and report.
11. Note that now, details of the second expense appear, but the details of the first created one, are not seen yet.

Expected Result:

When creating a new expense while offline on "Submit" section, the expense details should be automatically seen on report preview.

Actual Result:

When creating the first expense on report while offline on “Submit”, a "This report has no expenses" message can be seen, and when creating a second expense, total amount updates, but only the details of the second expense appear. Details of first expense doesn’t appear yet.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

• Android: App
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: App
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• iOS: mWeb Chrome
• Windows: Chrome
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6921662_1755671736838.Last.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021958158813749221737
• Upwork Job ID: 1958158813749221737
• Last Price Increase: 2025-08-20
• Automatic offers:
• mkzie2 | Contributor | 108535626

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @parasharrajat

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @laurenreidexpensify (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[mkzie2]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

When creating the first expense on report while offline on “Submit”, a "This report has no expenses" message can be seen, and when creating a second expense, total amount updates, but only the details of the second expense appear. Details of first expense doesn’t appear yet.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We check the list key from the data. If the transaction key is checked before the report key, the transaction is not added to the list of transactions of the report data because reportIDToTransactions[reportKey] is undefined.

App/src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts

Lines 1373 to 1379 in 4d7d44a

	if (reportIDToTransactions[reportKey]?.transactions) {
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].transactions.push(transaction);
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].from = data.personalDetailsList[data?.[reportKey as ReportKey]?.accountID ?? CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID];
	} else if (reportIDToTransactions[reportKey]) {
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].transactions = [transaction];
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].from = data.personalDetailsList[data?.[reportKey as ReportKey]?.accountID ?? CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID];
	}

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

We should re-order the list key to always check the report key first

onst listKeys = Object.keys(data);
const reportKeys = listKeys.filter(isReportEntry);
const transactionKeys = listKeys.filter(isTransactionEntry);
const orderedKeys = [...reportKeys, ...transactionKeys];

for (const key of orderedKeys) {

App/src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts

Line 1295 in 4d7d44a

for (const key in data) {

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

Update SearchUIUtils test to cover the case where the transaction key is above the report key

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Or if reportIDToTransactions[reportKey] is undefined, assign this object as an empty object and update the transaction list

else {
    reportIDToTransactions[reportKey] = {} as unknown as TransactionGroupListItemType;
    reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].transactions = [transaction];
    reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].from = data.personalDetailsList[data?.[reportKey as ReportKey]?.accountID ?? CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID];
}

App/src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts

Lines 1373 to 1379 in 4d7d44a

	if (reportIDToTransactions[reportKey]?.transactions) {
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].transactions.push(transaction);
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].from = data.personalDetailsList[data?.[reportKey as ReportKey]?.accountID ?? CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID];
	} else if (reportIDToTransactions[reportKey]) {
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].transactions = [transaction];
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].from = data.personalDetailsList[data?.[reportKey as ReportKey]?.accountID ?? CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID];
	}

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[dmkt9]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

What is the root cause of that problem?

Since in this case, if a transaction is processed before its corresponding report, reportIDToTransactions[reportKey] will be undefined, and the transaction won't be added to the list.

App/src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts

Lines 1373 to 1379 in 9ce95b7

	if (reportIDToTransactions[reportKey]?.transactions) {
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].transactions.push(transaction);
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].from = data.personalDetailsList[data?.[reportKey as ReportKey]?.accountID ?? CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID];
	} else if (reportIDToTransactions[reportKey]) {
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].transactions = [transaction];
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].from = data.personalDetailsList[data?.[reportKey as ReportKey]?.accountID ?? CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID];
	}

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

We need to refactor this logic to make the code more coherent and ensure all cases are properly handled.

App/src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts

Lines 1373 to 1379 in 9ce95b7

	if (reportIDToTransactions[reportKey]?.transactions) {
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].transactions.push(transaction);
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].from = data.personalDetailsList[data?.[reportKey as ReportKey]?.accountID ?? CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID];
	} else if (reportIDToTransactions[reportKey]) {
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].transactions = [transaction];
	reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].from = data.personalDetailsList[data?.[reportKey as ReportKey]?.accountID ?? CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID];
	}

const transactions = reportIDToTransactions[reportKey]?.transactions ?? [];
transactions.push(transaction);
reportIDToTransactions[reportKey] = {
    ...reportIDToTransactions[reportKey],
    transactions,
    from: data.personalDetailsList[data?.[reportKey as ReportKey]?.accountID ?? CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID],
};

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

Add tests for getReportSections.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021958158813749221737

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @parasharrajat (External)

[parasharrajat]

Both proposals have same root cause and technically solutions are just refactoring the code so I don't consider one syntax good over another. With this, I think we can go with the first proposal with correct idea.

Thus we can go with @mkzie2's alternative solution as it simple change over reordering.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @inimaga, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.