[Due for payment 2026-06-10] Expense - Expense policy document is broken on the duplicated workspace

[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: 9.3.70-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: N/A - new feature, doesn't exist in prod
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from BrowserStack: #89414
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): applausetester+sjdiosn2ddd2d@applause.expensifail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Bug source: Exploratory - Significant User Experience Deterioration
Device used: Mac 26.2 / Chrome
App Component: Workspace Settings

Action Performed:

Precondition:

• Log in with Expensifail account.

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace settings > Overview.
3. Scroll down to Expense policy.
4. Click Choose file.
5. Upload a PDF file.
6. Go back to workspace list.
7. Click 3-dot menu on the workspace row > Duplicate workspace.
8. Duplicate the workspace.
9. Open the duplicated workspace.
10. Go to Overview.
11. Scroll down to Expense policy.

Expected Result:

Expense policy document will not be broken on the duplicated workspace.

Actual Result:

Expense policy document is broken on the duplicated workspace.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

Bug7151383_1778545731253.5.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @abzokhattab

[melvin-bot]

You have been assigned to this deploy blocker because you recently merged this PR: #89414

[melvin-bot]

💬 A slack conversation has been started in #expensify-open-source

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[MelvinBot]

Proposal

What is the root cause of that problem?

When a workspace is duplicated, buildOptimisticDuplicatePolicy spreads all source policy fields via ...sourcePolicy, which copies the source policy's rulesDocumentURL to the duplicated policy. However, the document is fetched via GetPolicyRulesDocument?policyID={policyID}, using the new (duplicated) policyID. Since the backend only has the document stored under the original policyID — and the DuplicateWorkspace API params don't include any instruction to copy the document — the request fails, resulting in a broken document display.

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

Clear rulesDocumentURL in buildOptimisticDuplicatePolicy so the duplicated workspace doesn't reference a document it can't access. Add rulesDocumentURL: undefined after the ...sourcePolicy spread in Policy.ts:3254.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

An alternative would be to pass rulesDocumentURL in the DuplicateWorkspace API params and have the backend copy the S3 document to the new policyID — but that requires backend changes and is a heavier lift for a deploy blocker fix. Clearing the field is the minimal safe fix.

Investigation details

• The rules field is already explicitly overwritten on line 3280 to only include codingRules, but rulesDocumentURL is a top-level policy field (not nested under rules) per the Policy type, so it survives the spread.
• The data flow: optimistic duplicate policy gets the old URL → getRulesDocumentSourceURL constructs GetPolicyRulesDocument?policyID={NEW_ID} → backend has no document for the new ID → broken display.

---

Next Steps for Contributor+ team: Reply with @MelvinBot implement this to create a draft PR, @MelvinBot <your feedback> to refine this analysis, or explain why you are rejecting Melvin's proposal.