Hide reports in the LHN having $0 total and in a submitted state by lakchote · Pull Request #59588 · Expensify/App

lakchote · 2025-04-03T14:55:19Z

Explanation of Change

Hide reports in the LHN having $0 total and in a submitted state.

Unfortunately, the issue at hand is hard to reproduce.

With these changes, a report that has 0 as total and is in a submitted state (like the report tied to our issue - see https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/486568#issuecomment-2770686693) we hide it in the LHN to not pollute it. It should fix our current issue.

cc @tgolen

Video test

Screen.Recording.2025-04-03.at.16.49.11.mov

Fixed Issues

Related to #59405

A backend fix is necessary too to fix properly the issue see https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C05LX9D6E07/p1744042642175159?thread_ts=1743438767.995739&cid=C05LX9D6E07

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Prerequisites: having two accounts (one admin, one member) on a workspace

(employee) Submit a new expense tied to an expense report
(employee) Delete the expense
(admin) Click on the report preview of that expense
(admin) You shouldn't see in the LHN the report

QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Same as in tests

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-04-03.at.16.49.11.mov

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2025-04-03T15:06:50Z

@rojiphil @ One of you needs to 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]

rojiphil

@lakchote I have left just one comment. Please have a look. Thanks.

rojiphil · 2025-04-05T18:06:30Z

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 tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- 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 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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

59588-web-chrome-001.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

59588-desktop-001.mp4

Android: Native

59588-android-hybrid-001.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

59588-mweb-chrome-001.mp4

iOS: Native

59588-ios-hybrid-001.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

59588-mweb-safari-001.mp4

rojiphil

Thanks @lakchote for the update.
Changes LGTM. Approving for final review.

melvin-bot · 2025-04-05T18:07:22Z

@Beamanator 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]

Beamanator

So just to be clear, we want this to not show up for both submitter & approver & admins, each?

If a submitter has the expense report open, will it still not show up in their LHN? It should, i would think.

FYI this mayyyyyy stop happening in @MarioExpensify 's "auto-submit" project since in that proj we will attempt to not create any empty, submitted reports

lakchote · 2025-04-07T12:10:41Z

So just to be clear, we want this to not show up for both submitter & approver & admins, each?

Yes. We want to hide any report in a clearly invalid state meeting these criterias (which shouldn't happen):

only having a CREATED action
having a $0 total and being in a submitted state (which shouldn't be allowed)

If a submitter has the expense report open, will it still not show up in their LHN? It should, i would think.

A report in a submitted state with a $0 total and having only the CREATED action is invalid and not actionable in my opinion.

If you still think this should be shown in the LHN, I can modify the check for the case when it's in a focused state.

FYI this mayyyyyy stop happening in @MarioExpensify 's "auto-submit" project since in that proj we will attempt to not create any empty, submitted reports

Great to know! This will be handy 😄

tgolen

Is there a unit tests for the LHN that can be updated to cover this case?

lakchote · 2025-04-07T16:29:00Z

Is there a unit tests for the LHN that can be updated to cover this case?

I've added one here

tgolen

Awesome, thanks!

OSBotify · 2025-04-07T17:12:04Z

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

github-actions · 2025-04-07T23:09:52Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/tgolen in version: 9.1.24-2 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-04-09T02:15:08Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.1.24-10 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-04-09T04:33:29Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.1.24-10 🚀

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

rojiphil · 2025-04-21T18:23:39Z

@tgolen @lakchote Just noticed that payment is due here for C+ review as the implementation is already in production.
Can you please help generate payment summary here? Thanks.

getusha · 2025-10-31T17:28:33Z

+
+    // Hide empty reports that have only a `CREATED` action, a total of 0, and are in a submitted state
+    // These reports should be hidden because they appear empty to users and there is nothing actionable for them to do
+    if (report?.total === 0 && report?.stateNum === CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.SUBMITTED && report?.statusNum === CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.SUBMITTED && hasOnlyCreatedAction) {


We don't want to hide an open report, even if it's empty. This caused a regression here: #67407 (comment)

hide reports in the LHN having $0 total and in a submitted state

7d05cc0

lakchote requested a review from tgolen April 3, 2025 14:55

lakchote self-assigned this Apr 3, 2025

fix style

8b420d5

lakchote mentioned this pull request Apr 3, 2025

Persistent $0 Expense Reports with Empty History #59405

Closed

8 tasks

lakchote marked this pull request as ready for review April 3, 2025 15:06

lakchote requested a review from a team as a code owner April 3, 2025 15:06

melvin-bot Bot requested review from rojiphil and removed request for a team April 3, 2025 15:06

rojiphil reviewed Apr 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated

check for having only a CREATED report action

982f1ed

rojiphil approved these changes Apr 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from Beamanator April 5, 2025 18:07

Beamanator reviewed Apr 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

tgolen requested changes Apr 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated

lakchote added 3 commits April 7, 2025 18:09

add a comment

c881826

add unit test

9a1a797

fix style

dd88e7a

tgolen approved these changes Apr 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

tgolen merged commit 5141efb into main Apr 7, 2025

tgolen deleted the lucien/fix-empty-reports-zero-total branch April 7, 2025 17:03

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Apr 7, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-04-07 #59756

Closed

getusha reviewed Oct 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

Conversation

lakchote commented Apr 3, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Apr 3, 2025

Uh oh!

rojiphil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Apr 5, 2025

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

rojiphil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Apr 5, 2025

Uh oh!

Beamanator left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lakchote commented Apr 7, 2025

Uh oh!

tgolen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lakchote commented Apr 7, 2025

Uh oh!

tgolen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 7, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 7, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 9, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 9, 2025

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Apr 21, 2025

Uh oh!

getusha Oct 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

lakchote commented Apr 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading