Fix: one expense report view render conditions

[martasudol]

Explanation of Change

This PR is a follow-up to #59714. The original approach:

const isMissingTransactionThreadReportID = !transactionThreadReport?.reportID;
const isReportDataIncomplete = isSingleExpenseReport && isMissingTransactionThreadReportID;

is valid. The described issue is not actually a bug, but rather the expected behavior of the app.

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1e7ce372-b903-4f5e-8722-b08459151257
Please refer to the attached recording for a step-by-step demonstration:

1. I create an expense (PLN 12.00) from another account.
2. The expense appears on the recorded account.
3. I click on it – it opens expense report with the "X owes PLN 12.00" template (X = person).
4. From the other account, I create a second expense (PLN 45.00), which immediately appears inside the already opened report on the recorded account.
5. I reopen either of the created expenses – it shows the "PLN 12.00 expense" template view, which is a single expense view, not the full report.
6. I go to the Expense Reports tab - here I expect to see all merged expenses.
7. I open the report and see both expenses correctly displayed.
8. I create a third expense from another account – it is correctly added to the list.
9. I return to the Expenses tab and open any of the items - it still opens only a single expense view.

This flow is completely independent of the changes introduced by @adhorodyski in yesterday's PR, which was the subject of the earlier discussion. It is simply how the app currently behaves. If we decide we want to change this behavior – i.e., to display merged reports in the Expenses tab instead of individual expenses - we can absolutely implement that, but it would constitute a change in application logic.

This PR restores @adhorodyski 's original changes, as they correctly address all the relevant cases for displaying single expense reports.

@mountiny @ZhenjaHorbach looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

Fixed Issues

$#58388

Tests

Regular reports
No skeletons when not needed.

1. Open any chat that you know was already loaded before in the session. It should be immediately visible with its offline-available data, without a skeleton.

Single expense reports
Skeletons each time we visit such reports for the first time. Subsequent visits should not produce a skeleton.

Here's a guide on how to reproduce opening up a fresh single expense report:

1. Log into the EApp on 2 separate accounts (X and Y)
2. Create a chat between X and Y and open it on both machines (just to make sure it's there for everyone)
3. X: go to the Reports screen, then Expense Reports
4. Y: create a new expense for X
5. X should receive this expense in the Expense Reports view (at this point Onyx has the full transaction+minimalistic transaction thread report)
6. X: Go offline and navigate to it (to exclude OpenReport from fixing it with its response)
7. X: You should immediately see the single expense report view

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests.

QA Steps

Same as Tests.

• 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
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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 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

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Nagranie.z.ekranu.2025-04-8.o.14.22.35.mov

MacOS: Desktop

[melvin-bot]

@ZhenjaHorbach 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]

[ZhenjaHorbach]

As for me this behavior does not look critical
So I would prefer correct working of the skeleton !

@mountiny
What do you think ?

[github-actions]

🚧 @mountiny has triggered a test app build. You can view the workflow run here.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
Android 🤖🔄	iOS 🍎🔄
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/android/59814-hybrid/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/59814-hybrid/index.html
Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/59814/NewExpensify.dmg	https://59814.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[mountiny]

@ZhenjaHorbach I think that if we have all the necessary data locally we should not show the skeleton. Can you please do thorough testing on this one?

[ZhenjaHorbach]

@ZhenjaHorbach I think that if we have all the necessary data locally we should not show the skeleton. Can you please do thorough testing on this one?

Yes
I will check soon !

[ZhenjaHorbach]

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: 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

Android: Native

Screenrecorder-2025-04-07-15-39-25-77.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screenrecorder-2025-04-07-15-41-56-0.mp4

iOS: Native

2025-04-07.15.47.59.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

2025-04-07.15.48.03.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

2025-04-07.15.58.20.mov

MacOS: Desktop

2025-04-07.15.58.20.mov

[ZhenjaHorbach]

Just checked
Overall it looks good!
But I found a few expenses
Which still show a skeleton every time we open the expense

But maybe they are just broken
Since when I try to look at the expense details
I get Hmm... it's not here

2025-04-08.23.06.09.mov

onyx-state (6).txt

[martasudol]

Just checked Overall it looks good! But I found a few expenses Which still show a skeleton every time we open the expense

But maybe they are just broken Since when I try to look at the expense details I get Hmm... it's not here
2025-04-08.23.06.09.mov

onyx-state (6).txt

Thanks @ZhenjaHorbach for testing! Yeap, it looks unrelated, actually we've already started investigating why some expense reports have weird states (e.g. "Hmm... it's not here"). For now, we do know that it's related to duplicated requests sent (/OpenReport and /Search) but still, something more is causing this and I'm looking into it.

Anyway, we'll try to fix this soon 🤚

cc @adhorodyski

[ZhenjaHorbach]

Thanks @ZhenjaHorbach for testing! Yeap, it looks unrelated, actually we've already started investigating why some expense reports have weird states (e.g. "Hmm... it's not here"). For now, we do know that it's related to duplicated requests sent (/OpenReport and /Search) but still, something more is causing this and I'm looking into it.

Anyway, we'll try to fix this soon 🤚

cc @adhorodyski

Sounds good
Thanks !
In this case no more questions
LGTM !

[mountiny]

@ZhenjaHorbach to confirm, for those expenses where you get the hmm its not there page - do you get that in staging/ main too?

[ZhenjaHorbach]

With the same expenses yes !

2025-04-09.12.13.39.mov

[mountiny]

Thank you

[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.

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.1.26-0 🚀

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

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.1.26-10 🚀

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