fix: New workflow is not added via Import Spreadsheet in a control WS by nkdengineer · Pull Request #82075 · Expensify/App

nkdengineer · 2026-02-11T02:25:18Z

Explanation of Change

fix: New workflow is not added via Import Spreadsheet in a control WS

Fixed Issues

$ #80428
PROPOSAL: #80428 (comment)

Tests

Create a workspace
Upgrade to a Control workspace
Go to Members > More > Import Spreadsheet
Upload the attached file (with all roles populated)
Complete the import flow
Go to Workflows
Verify that the new workflow is displayed

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

None

QA Steps

Same as test

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-03-18.at.14.18.42.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-03-18.at.14.20.01.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-03-18.at.14.22.20.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-18.at.14.16.00.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-18.at.14.12.19.mov

codecov · 2026-02-11T02:31:26Z

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/libs/actions/Policy/Member.ts	`75.98% <80.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
...rc/pages/workspace/members/ImportedMembersPage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

melvin-bot · 2026-03-18T07:24:10Z

@suneox 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]

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 238178c18d

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".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-03-18T07:31:44Z

    );
    const onyxData = updateImportSpreadsheetData(added, updated);

+    const shouldUpdateApprovalMode = members.some((member) => !!member.submitsTo || !!member.forwardsTo) && isControlPolicy(policy);


Derive approval mode from the imported workflow shape

When a control workspace imports members whose submitsTo all point at the default approver, this branch still forces approvalMode to ADVANCED just because at least one row has submitsTo. That disagrees with the app's own workflow derivation: convertPolicyEmployeesToApprovalWorkflows() keeps that case as a single default workflow, and WorkspaceWorkflowsPage only treats the workspace as advanced when there are multiple workflows or multiple approvers. As a result, a basic workspace can be promoted to advanced after import, which changes how the workflows UI and approval behavior interpret the policy even though the imported employee list still represents only the default workflow.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

JmillsExpensify

Fix aligns with intended product behavior.

suneox · 2026-03-21T06:38:15Z

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
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: HybridApp

CleanShot.2026-03-21.at.15.17.23.6.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

CleanShot.2026-03-21.at.15.14.57.5.mp4

iOS: HybridApp

CleanShot.2026-03-21.at.15.11.45.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

CleanShot.2026-03-21.at.15.11.45.3.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

CleanShot.2026-03-20.at.21.41.10.2.mp4

suneox · 2026-03-21T08:34:24Z

@nkdengineer Have you encountered this issue when import on policy control being flaky on the web platform?

CleanShot.2026-03-21.at.15.12.52-bug.4.mp4

suneox · 2026-03-21T08:58:01Z

@mollfpr Could you please help verify this error message from the backend? It’s flaky to reproduce when importing members into a collection workspace then remove member

401 Approvals cannot be set on policies with OPTIONAL approval mode

bug-import-collection-policy.mp4

The current solution updating the approval mode to ADVANCED when importing members—doesn’t work for collection workspaces. ~~@nkdengineer I think we need additional handling and should update the confirm remove member message to just Are you sure you want to remove {{name}}? at 1:15~~

@JmillsExpensify Which specific behavior do we need to handle in this case?

CleanShot.2026-03-21.at.15.36.36.1.mp4

nkdengineer · 2026-04-01T07:46:17Z

@mollfpr @JmillsExpensify Can you please check the comment above?

mollfpr · 2026-04-01T16:13:58Z

Could you please help verify this error message from the backend? It’s flaky to reproduce when importing members into a collection workspace then remove member

~~Confirm it's a BE issue, working on the fix.~~

It's confirmed we got the approval upgrade ADVANCED for only the control policy. In the @suneox video, it looks like it's not changing the plan type to control, but we also let the column forwardsTo or submitsTo appear in the import page for collect policy and get sent.

JmillsExpensify · 2026-04-06T10:31:38Z

Ok so reviewing where we are at, I think we should not set the forwardsTo and submitsTo for this case. Instead, we should show the upgrade RHP confirmation before setting the values.

JmillsExpensify · 2026-04-06T10:32:08Z

@Expensify/product-pr thoughts on that approach? We should make sure we're aligned on how to handle CSV import upgrade cases in general.

suneox · 2026-04-17T11:40:59Z

@Expensify/product-pr thoughts on that approach? We should make sure we're aligned on how to handle CSV import upgrade cases in general.

We’re still waiting for @Expensify/product-pr to confirm whether importing a CSV that includes forwardsTo or submitsTo field should show the upgrade RHP confirmation.

JmillsExpensify · 2026-04-17T13:43:08Z

I bumped them

trjExpensify · 2026-04-17T14:01:24Z

That handle doesn't tag anyone. Use the /product one.

trjExpensify · 2026-04-17T14:07:35Z

Is this accurate on how Classic handles importing a CSV of members and their approval workflow in this regard?

Collect workspace

sets the fields technically
Essentially ignores them, because it doesn't change the approval mode or upgrade the workspace.

Control workspaces

sets the fields technically
updates the approval mode to ADVANCED to reflect them?

nkdengineer · 2026-04-22T14:48:27Z

@JmillsExpensify, can you please confirm if here is the expected behavior we want.

nkdengineer · 2026-04-29T07:13:20Z

@JmillsExpensify, please check my comment here.

nkdengineer · 2026-05-27T03:55:13Z

@trjExpensify From this comment, we still allow setting these fields like submitTo, forwardTo, customField1, ... which are only available on control WS when importing members via CSV, and just ignore and hide them until upgrade to control WS, right?

Or we will hide these columns like this when importing members on the Collect WS like this?

Screen.Recording.2026-05-27.at.10.48.06.mov

If option 1 is expected, this is currently a backend issue. Otherwise, we will fix it in FE like the video above.

cc @mollfpr

trjExpensify · 2026-06-02T00:32:10Z

I think what @JmillsExpensify is saying here is that he'd prefer it if we:

Prompt for Control upgrade if any of these fields are present in the spreadsheet upload as they are all control-only features:

A. Role: Auditor
B. Custom Field 1
C. Custom Field 2
D. OverLimitForwardsTo
E. Approval limit
F. SubmitsTo
G. ApprovesTo

If the admin confirms the upgrade, proceed to the field mapping screen.
Upon upload, update the approvalMode to ADVANCED if any D-G are included in the upload as those requires advanced approvalMode. A-C don't require it, so BASIC can remain with everyone submitting to the existing default approver.

@JmillsExpensify is that right?

JmillsExpensify · 2026-06-02T11:55:10Z

Yes, that's correct. Thanks for the thorough summary.

JmillsExpensify

LGTM

nkdengineer · 2026-06-08T07:20:00Z

@suneox I updated. It's ready for review now.

suneox · 2026-06-15T15:36:31Z

@suneox I updated. It's ready for review now.

@nkdengineer I lost track of this one. Could you please resolve the conflicts? Thank you!

nkdengineer · 2026-06-16T13:46:29Z

@suneox I updated.

suneox · 2026-06-16T17:11:18Z

The upgrade policy issue was fixed with this logic

Basic policy

CleanShot.2026-06-16.at.23.58.33.2.mp4

Control policy

CleanShot.2026-06-16.at.23.57.08.1.mp4

OSBotify · 2026-06-17T10:48:39Z

✋ 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 · 2026-06-17T11:10:09Z

🚧 @mollfpr has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

github-actions · 2026-06-17T11:16:16Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #82075.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-5ca45f4bbce-86e5643-ecabc6a6b544e618038f56455fbfea853fea3348/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-5ca45f4-86e5643-5dae3bf673d287e65a75ee28d3b9c7e6dd21dcb8/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://82075.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-06-17T18:41:22Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mollfpr in version: 9.4.10-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-06-17T18:45:06Z

Help site review — no changes required

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site articles under App/docs/articles, and I don't believe a help site update is required.

Why:

This PR is a bug fix that restores intended behavior for the existing spreadsheet member-import flow. It does two things, neither of which introduces a new user-facing feature, label, tab, or flow that the help site documents:

When importing members into a Control workspace with approval columns mapped (e.g. Submit to, Approve to), the workspace's approval mode is now correctly set to Advanced so the imported workflow is actually created. (Member.ts)
Importing those same approval columns on a non-Control workspace now triggers the existing Upgrade to Control flow, matching the behavior that already existed for Control-only roles. (ImportedMembersPage.tsx)

The import UI itself is unchanged — the Submit to, Approve to, Approval limit, etc. column mappings already existed before this PR; only the resulting behavior was fixed.

The relevant article, Managing Workspace Members, documents the Invite Multiple Members via Spreadsheet flow at a high level (steps + template link) and intentionally does not cover the individual column mappings or plan-gating. Since this PR adds no new documented concept, there's nothing to update.

Because no changes are required, I did not create a draft help site PR.

@nkdengineer, please confirm you agree no help site update is needed. If you'd prefer the spreadsheet-import section be expanded to document the approval-workflow columns and the Control-plan requirement, reply with @MelvinBot and I'll draft that PR.

OSBotify · 2026-06-18T00:17:30Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mollfpr in version: 9.4.12-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-06-18T00:20:36Z

🤖 No help site changes required.

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help articles under App/docs/articles.

What this PR does: It's a bug fix so that importing members via Import via Spreadsheet into a Control workspace correctly creates the approval workflow — by switching the workspace's approval mode to advanced when the uploaded file includes approval/workflow columns (e.g. Submit to, Approve to), and by routing to the upgrade flow when those columns are used in a non-Control workspace.

Why no docs update is needed: The only help article that covers this flow is Managing-Workspace-Members.md → Invite Multiple Members via Spreadsheet. It documents the high-level steps (Members → three-dot menu → Import via Spreadsheet → upload) and links to the formatting template, but it does not document the individual spreadsheet columns or the resulting approval-workflow behavior. This PR restores intended behavior without changing any documented step or user-facing flow, so there's nothing in the help site that becomes inaccurate or needs new content.

Since no help article describes the workflow/approval-column behavior, no draft docs PR was created. If you'd like the spreadsheet import column behavior documented as a new enhancement (e.g. explaining the Submit to/Approve to columns and the Control-workspace requirement), let me know and I can draft that separately.

OSBotify · 2026-06-18T03:03:05Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mollfpr in version: 9.4.14-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-06-18T03:08:13Z

🤖 Update — docs changes are warranted, draft PR created.

On a closer look, this PR makes the spreadsheet member-import approval fields functional in a Control workspace, and that behavior is currently undocumented. I drafted a help-site update for it:

Draft docs PR: #93902

It updates the Invite Multiple Members via Spreadsheet section of Managing-Workspace-Members.md to:

List the member fields you can map during import (Email, Role, Submit to, Forward to, Over limit forward to, Approval limit, Custom field 1, Custom field 2).
Explain that mapping the approval fields sets up each member's approval workflow (viewable under Workflows).
Note that the approval/custom fields and specialized roles (Auditor, Card Admin) require the Control plan, and importing them into a non-Control workspace prompts an upgrade.
Add an FAQ entry covering the upgrade prompt.

I applied the HelpDot label. I was unable to auto-assign you (GitHub rejected the assignment), so please self-assign on #93902 — you're @-mentioned there.

@nkdengineer, please review the linked help site PR and confirm it reflects the current behavior. Then mark the linked help site PR Ready for review

OSBotify · 2026-06-18T17:13:51Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.4.14-1 🚀

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

nkdengineer added 2 commits February 11, 2026 09:21

fix: New workflow is not added via Import Spreadsheet in a control WS

1445b97

only apply for control policy

91edc6a

melvin-bot Bot assigned nkdengineer Feb 11, 2026

nkdengineer added 2 commits March 6, 2026 16:36

Merge branch 'main' into fix/80428

d609f2f

Merge branch 'main' into fix/80428

238178c

nkdengineer marked this pull request as ready for review March 18, 2026 07:24

nkdengineer requested review from a team as code owners March 18, 2026 07:24

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from suneox March 18, 2026 07:24

melvin-bot Bot requested review from JmillsExpensify and removed request for a team March 18, 2026 07:24

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Mar 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

JmillsExpensify previously approved these changes Mar 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into fix/80428

21cc865

run prettier

d353446

JmillsExpensify previously approved these changes Jun 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

resolve conflict

26c4ec8

nkdengineer dismissed JmillsExpensify’s stale review via 26c4ec8 June 8, 2026 07:06

prompt to control policy when it's required

e782ea4

nkdengineer added 2 commits June 16, 2026 20:40

resolve conflict

5b08e18

Merge branch 'main' into fix/80428

b3b21ad

suneox approved these changes Jun 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from mollfpr June 16, 2026 17:20

mollfpr approved these changes Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

mollfpr merged commit 5ca45f4 into Expensify:main Jun 17, 2026
33 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jun 17, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-06-17 #93863

Closed

67 tasks

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Jun 18, 2026

[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#82075 spreadsheet member import approval fields #93902

Open

Conversation

nkdengineer commented Feb 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Feb 11, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Mar 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 21, 2026

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

mollfpr commented Apr 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify commented Apr 6, 2026

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify commented Apr 6, 2026

Uh oh!

suneox commented Apr 17, 2026

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify commented Apr 17, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Apr 17, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Apr 17, 2026

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Apr 22, 2026

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Apr 29, 2026

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented May 27, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Jun 2, 2026

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify commented Jun 2, 2026

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Jun 8, 2026

Uh oh!

suneox commented Jun 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Jun 16, 2026

Uh oh!

suneox commented Jun 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 17, 2026

nkdengineer commented Feb 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Feb 11, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

suneox commented Mar 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

suneox commented Mar 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

mollfpr commented Apr 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading

suneox commented Jun 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading