Hide redundant Reimbursable rows; show "· Non-reimbursable" on Amount

[mukhrr]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #89548
PROPOSAL: #89548 (comment)

Tests

1. Create a report with: A single expense and mark it as non-reimbursable
2. Navigate to Spend > Reports
3. Open the report
4. Observe the section above the total

• Verify you see only one header with text “Amount · Non-reimbursable” and reimbursable amount below

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

The 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
• 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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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 new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• 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

[melvin-bot]

@hoangzinh 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: ef86b025e0

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".

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...rc/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyReportView.tsx	81.08% <100.00%> (+81.08%)	⬆️
...c/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx	74.93% <50.00%> (+0.42%)	⬆️
... and 669 files with indirect coverage changes

[MelvinBot]

This happens when a report contains reimbursable expenses and reimbursable credits (negative amounts) that cancel each other out. For example: a $50 reimbursable expense and a -$50 reimbursable credit on the same report → the reimbursable total is $0.

The reason this case matters is that getMoneyRequestSpendBreakdown() returns reimbursableSpend: 0 when they net out, which would previously hide the breakdown rows. The fix on line 109 of MoneyReportView.tsx checks for transaction presence instead of summed amounts, so the breakdown still displays when there's a mix of reimbursable and non-reimbursable transactions — even if the reimbursable side nets to zero.

The test on line 128 of MoneyReportViewTest.tsx demonstrates the exact scenario: two reimbursable transactions ($50 and -$50) plus one non-reimbursable ($30).

[hoangzinh]

@shawnborton Coming from your request, when user open a non-reimbursable expense in a money report (has multiple expenses), should we display the “Amount · Non-reimbursable”
or we only display this text in single expense? TY

[shawnborton]

I could go either way. I was thinking we'd only need this in the single expense report view for simplicity's sake but I can see an argument to use it everywhere. Any strong feelings @flaviadefaria @heyjennahay @Expensify/design @JmillsExpensify ?

[flaviadefaria]

I’d only add it to the single expense report view, since the goal of that information was to clean up the “report reimbursable/non-reimbursable” totals, which doesn’t really apply to expenses within multi-expense reports.

I’d rather stick to the original scope to avoid unnecessary repetition, as highlighted in @hoangzinh’s screenshot.

[shawnborton]

That works for me!

[mukhrr]

@hoangzinh can you pls check it once more? thanks

[hoangzinh]

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

Screen.Recording.2026-05-18.at.17.02.43.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-05-18.at.17.01.26.mov

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-05-18.at.17.08.33.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-05-18.at.16.58.06.mov

[hoangzinh]

LGTM

[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]

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

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #90411.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-13f4eee-8bde14d-863bf5acb26221283e6928259ca3ed84eb97b751/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-13f4eee-8bde14d-17220f40e67a2eff94fa335d114e79f040987616/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://90411.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/rlinoz in version: 9.3.76-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

No help site changes are required for this PR.

The changes are a UI-only refinement to how single non-reimbursable expense reports display their total breakdown — hiding redundant "Reimbursable" / "Non-reimbursable" rows and appending "· Non-reimbursable" inline on the Amount label instead. No user-facing workflows, feature names, settings, or documented processes are affected. The existing help site articles that mention reimbursable/non-reimbursable expenses cover workspace rules, export configurations, and payment methods — none describe the report total breakdown UI.

[mitarachim]

Deploy Blocker #91057 was identified to be related to this PR.

[jponikarchuk]

Deploy Blocker #91058 was identified to be related to this PR.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.3.77-3 🚀

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

[shawnborton]

This wasn't implemented correctly - we still are showing a HR/border line at the top:

Can you please follow up @mukhrr ? Thanks!

[mukhrr]

Can you please follow up @mukhrr ? Thanks!

@shawnborton what are repro steps for this? I don't see it on main branch

[mukhrr]

Never mind, I found them:

• enable workspace report field
• add report field
• disable report fields
• go to non-imbursable report expense
• note there is HR/border top

cc @hoangzinh

[mukhrr]

Here is PR #92042 cc @hoangzinh

[shawnborton]

Thanks!

[hoangzinh]

@shawnborton, can you help create a new GitHub issue for this bug report, please #90411 (comment)?

[shawnborton]

What do you mean? I think it would just be a follow up from the original request, no?

[mukhrr]

@shawnborton Here is my honest report:

Root cause: shouldShowReportField (which gates the divider) checks the report type, but not whether report fields are actually enabled — it never looks at policy.areReportFieldsEnabled. So when you disable report fields, the flag stays truthy and keeps the divider on.

This guard was lost back in #44695 ("Remove Report Fields Beta") when reportFieldsEnabled(report) was swapped for a report-type check, and never restored as the gate was refactored through #52556 and #57923.

Why it shows up here: for a single non-reimbursable expense, Total/Billable/Tax are hidden, so shouldShowReportField is the only thing left holding the divider on — and with nothing above it, the HR looks stray. #90411 didn't cause this; it just removed the rows that used to sit above the divider and mask it.

Fix: add !!policy?.areReportFieldsEnabled to the report-field gate (and its render block), so disabling the feature correctly hides both the field and the divider.

Besides, we fix/improve another thing: removing totals from above amount row in #92042. So I think it makes sense to have, at least, an issue. What do you think? cc @hoangzinh

[shawnborton]

@rlinoz can I get your opinion too?

[hoangzinh]

I agreed with @mukhrr comment here. During the PR for original issue #89548, we thought it's only scoped for "Non-reimbursable" single expense:

1. The bug that @shawnborton reported here related to the reportField, a existing bug and not a regression from this PR.
2. I followed discussions in the new PR, [Payment due @hoangzinh] Remove tax, total and billable above amount in single expense report #92042, and found that we want to apply this not only to “Non-reimbursable” single expenses but also to all breakdown rows in single expenses.

[shawnborton]

Yeah sorry if that got lost in translation, when the issue said "redundant rows" it meant to include all rows above the total, not just for reimbursable.

[hoangzinh]

Yeah, we based on screenshots

and "Actual result"

Two extra rows are displayed above the total (Reimbursable and Non-reimbursable)
Results in unnecessary vertical space

Then we assumed that they're only reimbursable rows.

[shawnborton]

Got it. So you are asking that we create a new isssue, which means a separate $250 bounty?

If we create a new issue, I suppose we would give Melvin first dibs at solving this (proposal + sending a PR) as a heads up.

[mukhrr]

@shawnborton does $250 sounds good to you? For two issues we mentioned #90411 (comment)
And can you pls assign @hoangzinh and me there in case issue is created?! Thanks!

[shawnborton]

Like I said, I think we'd make the issue and then just have Melvin try to solve it right? That's how all of our new issues go. That being said, I am not on the team that manages these issues so that's more of a question for @rlinoz I think.

[mukhrr]

Oh I am okay, but I have been assigned multiple times for follow-up issues like this since I had more context about what is going one. Let's see what @rlinoz says.

[rlinoz]

Hey sorry for the delay, I am back from OOO.

Since this is not a regression on the PR I think we should have created a new issue and gone through our normal process.

For this specific case, given the amount of work/discussion that already happened in the PR I think it is fine to continue, but it is feels like the amount should be $125 for the minor layout change.

[mukhrr]

@rlinoz thanks for taking a look. Then can you pls assign me and @hoangzinh in this regard?
We have already a ready PR for the fixes. #92042

[rlinoz]

@mukhrr just to be sure, we are fixing both things #90411 (comment) in the PR right?

[mukhrr]

Yes, we do