Allow $0 as valid card limit when editing Expensify Card by MelvinBot · Pull Request #90540 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-05-13T16:47:21Z

Explanation of Change

Two fixes for Expensify Card management when cards have a $0 limit set from OldDot:

1. filterAllInactiveCards in CardUtils.ts — When includeDeactivated is true (workspace card list), show all suspended cards so admins can view and edit them, not just zero-limit ones. Also removes the code path that returned STATE_DEACTIVATED cards, since the server rejects limit updates on deactivated cards with a 403 error — those cards should never appear in the editable card list.

2. Validator in DynamicExpensifyCardLimitPage.tsx — Changed !Number(values.limit) to Number.isNaN(Number(values.limit)) so that $0 is accepted as a valid limit. A suspended card with a current limit of $0 still needs to load the edit form without tripping "invalid amount".

Fixed Issues

$ #90487

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your changed worked.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Navigate to Workspace > Expensify Card
Assign or issue virtual card to any member
Switch to Expensify Classic (OD), and set the previous assigned Expensify Card's limit to $0
Switch back to ND and navigate to Expensify Card. The card with limit $0 appears in the list
Open it and try to edit the Card limit
Confirm User can navigate to edit limit, edit name, and edit limit type without errors
Verify that deactivated cards (STATE_DEACTIVATED) do NOT appear in the workspace card list
Verify that suspended cards (STATE_SUSPENDED) DO appear and are editable

Offline tests

N/A — validation is purely client-side with no network dependency.

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

The validation in DynamicExpensifyCardLimitPage used !Number(values.limit) to check for invalid amounts. Since Number('0') is 0 and !0 is true, a $0 limit was always rejected as invalid. This prevented editing cards whose limit was set to $0 in Expensify Classic. Changed the check to Number.isNaN(Number(values.limit)) which correctly allows 0 while still rejecting non-numeric input. Co-authored-by: Georgia Monahan <grgia@users.noreply.github.com>

codecov · 2026-05-13T16:58:00Z

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/CardUtils.ts	`81.84% <100.00%> (-0.08%)`	⬇️
...ce/expensifyCard/DynamicExpensifyCardLimitPage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 12 files with indirect coverage changes

github-actions · 2026-05-14T15:13:01Z

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

melvin-bot · 2026-05-14T15:39:17Z

@sobitneupane 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]

sobitneupane · 2026-05-16T12:34:59Z

@grgia The issue is still reproducible on my end.

Steps To reproduce:

Navigate to Expensify Card
Click on the card with limit $0
Try to edit the Card limit

Screen.Recording.2026-05-16.at.18.07.36.mov

sobitneupane · 2026-05-16T13:05:12Z

This is for another card. When I try to edit limit and set it to non-zero value, it disappears from the list. I suspect this is because we only show inactive cards with a $0 limit.

Screen.Recording.2026-05-16.at.18.40.53.mov

sobitneupane · 2026-05-16T17:13:18Z

Here are my findings:

function filterAllInactiveCards(cards: CardList | undefined, includeDeactivated = false) {
    if (!cards) {
        return {};
    }

    const closedStates = new Set<number>([CONST.EXPENSIFY_CARD.STATE.CLOSED, CONST.EXPENSIFY_CARD.STATE.STATE_DEACTIVATED]);
    return filterObject(cards, (_key, card) => {
        const isAdminZeroedExpensifyCard = isExpensifyCard(card) && isCardWithCustomZeroLimit(card);
        if (card.state === CONST.EXPENSIFY_CARD.STATE.STATE_SUSPENDED) {
            return !!card.nameValuePairs?.frozen || (includeDeactivated && isAdminZeroedExpensifyCard);
        }
        if (card.state === CONST.EXPENSIFY_CARD.STATE.STATE_DEACTIVATED) {
            return includeDeactivated && isAdminZeroedExpensifyCard;
        }
        return !closedStates.has(card.state);
    });
}

The "Not found page" issue happens because we filter out the deactivated cards with a non-zero card limit. So, when the limit is updated to a non-zero value, the card disappears from the list.
The server doesn't allow editing the card limit for deactivated cards (unlike suspended cards, where this is allowed) based on what I observed. As a result, when the server responds and resets the limit back to initial value(zero in this case), the card becomes visible again.
IMO, we should allow suspended cards with a non-zero limit as well (which aligns with OD behavior). This would parially resolve the issue.
IMO, we should not show deactivated cards at all. Allowing deactivated cards (even with non-zero limits) would not match OD behavior based on what I observed.

Proposed change:

Allow suspended cards regardless of limit when includeDeactivated is true.
Stop allowing deactivated cards.

function filterAllInactiveCards(cards: CardList | undefined, includeDeactivated = false) {
    if (!cards) {
        return {};
    }

    const closedStates = new Set<number>([CONST.EXPENSIFY_CARD.STATE.CLOSED, CONST.EXPENSIFY_CARD.STATE.STATE_DEACTIVATED]);
    return filterObject(cards, (_key, card) => {
        const isAdminZeroedExpensifyCard = isExpensifyCard(card) && isCardWithCustomZeroLimit(card);
        if (card.state === CONST.EXPENSIFY_CARD.STATE.STATE_SUSPENDED) {
-            return !!card.nameValuePairs?.frozen || (includeDeactivated && isAdminZeroedExpensifyCard);
+           return !!card.nameValuePairs?.frozen || includeDeactivated
        }
-        if (card.state === CONST.EXPENSIFY_CARD.STATE.STATE_DEACTIVATED) {
-           return includeDeactivated && isAdminZeroedExpensifyCard;
-       }
        return !closedStates.has(card.state);
    });
}

…activated cards When includeDeactivated is true, show all suspended cards (not just zero-limit ones) so admins can view and edit them. Remove the deactivated card path entirely since the server rejects limit updates on STATE_DEACTIVATED cards with a 403 error. Co-authored-by: Georgia Monahan <grgia@users.noreply.github.com>

melvin-bot · 2026-05-18T10:34:39Z

@grgia 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]

github-actions · 2026-05-18T10:36:05Z

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

MelvinBot · 2026-05-18T10:36:35Z

Updated the PR with both changes:

filterAllInactiveCards — When includeDeactivated is true, all suspended cards are now shown (not just zero-limit ones). The STATE_DEACTIVATED code path is removed entirely since the server rejects limit updates on those cards with a 403.
JSDoc on filterInactiveCardsForWorkspace — Updated to say "keeps all suspended cards" instead of "keeps issued deactivated cards and zero-limit suspended cards".
Validator change in DynamicExpensifyCardLimitPage.tsx — kept as-is from the original commit.

isCardWithCustomZeroLimit references at lines 1615 and 1664 left untouched per instructions. Ran prettier (no changes needed) and typecheck-tsgo (no new errors). PR description updated to describe both changes.

github-actions · 2026-05-18T10:40:16Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #90540.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
⏩ SKIPPED ⏩	⏩ SKIPPED ⏩
The build for Android was skipped	The build for iOS was skipped

Web 🕸️
https://90540.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

…rds behavior Tests were asserting old behavior where only admin-zeroed suspended cards were kept. Updated to reflect the new logic: all suspended cards are kept when includeDeactivated is true, and STATE_DEACTIVATED cards are always excluded since the server rejects limit updates on them. Co-authored-by: Georgia Monahan <grgia@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-05-18T10:46:56Z

Fixed the failing test (job 4) check: the CardUtilsTest.ts assertions for filterAllInactiveCards and filterInactiveCardsForWorkspace were still expecting the old behavior. Updated them to match the new logic where all suspended cards are kept when includeDeactivated is true, and STATE_DEACTIVATED cards are always excluded.

grgia · 2026-05-18T16:20:34Z

@sobitneupane latest branch works on my card test- can you check with yours?

grgia · 2026-05-18T16:20:45Z

If it still doesn't feel free to stop there

sobitneupane

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-05-19.at.12.16.16.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-05-19.at.12.11.12.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-05-19.at.12.24.34.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-05-19.at.12.22.50.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-05-19.at.11.55.28.mov

sobitneupane

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.

melvin-bot · 2026-05-19T14:26:41Z

@sobitneupane @grgia 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]

grgia · 2026-05-19T14:27:26Z

@mountiny would you final review this? I think we need 2 engineers nowadays

melvin-bot · 2026-05-19T14:27:42Z

@mjasikowski 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]

grgia · 2026-05-19T14:28:08Z

oop puller bear was just SLOW nvm @mountiny

mjasikowski · 2026-05-19T16:14:52Z

I don't know what's going on with the review status here, but I'm approving and merging, because I feel brave.

github-actions · 2026-05-19T16:23:16Z

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

OSBotify · 2026-05-19T16:25:53Z

✋ 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 · 2026-05-19T16:27:42Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #90540.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-f80369b-fdf8a2c-5e7c0434144e798272a0ed8d1325b8e7651cca29/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-f80369b-fdf8a2c-aa8900a6f1265a5b311c560613bdf2f375c98d72/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://90540.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-05-19T22:08:16Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mjasikowski in version: 9.3.78-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-05-19T22:14:25Z

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site articles under App/docs/articles. No help site changes are required.

Reasoning:

This PR fixes two bugs (card filtering for suspended cards, and $0 limit validation) — it does not introduce new user-facing features or change documented behavior.
The Classic card limit article already correctly states that "$0 disables the card until the limit is increased." This behavior is unchanged.
The New Expensify card management article covers card issuance, limits, and management without referencing internal filtering logic. Nothing is incorrect or missing.

No draft PR needed.

OSBotify · 2026-05-21T21:26:23Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.3.78-1 🚀

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

MelvinBot assigned grgia May 13, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team May 13, 2026 16:47

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request May 13, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-05-28] [$250] Expensify Card - Error when try to edit the limit of the first assigned card #90487

Closed

7 tasks

grgia previously approved these changes May 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

grgia marked this pull request as ready for review May 14, 2026 15:39

grgia requested a review from a team as a code owner May 14, 2026 15:39

melvin-bot Bot requested review from flaviadefaria and sobitneupane and removed request for a team May 14, 2026 15:39

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team May 14, 2026 15:39

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

MelvinBot dismissed grgia’s stale review via b6bd285 May 18, 2026 10:34

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner May 18, 2026 10:34

melvin-bot Bot requested review from grgia and removed request for a team May 18, 2026 10:34

sobitneupane mentioned this pull request May 19, 2026

[$250] Expensify Cards with a $0 limit in Expensify Classic do not appear in New Expensify #82466

Closed

7 tasks

sobitneupane reviewed May 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

sobitneupane approved these changes May 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

grgia approved these changes May 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

grgia requested a review from a team May 19, 2026 14:25

melvin-bot Bot requested review from grgia and sobitneupane and removed request for a team May 19, 2026 14:26

grgia requested review from a team and mountiny May 19, 2026 14:27

melvin-bot Bot requested review from mjasikowski and removed request for a team May 19, 2026 14:27

grgia removed the request for review from mountiny May 19, 2026 14:28

mjasikowski approved these changes May 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

mjasikowski merged commit f80369b into main May 19, 2026
49 of 50 checks passed

mjasikowski deleted the claude-fixZeroLimitValidation branch May 19, 2026 16:15

OSBotify mentioned this pull request May 19, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-05-19 #91122

Closed

39 tasks

Conversation

MelvinBot commented May 13, 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 May 13, 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!

github-actions Bot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

melvin-bot Bot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

sobitneupane commented May 16, 2026

Uh oh!

sobitneupane commented May 16, 2026

Uh oh!

sobitneupane commented May 16, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

melvin-bot Bot commented May 18, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented May 18, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 18, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented May 18, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 18, 2026

Uh oh!

grgia commented May 18, 2026

Uh oh!

grgia commented May 18, 2026

Uh oh!

sobitneupane left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

sobitneupane left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Reviewer Checklist

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented May 19, 2026

Uh oh!

grgia commented May 19, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented May 19, 2026

Uh oh!

grgia commented May 19, 2026

Uh oh!

mjasikowski commented May 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented May 19, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented May 19, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented May 19, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented May 19, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 19, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented May 21, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

MelvinBot commented May 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented May 13, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading