fix: inline merchant field is not disabled for unreported per diem expense by mohammadjafarinejad · Pull Request #91298 · Expensify/App

mohammadjafarinejad · 2026-05-21T10:56:59Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #82534
$ #91136
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Workspace has per diem rates.
Go to workspace chat.
Create a per diem expense.
Go to Spend > Expenses.
Hover over the inline merchant field on the per diem expense.
→ Merchant inline field is disabled for per diem expense - Expected.
Open the report.
Click Report > Remove from report.
Click on the inline merchant field on the per diem expense.
Verify that the inline merchant field should be disabled for unreported per diem expense.

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

Screenshots/Videos

Inline editing is only available on desktop (wide screen), so I didn’t add recordings for other platforms.

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Web_91136.mp4

…pense

melvin-bot · 2026-05-21T11:17:41Z

@parasharrajat 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]

mohammadjafarinejad · 2026-05-21T11:19:04Z

To be reviewed by @ahmedGaber93 and @puneetlath since this is related to the regression from our previous PR.

ahmedGaber93 · 2026-05-21T15:20:29Z

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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-05-21.at.6.19.03.PM.mov

ahmedGaber93 · 2026-05-27T14:20:57Z

@puneetlath Minor fix — all yours!

ahmedGaber93 · 2026-06-03T12:22:53Z

Puneet is OOO, asked on slack for taking over.

ahmedGaber93 · 2026-06-15T11:58:10Z

@puneetlath Minor fix — all yours!

github-actions · 2026-06-15T16:23:44Z

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

github-actions · 2026-06-15T16:28:57Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #91298.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-926f4bd0f4d-c748b00-546440878eebf621bc0c9795560e9817349943e5/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-926f4bd-c748b00-69e0f55ab92ea3a2f6766b16204405a1489d00e4/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://91298.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-06-15T18:12:07Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.4.8-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-06-15T18:14:24Z

🤖 Help site review: no changes required.

This PR is a narrow bug fix that disables inline editing of the Amount and Merchant fields for per diem expenses (both values are derived from the configured rate). It restores intended behavior rather than introducing new user-facing functionality.

I reviewed the relevant App/docs/articles files and found no doc changes are needed:

Create a Per Diem Expense documents only how to create a per diem expense — it doesn't cover field editability.
Edit Expenses and Getting Started with the Spend Page describe inline editing generically but don't enumerate which fields are disabled per expense type. Notably, the existing distance-expense merchant restriction (which this PR groups per diem alongside) is also not documented, so the help site's current convention is to omit this level of detail.

Adding per-diem-specific inline-edit restrictions would be inconsistent with the existing scope of these articles, so no draft PR was created. If you'd prefer the editability rules documented explicitly (for distance and per diem), let me know and I can draft that update.

OSBotify · 2026-06-15T19:03:13Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.4.8-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-06-15T19:07:48Z

🤖 Help site review: a docs update is warranted, but I hit a push blocker.

On a second pass I found a real gap in Edit Expenses. That article already documents field-level edit restrictions (e.g. "Amount (cash expenses only)") but doesn't mention that per diem Amount and Merchant are locked — which is exactly the behavior this PR enforces (both are derived from the workspace's per diem rate). I prepared the update, but I was unable to push the branch to create the draft PR.

Blocker: Every push of claude-docs-perdiem-edit-restrictions is rejected by GitHub with:

remote rejected ... Unable to determine if workflow can be created or updated due to timeout; workflows scope may be required.

This is a GitHub server-side timeout (the bot token lacks the workflows scope and GitHub's pre-receive check can't confirm the push is workflow-free). My change touches only the docs file below — no workflow files — so this is infrastructure, not content. I retried multiple times over several minutes without success.

What needs to happen: retry the request later once the GitHub-side check recovers, or have someone with workflows scope push the prepared commit. Below is the exact diff so nothing is lost:

Proposed change to docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Edit-Expenses.md

@@ What expense fields can be edited @@
  - Amount (cash expenses only)
  - Description
- - Merchant
+ - Merchant (not available on distance or per diem expenses)
  - Date
  - Other fields like Category, Tag and Attendees

+**Note:** On a per diem expense, the amount and merchant are set automatically from the workspace's per diem rate, so those fields can't be edited.
+
 **Note:** Expenses on Approved reports must be unapproved before they can be edited. ...

@@ FAQ @@
 ## Why can't I see the Edit multiple option?
 ...
+
+## Why can't I edit the amount or merchant on a per diem expense?
+
+On a per diem expense, the amount and merchant are derived from the workspace's per diem rate, so those fields can't be edited. You can still update the date, description, category, and tag. [Learn how to create a per diem expense](/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Per-Diem-Expenses).

Once the push goes through I'll apply the HelpDot label and assign the docs PR to mohammadjafarinejad, per the original request.

OSBotify · 2026-06-16T19:44:17Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.4.8-3 🚀

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

fix: inline merchant field is not disabled for unreported per diem ex…

2982731

…pense

melvin-bot Bot assigned mohammadjafarinejad May 21, 2026

test: add per diem request permissions validation

04fee98

mohammadjafarinejad marked this pull request as ready for review May 21, 2026 11:17

mohammadjafarinejad requested review from a team as code owners May 21, 2026 11:17

melvin-bot Bot requested review from flaviadefaria and parasharrajat and removed request for a team May 21, 2026 11:17

ahmedGaber93 approved these changes May 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from puneetlath May 21, 2026 15:27

puneetlath approved these changes Jun 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

puneetlath merged commit 926f4bd into Expensify:main Jun 15, 2026
42 checks passed

This was referenced Jun 15, 2026

Investigate workflow job failing on main: test / test (job 4) #93596

Closed

[Due for payment 2026-06-23] Investigate workflow job failing on main: test / test (job 4) #93597

Closed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jun 15, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-06-15 #93604

Closed

62 tasks

This was referenced Jun 16, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-06-23] [Partial Payment?][CFI] Add inline editing for tables on desktop #82534

Open

[Due for payment 2026-06-23] [$250] Spend- Inline merchant field is not disabled for unreported per diem expense and can be edited #91136

Open

Conversation

mohammadjafarinejad commented May 21, 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!

melvin-bot Bot commented May 21, 2026

Uh oh!

mohammadjafarinejad commented May 21, 2026

Uh oh!

ahmedGaber93 commented May 21, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

ahmedGaber93 commented May 27, 2026

Uh oh!

ahmedGaber93 commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

ahmedGaber93 commented Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

mohammadjafarinejad commented May 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading