Fix - Newly created expense is not highlighted in the expense list

[FitseTLT]

Explanation of Change

1. Highlight new transaction on the 1→2 transition

When a report goes from 1 to 2 transactions, MoneyRequestReportActionsList switches from a single-transaction view to the transaction list — a fresh mount with no previous state. This breaks both detection paths in useNewTransactions: the diff-based path (no usePrevious baseline) and the pendingNewTransactionIDs fallback (never written for expense report destinations). The fix registers pendingNewTransactionIDs in REPORT_METADATA before the optimistic write in TrackExpense.requestMoney, Split.createDistanceRequest, and useExpenseSubmission.submitPerDiem, gated on the current non-deleted transaction count being exactly 1. A shouldNavigate param is added to navigateAfterExpenseCreate / handleNavigateAfterExpenseCreate so the pending ID registration can be decoupled from actual navigation. MoneyRequestReportActionsList now subscribes to pendingNewTransactionIDs and passes them to useNewTransactions.

2. Forward backToReport through the per diem flow

PR #73272 changed the per diem subrate→confirmation navigation to use chatReportID instead of the IOU reportID, causing activeReportID in submitPerDiem to resolve to the chat report even when the expense is created inside an IOU report. Other expense flows avoid this by forwarding backToReport through route params so the confirmation page knows the original report. The fix adds backToReport as an optional route param to STEP_DESTINATION, STEP_TIME, and STEP_SUBRATE (plus STEP_TIME_EDIT for type union compatibility), and each step forwards it to the next. This lets submitPerDiem use the IOU report's reportID as activeReportID directly, and rely on backToReport for correct post-creation navigation — matching how all other expense flows work.

Fixed Issues

$ #92401
PROPOSAL: #92401 (comment)

Tests

1. Navigate to a workspace or a dm chat.
2. Find/create a report with only one expense in it
3. Open the report to view its details.
4. Click the + button and create another new expense.
5. Verify the newly created expense is highlighted in the expense list

• 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
• 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

2026-06-12.16-15-06.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

2026-06-12.01-35-41.mp4

iOS: Native

2026-06-12.16-20-38.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

2026-06-12.01-30-50.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

2026-06-12.01-27-01.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@mkhutornyi 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]

[codecov]

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
...equestReportView/MoneyRequestReportActionsList.tsx	64.57% <100.00%> (+0.39%)	⬆️
src/libs/actions/IOU/NavigationHelpers.ts	91.66% <100.00%> (+0.75%)	⬆️
src/libs/actions/IOU/PendingNewTransactions.ts	38.46% <100.00%> (+11.18%)	⬆️
src/libs/actions/IOU/Split.ts	74.30% <100.00%> (+0.10%)	⬆️
src/libs/actions/IOU/TrackExpense.ts	80.70% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
...s/Navigation/helpers/navigateAfterExpenseCreate.ts	86.84% <80.00%> (-1.40%)	⬇️
...es/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx	64.44% <0.00%> (ø)
...c/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepSubrate.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepTime.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ges/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDestination.tsx	2.40% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 2 more
... and 171 files with indirect coverage changes

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 3fba583508

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".

[MelvinBot]

Review

The fix is well-targeted: the isOneToTwoTransactionTransition helper + shouldNavigate decoupling is a clean way to register pendingNewTransactionIDs without forcing navigation, and the backToReport threading through the per‑diem steps matches how other expense flows work. I verified the getRoute signature change (inserting backToReport before the legacy backTo) does not break any existing caller — all 7 call sites were checked and none pass a positional backTo that would now land in backToReport.

A few things worth confirming before merge — none are blocking, but the two behavioral changes (1 and 2) deserve a careful test pass.

1. Subrate → Confirmation now passes reportID instead of the transaction's participant report

IOURequestStepSubrate.tsx:161 dropped transactionReportID = transaction?.participants?.at(0)?.reportID ?? transaction?.reportID ?? reportID in favor of the raw reportID route param. For per‑diem created from an IOU report, forwarding backToReport makes this correct. But please verify the normal per‑diem-from-workspace-chat path still lands the confirmation page on the right report — previously the participant's reportID was authoritative, and if reportID (the route param threaded from Destination) ever diverges from transaction.participants[0].reportID, the confirmation page could resolve a different report.

2. submitPerDiem activeReportID no longer checks the topmost report

useExpenseSubmission.ts:548 changed from isExpenseReport && Navigation.getTopmostReportId() === report?.reportID ? report?.reportID : chatReportID to simply isExpenseReport ? report?.reportID : chatReportID. The PR relies on backToReport to carry the original report instead. Worth testing per‑diem creation from global create and from a workspace chat (where the topmost report is not the expense report) to confirm post‑creation navigation still goes where expected — that topmost check was the previous safeguard for exactly that case.

3. shouldAddPendingNewTransactionIDs is guarded inconsistently across the 3 call sites

• useExpenseSubmission.ts:591 guards with !backToReport (comment: "creating from chat, not the expense report, so no pending registration needed").
• Split.ts:2202 and TrackExpense.ts:1883 do not apply the !backToReport guard.

In createDistanceRequest, navigationActiveReportID = backToReport ?? activeReportID, so when isOneToTwoTransition is true and backToReport is set, the pending ID is written to backToReport's metadata (the chat) rather than the expense report — the opposite of what useExpenseSubmission does. In practice isMoneyRequestReport (required by isOneToTwoTransition) and a set backToReport may not co‑occur for distance requests, but please confirm that's intentional so the three paths stay consistent.

4. Minor: optional route param placed before a required one

ROUTES.ts:1727 defines :reportID/:backToReport?/:pageIndex — an optional segment sandwiched before the required :pageIndex. It resolves correctly via regex backtracking when backToReport is absent (subrate/A/B/0 → pageIndex=0), but optional-in-the-middle is fragile. Since getRoute always hardcodes pageIndex to 0, consider appending :backToReport? last to avoid the ambiguity. (Functional as-is — just a robustness note.)

5. No automated test for the regression

The checklist marks unit tests as added, but the diff contains none. Given this is a highlight regression that's easy to re‑break (it already broke once via #73272), a small unit test around isOneToTwoTransactionTransition and the metadata-write path would help guard it.

What I verified

• All callers of MONEY_REQUEST_STEP_{SUBRATE,TIME,DESTINATION}.getRoute updated; no positional backTo shifted into backToReport.
• isOneToTwoTransitionTransition in requestMoney/createDistanceRequest runs before the optimistic write (getReportTransactions reads pre-write state, count == 1), so the 1→2 detection is correct.
• For requestMoney/createDistanceRequest with isMoneyRequestReport === true, activeReportID === moneyRequestReportID === report.reportID, so the pending ID is written to the expense report metadata that MoneyRequestReportActionsList subscribes to — the highlight target matches.
• navigateAfterExpenseCreate with shouldNavigate: false only registers pending IDs on the non-global-create branch and is a no-op on the global-create branch — no unintended navigation side effects.

---

This is an automated review — treat findings 1 and 2 as "please verify", not confirmed bugs. Reply with @MelvinBot <feedback> to refine.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 3e51ecb79c

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".

[mkhutornyi]

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
  • 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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web1.mov

web2.mov

[mkhutornyi]

@FitseTLT There's double highlight on mobile. Is it expected?

ios.mov

And please check AI review comments.

[MelvinBot]

No code changes since my previous review (head is still 3e51ecb), so I won't repeat it. But mkhutornyi's "double highlight on mobile" observation looks like a real consequence of this PR's design, so here's the likely mechanism.

Why the double highlight happens

On platforms where MoneyRequestReportActionsList does not fresh-mount on the 1→2 transition (mobile native), the diff-based detection in useNewTransactions.ts:50 already works — but this PR also registers pendingNewTransactionIDs for that same transition. The two paths aren't mutually exclusive across renders:

1. t2 is added → transactions.length (2) > prevTransactions.length (1) → diff path returns [t2] → highlight Some initial fixes and code style updates #1.
2. pendingNewTransactionIDs is only cleared after a delayed setTimeout (useNewTransactions.ts:68), and the memo's deps are [transactions, reportID, isFocused] — it deliberately excludes pendingNewTransactionIDs (useNewTransactions.ts:55).
3. On the next re-render before that timeout fires (new transactions reference, or isFocused toggle on refocus), prevTransactions is now [t1,t2], so transactions.length <= prevTransactions.length is true → it enters the fallback branch (useNewTransactions.ts:39), and since the pending ID is still present, it returns [t2] again → highlight Fix spaces #2.

On web the component fresh-mounts, so only the fallback path runs once — which is why this only reproduces on mobile.

Suggested direction

Gate the pendingNewTransactionIDs registration to only the fresh-mount platforms/case, or have useNewTransactions treat the diff-based and pending-ID paths as a single source so a transaction can't be highlighted by both. Worth confirming with a quick mobile test of the 1→2 flow once adjusted.

Confidence

Medium — this is a code-traced hypothesis that matches the reported symptom (mobile-only, double highlight) and the PR's own stated premise that web fresh-mounts while the diff path is the normal mechanism elsewhere. I have not run it on a device to confirm the exact re-render trigger.

---

Automated follow-up — reply with @MelvinBot <feedback> to refine.

[JmillsExpensify]

LGTM

[FitseTLT]

@FitseTLT There's double highlight on mobile. Is it expected?

ios.mov
And please check AI review comments.

This is not a double highlighting. As you can see from the video after finishing the expense creation the user was navigated back to the spend page(and spend page has its own highlighting mechanism) and then it was navigated to the expense report then you saw the highlighting we fixed. Now I tried to reproduce it to debug the navigation in ios but it doesn't happen; only navigation happens if you are in inbox. Do you remember any specific step you did to reproduce it?

2026-06-15.15-11-00.mp4

[mkhutornyi]

Now I am not able to reproduce. Let's not block on this.

[robertjchen]

thanks!

[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]

🚧 @robertjchen 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 #93338.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-bfcfeca01e2-af588c3-6d9856b07ab34c5eab22feee7eb23f1d9118a892/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-bfcfeca-af588c3-590ba81b346dec41c80ead1a0a39f25f2020126f/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://93338.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

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

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• iOS

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Help site review: no changes required.

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site files under App/docs/articles and concluded no documentation updates are needed.

Why

This PR is an internal bug fix with no user-facing feature, setting, label, or workflow change:

1. Highlight new transaction on the 1→2 transition — fixes a detection gap so a newly created expense is correctly highlighted when a report goes from 1 to 2 transactions. This is transient visual behavior (a highlight), restoring the intended experience rather than introducing anything new to document.
2. Forward backToReport through the per diem flow — a navigation-internals fix so post-creation navigation lands on the correct report. No change to what the user sees or does, just where they end up — matching how every other expense flow already behaves.

All modified files are code/navigation internals (src/ROUTES.ts, navigation helpers, IOU action files, MoneyRequestReportActionsList.tsx). None of this corresponds to documented help content: the help site describes how features work and how to use them, not internal highlight detection or navigation routing. The per diem and expense-creation articles remain accurate as written.

@FitseTLT, since no documentation changes are required, no help site PR was created. If you believe a user-facing behavior here should be documented, let me know and I'll draft the changes.

[OSBotify]

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

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[OSBotify]

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

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