Restore IOUReportID fallback for IOU action report resolution by youssef-lr · Pull Request #93881 · Expensify/App

youssef-lr · 2026-06-17T21:15:05Z

Explanation of Change

#87530 ("Remove usage of IOUReportID completely", shipped in v9.4.8) stopped resolving the report an IOU action belongs to via the getOriginalMessage(reportAction)?.IOUReportID ?? reportAction?.reportID fallback and switched to using reportAction?.reportID directly. The premise was that for CREATE/TRACK IOU actions reportID always equals the IOU/expense report ID.

That premise does not hold for backend-hydrated actions: the backend does not reliably include reportID on IOU actions, so the lookup resolves the wrong report (or none). When that happens, getPolicy() cannot find the policy, the admin/manager bypass in canEditMoneyRequest / canEditFieldOfMoneyRequest never fires, and execution falls through to the requestor-only branch. The result is that an admin or manager viewing someone else's submitted expense report sees every field as read-only — and because the edit is blocked client-side, no request is ever sent to the API. The code already documents this divergence in useGetIOUReportFromReportAction ("For self-DM tracks and split bills, action.reportID resolves to a chat report, not an IOU/expense report").

This PR restores the originalMessage.IOUReportID ?? reportAction?.reportID fallback in the report-resolution paths used for editability:

canEditMoneyRequest
canEditFieldOfMoneyRequest
canEditReportAction
useGetIOUReportFromReportAction

It also re-adds the IOUReportID field to the OriginalMessageIOU type (it had been removed) so the fallback typechecks.

This is a temporary client-side fallback. The real fix is on the backend, which must reliably include reportID on IOU actions; once that ships, the fallback (and the IOUReportID field) should be removed. Tracked in #93882.

Fixed Issues

$ #93864
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Sign in to New Expensify as a workspace admin who is not the submitter of the expenses below.
Ensure the workspace has a submitted (Processing/Outstanding) expense report owned by another member with at least one expense.
Open that expense report (e.g. from Spend > Reports) and click an expense.
Open the Category field (and other coding fields such as Tag/Description).
Verify the field is editable, that selecting a new value saves it, and that the change persists after refresh.
Verify no errors appear in the JS console.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Complete steps 1-3 from the Tests section while online.
Disable your network connection.
Open an expense on the submitted report as the admin.
Verify the coding fields (Category, Tag, etc.) still render as editable for the admin.
Verify edits are queued optimistically and reconcile correctly once back online.

QA Steps

Sign in to New Expensify as a workspace admin who is not the submitter.
Ensure the workspace has a submitted expense report owned by another member with at least one expense.
Open that expense report and click an expense.
Open the Category field and change it.
Verify the category updates and persists, and the change is reflected after refresh.
Verify no errors appear in the JS console.

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

Temporary client-side fallback to originalMessage.IOUReportID when resolving the report an IOU action belongs to, restoring behavior removed in PR #87530. The backend does not reliably send reportID on IOU actions, so resolving purely from reportAction.reportID broke editability (admins/managers could not edit fields on submitted expense reports). Remove once the backend reliably includes reportID. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

melvin-bot · 2026-06-17T21:15:12Z

@ahmedGaber93 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]

melvin-bot · 2026-06-17T21:15:47Z

@carlosmiceli 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 · 2026-06-17T21:18:53Z

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

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: a1a5abef67

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".

trjExpensify

This is blocking admins from editing reports on NewDot. 👍

The moved-expense flow sets the new IOU action's reportID to the destination report but spreads the old originalMessage, leaving a stale IOUReportID pointing at the source report. Preferring IOUReportID would resolve the wrong report and deny editing to destination-workspace admins. Prefer reportAction.reportID and fall back to IOUReportID only when reportID is missing (the backend-omitted case). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

github-actions · 2026-06-17T21:37:28Z

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

trjExpensify

Adhoc looks good: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1781732069643819?thread_ts=1781711314.051499&cid=C049HHMV9SM

luacmartins · 2026-06-17T21:46:27Z

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 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)
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)
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.
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

trjExpensify

👍

github-actions · 2026-06-17T22:12:43Z

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

OSBotify · 2026-06-17T22:18:11Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

…_fallback Restore IOUReportID fallback for IOU action report resolution (cherry picked from commit e4244d9) (cherry-picked to staging by luacmartins)

github-actions · 2026-06-17T22:19:44Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #93881.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-e4244d9a31d-a3adc64-f4fe4276c8d35596293bbe8cc08b604f2ca546fe/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-e4244d9-a3adc64-ae0854b68cc59bdc35c91e6843692d4327ddb6f0/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://93881.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-06-17T22:56:58Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.4.10-3 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-06-17T22:59:46Z

🤖 No help site changes required.

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

This is a temporary, internal client-side fix that restores the originalMessage.IOUReportID ?? reportAction?.reportID fallback for resolving the report an IOU action belongs to (canEditMoneyRequest, canEditFieldOfMoneyRequest, canEditReportAction, useGetIOUReportFromReportAction) plus the IOUReportID type field. It contains no new feature, UI, tab, setting, or label — it simply restores the already-expected behavior that a prior refactor regressed: admins/managers being able to edit coding fields (Category, Tag, Description, etc.) on another member's submitted expense report.

That expected behavior is already correctly documented on the help site:

"Approvers and Workspace Admins can edit expenses on Outstanding reports."
— Edit-expenses.md

Since the docs already reflect the correct (restored) behavior, no draft PR was created.

…_fallback Restore IOUReportID fallback for IOU action report resolution (cherry picked from commit e4244d9) (cherry-picked to production by roryabraham)

OSBotify · 2026-06-17T23:50:04Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.4.11-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

OSBotify · 2026-06-18T00:20:09Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.12-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

trjExpensify · 2026-06-18T02:35:06Z

Tested in the customer account on prod, and it's fixed.

OSBotify · 2026-06-18T03:05:44Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.14-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

OSBotify · 2026-06-18T17:16:30Z

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

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

OSBotify · 2026-06-18T17:18:40Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.15-0 🚀

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

MelvinBot · 2026-06-18T17:21:40Z

🤖 I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site files under docs/articles.

No help site changes are required.

This PR is a purely internal bug fix. It restores the originalMessage.IOUReportID ?? reportAction?.reportID fallback used to resolve which report an IOU action belongs to, across canEditMoneyRequest, canEditFieldOfMoneyRequest, canEditReportAction, and useGetIOUReportFromReportAction, plus re-adds the IOUReportID field to the OriginalMessageIOU type. The changes are confined to:

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts
src/hooks/useGetIOUReportFromReportAction.ts
src/types/onyx/OriginalMessage.ts

The user-facing effect is a regression fix — it restores an admin's/manager's ability to edit coding fields (Category, Tag, Description, etc.) on expense reports submitted by other members. That is the already-intended behavior the help site documents (e.g. Edit Expenses); the docs do not describe the broken read-only state this PR repairs. There are no new features, settings, labels, buttons, or workflows introduced, so nothing in the help site needs to be added or revised.

No draft docs PR was created.

@youssef-lr, please confirm you agree no help site changes are needed here. If you believe a docs update is warranted, let me know what behavior should be documented and I'll create the draft PR.

youssef-lr requested review from a team as code owners June 17, 2026 21:15

melvin-bot Bot assigned youssef-lr Jun 17, 2026

melvin-bot Bot requested review from ahmedGaber93 and flaviadefaria and removed request for a team June 17, 2026 21:15

melvin-bot Bot requested review from a team and carlosmiceli and removed request for a team June 17, 2026 21:15

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team June 17, 2026 21:15

youssef-lr removed the request for review from ahmedGaber93 June 17, 2026 21:18

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated

trjExpensify requested review from trjExpensify and removed request for flaviadefaria June 17, 2026 21:19

youssef-lr mentioned this pull request Jun 17, 2026

Remove temporary IOUReportID fallback once backend reliably sends reportID on IOU actions #93882

Open

trjExpensify previously approved these changes Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

youssef-lr dismissed trjExpensify’s stale review via ca3bfd6 June 17, 2026 21:23

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Reference tracking issue in temporary fallback comments

e1df8b0

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

trjExpensify previously approved these changes Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

luacmartins previously approved these changes Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

Lint

0db4bb2

youssef-lr dismissed stale reviews from luacmartins and trjExpensify via 0db4bb2 June 17, 2026 21:52

luacmartins approved these changes Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

trjExpensify approved these changes Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

carlosmiceli approved these changes Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

luacmartins merged commit e4244d9 into main Jun 17, 2026
41 checks passed

luacmartins deleted the youssef_restore_iou_reportid_fallback branch June 17, 2026 22:11

OSBotify added the CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging label Jun 17, 2026

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jun 17, 2026

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

Closed

67 tasks

OSBotify added the CP Production label Jun 17, 2026

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 17, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-06-25] [Due for payment 2026-06-24] [$250] Expense category cannot be edited from report view in New Expensify #93864

Open

7 tasks

Conversation

youssef-lr commented Jun 17, 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 Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

trjExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

github-actions Bot commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

luacmartins commented Jun 17, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

trjExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 18, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Jun 18, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 18, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 18, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 18, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 18, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

youssef-lr commented Jun 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading

luacmartins commented Jun 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading