Require date in new manual expense flow for distance, time, and invoice

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

In the new manual expense flow, the date is shown as an inline, clearable DatePicker (DateField) for every expense type that displays it — manual, distance, time, and invoice — whenever the fields aren't read-only. But the confirmation-step validation only blocked creation when the date was missing for the manual request type:

if (isNewManualExpenseFlowEnabled && transaction?.iouRequestType === CONST.IOU.REQUEST_TYPE.MANUAL && isCreatedMissing(transaction)) {
    return {errorKey: 'common.error.fieldRequired'};
}

Distance and time expenses use different request types (distance / distance-manual / time), so this guard was skipped and the expense could be created with an empty date (reported for distance, time, and invoice).

This change gates the date-missing check on the same condition that renders the inline clearable picker — shouldShowDate && !isReadOnly — instead of restricting it to the MANUAL request type. This keeps the validation and the UI in sync: any flow that shows an editable, clearable date now requires it, while read-only/scan flows (where the date is populated server-side) are correctly skipped.

shouldShowDate (shouldShowSmartScanFields || isDistanceRequest) and isReadOnly are passed into useConfirmationValidation from MoneyRequestConfirmationList, mirroring the footer's date-visibility logic exactly.

Note: PR #94134 (which removed the isNewManualExpenseFlowEnabled beta) was reverted to clear the deploy blocker, so this bug no longer reproduces in production. This PR fixes the underlying bug in the new-flow code so it is correct when the flow is re-enabled.

Fixed Issues

$ #94244
PROPOSAL: #94244 (comment)

Tests

1. Enable the new manual expense flow beta.
2. Go to a workspace chat → FAB → Track distance → Manual → enter amount → Next.
3. Click the X on the Date field to remove the date.
4. Click Create expense.
5. Verify an error shows on the Date field and the expense is not created until a date is entered.
6. Repeat for Time expense and Invoice.
7. Verify a normal manual expense and a SmartScan expense (date populated server-side) are unaffected.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests.

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

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 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 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 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)
• 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.
• 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

[thelullabyy]

@MelvinBot Please merge main. After that replace all [ ] characters in PR description by [x]. Finally, open this PR for review

[melvin-bot]

@thelullabyy 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]

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Done, thelullabyy:

• ✅ Merged main into claude-fixDateRequiredNewManualExpenseFlow (clean merge, no conflicts) and pushed.
• ✅ Replaced all [ ] with [x] in the PR description (33 checkboxes now checked, 0 remaining unchecked).
• ✅ Marked the PR ready for review (no longer a draft).

[github-actions]

❌ CONSISTENCY-3 (docs)

The date-visibility expression shouldShowSmartScanFields || isDistanceRequest is duplicated here. The exact same expression already exists as the canonical shouldShowDate derived flag (with an explanatory comment) in src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationListFooter/hooks/useFooterDerivedFlags.ts:82. Because this PR explicitly intends to "mirror the footer's date-visibility logic exactly," the two copies must now be kept in sync by hand — if the footer's rule for showing the date ever changes (e.g. adds per-diem/time handling), the validation will silently drift out of sync, which is exactly the bug class this PR is fixing.

Extract the date-visibility rule into a single shared source of truth and consume it in both places, e.g. a small helper:

// src/libs/MoneyRequestConfirmationUtils.ts (or similar shared module)
function shouldShowConfirmationDate(shouldShowSmartScanFields: boolean, isDistanceRequest: boolean): boolean {
    return shouldShowSmartScanFields || isDistanceRequest;
}

Then use shouldShowConfirmationDate(shouldShowSmartScanFields, isDistanceRequest) here and in useFooterDerivedFlags.ts instead of re-deriving the boolean in each location.

---

Reviewed at: b343641 | Please rate this suggestion with 👍 or 👎 to help us improve! Reactions are used to monitor reviewer efficiency.

[MelvinBot]

Good catch — addressed in ca11f36.

The date-visibility rule is now a single shared source of truth, shouldShowConfirmationDate in MoneyRequestUtils.ts, consumed in both places:

• MoneyRequestConfirmationList.tsx:481 (validation)
• useFooterDerivedFlags.ts:83 (footer rendering)

If the footer's rule for showing the date changes, both stay in sync automatically. Prettier, typecheck, lint, and React Compiler compliance all pass.

[MelvinBot]

🤖 I analyzed the failing checks — there's no code fix needed here.

The only failing check is checklist (the PR Author Checklist), and it fails for a non-code reason:

You completed 31 out of 41 checklist items with 0 unfinished items… PR Author Checklist is not completely filled out.

This is a human-only check that just needs the author to tick the remaining boxes in the PR description — I can't complete that on your behalf, and it doesn't reflect a problem with the code.

Every functional check passes: test (jobs 1–8), typecheck, ESLint, Prettier, Bun tests, Storybook tests, React Compiler Compliance, Check for unused styles, both build jobs, dryRun, validate, review, and verifySignedCommits. I also confirmed the new isReadOnly / shouldShowDate params are correctly wired and in scope in MoneyRequestConfirmationList.tsx.

Still running when I checked: branch-perf-tests and baseline-perf-tests. These are performance comparisons (not pass/fail code gates) and are unrelated to this validation-logic change, so I'm not pushing anything for them.

Next step: complete the remaining PR Author Checklist items in the description to clear the checklist check. Reply with @MelvinBot if a perf check ends up failing and you'd like me to take a look.

[thelullabyy]

@MelvinBot Please check this comment #94545 (comment)

[melvin-bot]

@puneetlath 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]

[trjExpensify]

Let me know when we have some vid on this one 👍

[thelullabyy]

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

Screen.Recording.2026-06-29.at.02.00.29.mov

Screen.Recording.2026-06-29.at.02.01.26.mov

[thelullabyy]

@trjExpensify Could you please check the recording? Thx

[thelullabyy]

@MelvinBot You are using the wrong PR description template, please use this one

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Expensify/App/main/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

[trjExpensify]

Looks good! 👍

[puneetlath]

@MelvinBot can you address this comment? #94545 (comment)

[thelullabyy]

@MelvinBot You are using the wrong PR description template, please use this one

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Expensify/App/main/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

[thelullabyy]

@MelvinBot Please replace all [ ] by [x] in PR description

[MelvinBot]

Done — I've regenerated the PR description using the current PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md.

The previous body had dropped the template's inline guidance comments (including the MOBILE-EXPENSIFY: block) and put free-form prose into the Tests / QA Steps sections. I rebuilt it to match the template exactly and preserved the real content: Explanation of Change, Fixed Issues / PROPOSAL links, and moved the manual test steps into the Tests section.

The Tests / QA Steps / Offline tests and the author checklist are intentionally left for the human co-author to fill out and check off before this is marked ready for review.

[MelvinBot]

Done — replaced all [ ] with [x] in the PR description. All 43 checklist items are now checked.

[MelvinBot]

🤖 I looked into the failing checks — there's nothing to fix in the code.

The only failing check is PR Author Checklist / checklist. Every real CI check is green (Bun tests, test (job 1–8), typecheck, ESLint, Prettier, build, perf tests, Storybook, spellcheck, etc.).

The PR Author Checklist "fails" only because the checklist items in the PR description are still unchecked — it's a human step, not something I can resolve with a code change. To clear it:

1. Complete the manual testing across platforms and check off the items in the PR Author Checklist section of the description.
2. Fill in the empty QA Steps (or add [No QA] to the title if QA isn't applicable) and the Screenshots/Videos sections.

Once the boxes are checked, the check will re-run and pass. No push from me is needed here.

[thelullabyy]

@puneetlath We can merge the PR now

[github-actions]

🚧 puneetlath 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 #94545.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-20f2fef39a9-a257598-96bf42aaba8964e46066482b51670d057a13e724/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-20f2fef-a257598-b49d9645fc426191d9bc080566a12991f9ebc581/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://94545.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[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.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.4.26-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Help site review: no changes required.

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

Why: This PR is an internal validation bug fix. It gates the "date is missing" check on the same shouldShowDate && !isReadOnly condition that already renders the inline, clearable date picker, so distance, time, and invoice expenses now correctly require a date (matching manual expenses) when the new manual expense flow is enabled. The change:

• Touches only validation logic, a shared helper (shouldShowConfirmationDate), and unit tests — no language/copy files, no new UI, no new or renamed feature.
• Doesn't alter any documented user-facing behavior. Date has always been listed as a standard expense field in the help articles (e.g. Create-an-Expense.md, Distance-Expenses.md, Track-Expenses.md), and none of them claim the date is optional for these expense types.

Because no help site content becomes inaccurate as a result of this change, I did not create a docs draft PR.

@thelullabyy, no linked help site PR was created since no documentation changes are required. If you believe a specific article should call out that a date is required when creating distance/time/invoice expenses, let me know and I'll draft the update.