[Due for payment 2025-08-26] [$250] Expense-Unreported per diem expense can be added to workspace chat without per diem but it fail

[jponikarchuk]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 9.1.74-9
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: https://expensify.testrail.io/index.php?/tests/view/6414912&group_by=cases:section_id&group_order=asc&group_id=389197
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): sdohisdojsdionjo@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Mac 15.5 / Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

Precondition:

• Workspace A has per diem rates.
• Workspace B does not have per diem rates.

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat A.
3. Submit two per diem expenses to the workspace chat A.
4. Open the expense report.
5. Click More > Delete > Delete the report.
6. Go to workspace chat B.
7. Click + > Create report.
8. Click Add expense > Add unreported expense.
9. Select the unreported per diem expense.
10. Click Add to report.

Expected Result:

In Step 7, the unreported per diem expense should not appear in the list of unreported expense because the workspace does not have per diem rates.

Actual Result:

In Step 7, the unreported per diem expense appears in the list of unreported expense when the workspace does not have per diem rates.
In Step 8, after adding the unreported per diem expense to the report, the expense disappears and moves back to self DM. Hidden chat appears in LHN after it fails to move to the report.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

• Android: App
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: App
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• iOS: mWeb Chrome
• Windows: Chrome
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021941191961149602900
• Upwork Job ID: 1941191961149602900
• Last Price Increase: 2025-07-04

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @garrettmknight (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[ryntgh]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Expense-Unreported per diem expense can be added to workspace chat without per diem but it fail

What is the root cause of that problem?

We only filters transactions by their reportID but doesn't check if per diem transactions are compatible with the target workspace's per diem policy

App/src/pages/AddUnreportedExpense.tsx

Lines 48 to 53 in 9e3b5bd

	function getUnreportedTransactions(transactions: OnyxCollection<Transaction>) {
	if (!transactions) {
	return [];
	}
	return Object.values(transactions || {}).filter((item) => item?.reportID === CONST.REPORT.UNREPORTED_REPORT_ID || item?.reportID === '');
	}

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

We should modify the getUnreportedTransactions function to filter out per diem transactions when the target workspace doesn't support per diem expenses

    function getUnreportedTransactions(transactions: OnyxCollection<Transaction>) {
        if (!transactions) {
            return [];
        }
        return Object.values(transactions || {}).filter((item) => {
            const isUnreported = item?.reportID === CONST.REPORT.UNREPORTED_REPORT_ID || item?.reportID === '';
            if (!isUnreported) {
                return false;
            }

            if (isPerDiemRequest(item)) {
                return canSubmitPerDiemExpenseFromWorkspace(policy);
            }

            return true;
        });
    }

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

We could create test for getUnreportedTransactions if needed

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Instead of modifying the selector function itself, we could keep the selector pure and add the per diem filtering logic using useMemo

    const [allUnreportedTransactions = []] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION, {
        selector: (_transactions) => getUnreportedTransactions(_transactions),
        initialValue: [],
        canBeMissing: true,
    });

    const transactions = useMemo(() => {
        return allUnreportedTransactions.filter((transaction) => {
            if (isPerDiemRequest(transaction)) {
                return canSubmitPerDiemExpenseFromWorkspace(policy);
            }
            return true;
        });
    }, [allUnreportedTransactions, policy]);

[thelullabyy]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

In Step 7, the unreported per diem expense appears in the list of unreported expense when the workspace does not have per diem rates.
In Step 8, after adding the unreported per diem expense to the report, the expense disappears and moves back to self DM. Hidden chat appears in LHN after it fails to move to the report.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We don't filter out the perdiem request if the workspace doesn't have per diem

App/src/pages/AddUnreportedExpense.tsx

Lines 48 to 56 in 9e3b5bd

	function getUnreportedTransactions(transactions: OnyxCollection<Transaction>) {
	if (!transactions) {
	return [];
	}
	return Object.values(transactions || {}).filter((item) => item?.reportID === CONST.REPORT.UNREPORTED_REPORT_ID || item?.reportID === '');
	}
	const [transactions = []] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION, {
	selector: (_transactions) => getUnreportedTransactions(_transactions),

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

1. We should add the logic to filter out the perdiem transaction if the workspace doesn't have perdiem

const canSubmitPerDiemExpense = useMemo(() => canSubmitPerDiemExpenseFromWorkspace(policy), [policy]);
function getUnreportedTransactions(transactions: OnyxCollection<Transaction>) {
    if (!transactions) {
        return [];
    }
    return Object.values(transactions || {}).filter((item) => {
        const isUnReported = item?.reportID === CONST.REPORT.UNREPORTED_REPORT_ID || item?.reportID === '';
        if (!isUnReported) {
            return false;
        }

        if (isPerDiemRequest(item)) {
            return canSubmitPerDiemExpense;
        }

        return true;
    });
}

App/src/pages/AddUnreportedExpense.tsx

Line 48 in 9e3b5bd

function getUnreportedTransactions(transactions: OnyxCollection<Transaction>) {

2. Because the selector function depends on canSubmitPerDiemExpense, it's important to add this as a dependency here so the transactions can be updated when canSubmitPerDiemExpense is changed

const [transactions = []] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION, {
    selector: (_transactions) => getUnreportedTransactions(_transactions),
    initialValue: [],
    canBeMissing: true,
}, [canSubmitPerDiemExpense]);

App/src/pages/AddUnreportedExpense.tsx

Line 56 in 9e3b5bd

selector: (_transactions) => getUnreportedTransactions(_transactions),

Optionally, we can add canSubmitPerDiemExpense as a parameter of getUnreportedTransactions function

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

NA

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021941191961149602900

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @parasharrajat (External)

[parasharrajat]

@thelullabyy Please do not post duplicate proposals. It is against our contributing policy.

@ryntgh's proposal looks good to me.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed