[HOLD - E/App #70507] [$250] Scan - The error reappears on the WS chat on the LHN after submitting a scan request

[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: v9.2.13-0
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://test-management.browserstack.com/projects/2219752/test-runs/TR-780/folder/13176933/41237710/891996304?sort=%2Bidentifier
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): n/a
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Mac 15.4.1 Safari, Desktop, iPhone 13 iOS 18.6 Safari, HYbrid
App Component: Left Hand Navigation (LHN)

Action Performed:

1. Navigate to https://staging.new.expensify.com
2. Open the workspace chat
3. Select Submit expense > Scan
4. Upload a receipt that will fail
5. Wait until it smartscans
6. Edit the missing fields Amount and Merchant
7. Verify the errors are cleared
8. Submit the expense

Expected Result:

The error doesn't appear on the WS chat on LHN after submitting a scan request

Actual Result:

After editing the failed fields, all errors are cleared, but after submitting the expense, the error reappears ipn the WS chat on LHN.

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/~021967441467761781932
• Upwork Job ID: 1967441467761781932
• Last Price Increase: 2025-09-15

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @roryabraham

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @alexpensify (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.

[bernhardoj]

Proposal

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

The RBR shows again after submitting manually entered expense.

What is the root cause of that problem?

When we edit the amount, the BE already sends a receiptNotSmartScanned violation. However, the violation message (Receipt and expense details added manually.) is only shown if the user is not the submitter.

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Lines 1070 to 1072 in 3938e13

	if (violationName === CONST.VIOLATIONS.RECEIPT_NOT_SMART_SCANNED) {
	return isPolicyMember && !isSubmitter && !isReportOpen;
	}

That's why we can't see it, but the RBR still show because it doesn't check whether the violation is shown or not.

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 8210 to 8220 in 3938e13

	return potentialReports.some((potentialReport) => {
	if (!potentialReport) {
	return false;
	}
	return (
	!isInvoiceReport(potentialReport) &&
	(hasViolations(potentialReport.reportID, transactionViolations, true) ||
	hasWarningTypeViolations(potentialReport.reportID, transactionViolations, true) ||
	hasNoticeTypeViolations(potentialReport.reportID, transactionViolations, true))
	);

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

We need to check for shouldShowViolation in hasNoticeTypeViolation (and other violation type).

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Lines 1281 to 1297 in 3938e13

	function hasNoticeTypeViolation(
	transaction: OnyxEntry<Transaction>,
	transactionViolations: TransactionViolation[] | OnyxCollection<TransactionViolation[]>,
	showInReview?: boolean,
	): boolean {
	if (!doesTransactionSupportViolations(transaction)) {
	return false;
	}
	const violations = Array.isArray(transactionViolations) ? transactionViolations : transactionViolations?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS}${transaction?.transactionID}`];
	return !!violations?.some(
	(violation: TransactionViolation) =>
	violation.type === CONST.VIOLATION_TYPES.NOTICE &&
	(showInReview === undefined || showInReview === (violation.showInReview ?? false)) &&
	!isViolationDismissed(transaction, violation),
	);
	}

!isViolationDismissed(transaction, violation) && shouldShowViolation(report, policy, violation.name, true),

report and policy will be a new param.

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

We can test hasNoticeTypeViolation (and others) to make sure it returns false when shouldShowViolation is false even though the violation exist.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021967441467761781932

[melvin-bot]

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

[alexpensify]

@jayeshmangwani - When you get a chance, please review if this proposal will fix the issue? Thanks!

[jayeshmangwani]

@bernhardoj 's proposal #70464 (comment) works well for hiding the resolved violations, let’s go with the fix.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed