[Due for payment 2025-10-17] Expense - 'Review Duplicates' status bar remains after resolving duplicates

[vincdargento]

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: 9.2.16-3
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/folder/13176704/test-cases/41236826
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): fischer9966+092225aadm@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: MacOS 15.6.1 / Chrome, Safari, Desktop. iPhone 16 Pro / 18.6.2. Google Pixel 5 / Android 14
App Component: Chat Report View

Action Performed:

1. Open Expensify App or go to https://staging.new.expensify.com
2. Login as Admin. Create a workspace and add a member
3. Login as Member, go to WS chat and create 2 duplicate expenses
4. Login as Admin, go to the member's WS chat > View report with duplicates > Review Duplicates > Keep all
5. Open any resolved duplicate

Expected Result:

The status bar should not contain information about potential duplicates

Actual Result:

The status bar contains information that user should review the duplicates after the duplicates have been resolved

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

bug.mp4

bug2.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @joekaufmanexpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @joekaufmanexpensify (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.

[ChavdaSachin]

Proposal

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

Expense - 'Review Duplicates' status bar remains after resolving duplicates

What is the root cause of that problem?

We do not check weather review duplicate error was dismissed or not here.

App/src/components/MoneyRequestHeader.tsx

Line 103 in 6c4734f

const isDuplicate = isDuplicateTransactionUtils(transaction);

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

Pass checkDismissed = true to isDuplicateTransactionUtils function here, to display the duplicate status only when error is not dismissed/resolved.

    const isDuplicate = isDuplicateTransactionUtils(transaction, true);

App/src/components/MoneyRequestHeader.tsx

Line 103 in 6c4734f

const isDuplicate = isDuplicateTransactionUtils(transaction);

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.

[ChavdaSachin]

I checked history and I could see ReportPrimaryActionUtils and ReportSecondaryActionUtils were fixed in this PR
#70603 but not totally sure why these changes are not visible on the main branch.

Probably some PR might have it removed by mistake while resolving merge conflicts.

[mkzie2]

Proposal

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

The status bar contains information that user should review the duplicates after the duplicates have been resolved

What is the root cause of that problem?

After the admin resolves duplicates, the backend still returns the duplicate violation. The difference is that this violation is dismissed, but we don't check this here because checkDismissed parameter is false.

App/src/components/MoneyRequestHeader.tsx

Line 103 in ceb6419

const isDuplicate = isDuplicateTransactionUtils(transaction);

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

Here are the remaining places we're using checkDismissed as false, all of them also need to prevent the dismissed violation.

App/src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx

Line 537 in 8aa2d21

const duplicateTransaction = transactionsList.find((reportTransaction) => isDuplicate(reportTransaction));

App/src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx

Line 888 in 8aa2d21

const duplicateTransaction = transactions.find((reportTransaction) => isDuplicate(reportTransaction));

App/src/components/MoneyRequestHeader.tsx

Line 103 in ceb6419

const isDuplicate = isDuplicateTransactionUtils(transaction);

Then there is no reason to keep checkDismissed parameter because we always want to prevent the dismissed violation. Or at least, we should change the default value to true.

function isDuplicate(transaction: OnyxEntry<Transaction>): boolean {
    if (!transaction) {
        return false;
    }
    const duplicateViolation = allTransactionViolations?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS}${transaction.transactionID}`]?.find(
        (violation: TransactionViolation) => violation.name === CONST.VIOLATIONS.DUPLICATED_TRANSACTION,
    );
    const hasDuplicatedViolation = !!duplicateViolation;

    const didDismissedViolation = isViolationDismissed(transaction, duplicateViolation);

    return hasDuplicatedViolation && !didDismissedViolation;
}

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Line 1237 in 8aa2d21

function isDuplicate(transaction: OnyxEntry<Transaction>, checkDismissed = false): boolean {

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

Update isDuplicate unit test as well if needed.

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.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@pecanoro @s77rt is this going to be fixed in #70598, it seems related

[s77rt]

Oh it looks I missed a case, the header is not updated correctly. Will raise a PR for this one

[s77rt]

This requires both a frontend and a backend fix. The frontend fix will handle the issue outlined in OP here is the PR #71088 but after fixing that we'd have another issue that is the next step is not correct and that should be fixed in the backend.