Add search input field to top of "Add unreported expense" screen by lorretheboy · Pull Request #70280 · Expensify/App

lorretheboy · 2025-09-10T15:18:25Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #69978
PROPOSAL: #69978 (comment)

Tests

Precondition: The user has > 15 expenses in self-DM as the search bar only appears if > 15 expenses

Go to ND
Create a manual expense in any workspace
Click to view details --> More --> Add expense --> Add unreported expense
Verify that there is a working search input field on top

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Precondition: The user has > 15 expenses in self-DM as the search bar only appears if > 15 expenses

Go to ND
Create a manual expense in any workspace
Click to view details --> More --> Add expense --> Add unreported expense
Verify that there is a working search input field on top

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-10-05.at.21.59.01.mov

ANDROID.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

WEBSITE.ANDROID.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-10-05.at.21.54.32.mov

IOS.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

WEBSITE.IOS.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-10-05.at.21.50.23.mov

WEBSITE.mov

MacOS: Desktop

DESKTOp.mov

melvin-bot · 2025-09-10T15:40:43Z

@brunovjk 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]

brunovjk · 2025-09-10T21:33:49Z

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
- MacOS: Desktop
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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- 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)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
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)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
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.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
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

70280_android_native.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

70280_android_web.mov

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

70280_ios_web.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

70280_web_chrome.mov

MacOS: Desktop

70280_web_desktop.mov

brunovjk · 2025-09-10T23:36:47Z

@lorretheboy, I'm noticing some strange behavior while testing the search filter. Sometimes, expenses with an empty merchant appear in the search list where they shouldn't:

Screen.Recording.2025-09-10.at.20.29.16.mov

Can you reproduce it? Thanks.

lorretheboy · 2025-09-11T03:02:09Z

Hi @brunovjk, I didn't observe this behavior during testing. However, please give me sometime to try to reproduce and fix it

lorretheboy · 2025-09-13T07:54:52Z

@brunovjk I have updated the PR to fix that issue. It happened because we include the merchant placeholder name in case there is no merchant name.

I have fixed by exclude this specific case during search
https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/70280/files#diff-572c59dbb9931b341bde48497df9a583581a4514c5066c1721885cf3f644117eR112-R114

brunovjk · 2025-09-16T14:52:22Z

Much better now @lorretheboy, I noticed a detail: the keyboard doesn't pop up when we focus on the search field:

70280_android_native.mov

@mjasikowski what do you think? Thanks.

brunovjk · 2025-09-16T14:53:27Z

Another thing @lorretheboy, could you update the steps for testing the PR? I think it would be nice to mention that the field only appears when there are 15 reports, and should not appear if there are fewer. What do you think? Thanks.

lorretheboy · 2025-09-17T19:24:50Z

Hi @mjasikowski, may I ask your thoughts on this? Personally, I would say it's fine, however, pls lemme know if you think we should focus & open the keyboard on search bar. Thanks

brunovjk · 2025-09-22T14:37:25Z

Friendly bump @mjasikowski 😄

mjasikowski · 2025-09-22T14:41:02Z

@lorretheboy sorry for the delay! I think it makes more sense for the keyboard to pop up when we're focused on the field

lorretheboy · 2025-09-23T05:07:15Z

Thxx for the confirm. Pls give me sometimes to check and fix this issue

lorretheboy · 2025-09-23T11:41:42Z

Hi @brunovjk, it has been fixed when I merge latest main. Could you please check again?

e.mov

Btw: Looks like you haven't enabled keyboard here, if it still not works on your end. You may kindly enable it in settings

brunovjk · 2025-09-23T13:02:42Z

I think I found a bug:

Select an item from the add "Unreported expense" list
Search for another unreported expense with a different merchant than the one previously selected
Select a new expense
We automatically return to the list with the selected item
BUG: The first selection is removed:

Screen.Recording.2025-09-23.at.09.57.38.mov

@lorretheboy do you think this bug is within the scope of our PR? Thanks.

codecov · 2025-09-25T11:33:05Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 30 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/pages/AddUnreportedExpense.tsx	0.00%	30 Missing ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

lorretheboy · 2025-09-25T11:33:55Z

Hi @brunovjk, thanks for waiting. I couldn't find out similar cases and it is possible to fix in our PR's scope. So I decided to fix it in this PR. Could you please re-review this again

O.mov

brunovjk · 2025-09-25T12:44:39Z

Great! Thank you very much, I'll review it as soon as possible.

brunovjk · 2025-09-27T12:47:41Z

Sorry for the delay, @lorretheboy can you resolve the conflicts here? I'll continue with the review. Thank you.

lorretheboy · 2025-10-02T02:43:43Z

Hi team, I want to confirm here the scope of new changes:

We need to support search expense by merchant and description
Update the search input placeholder to be Find expense
Remove the search icon from search input

dannymcclain · 2025-10-02T13:24:40Z

That all sounds right to me—my questions about what was searchable were more about what's already been implemented. What does that input currently search in the list?

I think it would be ideal to be able to search for merchant, amount, date, description, but if we have some scope limitations here I just want to make sure the search input accurately reflects what we're searching.

lorretheboy · 2025-10-02T13:26:39Z

@dannymcclain Currently we only search for merchant in the list. Ideally, I think it would be easier to implement if we only search for merchant and description. However, pls lemme know if you want to add other fields as well

dannymcclain · 2025-10-02T13:29:14Z

Thank you - in that case I think we either need to update the search parameters (i.e. search for more things) or let the search input reflect that it's only searching merchants. cc @Expensify/design for more thoughts

shawnborton · 2025-10-02T13:32:14Z

It would be nice if searching on amount worked too... how hard is that?

lorretheboy · 2025-10-02T15:54:45Z

@shawnborton I will add it then, it is possible

shawnborton · 2025-10-02T15:55:41Z

Nice!

lorretheboy · 2025-10-05T13:49:49Z

        pendingMatchWithCreditCardDescription: 'Recibo pendiente de adjuntar con la transacción de la tarjeta. Márcalo como efectivo para cancelar.',
        markAsCash: 'Marcar como efectivo',
        routePending: 'Ruta pendiente...',
+        findExpense: 'Buscar gasto',


https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1759671500657619

Confirming here...

lorretheboy · 2025-10-05T14:04:51Z

Hi @brunovjk, please help review it again. Thanks

brunovjk · 2025-10-06T11:01:54Z

It's on my list, I'll review it by the end of the day. Thank you.

brunovjk · 2025-10-08T00:46:23Z

@lorretheboy I can search by amount, merchant, and description. However, it's not displaying very consistently I guess. I can search by description, but it seems to be showing the expense merchant. What do you think? Is this on purpose? Thanks.

Screen.Recording.2025-10-07.at.21.41.24.mov

lorretheboy · 2025-10-08T16:24:36Z

Hi @brunovjk, I think it is expected since in this expense I can see that the word descript is existing in description field

We have only 1 search input for all three fields so it would returns all related results

brunovjk · 2025-10-08T18:03:51Z

What do you think @Expensify/design? I updated the screenshots again, I still need to finish testing on iOS, my local build is having problems.

dannymcclain · 2025-10-08T18:47:21Z

I think it's looking pretty good to me.

I think it is expected since in this expense I can see that the word descript is existing in description field
We have only 1 search input for all three fields so it would returns all related results

Seems like this just feels a little off because while we search description, we don't show it. Ultimately I think that's probably fine though. Curious for how the rest of the design team feels!

shawnborton · 2025-10-08T18:59:57Z

Seems like this just feels a little off because while we search description, we don't show it. Ultimately I think that's probably fine though. Curious for how the rest of the design team feels!

Yeah, I agree with this. Let's allow it and then maybe someday we follow up and create a more slim/"mobile" view of our expense rows that also shows description and not just merchant.

dubielzyk-expensify · 2025-10-09T00:21:51Z

Yeah I agree. I think it's still nicer than not having it searchable 👍

brunovjk · 2025-10-09T11:24:03Z

Great! Thank you all. I think it's all yours @mjasikowski :D

OSBotify · 2025-10-10T11:11:52Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mjasikowski in version: 9.2.29-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2025-10-13T20:58:50Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.2.29-5 🚀

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

allroundexperts · 2025-11-04T20:43:54Z

+            const searchableFields: string[] = [];
+
+            const merchant = getMerchant(transaction);
+            if (merchant !== CONST.TRANSACTION.PARTIAL_TRANSACTION_MERCHANT) {
+                searchableFields.push(merchant);
+            }
+
+            const description = getDescription(transaction);
+            if (description.trim()) {
+                searchableFields.push(description);
+            }
+
+            const amount = getAmount(transaction);
+            const currency = getCurrency(transaction);
+            const formattedAmount = convertToDisplayString(amount, currency);
+            searchableFields.push(formattedAmount);


We should have added a condition to normalize the amount. Not doing so caused #72803

feat: add search bar

2e86466

melvin-bot Bot assigned lorretheboy Sep 10, 2025

lorretheboy marked this pull request as ready for review September 10, 2025 15:40

lorretheboy requested a review from a team as a code owner September 10, 2025 15:40

melvin-bot Bot requested review from brunovjk and removed request for a team September 10, 2025 15:40

lorretheboy mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-10-21] Add search input field to top of "Add unreported expense" screen #69978

Closed

lorretheboy added 2 commits September 13, 2025 15:35

Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/Expensify/App into fix/69978

8aa5d7b

fix: search issue

60aaf2b

Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/Expensify/App into fix/69978

7cddcd6

lorretheboy added 2 commits September 25, 2025 19:11

Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/Expensify/App into fix/69978

7e55a40

fix: selection issue

fd80c6d

fix: conflicts

354c743

lorretheboy added 2 commits October 5, 2025 21:31

Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/Expensify/App into fix/69978

f8aae4d

feat: new requirements

95d06d8

lorretheboy commented Oct 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

fix: lint

0c18a7b

mjasikowski approved these changes Oct 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

mjasikowski merged commit a099a5f into Expensify:main Oct 9, 2025
20 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Oct 10, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-10-10 #72300

Closed

81 tasks

mitarachim mentioned this pull request Oct 10, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-10-21] Expense - "Select at least one expense" error is not shown when there is no result #72310

Closed

8 tasks

This was referenced Oct 10, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-10-21] Expense - Add to report button is hidden behind the keyboard #72336

Closed

[Due for payment 2025-10-21] Expense - No result screen persists when search field disappears in unreported expense list #72355

Closed

vincdargento mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-11-10] [$250] Expense - No result comes up when searching for expense without thousand separator #72803

Closed

8 tasks

allroundexperts reviewed Nov 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

Conversation

lorretheboy commented Sep 10, 2025 • 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 Sep 10, 2025

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Sep 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Sep 10, 2025

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Sep 11, 2025

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Sep 13, 2025

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Sep 16, 2025

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Sep 16, 2025

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Sep 17, 2025

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Sep 22, 2025

Uh oh!

mjasikowski commented Sep 22, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Sep 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Sep 25, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Sep 25, 2025

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Sep 25, 2025

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Sep 27, 2025

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Oct 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dannymcclain commented Oct 2, 2025

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Oct 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dannymcclain commented Oct 2, 2025

Uh oh!

shawnborton commented Oct 2, 2025

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Oct 2, 2025

Uh oh!

shawnborton commented Oct 2, 2025

Uh oh!

lorretheboy Oct 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Oct 5, 2025

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Oct 6, 2025

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Oct 8, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Oct 8, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Sep 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

brunovjk commented Sep 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mjasikowski commented Sep 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

lorretheboy commented Sep 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Sep 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

lorretheboy commented Oct 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

lorretheboy commented Oct 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

brunovjk commented Oct 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

lorretheboy commented Oct 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading