fix: Delete option is missing in More menu of an unpaid invoice report by etCoderDysto · Pull Request #73914 · Expensify/App

etCoderDysto · 2025-10-31T09:20:25Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #72212
PROPOSAL: #72212 (comment)

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA steps

QA Steps

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

Precondition:

Invoice is enabled.

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to workspace settings > More features.
Disable Workflows.
Open FAB > Send invoice.
Send an invoice to any user.
Open the invoice thread.
Click More.
Verify that Delete option is displayed
Click Delete
Click Delete again
Verify that the invoice report is deleted

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android.Screen.Recording.2025-10-31.at.3.06.48.in.the.afternoon.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

android.chrome.Screen.Recording.2025-10-31.at.2.56.47.in.the.afternoon.mp4

iOS: Native

Ios.Screen.Recording.2025-10-31.at.2.39.29.in.the.afternoon.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.safari.Screen.Recording.2025-10-31.at.2.42.43.in.the.afternoon.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Web.Screen.Recording.2025-10-31.at.12.23.21.in.the.afternoon.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

Desktop.Screen.Recording.2025-10-31.at.12.31.52.in.the.afternoon.mp4

codecov · 2025-10-31T09:30:40Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts	`74.63% <100.00%> (+0.04%)`	⬆️

... and 23 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

melvin-bot · 2025-10-31T12:07:59Z

@suneox 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]

github-actions · 2025-10-31T12:10:34Z


    if (isInvoiceReport(report)) {
-        return report?.ownerAccountID === currentUserAccountID && isReportOpenOrProcessing && policy?.approvalMode !== CONST.POLICY.APPROVAL_MODE.OPTIONAL;
+        return report?.ownerAccountID === currentUserAccountID && isReportOpenOrProcessing;


Question: Invoice deletion vs Expense Report deletion logic

The change simplifies invoice deletion by removing the policy?.approvalMode !== CONST.POLICY.APPROVAL_MODE.OPTIONAL check. This makes sense as the previous logic was counterintuitive - it required approval workflows to be enabled to delete invoices, which seems backwards.

However, comparing this to the expense report deletion logic (lines 2756-2766), I notice expense reports have protection against deleting forwarded reports:

const isForwarded = isProcessingReport(report) && isApprovalEnabled && !isAwaitingFirstLevelApproval(report); return isReportSubmitter && isReportOpenOrProcessing && !isForwarded;

Question for reviewers: Should invoices have similar protection against deletion once they're in an approval workflow? Or are invoices intentionally different because they don't follow the same approval workflow as expense reports?

The current change allows invoice deletion based solely on:

Owner check

Report status (open or processing)

This seems appropriate if invoices don't participate in approval workflows the same way expense reports do. But if they do, we might want to add the !isForwarded check here as well for consistency.

The delete invoice flow doesn’t depend on the approval mode as mentioned.

github-actions · 2025-10-31T12:11:33Z


    if (isInvoiceReport(report)) {
-        return report?.ownerAccountID === currentUserAccountID && isReportOpenOrProcessing && policy?.approvalMode !== CONST.POLICY.APPROVAL_MODE.OPTIONAL;
+        return report?.ownerAccountID === currentUserAccountID && isReportOpenOrProcessing;


✅ Change looks correct - Removes illogical constraint

The change fixes a bug where invoices could ONLY be deleted when workflows were ENABLED (approvalMode !== OPTIONAL), which prevented deletion when workflows were disabled. This was backwards logic.

After the change, invoice deletion now follows the same pattern as IOU reports (line 2752-2753):

✅ Owner check: report?.ownerAccountID === currentUserAccountID

✅ State protection: isReportOpenOrProcessing (prevents deleting approved/reimbursed invoices)

✅ No approval mode dependency (consistent with IOU reports)

Security note: The isReportOpenOrProcessing check (line 2733) provides adequate protection by ensuring only OPEN or SUBMITTED invoices can be deleted. Once an invoice is approved or paid, it cannot be deleted.

The change is logically sound and aligns with the existing codebase patterns.

github-actions · 2025-10-31T12:12:08Z

LGTM 👍 Thank you for your hard work!

suneox · 2025-11-01T10:17:07Z

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

Screen.Recording.2025-11-01.at.17.09.03.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-11-01.at.17.11.57.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-11-01.at.17.13.44.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-11-01.at.17.05.37.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

OSBotify · 2025-11-04T12:42:25Z

✋ 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 · 2025-11-04T21:14:15Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.2.44-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2025-11-05T20:07:39Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.2.44-5 🚀

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

show delete button when invoice is open

79e2971

melvin-bot Bot assigned etCoderDysto Oct 31, 2025

etCoderDysto marked this pull request as ready for review October 31, 2025 12:07

etCoderDysto requested a review from a team as a code owner October 31, 2025 12:07

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from suneox October 31, 2025 12:07

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team October 31, 2025 12:07

github-actions Bot reviewed Oct 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

etCoderDysto added 2 commits October 31, 2025 15:58

add a test for canDeleteMoneyRequestReport

da8a356

make comment clear

4c913e1

etCoderDysto mentioned this pull request Oct 31, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-11-12] [$250] Invoice - Delete option is missing in More menu of an unpaid invoice report #72212

Closed

8 tasks

suneox approved these changes Nov 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from cristipaval November 3, 2025 18:37

cristipaval approved these changes Nov 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

cristipaval merged commit 16e62ba into Expensify:main Nov 4, 2025
27 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-11-04 #74235

Closed

56 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

fix: Delete option is missing in More menu of an unpaid invoice report#73914

fix: Delete option is missing in More menu of an unpaid invoice report#73914
cristipaval merged 3 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
etCoderDysto:fix_72212t

etCoderDysto commented Oct 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Oct 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

suneox Nov 3, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

suneox commented Nov 1, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 4, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 4, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 5, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

etCoderDysto commented Oct 31, 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!

codecov Bot commented Oct 31, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot Oct 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Question: Invoice deletion vs Expense Report deletion logic

Uh oh!

suneox Nov 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot Oct 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

✅ Change looks correct - Removes illogical constraint

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

suneox commented Nov 1, 2025

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 4, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 4, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 5, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

etCoderDysto commented Oct 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Oct 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading