feat: follow-up for IS export templates in Exported filter options

[samranahm]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #80005
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Add an IS export template (or request the internal team to add one to your test account)
2. Submit an expense and export the expense report using the IS template
3. Go to Reports page > Filters > Exported to
4. Verify that all IS export templates are available in the list
5. Select the template used to export the expense report in step 2
6. Click Save > View results
7. Verify that all expenses exported to that IS template appear in the search results

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

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

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (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
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • 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 followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• 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
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• 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 new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• 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.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

macOS.chrome.mp4

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Adds Integration Server (IS) export templates to the Search → Advanced Filters → Exported to options so users can filter results by the specific export template name (while excluding in-app/OldDot CSV layouts that can’t be reliably identified by this filter).

Changes:

• Updated exported-to option building to include integration custom templates and exclude in-app export templates.
• Adjusted exported-to picker item values to use standard template labels and integration template display names.
• Updated unit tests to cover inclusion/exclusion behavior by export template type.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
src/hooks/useExportedToFilterOptions.ts	Builds exported-to autocomplete/options from connected integrations + integration templates; filters out in-app templates and dedupes options.
src/pages/Search/SearchAdvancedFiltersPage/SearchFiltersExportedToPage.tsx	Updates the RHP picker list to include integration custom templates and exclude in-app templates.
tests/unit/hooks/useExportedToFilterOptions.test.ts	Updates/adds unit coverage for integration vs in-app export template handling.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/hooks/useExportedToFilterOptions.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...dvancedFiltersPage/SearchFiltersExportedToPage.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 240 files with indirect coverage changes

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 46230cf951

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[MelvinBot]

🔍 PR Review

Summary: This PR adds Integration Server (IS) custom export templates to the "Exported to" search filter options. Previously, only standard templates (report-level/expense-level exports) appeared; now IS custom templates are also shown, while classic in-app (CSV) templates remain excluded.

CI Status

All meaningful checks pass (tests, lint, typecheck, prettier, etc.). The only failing check is PR Author Checklist / checklist, which is not a code issue.

Code Review

Overall: This is a clean, well-structured change. The approach is sound — using the type field (INTEGRATIONS vs IN_APP) to distinguish filterable templates rather than relying on the getStandardExportTemplateDisplayName heuristic.

Positives:

• Consistent filtering logic between the hook (useExportedToFilterOptions.ts) and the page (SearchFiltersExportedToPage.tsx) — both now skip IN_APP templates and include everything else
• Good deduplication via new Set() in the hook to prevent duplicate filter values when integration display names overlap with template names
• Test coverage is appropriate — updated the existing test to validate integration templates are now included, and added a new test confirming in-app templates are excluded
• The filterValue logic correctly maps standard templates to their display labels while using template.name as fallback for custom IS templates

Minor observations (non-blocking):

1. Filter value consistency across files — The hook uses getStandardExportTemplateDisplayName() from AccountingUtils.ts, while the page uses a local STANDARD_EXPORT_TEMPLATE_ID_TO_DISPLAY_LABEL map. Both resolve to the same underlying constants (EXPORT_OPTIONS → EXPORT_OPTION_LABELS), so the values match. However, having two parallel mappings for the same concept is a minor duplication — consolidating to a single source (e.g., always using getStandardExportTemplateDisplayName()) could reduce future drift risk. Not blocking, just a suggestion for a follow-up.

2. Standard template test could include type — The test at line 81 for standard export templates doesn't include type: CONST.EXPORT_TEMPLATE_TYPES.INTEGRATIONS in the mock. Since the normalizeTemplate function in Search.ts always sets this, adding it to the mock would make the test more representative of real data. Minor nit.

No issues found with:

• Template deduplication (both files deduplicate by templateName before filtering)
• The fallback chain for display names (template.name ?? template.templateName)
• Edge case handling when type is unexpected (non-IN_APP values pass through, which is the right default)

LGTM ✅ — the changes correctly implement the feature described in the linked issue.

[aimane-chnaif]

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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

demo.mov

[samranahm]

@JS00001 please take a look.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Good for product

[samranahm]

@JS00001 All your 🙌

[JS00001]

@aimane-chnaif would you mind doing a quick re-review of this one?

[aimane-chnaif]

Move this to top of the file as not dependent on component lifecycle

[samranahm]

Thanks for the review @aimane-chnaif, Please take another look.

[JS00001]

@aimane-chnaif is this one good to go?

[aimane-chnaif]

@aimane-chnaif is this one good to go?

yes retested

[OSBotify]

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[github-actions]

🚧 @JS00001 has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #85885.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-b6ba246-d6051eb-695dba489635c9790dd4303a68636b672c19b701/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-b6ba246-d6051eb-7530cdadd64ffeda4ac4e1d597322c10f5bae0b6/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://85885.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[m-natarajan]

@JS00001 @aimane-chnaif @samranahm Can you please help with this IS export template (or request the internal team to add one to your test account)

[samranahm]

@m-natarajan please provide the email and tag trjExpensify or twisterdotcom they will help regarding this.

[JS00001]

@trjExpensify could you help with this please?

[m-natarajan]

@trjExpensify @twisterdotcom Can you please help to set the IS export template to the following accounts
applausetester+ap14@applause.expensifail.com
applausetester+mn0324@applause.expensifail.com
applausetester+mn0324a@applause.expensifail.com

[twisterdotcom]

Can't find an account with email or accountID 'applausetester+ap14@applause.expensiafail.com'. Where did you get this email/ID?

[twisterdotcom]

Ah, miskey. i fixed the domain.

[twisterdotcom]

All done. All three accounts have an export called IS Template

[trjExpensify]

Thanks, Ted!

[twisterdotcom]

Nice! Can't share the customer screenie here, but I can see this is working!

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.3.43-3 🚀

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