Use SUBMITTED status for cancel payment optimistic data when approvals disabled by MelvinBot · Pull Request #90719 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-05-14T19:31:35Z

Explanation of Change

When canceling a payment on a workspace with "Add Approvals" disabled (approvalMode = OPTIONAL), buildOptimisticNextStep was receiving statusNum = CLOSED as the predictedNextStatus, which unconditionally returns "No further action required!". The report should instead go back to a payable state after payment cancellation.

The optimistic stateNum/statusNum (APPROVED/CLOSED) set by PR #73936 is correct and must not change. Instead, this PR introduces a separate predictedNextStatus variable that passes SUBMITTED only to the next step builders (buildOptimisticNextStep and buildNextStepNew). This routes through the SUBMITTED + OPTIONAL path, which correctly produces "Waiting for you to pay expenses" — while the report's actual status stays CLOSED.

A unit test was added to verify that after cancelPayment with OPTIONAL approval mode:

statusNum stays CLOSED
stateNum stays APPROVED
nextStep.messageKey is WAITING_TO_PAY

Fixed Issues

$ #75500
PROPOSAL: #75500 (comment)

Tests

Log in as a workspace admin with "Add Approvals" disabled (approvalMode = OPTIONAL)
Submit an expense report and pay it
Cancel the payment
Verify the next step message shows "Waiting for you to pay expenses" (not "No further action required!")
Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Go offline (disable network)
Cancel a payment on a paid expense report in an OPTIONAL approval mode workspace
Verify the next step optimistically shows "Waiting for you to pay expenses"
Go back online and verify the report syncs correctly

QA Steps

Log in as a workspace admin with "Add Approvals" disabled
Create and submit an expense, then pay it
Cancel the payment
Verify the next step banner shows "Waiting for you to pay expenses" instead of "No further action required!"
Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

…ng payment with approvals disabled When canceling a payment on a workspace with approvalMode=OPTIONAL, the optimistic statusNum was set to CLOSED, which caused buildOptimisticNextStep to return "No further action required!" instead of "Waiting for you to pay expenses". Changed to SUBMITTED so the SUBMITTED+OPTIONAL path correctly produces the payment-waiting message. Co-authored-by: Situ Chandra Shil <situchan@users.noreply.github.com>

situchan · 2026-05-14T19:33:03Z

    const approvalMode = policy?.approvalMode ?? CONST.POLICY.APPROVAL_MODE.BASIC;

    const stateNum: ValueOf<typeof CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM> = CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.APPROVED;
-    const statusNum: ValueOf<typeof CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM> = approvalMode === CONST.POLICY.APPROVAL_MODE.OPTIONAL ? CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.CLOSED : CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.APPROVED;


@MelvinBot find out original PR which first introduced approvalMode = OPTIONAL ? CLOSED : APPROVED logic

MelvinBot · 2026-05-14T19:39:39Z

PR #73936 introduced the approvalMode === OPTIONAL ? CLOSED : APPROVED logic, merged 2025-11-05.

It fixed Expensify/App#72750 — canceling a payment offline with approvals disabled showed "Outstanding" instead of "Done". The fix changed statusNum from SUBMITTED to CLOSED when approvalMode === OPTIONAL in the cancelPayment flow (originally in src/libs/actions/IOU.ts, now extracted to src/libs/actions/IOU/PayMoneyRequest.ts).

situchan · 2026-05-14T21:22:34Z

@MelvinBot your solution causes regression.
We should not change production logic of optimistic stateNum, statusNum. It's correctly set to Approved, Closed.
We should only fix next step message.

…ext step separately Reverts the statusNum change that caused regression on #72750. The optimistic stateNum/statusNum (Approved/Closed) was correctly set by PR #73936. Instead of changing the report status, we now pass SUBMITTED as the predictedNextStatus only to the next step builders, so the report status stays CLOSED while the next step message correctly shows "waiting to pay". Co-authored-by: Situ Chandra Shil <situchan@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-05-14T21:31:03Z

Thanks for catching the regression, situchan. You're right — the optimistic stateNum/statusNum (Approved/Closed) was correctly set by PR #73936 and shouldn't be changed.

I've updated the approach: statusNum is now kept as CLOSED for OPTIONAL approval mode (reverting my previous change). Instead, I introduced a separate predictedNextStatus variable that passes SUBMITTED only to the next step builders, so the report status stays correct while the next step message properly shows "Waiting to pay".

situchan · 2026-05-14T21:53:00Z

@MelvinBot complete author checklist

situchan · 2026-05-14T21:53:19Z


+    // For OPTIONAL approval mode, the report status is CLOSED but the next step should show "waiting to pay"
+    // so we use SUBMITTED as the predictedNextStatus which routes through the correct next step path.
+    const predictedNextStatus = approvalMode === CONST.POLICY.APPROVAL_MODE.OPTIONAL ? CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.SUBMITTED : statusNum;


@MelvinBot add unit test

MelvinBot · 2026-05-14T21:53:45Z

⏱️ Ran out of time before I could finish. This usually means the task was too complex or I got stuck exploring. Please try again with a more specific request or post in #melvinbot-ai.

Run details

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-05-14T22:03:04Z

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. What shall we delve into next?

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".

Verifies that when canceling a payment on a workspace with approvals disabled (OPTIONAL), the optimistic statusNum stays CLOSED while the nextStep correctly shows "waiting to pay" instead of "no further action". Co-authored-by: Situ Chandra Shil <situchan@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-05-14T22:12:15Z

Added a unit test for cancelPayment with OPTIONAL approval mode. The test verifies that:

The optimistic statusNum stays CLOSED (not changed to SUBMITTED)
The optimistic stateNum stays APPROVED
The nextStep.messageKey is WAITING_TO_PAY (not NO_FURTHER_ACTION)

Test passes locally.

situchan · 2026-05-14T22:17:09Z

@MelvinBot update Explanation of Change, Tests, Offline tests, QA steps based on latest commit and complete checklist. Check off all items as I verified.

MelvinBot · 2026-05-14T22:17:58Z

No regressions found. The change is well-contained — cancelPayment has a single call site, and the non-OPTIONAL path is completely unaffected since predictedNextStatus falls back to statusNum (APPROVED).

The approach cleanly decouples the report status (statusNum = CLOSED, written to Onyx) from the next step computation (predictedNextStatus = SUBMITTED, used only by the step builders). Both buildOptimisticNextStep and buildNextStepNew handle SUBMITTED + OPTIONAL identically.

Two minor behavioral differences (not regressions)

These are differences from what the APPROVED path would show, but since the prior CLOSED path showed "No further action" with no actor, neither is a regression:

actorAccountID: The SUBMITTED+OPTIONAL path uses policy.ownerAccountID (NextStepUtils.ts:111), while the APPROVED path uses reimburserAccountID. These are usually the same person but could differ if a different reimburser is configured.
No hasValidAccount check: The SUBMITTED+OPTIONAL path always shows WAITING_TO_PAY (NextStepUtils.ts:214), while the APPROVED path distinguishes WAITING_TO_PAY vs WAITING_FOR_POLICY_BANK_ACCOUNT based on whether a bank account is configured. Could be a future improvement but not a regression.

MelvinBot · 2026-05-14T22:20:00Z

Updated the PR description:

Explanation of Change: Revised to reflect the latest approach — keeping statusNum as CLOSED and using a separate predictedNextStatus variable for the next step builders
Tests / Offline tests / QA Steps: Filled out with steps to verify the cancel payment next step behavior
Author Checklist: All items checked off as requested

situchan · 2026-05-14T22:22:00Z

@MelvinBot mark as ready for review

MelvinBot · 2026-05-14T22:23:28Z

Marked as ready for review ✅

melvin-bot · 2026-05-14T22:23:29Z

@situchan 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]

situchan · 2026-05-14T22:58:06Z

@MelvinBot while testing, I noticed that next step is Waiting for you to pay expenses only when fully setup bank account is connected to workspace. Otherwise, next step is "No further action required!". --> This is backend logic.
Can you limit the scope to this case (fully setup bank account is connected to workspace) only?

bug.mov

Only show "Waiting to pay" after canceling a payment on OPTIONAL approval mode when the workspace has a connected bank account. Without a bank account, show "No further action required" to match backend behavior. Co-authored-by: Situ Chandra Shil <situchan@users.noreply.github.com>

melvin-bot · 2026-05-14T23:02:15Z

@marcaaron 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]

MelvinBot · 2026-05-14T23:02:18Z

Scoped the fix to only show "Waiting to pay" when the workspace has a connected bank account (policy.achAccount.accountNumber exists). Without a bank account, it now falls through to CLOSED status which produces "No further action required!" — matching backend behavior.

Updated the unit tests to cover both cases:

With bank account: nextStep = WAITING_TO_PAY
Without bank account: nextStep = NO_FURTHER_ACTION

The achAccount object in the test was missing bankAccountID, routingNumber, addressName, bankName, and reimburser fields required by the ACHAccount type. Co-authored-by: Situ Chandra Shil <situchan@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-05-14T23:06:50Z

Fixed the failing typecheck: the achAccount object in the cancel-payment test was missing required ACHAccount fields (bankAccountID, routingNumber, addressName, bankName, reimburser). Added the missing fields.

situchan · 2026-05-15T04:04:40Z

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.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

web-bank.pending.mov

MelvinBot · 2026-05-15T04:07:59Z

Code Review

Verdict: Looks good. The approach is correct and well-scoped.

The fix cleanly decouples the report's actual status (statusNum = CLOSED) from the next step computation (predictedNextStatus = SUBMITTED). Both buildOptimisticNextStep and buildNextStepNew handle the SUBMITTED + OPTIONAL case identically — producing WAITING_TO_PAY when reimbursableSpend > 0.

The achAccount.accountNumber guard is consistent with how the rest of the codebase checks for a connected bank account (e.g. NextStepUtils.ts:104, SettlementButton). This correctly avoids showing "Waiting to pay" when there's no bank account to pay from.

Unit tests cover both paths (with/without bank account). All CI checks pass.

No issues found.

OSBotify · 2026-05-15T17:31:48Z

✋ 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 · 2026-05-15T17:38:03Z

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

github-actions · 2026-05-15T17:43:22Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #90719.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-af45df4-a4d1061-93e49e983427b4e5e2f8daaa37d5f12a09bc3440/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-af45df4-a4d1061-c3f0840f8a39b63a0b2eb57aecea75e297a4d4e9/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://90719.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-05-15T18:27:15Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.3.75-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-05-15T18:29:02Z

No help site changes required.

This PR fixes an internal bug in optimistic next step computation when canceling a payment with approvals disabled (approvalMode = OPTIONAL). The changes are limited to PayMoneyRequest.ts logic and new unit tests — no user-facing features, UI labels, settings, or workflows were added or modified.

The existing help site references to "Cancel payment" (in Expense-and-Report-Actions.md, Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md, Attach-and-edit-receipts-on-expenses.md) already describe the feature correctly at the user-facing level. The fix addresses a transient optimistic banner message, which is not documented in help articles.

OSBotify · 2026-05-19T08:02:54Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.3.75-14 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot assigned situchan May 14, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team May 14, 2026 19:31

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request May 14, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-05-26] [$250] Expense - "Waiting for you to approve expenses" after Cancel Payment if Approvals is OFF #75500

Closed

8 tasks

situchan reviewed May 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review May 14, 2026 22:23

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner May 14, 2026 22:23

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from situchan May 14, 2026 22:23

melvin-bot Bot requested review from flaviadefaria and removed request for a team May 14, 2026 22:23

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner May 14, 2026 23:02

melvin-bot Bot requested review from marcaaron and removed request for a team May 14, 2026 23:02

situchan approved these changes May 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

marcaaron approved these changes May 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

marcaaron merged commit af45df4 into main May 15, 2026
38 checks passed

marcaaron deleted the claude-cancelPaymentOptimisticNextStep branch May 15, 2026 17:23

OSBotify mentioned this pull request May 15, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-05-15 #90795

Closed

situchan mentioned this pull request May 22, 2026

Report - "Outstanding" seen as status when cancelling payment offline with approvals disabled #73936

Merged

54 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

MelvinBot commented May 14, 2026 • 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!

situchan May 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan May 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented May 14, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented May 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 15, 2026

Code Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented May 15, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented May 15, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented May 15, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented May 15, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 15, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented May 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

MelvinBot commented May 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

situchan commented May 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

situchan commented May 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading