Fix report preview approval policy flow by KJ21-ENG · Pull Request #93876 · Expensify/App

KJ21-ENG · 2026-06-17T20:14:30Z

Explanation of Change

This fixes the report preview approval path so approval workflow decisions use the expense report's policy instead of the currently active workspace policy.

The preview approval callers now pass the expense report policy to approveMoneyRequest(). approveMoneyRequest() also defensively derives a workflow policy from expenseReportPolicy and uses it for DEW detection, optimistic next-step generation, duplicate checks, held-expense approval data, and parent report preview status mirroring.

This keeps DEW behavior backend-driven while allowing normal reports to optimistically update stateNum, statusNum, and managerID even if NVP_ACTIVE_POLICY_ID points at a DEW workspace.

Fixed Issues

$ #93067
PROPOSAL: #93067 (comment)

Tests

In a local/dev environment, sign in as an approver/admin for a normal workspace.
Open a workspace chat that contains an expense report preview for a report pending approval.
If available, switch the active workspace context to a DEW workspace, then return to the normal workspace report preview.
Click the Approve button on the report preview.
Verify the clicked report preview transitions away from Approve once and does not briefly show Approve again after the approved animation clears.
Verify the report preview reaches the expected approved/payable state.
Open the report details and verify the report is approved.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Validation run:

python3 /Users/kushjariwla/.codex/skills/expensify-app-targeted-checks/scripts/touched_files.py --base upstream/main
python3 /Users/kushjariwla/.codex/skills/expensify-app-targeted-checks/scripts/touched_files.py --kind format | xargs npx prettier --write
python3 /Users/kushjariwla/.codex/skills/expensify-app-targeted-checks/scripts/touched_files.py --kind lint | xargs npx eslint --cache --cache-location=node_modules/.cache/eslint --cache-strategy content --quiet --concurrency=auto --no-warn-ignored
python3 /Users/kushjariwla/.codex/skills/expensify-app-targeted-checks/scripts/touched_files.py --kind react | xargs npm run react-compiler-compliance-check check
git diff --check
git diff --check upstream/main...HEAD
npm test -- tests/actions/IOUTest/ReportWorkflowTest.ts --runInBand -t "uses the expense report policy for approval optimism when active policy is DEW" --moduleNameMapper='{"^@expensify/react-native-hybrid-app$":"<rootDir>/modules/hybrid-app/src/index.ts"}'

npm run typecheck-tsgo was not run because this PR does not change TypeScript signatures, exported helper types, or React component props.

Offline tests

N/A. This change fixes the online approval transition for an action that requires the backend approval request. It does not add or change offline behavior, offline copy, offline queueing, or offline error handling.

QA Steps

On staging, sign in as an approver/admin for a normal workspace.
Open a workspace chat that contains an expense report preview for a report pending approval.
Click the Approve button on the report preview.
Verify the clicked report preview transitions away from Approve once and does not briefly show Approve again after the approved animation clears.
Verify the report preview reaches the expected approved/payable state.
Open the report details and verify the report is approved.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

VIDEO-2026-06-18-19-59-04.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

VIDEO-2026-06-18-18-47-45.mp4

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-06-18.at.8.39.01.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-06-18.at.6.52.37.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

ezyZip.52.mp4

melvin-bot · 2026-06-18T15:25:27Z

@FitseTLT 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]

KJ21-ENG · 2026-06-19T19:02:26Z

@FitseTLT Kind ping here. Thanks!

FitseTLT · 2026-06-23T14:44:45Z

conflicts

…ing-flow # Conflicts: # tests/actions/IOUTest/ReportWorkflowTest.ts

…ing-flow

FitseTLT · 2026-06-23T15:35:13Z

            expect(updatedReport?.statusNum).toBe(CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.APPROVED);
        });
+
+        it('uses the expense report policy for approval optimism when active policy is DEW', () => {


Suggested change

it('uses the expense report policy for approval optimism when active policy is DEW', () => {

it('uses the expense report policy (not the activePolicy) to determine if it is a DEW approval', () => {

Updated the test name as suggested.

FitseTLT · 2026-06-24T12:17:28Z

-    // since some call sites pass `policy` as the active/personal policy rather than the report's workspace policy.
-    const policyToUpgrade = expenseReportPolicy ?? policy;
+    // IMPORTANT: gate by the workspace that owns the expense report.
+    const policyToUpgrade = expenseReportPolicy;


I don't think we need this var and comment anymore

Updated. Since approveMoneyRequest now only uses expenseReportPolicy, the extra variable/comment is no longer needed.

FitseTLT · 2026-06-24T12:18:34Z


+    if (!isDEWPolicy && expenseReport.parentReportID && expenseReport.parentReportActionID) {
+        optimisticData.push({
+            onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
+            key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_ACTIONS}${expenseReport.parentReportID}`,
+            value: {
+                [expenseReport.parentReportActionID]: {
+                    childStateNum: predictedNextState,
+                    childStatusNum: predictedNextStatus,
+                    ...(nextApproverAccountID ? {childManagerAccountID: managerID} : {}),
+                },
+            },
+        });
+
+        failureData.push({
+            onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
+            key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_ACTIONS}${expenseReport.parentReportID}`,
+            value: {
+                [expenseReport.parentReportActionID]: {
+                    childStateNum: expenseReport.stateNum,
+                    childStatusNum: expenseReport.statusNum,
+                    ...(nextApproverAccountID ? {childManagerAccountID: expenseReport.managerID} : {}),
+                },
+            },
+        });


Why do we need this change?

It mirrors the predicted approval state into the parent REPORT_PREVIEW action's childStateNum, childStatusNum, and childManagerAccountID, matching the existing reopen/retract/unapprove patterns. Without this, the parent preview can keep stale child state during optimistic approval.

totally out of scope. It should be removed.

Hmm, i got it, the confussion occured for me as i mentioned this "update parent preview childStateNum, childStatusNum, childManagerAccountID" in proposal and thought i have to add it inorder to keep pr scoprd to approved proposal. but i agree that i should have reconsidered it while applying in this pr. as the parent preview mirror was included as secondary consistency work, but it is not required for the approve-button flicker fix. Applogies

FitseTLT · 2026-06-24T12:23:54Z

-
-            const reportAction = Object.values(reportActionsUpdate?.value as Record<string, ReportAction>).at(0);
-            expect(reportAction?.delegateAccountID).toBe(DELEGATE_ACCOUNT_ID);
+            expect(getOptimisticReportAction(expenseReport.reportID)?.delegateAccountID).toBe(DELEGATE_ACCOUNT_ID);


What are these unrelated changes you made in this test file? Pls avoid out of scope changes. You always need to confirm yourself changes made by AI platforms according to Expensify rules. Stop committing AI changes directly and expect the C+ reviewer to do the checking for you. This a formal warning @KJ21-ENG

Actually the idea behind introducing the helper was to avoid repeated mock-call inspection while updating the approveMoneyRequest tests. But I reconsider it as applying that cleanup across unrelated delegate cases was broader than this pr needs.

…ing-flow # Conflicts: # src/hooks/useHoldMenuSubmit.ts

…ing-flow

KJ21-ENG · 2026-06-24T18:56:39Z

@FitseTLT Can you please shade some light on for what 'formal warning' stands for ? i went through matt's this message on slack but i didnt get much clarity.

and one more humble request from my side that can you please wave off the 'formal warning' , my intensiion was not to breach any guidline and i will be more sharp for this kind of thing in future. Its humble request from my side and sincere applogy as well.

FitseTLT · 2026-06-24T19:36:48Z

@KJ21-ENG Read https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/main/contributingGuides/AI_ETIQUETTE.md You should always make sure to take responsibility and check before making or suggesting changes generated by AI. Random unrelated changes here and there made me suspect you are directly pushing AI changes. If it is you no problem everyone makes mistakes, but if it is not, you are violating the AI_ETIQUETTE rules that's what I am pointing to.

KJ21-ENG · 2026-06-24T20:22:51Z

@FitseTLT Thanks for refering this and i got your point as well that you were pointing to, the confussion that i have is regarding term 'formal warning' as i havent received anything like this till now. will i be prevented / stoped from contributing to the repo now onwards ?

FitseTLT · 2026-06-24T20:26:08Z

@FitseTLT Thanks for refering this and i got your point as well that you were pointing to, the confussion that i have is regarding term 'formal warning' as i havent received anything like this till now. will i be prevented / stoped from contributing to the repo now onwards ?

No I meant my own formal warning. The proper warning you are seeing in the Matt message is the official company's warning. And you are not in that warning. I am just warning you before I report it officially. Now, as long as you follow the rules you are good.

KJ21-ENG · 2026-06-24T20:29:57Z

Ah, got it. Now I understand Matt's message as well as yours. I will definitely keep note of this for future. Thanks!

FitseTLT · 2026-06-25T12:25:32Z

+        it('gates upgrade by expenseReportPolicy even when the report policyID is Submit', () => {
+            const expenseReport = createSubmittedExpenseReport(submitPolicyID);

-            approveMoneyRequest(createApproveMoneyRequestParams(expenseReport, submitPolicy, teamPolicy));
+            approveMoneyRequest(createApproveMoneyRequestParams(expenseReport, teamPolicy));

-            expect(Navigation.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
-            expect(Navigation.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expectedRoute);
+            expect(Navigation.navigate).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
        });

-        it('falls back to policy when expenseReportPolicy is undefined', () => {
+        it('does not fall back to another policy when expenseReportPolicy is undefined', () => {
            const expenseReport = createSubmittedExpenseReport(submitPolicyID);
-            const expectedRoute = ROUTES.WORKSPACE_UPGRADE.getRoute(submitPolicyID, upgradeFeatureAlias, ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(expenseReport.reportID), expenseReport.reportID);

-            approveMoneyRequest({
-                ...createApproveMoneyRequestParams(expenseReport, submitPolicy),
-                expenseReportPolicy: undefined,
-                policy: submitPolicy,
-            });
+            approveMoneyRequest(createApproveMoneyRequestParams(expenseReport, undefined));

-            expect(Navigation.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
-            expect(Navigation.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expectedRoute);
+            expect(Navigation.navigate).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
        });


I think these two tests are obsolete now that we don't have policy param

FitseTLT · 2026-06-25T12:59:42Z

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
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 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 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)
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)
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.
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

2026-06-25.15-32-20.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

2026-06-25.15-49-46.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

2026-06-25.15-56-37.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

2026-06-25.15-54-53.mp4

FitseTLT

LGTM

github-actions · 2026-06-25T23:41:13Z

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

OSBotify · 2026-06-25T23:44:46Z

✋ 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 · 2026-06-25T23:47:15Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #93876.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-a9c25860273-8dfb018-06048e2c665b2703fba72549cab52a8fe26622c0/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-a9c2586-8dfb018-ee4d785f142bddcbfd4fe470126bb5db5e50b773/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://93876.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-06-26T20:00:18Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/carlosmiceli in version: 9.4.21-2 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-06-29T12:37:04Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.21-9 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android

Fix report preview approval policy flow

bf12516

melvin-bot Bot assigned KJ21-ENG Jun 17, 2026

KJ21-ENG marked this pull request as ready for review June 18, 2026 15:25

KJ21-ENG requested review from a team as code owners June 18, 2026 15:25

melvin-bot Bot requested review from FitseTLT and heyjennahay and removed request for a team and heyjennahay June 18, 2026 15:25

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team June 18, 2026 15:25

FitseTLT reviewed Jun 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/actions/IOU/ReportWorkflow.ts Outdated

Remove stale approval policy fallback

2254baf

KJ21-ENG added 5 commits June 23, 2026 20:47

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into KJ21-ENG/93067-rais…

4c8c2a2

…ing-flow # Conflicts: # tests/actions/IOUTest/ReportWorkflowTest.ts

Align approval upgrade policy after merge

71d081e

Fix approval policy test expectations

9ee78d4

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into KJ21-ENG/93067-rais…

37c9496

…ing-flow

Stabilize approval delegate policy test

7ad21f7

KJ21-ENG requested a review from FitseTLT June 24, 2026 07:34

FitseTLT suggested changes Jun 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

KJ21-ENG added 4 commits June 24, 2026 22:24

Address approval workflow review comments

b82a271

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into KJ21-ENG/93067-rais…

a098634

…ing-flow # Conflicts: # src/hooks/useHoldMenuSubmit.ts

Remove parent preview approval mirror

c03056b

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into KJ21-ENG/93067-rais…

cac041b

…ing-flow

KJ21-ENG requested a review from FitseTLT June 25, 2026 09:13

FitseTLT suggested changes Jun 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

Remove obsolete approval policy fallback tests

e00239e

FitseTLT approved these changes Jun 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from carlosmiceli June 25, 2026 22:11

carlosmiceli approved these changes Jun 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

carlosmiceli merged commit a9c2586 into Expensify:main Jun 25, 2026
34 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jun 26, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-06-26 #94730

Closed

55 tasks

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 29, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-07-06] [$250] Bug: Approve button flickers (disappears, reappears, disappears) when approving a report from workspace chat report preview #93067

Closed

4 tasks

FitseTLT mentioned this pull request Jun 29, 2026

Add DEW support for approve action #79165

Merged

51 tasks

	it('uses the expense report policy for approval optimism when active policy is DEW', () => {
	it('uses the expense report policy (not the activePolicy) to determine if it is a DEW approval', () => {

Uh oh!

Conversation

KJ21-ENG commented Jun 17, 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!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 18, 2026

Uh oh!

KJ21-ENG commented Jun 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Jun 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

KJ21-ENG commented Jun 24, 2026

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Jun 24, 2026

Uh oh!

KJ21-ENG commented Jun 24, 2026

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Jun 24, 2026

Uh oh!

KJ21-ENG commented Jun 24, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Jun 25, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

FitseTLT left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 25, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 25, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 25, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 26, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 29, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

KJ21-ENG commented Jun 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading