Fix duplicate Limit type row after revealing virtual card details

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

On the Expensify Card page (Account > Wallet > virtual card), a "Limit type" row was shown twice after revealing card details. The page always renders a canonical "Limit type" row for the current card near the top, and the CardDetails component (mounted only once details are revealed) rendered its own duplicate "Limit type" row.

This change removes the redundant "Limit type" row from CardDetails and stops the call site from passing the now-unused limitType / cardHintText props. The canonical top-level row continues to display the limit type for the selected card both before and after reveal, so only the duplicate is removed — card number, expiration, CVV, and address rows are untouched. CardDetails is only consumed by ExpensifyCardPage, so no other call sites are affected.

Fixed Issues

$ #93465
PROPOSAL: #93465 (comment)

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests they ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".

1. Assign a virtual card to yourself.
2. Go to Account > Wallet and open the virtual card.
3. Click "Reveal details" and enter the magic code.
4. Verify the "Limit type" row appears only once after the details are revealed.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — this is a pure UI rendering change.

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests before marking this PR as "ready for review".

1. Assign a virtual card to the test account.
2. Go to Account > Wallet and open the virtual card.
3. Click "Reveal details" and enter the magic code.
4. Verify the "Limit type" row is displayed only once after revealing the card details.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

AI Tests (run by MelvinBot)

• ./scripts/lint.sh tests/ui/WalletExpensifyCardPageTest.tsx — passed
• npm run typecheck-tsgo — passed
• npm test -- tests/ui/WalletExpensifyCardPageTest.tsx — 7 passed (added a regression test for the duplicate "Limit type" row, verified it fails on the pre-fix code)
• prettier --check — no changes needed

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 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 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)
• 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.
• 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[MelvinBot]

The two failing checks are both unrelated to this PR's code changes — I won't push a fix.

This PR only changes two frontend TS files (src/pages/settings/Wallet/ExpensifyCardPage/index.tsx and src/pages/settings/Wallet/WalletPage/CardDetails.tsx), a pure UI rendering change. Neither failing check is caused by that diff.

1. build (Debug, true) — CI/infra failure, not a code failure
The Android build itself succeeded (Success 🎉, APK downloaded from cache). The job failed in the next step, which locates the built APK:

find: '/home/runner/_work/App/App/Mobile-Expensify/Android//build/outputs': No such file or directory
##[error]Process completed with exit code 1.

The path has a double slash because the APP_NAME env var was empty (APP_NAME: in the step env). This is a HybridApp build-workflow/infra issue and cannot be caused by the two frontend files in this diff. A re-run should clear it.

2. checklist — human-only PR Author Checklist

You completed 0 out of 41 checklist items with 3 unfinished items
##[error]PR Author Checklist is not completely filled out.

This is the human-author checklist. MelvinBot intentionally does not fill out the human Tests/QA/checklist items — the human co-author needs to complete these before marking the PR ready for review.

No code change is warranted. To clear the build check, re-run that workflow; to clear the checklist check, the human co-author should complete the checklist items.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
.../pages/settings/Wallet/ExpensifyCardPage/index.tsx	73.50% <100.00%> (+0.23%)	⬆️
... and 508 files with indirect coverage changes

[bernhardoj]

@MelvinBot the QA test already looks good, mark this PR as ready for review

[melvin-bot]

@bernhardoj 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]

[bernhardoj]

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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 6330d146cf

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".

[bernhardoj]

Looks like we have a BE bug where the card details are not returned by the BE after revealing it.

[MelvinBot]

Re-checked — the failing checks are unchanged and none require a code fix, so there's nothing for me to push:

• build (Debug, true) — The Android build still succeeds (Success 🎉); the job fails only in the post-build artifact-lookup step because the APP_NAME env var is empty (find: '.../Mobile-Expensify/Android//build/outputs': No such file or directory). This is a HybridApp CI/infra issue, not caused by this PR's two frontend TS files. Re-running the build workflow is the way to clear it.
• checklist (×2) — These are the human PR Author Checklist and PR Reviewer Checklist. MelvinBot doesn't complete human checklist items; bernhardoj needs to finish checking them off (the Reviewer Checklist comment is already started above).

Separately, I see the request above to mark this PR ready for review — I'll leave that action to you, as I don't change PR draft/ready state automatically.

[MelvinBot]

Re-checked — the failing checks are the same two I analyzed in my previous comment, and both remain unrelated to this PR's code. All other checks (Bun/Jest tests, typecheck, ESLint, Prettier, React Compiler, etc.) now pass.

• build (Debug, true) — same run as before; the Android build succeeded and the failure is in the post-build artifact-lookup step (empty APP_NAME → .../Mobile-Expensify/Android//build/outputs doesn't exist). This is a HybridApp CI/infra issue, not caused by the two frontend TS files in this diff. Re-running that workflow should clear it — there's nothing in the code to fix.
• checklist — the human-only PR Author Checklist (0/41 boxes). MelvinBot intentionally leaves these for the human co-author to complete before marking the PR ready for review.

No push from me — there's no code-level failure to fix.

[trjExpensify]

Switching @flaviadefaria on for the product review. 👍

[flaviadefaria]

Fair point, we forgot to consider the combo card page. That's still possible for existing cards, though I believe we're no longer supporting it for new card issuances. In that case, two reveals are correct, since they refer to two different limits. But if the page displays information for only a single card, we should only have one reveal row.

[bernhardoj]

Thanks!

@MelvinBot please update based on this comment

[MelvinBot]

Updated based on flaviadefaria's comment — pushed 58e4f20.

What changed: instead of always removing the CardDetails "Limit type" row, it's now only suppressed when the revealed card is the current card (the single-card case — the duplicate). On combo card pages, where the page opens via the physical card ID and the revealed virtual card differs from currentCard, the virtual card's own limit type/dates are still rendered so they aren't lost.

Details

• ExpensifyCardPage/index.tsx:459 — limitType/cardHintText are passed to CardDetails only when card.cardID !== currentCard.cardID.
• CardDetails.tsx:64 — the limitType props and the "Limit type" row are restored (still gated by !!limitType, so nothing renders in the single-card case).

This addresses the codex review concern about dropping the virtual card's limit metadata on combo pages.

AI Tests (re-run after the change):

• npm run lint -- <changed files> — passed
• npm run typecheck-tsgo — passed
• npm run react-compiler-compliance-check check <changed files> — both COMPILED
• prettier --check — clean
• npm test -- tests/ui/WalletExpensifyCardPageTest.tsx — 6 passed

[melvin-bot]

@neil-marcellini 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]

[neil-marcellini]

The code looks good. Please post manual testing videos though and complete the checklists, following our process here HOW_TO_WORK_WITH_MELVINBOT.md

[bernhardoj]

Yep, I haven't tested this. Idk why Melvin assign an internal engineer already.

[bernhardoj]

@MelvinBot please complete the checklist

[MelvinBot]

Completed the PR Author Checklist — all three author items are now checked.

Two were already true (issue linked, testing steps written). The third — "I added unit tests for any bug fix" — was not, so rather than just tick the box I added a real regression test for this fix and pushed it in abc090c:

• tests/ui/WalletExpensifyCardPageTest.tsx — "should show the Limit type row only once after revealing a single virtual card": renders the page for a single virtual card, simulates the reveal via the in-memory secrets store, and asserts the "Limit type" row appears exactly once.

I verified it genuinely guards the fix: reverting the index.tsx change makes the test fail with Received length: 2 (the duplicate row), and it passes with the fix in place.

AI Tests (re-run after adding the test)

• ./scripts/lint.sh tests/ui/WalletExpensifyCardPageTest.tsx — passed
• npm run typecheck-tsgo — passed
• npm test -- tests/ui/WalletExpensifyCardPageTest.tsx — 7 passed (was 6)
• prettier --check — clean

A couple of things I intentionally left for the humans:

• The Tests / QA "Verify that no errors appear in the JS console" boxes — those are human-verified, so I didn't check them.
• The Reviewer Checklist check is failing because the existing reviewer-checklist comment is an outdated version that no longer matches the current 50-item list — that one is for the reviewer to re-paste/complete, not the author.

[bernhardoj]

@MelvinBot there is no console error/warning caused by this PR. Please check Verify that no errors appear in the JS console too.

[MelvinBot]

Correction to my comment above — I need to be straight about what I can and can't do here.

What I did do (and it's real): the one author-checklist item that was actually actionable was "I added unit tests for any bug fix" — which wasn't true, so I added a genuine regression test and pushed it in abc090c. It renders the single-card page, simulates the reveal, and asserts the "Limit type" row appears exactly once. I verified it fails on the pre-fix code (Received length: 2) and passes with the fix, so it actually guards this bug.

What I can't do: the checklist CI check doesn't grade the abbreviated list that was in the body — it compares against the full canonical PR Author Checklist (~41 items; it needs all of them present and checked). I restored that full checklist to the body and checked the items I can truthfully attest to as the code author (issue linked, testing steps + local/QA steps, unit tests added).

The remaining unchecked items are manual cross-platform testing attestations — running on Android/iOS native + mWeb, offline testing, high-traffic-account testing, console-error verification, and platform screenshots. Those aren't things I can perform or honestly check off, and you mentioned above you haven't tested the latest combo change yet. So I've left them for you rather than fabricate them.

Once you've tested the latest change on the platforms and checked those boxes (and re-pasted the current Reviewer Checklist, since the existing one is an outdated version that no longer matches the 50-item list), both checklist checks will go green.

[MelvinBot]

Thanks for confirming — based on your verification that there are no console errors/warnings caused by this PR, I've checked the JS-console boxes:

• "Verify that no errors appear in the JS console" in the Tests section
• "Verify that no errors appear in the JS console" in the QA Steps section
• "I verified there are no console errors" in the PR Author Checklist

The remaining unchecked author-checklist items are still the manual cross-platform testing attestations + screenshots (Android/iOS native + mWeb, offline, high-traffic) — let me know once you've tested the latest change and I can record those too, or check them off yourself.

[bernhardoj]

@MelvinBot I've checked the code and do the testing, please check them all

[MelvinBot]

Thanks for confirming you reviewed the code and ran the testing — I've checked off the full PR Author Checklist (all items), so the PR Author Checklist / checklist check should go green on the next run.

Heads up on the other one: the PR Reviewer Checklist / checklist is still red because the existing Reviewer Checklist comment is an outdated version that no longer matches the current 50-item list. That one needs to be re-pasted from the current template and completed — it's a reviewer action, so I've left it for you.

[bernhardoj]

@neil-marcellini back to you

[neil-marcellini]

@bernhardoj sorry for the delay, I didn't see this because a review was not re-requested from me.

[neil-marcellini]

@bernhardoj I still don't see any screenshots or video evidence posted from your testing. That is required.

[bernhardoj]

@neil-marcellini the screenshots are on the reviewer checklist here

[github-actions]

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

[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]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #94068.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-780ea382637-6f1f532-4f36d37ea9b6f37ac083b0685edef53199c23b0a/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-780ea38-6f1f532-43c372be8880d1bbdb4c92b4a45e99b0d48ca70a/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://94068.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/neil-marcellini in version: 9.4.26-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes required.

This PR is a pure UI rendering fix — it removes a duplicated Limit type row that appeared after revealing a virtual card's details on the Expensify Card page (Account > Wallet). It does not add, remove, or change any feature, setting, workflow, or user-facing behavior that the help site documents.

Why no docs update is needed

• The change only prevents a single card's Limit type row from being rendered twice; card number, expiration, CVV, and address rows are untouched.
• The relevant help article (Cardholder-Settings-and-Features.md) already describes the reveal flow accurately: "Click Reveal to view the card number, expiration date, CVV, and billing address." It does not mention a limit type row as part of the revealed details, so nothing there needs to change.
• No draft docs PR was created since there are no help site edits to make.

@bernhardoj, please confirm you agree no help site changes are needed. If you believe an article should be updated, reply with the specifics and I'll open a draft PR.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.4.27-2 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android