[NoQA] Receipt follow up - dedup receipt commands

[rinej]

Follow up -> #94950 (comment)

Explanation of Change

Deduplicated RECEIPT_BEARING_COMMANDS into a single source of truth, removed outdated entries and simplified the comment.

Why the three split commands were removed

SPLIT_BILL / SPLIT_BILL_AND_OPEN_REPORT – these don't have a top-level receipt (data.receipt). Any receipt is stored inside the splits JSON, so data.receipt is always empty. They were already skipped by this check.
COMPLETE_SPLIT_BILL – this command doesn't include a receipt at all.

These commands were effectively unused in this list. Removing them doesn't change behavior - it just makes the list simpler

Fixed Issues

$ #92139
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

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 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 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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/Network/SequentialQueue.ts	86.61% <ø> (ø)
...eiptsToGallery/getPendingReceiptRequests.native.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/telemetry/ReceiptObservability.ts	85.41% <ø> (ø)
... and 61 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@eVoloshchak @mkhutornyi One of you needs to 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]

[mkhutornyi]

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.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

[mkhutornyi]

@codex review

[mkhutornyi]

Please complete author checklist

[MelvinBot]

Review

LGTM — this is a safe, behavior-preserving dedup. Verified the consolidation against the actual API param shapes.

The set membership is correct. All three consumers (SequentialQueue.push, the queue snapshot in ReceiptObservability, and getPendingReceiptRequests) read a top-level data.receipt. I checked each command's params type:

• Removed SPLIT_BILL / SPLIT_BILL_AND_OPEN_REPORT / COMPLETE_SPLIT_BILL — none has a top-level receipt param; the receipt (if any) is nested inside the splits JSON string. So data.receipt was always undefined for them and they were dead entries. Removing them changes nothing. ✅
• Kept START_SPLIT_BILL — the one split-family command that does pass a top-level receipt (StartSplitBillParams.receipt). Correctly kept. ✅
• Added ADD_TRACKED_EXPENSE_TO_POLICY — carries a top-level receipt and was already in the gallery-save set; adding it to the observability set is the point of unifying them. ✅

One intentional behavior change worth calling out in the PR body: before this PR, ADD_TRACKED_EXPENSE_TO_POLICY was missing from the observability set, so its enqueued receipts were not logged/counted in the queue snapshot. After unifying, they now are. That's a fix (the two sets agreeing is the whole goal), just make sure that's the intended outcome and not a surprise in the telemetry.

Minor nits (non-blocking)

• Unrelated comment removal in SequentialQueue.ts. The data.receipt logging rationale moving into the RECEIPT_BEARING_COMMANDS JSDoc makes sense, but the second removed comment — the one explaining that save()'s in-memory update is synchronous so flush() sees the new request immediately — described genuinely non-obvious ordering behavior and is unrelated to the dedup. Consider keeping it.
• Missing period at the end of the new RECEIPT_BEARING_COMMANDS JSDoc (…so both features agree on which queued requests own a receipt).

Tests are updated consistently and the SplitBill-without-receipt is skipped case is still covered. Nice cleanup.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

No product review needed.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Breezy!

Reviewed commit: 950ce295c1

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".

[mkhutornyi]

Suggested Tests steps

Tests — all platforms (web, mWeb, iOS, Android):

1. Go offline.
2. Create a scan expense with a receipt and submit it. Verify it stays pending in the queue.
3. Repeat with: a Track expense with a receipt, a Split expense scan (which goes through StartSplitBill), and a receipt replacement on an existing expense.
4. Go back online and search the logs for [Receipt] — verify an enqueued row exists for each of the above, each carrying a receiptTraceId, and that no rows appear with an empty trace id.
5. New coverage check: offline, create a Track expense with a receipt, then add it to a workspace (AddTrackedExpenseToPolicy). Verify a [Receipt] enqueued row now appears for that command — this command was previously missing from the telemetry set, so this coverage is new in this PR.
6. Regression check: offline, create a non-scan Split expense (manual amount, no receipt). Verify no [Receipt] rows are emitted for it — SplitBill was dropped from the set and never carried a top-level receipt anyway.
7. With receipts still pending, background the app (or sign out) and verify one [Receipt] queue snapshot row per pending receipt, each with a receiptTraceId and an msSinceEnqueued.

Tests — native only (iOS, Android):

8. Offline, queue the receipts from steps 2–3, then sign out. Verify the sign-out modal warns about unsaved receipts and offers to save them to the gallery.
9. Confirm the save, then open the device photo gallery and verify all the queued receipts are there.
10. Repeat step 8 with only a non-scan Split expense pending (no receipt). Verify the modal does not claim there are receipts to save.

[mountiny]

Thanks for following up

[mountiny]

@cead22 ooops sorry I did not notice you were assigned for a review too 🙈

[github-actions]

🚧 mountiny 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 #95811.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-c3bf85ea878-3fececf-cf20453f4f8d49e391bade9488d84b8e9080c819/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-c3bf85e-3fececf-339c3c260792fc150a49b3004e21a2f5f2edcb36/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://95811.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.34-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes are required for this PR — no draft PR created.

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site content under App/docs/articles. This is a purely internal, non-user-facing refactor, so nothing in the public documentation needs to change.

Why no docs update is needed

The PR makes three kinds of changes, none of which alter product behavior or anything a customer would see:

• Deduplicates a constant — RECEIPT_BEARING_COMMANDS is consolidated into a single source of truth in src/libs/telemetry/ReceiptObservability.ts and imported into getPendingReceiptRequests.native.ts instead of being duplicated.
• Removes/rewrites code comments in src/libs/Network/SequentialQueue.ts and the shared constant's JSDoc.
• Updates unit tests (ReceiptObservabilityTest.ts, savePendingReceiptsToGalleryTest.ts) to match the deduplicated list.

Per the PR description, removing SPLIT_BILL / SPLIT_BILL_AND_OPEN_REPORT / COMPLETE_SPLIT_BILL from the set is a no-op — those commands never carry a top-level data.receipt, so they were already skipped. The PR itself is labeled [NoQA].

This all concerns internal telemetry/observability and offline receipt-persistence internals — it does not affect any documented feature, setting, tab, or button in the Expensify UI, so there is no corresponding help site article to update.

Note: browser-based verification of the live UI was unavailable for this run, so this determination is based on static analysis of the code changes. That's sufficient here since the diff is limited to internal constants, comments, and tests with no behavior or UI change.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.34-14 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.34-14 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android