Fix/96257 optimistic move scan failed on pay approve

[yusufdeveloper2903]

Explanation of Change

When a report mixes a valid expense with a SmartScan-failed (non-submittable) expense, the backend moves the scan-failed expense into a new report on Pay/Approve so the rest can proceed. This was backend-only, so offline the expense stayed in the report until reconnect (#96257).

This PR adds the optimistic (client-side) split by generalizing the existing held-expense split (getReportFromHoldRequestsOnyxData / getHoldReportActionsAndTransactions) to also move scan-failed transactions. It's triggered in payMoneyRequest and approveMoneyRequest whenever the report contains a scan-failed expense. Moved/remaining report totals are computed from the moved transactions; the held-only path is byte-identical (no regression).

Fixed Issues

$ #96257
PROPOSAL: #96257 (comment)

Tests

1. On a workspace where you can submit → approve → pay, open the workspace chat.
2. Create a valid manual expense (amount + merchant).
3. Create a scan expense with a receipt that fails SmartScan (scan-failed, missing merchant).
4. Open the report and go offline.
5. Tap Approve (or Mark as paid).
6. Verify the scan-failed expense immediately moves to a new report while offline; the valid expense is approved/paid.
7. Go online and verify the state reconciles with no duplicate/flicker.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Steps 1–3 above.
2. Go offline, tap Approve / Mark as paid.
3. Verify the scan-failed expense moves to a new report optimistically (no reconnect needed).

QA Steps

Same as Tests.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that 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

After fix

REC-20260727153205.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@brunovjk 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]

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 0c399bc020

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".

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts	91.64% <100.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️
src/libs/actions/IOU/PayMoneyRequest.ts	80.80% <100.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
src/libs/actions/IOU/Hold.ts	92.92% <88.23%> (-0.64%)	⬇️
... and 8 files with indirect coverage changes

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Fixing deploy blockers.

[brunovjk]

@yusufdeveloper2903, what do you think about the existing concerns (P1, P2, and CONSISTENCY-3)?
I also wonder whether the unheld* totals become stale. Scan-failed expenses are not necessarily held, but the new report sets unheld* to 0 while the original report keeps its previous values. Could this make both reports inconsistent offline, or am I missing something? Thank you.

[yusufdeveloper2903]

@yusufdeveloper2903, what do you think about the existing concerns (P1, P2, and CONSISTENCY-3)? I also wonder whether the unheld* totals become stale. Scan-failed expenses are not necessarily held, but the new report sets unheld* to 0 while the original report keeps its previous values. Could this make both reports inconsistent offline, or am I missing something? Thank you.

Thanks — you're right on all of them, addressed in the latest commit:

• P1 (currency): moved/remaining totals now in report currency via convertedAmount.
• P1/P2 (pay & approve amount): action total/amount now excludes the moved scan-failed amount.
• CONSISTENCY-3: deduplicated — both sites call hasSmartScanFailedWithMissingFields(reportTransactions, report) directly.

[brunovjk]

@yusufdeveloper2903 when I come back online and try to approve the expense with the "scan failed", a new, empty report appears; however, after repeatedly clicking the "Approve" button, the expense with the failed scan returns to the original report, leaving the report empty there:

Screen.Recording.2026-07-30.at.17.50.35.mov

Thank you

[yusufdeveloper2903]

@brunovjk thanks for catching this , fixed now.

REC-20260731142439.1.mp4

[brunovjk]

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 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
  • 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
  • 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 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

97084_web_chrome.mov

[brunovjk]

LGTM, @yusufdeveloper2903!
I only noticed a ESLint warning: employeeEmail seems to be unused in the new scan-failed expenses test block. Could you please clean that up before merge? Thanks!

[brunovjk]

@yusufdeveloper2903 Can you merge main and resolve the conflicts here? Thanks a lot.

[yusufdeveloper2903]

@brunovjk ready for review 🙂

[deetergp]

ReportWorkflow.ts isn't touched at head, so Approve isn't covered. That change was in ad4fb65b, dropped in 18951374.

Dropping it was right: Auth only splits in PayMoneyRequest, so an optimistic split on approve has nothing to reconcile against. Pay-only matches the issue.

Please update the body to match, in two spots:

• "triggered in payMoneyRequest and approveMoneyRequest" -> pay only.
• Tests step 5-6 says to verify the expense moves on Approve. It can't. Assert it does not move instead.

Two blocking comments below.

[yusufdeveloper2903]

@deetergp ready for review

[brunovjk]

It's up to you now, @deetergp? Thanks.

[deetergp]

@yusufdeveloper2903 GH is saying this branch has conflicts, though it is not showing me what they are.

[yusufdeveloper2903]

@deetergp Here's exactly where the conflict is 👇

The conflict is caused by #98096 (migrate convertToDisplayString to useCurrencyListActions hook (part 18), commit e684607), which landed on main and added a new getCurrencyDecimals param to the same two functions this PR modifies.

2 files conflict. Both are just parameter lists — no logic clash.

---

1. src/libs/actions/IOU/Hold.ts → getReportFromHoldRequestsOnyxData()

Two hunks: the destructured params, and the type literal right below it.

<<<<<<< HEAD (this PR)
    shouldMoveHeldTransactions = true,
    shouldMoveScanFailedTransactions = false,
=======
    getCurrencyDecimals,
>>>>>>> main

<<<<<<< HEAD (this PR)
    shouldMoveHeldTransactions?: boolean;
    shouldMoveScanFailedTransactions?: boolean;
=======
    getCurrencyDecimals: CurrencyListActionsContextType['getCurrencyDecimals'];
>>>>>>> main

Resolution — keep both sides:

function getReportFromHoldRequestsOnyxData({
    chatReport,
    iouReport,
    recipient,
    policy,
    createdTimestamp,
    betas,
    isApprovalFlow = false,
    delegateAccountID,
    getCurrencyDecimals,
    shouldMoveHeldTransactions = true,
    shouldMoveScanFailedTransactions = false,
}: {
    // ...
    delegateAccountID: number | undefined;
    getCurrencyDecimals: CurrencyListActionsContextType['getCurrencyDecimals'];
    shouldMoveHeldTransactions?: boolean;
    shouldMoveScanFailedTransactions?: boolean;
})

---

2. src/libs/actions/IOU/PayMoneyRequest.ts → inside getPayMoneyRequestParams()

The hold-report branch:

<<<<<<< HEAD (this PR)
    if (!full || shouldMoveScanFailedTransactions) {
        const holdReportOnyxData = getReportFromHoldRequestsOnyxData({
            chatReport, iouReport, recipient, policy: reportPolicy, betas, delegateAccountID,
            shouldMoveHeldTransactions: !full,
      const holdReportOnyxData = getReportFromHoldRequestsOnyxData({
          chatReport, iouReport, recipient, policy: reportPolicy, betas, delegateAccountID,
          shouldMoveHeldTransactions: !full,
          shouldMoveScanFailedTransactions,
      });
=======
  if (!full) {
      const holdReportOnyxData = getReportFromHoldRequestsOnyxData({chatReport, iouReport, recipient, policy: reportPolicy, betas, delegateAccountID, getCurrencyDecimals});
>>>>>>> main

Resolution — my widened condition + main's new arg:

if (!full || shouldMoveScanFailedTransactions) {
    const holdReportOnyxData = getReportFromHoldRequestsOnyxData({
        chatReport,
        iouReport,
        recipient,
        policy: reportPolicy,
        betas,
        delegateAccountID,
        getCurrencyDecimals,
        shouldMoveHeldTransactions: !full,
        shouldMoveScanFailedTransactions,
    });

Everything else auto-merges cleanly: src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts, tests/actions/IOUTest/HoldTest.ts, tests/actions/IOUTest/PayMoneyRequestTest.ts, tests/unit/TransactionUtilsTest.ts.

I'll resolve it as above and push. Let me know if you'd prefer a different resolution.

[deetergp]

Those resolutions look good to me @yusufdeveloper2903

[yusufdeveloper2903]

@deetrgo merged main and resolved the conflicts.

[yusufdeveloper2903]

Hi @deetergp I've merged main into this branch and there are no conflicts now, can we go ahead and merge it

[deetergp]

Damnit. Sorry @yusufdeveloper2903 I approved it, but now GH is saying there are (unspecified) conflicts.

[yusufdeveloper2903]

Merged with main again to resolve the conflict

[github-actions]

🚧 deetergp 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 #97084.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-971c738-43ffecc-29119de0fb90e3c6261d6c6c98ce6948367be7c4/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-971c738-43ffecc-41c18b49ba2554bc6dd38bcbbef3c747949971ab/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://97084.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[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.