Distinguish re-authentication scrape codes (438/532) in RTER violation copy

[tgolen]

Explanation of Change

The RTER (Receipt Transaction Expense Reconciliation) violation collapses every non-200 card scrape result into one generic "broken bank connection" message. About 70% of affected users hit one of two re-authentication codes — 438 (ACCOUNTREFRESH) and 532 (SESSION_EXPIRED) — where the connection is not broken; the user or admin just needs to reconnect/re-consent with the bank. The generic copy makes it sound like an Expensify failure and drives avoidable support volume, especially for personal cards where the end user can fix it themselves.

The backend (Auth) will start emitting a new rterType, brokenCardConnectionReauth, for codes 438/532 (see the linked Auth PR). This PR teaches NewDot to recognize that new rterType and render re-authentication copy instead of "broken bank connection".

This change is forward-compatible and inert until Auth emits the new value — no backend sends brokenCardConnectionReauth yet, so none of the new branches run and current behavior is unchanged. It ships first so clients are ready before Auth starts sending the code.

What changed:

• Added CONST.RTER_VIOLATION_TYPES.BROKEN_CARD_CONNECTION_REAUTH.
• Added a re-auth branch to the violations.rter copy (personal-card and company/admin/member variants) across all language files, plus two banner strings (adminReauthConnectionError, memberReauthConnectionError) for the status-bar surface.
• Treated the new type as a broken-connection subtype in TransactionUtils (isBrokenConnectionViolation, hasPendingRTERViolation) and in BrokenConnectionDescription/MoneyRequestHeader, so the existing banner and header still render — now with re-auth wording.

Fixed Issues

For https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/669079

PROPOSAL:

Tests

Because no backend emits brokenCardConnectionReauth yet, use Debug mode to inject the violation and verify the copy renders:

1. Go to Account > Troubleshoot and enable Debug mode.
2. Open any expense on a report, open the report's Details page, and tap Debug to open the Debug Report page.
3. Tap the button to open the transaction (page titled "Debug - Transaction").
4. Open the Transaction Violations tab and tap Create.
5. Replace the JSON with:

   {
       "type": "violation",
       "name": "rter",
       "data": {
           "rterType": "brokenCardConnectionReauth",
           "isAdmin": true
       }
   }

6. Tap Create, then return to the expense.
7. Verify the violation reads: "Bank connection needs re-authentication. Reconnect to match receipt" (company/admin variant), not "broken bank connection".
8. Repeat step 5 with "isAdmin": false and verify the member variant: "Bank connection needs re-authentication. Ask an admin to reconnect to match receipt."
9. Repeat step 5 with "data": { "rterType": "brokenCardConnectionReauth", "cardID": <a personal card's id (fundID = 0)> } and verify the personal-card variant: "Can't auto-match receipt because your bank connection needs re-authentication. Reconnect to match the receipt."
10. Change the injected rterType back to brokenCardConnection and verify the existing "Bank connection broken…" copy is unchanged (no regression).
11. Verify that no errors appear in the JS console.

Offline tests

The violation copy is rendered from local Onyx data with no network dependency. With the device offline, repeat the Tests steps above and verify the re-authentication copy still renders correctly.

QA Steps

Same as tests (the Debug-mode steps above can be run on staging). The new copy is otherwise dormant until the linked Auth change is deployed, at which point cards with scrape codes 438/532 surface it in the normal flow.

• 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

[OSBotify]

🦜 Polyglot Parrot! 🦜

Squawk! Looks like you added some shiny new English strings. Allow me to parrot them back to you in other tongues:

The diff is too large to include in this comment (69KB), so I've created a gist for you:

📋 View the translation diff here 📋

Note

You can apply these changes to your branch by copying the patch to your clipboard, then running pbpaste | git apply, or directly by running gh gist view --raw a4cbe42c96e0dc01a206bb60deb2a0d6 | git apply 😉

View workflow run