Skip to content

Refactor IOU default expense-policy logic to distinguish personal and group policies - #98730

Merged
puneetlath merged 5 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
fedirjh:fix/370320-active-policy-request-guards
Aug 17, 2026
Merged

Refactor IOU default expense-policy logic to distinguish personal and group policies#98730
puneetlath merged 5 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
fedirjh:fix/370320-active-policy-request-guards

Conversation

@fedirjh

@fedirjh fedirjh commented Aug 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

This PR continues https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/370320 by removing the deprecated isPolicyExpenseChatEnabled check from active-policy IOU helpers that already gate on group policy. The behavior now depends on whether the active policy is a group workspace, which matches the real routing logic and avoids keeping the deprecated flag in these paths.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/370320
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

  1. In OldDot, set the active policy to a Team or Corporate workspace.
  2. In NewDot, start a global Create expense flow that uses the default expense policy path.
  3. Continue past the amount step.
  4. Verify the app does not open participant selection.
  5. Verify the app auto-routes to the default destination for that workspace flow:
    • either the workspace-backed destination, or
    • self-DM / Track if that workspace resolves to self-DM because auto-reporting is off.
  6. In OldDot, switch the active policy to Personal.
  7. Start the same Create expense flow again.
  8. Continue past the amount step.
  9. Verify the app opens participant selection instead of auto-routing to a default workspace destination.
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

  1. Load the relevant policy data once while online.
  2. Go offline.
  3. Repeat steps 1-9 from Tests.
  4. Verify the same branching still happens:
  • group policy skips participant selection
  • personal policy opens participant selection

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

CleanShot.2026-08-16.at.20.32.58.mp4

@fedirjh fedirjh changed the title Fix active IOU policy guards by policy type Refactor IOU default expense-policy logic to distinguish personal and group policies Aug 16, 2026
@fedirjh
fedirjh marked this pull request as ready for review August 16, 2026 20:09
@fedirjh
fedirjh requested review from a team as code owners August 16, 2026 20:09
@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested review from heyjennahay and huult and removed request for a team, heyjennahay and huult August 16, 2026 20:09
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Aug 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@huult 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]

@fedirjh
fedirjh requested a review from puneetlath August 16, 2026 20:11
@puneetlath

puneetlath commented Aug 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

workspace default:
CleanShot 2026-08-17 at 15 48 45@2x

personal policy default:
CleanShot 2026-08-17 at 15 49 54@2x

@puneetlath
puneetlath merged commit 9b02826 into Expensify:main Aug 17, 2026
41 of 43 checks passed
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

@fedirjh
fedirjh deleted the fix/370320-active-policy-request-guards branch August 17, 2026 20:10
@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.4.55-0 🚀

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

@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Help site review — no changes required

I reviewed the changes in this PR against Expensify's help site articles under App/docs/articles and no documentation updates are required.

Why: This is an internal logic refactor. It removes the deprecated isPolicyExpenseChatEnabled check from the active-policy IOU helpers (useParticipantSubmission.ts, useReceiptScanDrop.tsx, shouldUseDefaultExpensePolicy.ts) so that expense-creation routing keys off whether the active policy is a group workspace — matching the real routing logic. There is no new feature, setting, tab, button, or user-facing label introduced or renamed.

The affected behavior (whether the Create expense flow skips participant selection and auto-routes to a default workspace destination vs. opening participant selection) is internal implementation detail that isn't documented in the help site. A search of App/docs/articles found no article describing this routing behavior, the "default expense policy" concept, or participant selection, so there is nothing to update.

Since no docs changes are required, I did not create a draft help site PR.

@fedirjh, please confirm you agree no help site updates are needed here. If you believe a specific article should be updated, let me know which behavior to document and I'll create the draft PR.

@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 9.4.55-4 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants