Skip to content

[CP Staging] Revert "Fix unable to re-split a transaction after its unreported sibling got deleted"#91549

Merged
mountiny merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude-revertPR91104
May 24, 2026
Merged

[CP Staging] Revert "Fix unable to re-split a transaction after its unreported sibling got deleted"#91549
mountiny merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude-revertPR91104

Conversation

@MelvinBot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@MelvinBot MelvinBot commented May 24, 2026 •
edited by mountiny
Loading

Explanation of Change

This is a straight revert of PR #91104 ("Fix unable to re-split a transaction after its unreported sibling got deleted"), which introduced a regression where editing an expense to a higher amount after removing a split from a report shows an error.

The revert undoes all changes from that PR: the modified split indicator logic, the useHasMultipleSplitChildren hook changes, the useDeleteTransactions relaxation, and the associated tests.

Fixed Issues

$ #91481

Tests

Test the linked blocker

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A - this is a revert

QA Steps

Test the linked blocker

  • 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 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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
    • 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)
    • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
    • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
  • 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)
  • I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
  • I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
  • I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
  • 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.
  • If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
  • 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
Revert "Merge pull request #91104 from Expensify/lucien/fix-splits-re…
7a059f4 
…vert-selfDM"

This reverts commit fba14b7, reversing
changes made to 372c68e.
@MelvinBot MelvinBot added the DeployBlockerCash This issue or pull request should block deployment label May 24, 2026
@MelvinBot MelvinBot requested a review from a team May 24, 2026 20:36
@MelvinBot MelvinBot mentioned this pull request May 24, 2026
Closed
7 tasks
@mountiny mountiny changed the title Revert "Fix unable to re-split a transaction after its unreported sibling got deleted" [CP Staging] Revert "Fix unable to re-split a transaction after its unreported sibling got deleted" May 24, 2026
@mountiny mountiny marked this pull request as ready for review May 24, 2026 20:40
@mountiny mountiny requested a review from a team as a code owner May 24, 2026 20:40
@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot requested review from ChavdaSachin and JmillsExpensify and removed request for a team and JmillsExpensify May 24, 2026 20:40
@melvin-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

melvin-bot Bot commented May 24, 2026

@ChavdaSachin 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]

@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team May 24, 2026 20:40
chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]
chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed May 24, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 7a059f4f1f

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".

Comment thread src/libs/actions/SplitExpenses.ts
Comment on lines +88 to 90
const shouldShowSplitIndicator = isExpenseSplit && (hasMultipleSplits || isReportOpen);

if (isExpenseSplit && shouldShowSplitIndicator) {
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot May 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P1 Badge Gate edit-split flow on actual multi-child splits

This condition now routes any split child on an open report into the edit-splits flow even when only one child remains, because isReportOpen can make shouldShowSplitIndicator true by itself. In the common case where one sibling was unreported/deleted, this prevents starting a fresh split from the remaining transaction and reintroduces the split-state regression (the code rebuilds a one-item edit draft keyed by the original transaction instead of creating a new split draft from the current transaction).

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Comment thread src/hooks/useSelectedTransactionsActions.ts
report &&
!(isExpenseSplit && hasMultipleSplits) &&
isSplitAction(report, [firstTransaction], originalTransaction, login ?? '', currentUserAccountID, policy);
selectedTransactionsList.length === 1 && report && !isExpenseSplit && isSplitAction(report, [firstTransaction], originalTransaction, login ?? '', currentUserAccountID, policy);
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot May 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Allow split action for dissolved split children

The bulk-actions split gate now blocks all transactions flagged as isExpenseSplit, regardless of whether sibling split children still exist. After one split half is removed, the remaining child still has split metadata, so this check hides the Split option and prevents users from re-splitting from selected-transactions actions even though the split is no longer intact.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented May 24, 2026 •
edited by github-actions Bot
Loading

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
...c/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx 75.61% <100.00%> (+0.06%) ⬆️
src/hooks/useSelectedTransactionsActions.ts 75.74% <100.00%> (-0.41%) ⬇️
src/libs/actions/SplitExpenses.ts 67.53% <100.00%> (-19.31%) ⬇️
src/hooks/useDeleteTransactions.ts 20.17% <0.00%> (+0.17%) ⬆️
.../components/MoneyRequestHeaderSecondaryActions.tsx 0.53% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
src/hooks/useExpenseActions.ts 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/hooks/useHasMultipleSplitChildren.ts 42.30% <0.00%> (-53.35%) ⬇️
... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

@OSBotify OSBotify mentioned this pull request May 24, 2026
Closed
71 tasks
@mountiny mountiny removed the DeployBlockerCash This issue or pull request should block deployment label May 24, 2026
@mountiny mountiny merged commit c99f3d2 into main May 24, 2026
54 of 58 checks passed
@mountiny mountiny deleted the claude-revertPR91104 branch May 24, 2026 20:54
OSBotify pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 24, 2026
@mountiny @OSBotify
Merge pull request #91549 from Expensify/claude-revertPR91104
f450629 
(cherry picked from commit c99f3d2)

(cherry-picked to staging by mountiny)
@OSBotify OSBotify added the CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging label May 24, 2026
@OSBotify
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OSBotify commented May 24, 2026

✋ 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
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented May 24, 2026

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

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented May 24, 2026

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #91549.

Android 🤖 iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-c99f3d2b68a-1eb9849-3caf94d476cdf059c272b5d1b747efa8ae652c81/index.html https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-c99f3d2-1eb9849-8d9bb4d3016ef43283952f43dfabd2d464f4537c/index.html
Android iOS
Web 🕸️
https://91549.pr-testing.expensify.com
Web

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

@OSBotify
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OSBotify commented May 25, 2026

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.3.81-0 🚀

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

@MelvinBot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

MelvinBot commented May 25, 2026

I reviewed all changes in this PR. This is a revert of PR #91104, undoing internal code changes to split expense indicator logic, the useHasMultipleSplitChildren hook, useDeleteTransactions, and associated tests.

No help site changes are required. The changes are purely internal implementation details (hook logic, split indicator conditions, test removals) and do not affect any user-facing behavior, UI labels, feature names, or workflows documented in App/docs/articles.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OSBotify commented May 25, 2026

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.3.81-2 🚀

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

@aswin-s aswin-s mentioned this pull request May 26, 2026
Closed
7 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector[bot] chatgpt-codex-connector[bot] left review comments

@carlosmiceli carlosmiceli carlosmiceli approved these changes

@ChavdaSachin ChavdaSachin Awaiting requested review from ChavdaSachin

Assignees

@mountiny mountiny

Labels

CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@MelvinBot @OSBotify @carlosmiceli @mountiny