Remove GBR on rejecting expense

[mananjadhav]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #70565
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Precondition:

• Submitter User A and Approver User B with a delayed submission workspace.

Tests

1. Open the app
2. [User A] submits an expense in the workspace.
3. [User B] opens the expense report
4. [User B] verify the GBR shows up on the LHN.
5. [User B] goes offline.
6. [User B] Click More > Reject
7. [User B] Enter the reason and click "Reject expense"
8. [User B] Verify the report moves to draft
9. [User B] Verify the LHN doesn't show the GBR anymore.
10. Repeat all the steps for multiple expenses.
11. Until the last expense is rejected, the GBR should show up (ie as long as there's an expense to be paid/approved).
12. Once all the expenses are rejected, then again GBR shouldn't show up in the LHN.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Test steps

QA Steps

Same as Test steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

• 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
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • 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-reject-gbr.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

mweb-chrome-reject-gbr.mov

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

mweb-safari-reject-gbpr.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web-reject-gbr.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop-reject-gbr.mov

[mananjadhav]

@truph01 will review this PR.

[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/actions/IOU.ts	64.50% <100.00%> (-0.17%)	⬇️
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts	75.18% <90.90%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes

[mananjadhav]

@truph01 I've marked this ready for review but skipped iOS screenshot as I have some issues with my Xcode.

[melvin-bot]

@truph01 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]

[mananjadhav]

@heyjennahay @trjExpensify @garrettmknight Can one of you review too?

[github-actions]

🚧 @garrettmknight 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, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #74543.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
⏩ SKIPPED ⏩	⏩ SKIPPED ⏩
The build for Android was skipped	The build for iOS was skipped

Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
⏩ SKIPPED ⏩	https://74543.pr-testing.expensify.com
The build for Desktop was skipped

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[garrettmknight]

Tested on an adhoc build. A few things:

• We set the rejected expense as unread. @trjExpensify @heyjennahay That seems fine to me so they know 'where' the expense went. wyt?
• @mananjadhav the GBR on the expense chat didn't go away until I opened it?

Screen.Recording.2025-11-10.at.6.29.23.PM.mov

[trjExpensify]

We set the rejected expense as unread. @trjExpensify @heyjennahay That seems fine to me so they know 'where' the expense went. wyt?

Remind me, does reject always come with a user comment? If so, then that makes sense for the submitter.

[mananjadhav]

@mananjadhav the GBR on the expense chat didn't go away until I opened it?

Thanks @garrettmknight for checking. It's weird I tested this and I don't refresh it if you check my video. Let me get back to you. Quick question, I can't make out from your video if you're offline or online?

[garrettmknight]

Remind me, does reject always come with a user comment? If so, then that makes sense for the submitter.

It always comes with a comment, but it goes unread for the approver, too.

[garrettmknight]

@mananjadhav the GBR on the expense chat didn't go away until I opened it?

Thanks @garrettmknight for checking. It's weird I tested this and I don't refresh it if you check my video. Let me get back to you. Quick question, I can't make out from your video if you're offline or online?

Online.

[heyjennahay]

it goes unread for the approver, too.

I'm not sure if this is needed right? What does the approver need to do with it after they reject it?

[mananjadhav]

@mananjadhav the GBR on the expense chat didn't go away until I opened it?
Thanks @garrettmknight for checking. It's weird I tested this and I don't refresh it if you check my video. Let me get back to you. Quick question, I can't make out from your video if you're offline or online?

Online.

Okay I'll check this further but if it's online then the fix might be needed from backend @lakchote

[trjExpensify]

I'm not sure if this is needed right? What does the approver need to do with it after they reject it?

I agree. I don't think the thread should be unread for the person taking the action. 🤔

[garrettmknight]

I'd agree we could remove the unread.

[trjExpensify]

Doesn't the message come "from" the approver doing the rejecting? So I'm a bit confused why it's not "out of the box" not marking the chat as unread for them. :thinking_face:

If we need to make a certain report action only actionable for the submitter, we should use the actionableForAccountIDs framework.

[mananjadhav]

@truph01 Are you able to reproduce this issue?

@garrettmknight can you please share the steps may be I am missing something here.

[truph01]

Checking it now

[truph01]

@mananjadhav Do we need to remove the unread for the approver who rejects the expense, as discussed above?

[mananjadhav]

I'd agree we could remove the unread.

@garrettmknight Do we want this in the current PR?

@truph01 Even if we do plan to remove the unread logic, I'll add a follow up on this one. Please continue with the review and QA for this one.

[truph01]

@mananjadhav With the new code changes, when a user rejects two expenses while offline, everything works as expected. However, once we go back online, the GBR reappears.

Do you think this might be a backend bug?

[mananjadhav]

@mananjadhav With the new code changes, when a user rejects two expenses while offline, everything works as expected. However, once we go back online, the GBR reappears.

Do you think this might be a backend bug?

Yes it seems to be a backend bug. I tagged @lakchote here

[lakchote]

@mananjadhav With the new code changes, when a user rejects two expenses while offline, everything works as expected. However, once we go back online, the GBR reappears.
Do you think this might be a backend bug?

Yes it seems to be a backend bug. I tagged @lakchote here

Backend PR is under review here

[heyjennahay]

No concern with final agreed product change

[lakchote]

@mananjadhav With the new code changes, when a user rejects two expenses while offline, everything works as expected. However, once we go back online, the GBR reappears.
Do you think this might be a backend bug?

Yes it seems to be a backend bug. I tagged @lakchote here

Backend PR is under review here

@mananjadhav @truph01 backend PR has been deployed

[mananjadhav]

@lakchote Is it deployed on production? I just retested locally and I can still reproduce the issue.

web-reject-twice-error.mov

[lakchote]

@lakchote Is it deployed on production? I just retested locally and I can still reproduce the issue.

web-reject-twice-error.mov

Yes, it's deployed on production @mananjadhav

Here is a video test of the bug fix:

test.mov

I've based myself on the steps outlined here:
#74543 (comment)

[mananjadhav]

Steps to reproduce:

1. [Submitter] submits two expenses
2. [Approver] opens the expense report
3. [Approver] goes offline
4. [Approver] verifies that LHN shows a GBR for the expense chat
5. [Approver] rejects one expense
6. [Approver] verifies that LHN still shows a GBR for the expense chat
7. [Approver] rejects second expense
8. [Approver] verifies that LHN removes GBR from the expense chat
9. [Approver] goes online.

Expected Result:

• The LHN shouldn't have any GBR once the approver comes online.

Actual Result

• The LHN shows the GBR. Once we reload the page, the GBR goes away.

I investigated this and here's what I found. When we come back online and the RejectMoneyRequest API calls are processed, we then trigger the OpenReport call. At that point, the API responds with hasOutstandingChildRequest: true.
However, after reloading the page and making the OpenReport request again for the same report, the response shows hasOutstandingChildRequest: false. Attaching the video.

web-twice-gbr-api-calls.mov

[lakchote]

Steps to reproduce:

1. [Submitter] submits two expenses
2. [Approver] opens the expense report
3. [Approver] goes offline
4. [Approver] verifies that LHN shows a GBR for the expense chat
5. [Approver] rejects one expense
6. [Approver] verifies that LHN still shows a GBR for the expense chat
7. [Approver] rejects second expense
8. [Approver] verifies that LHN removes GBR from the expense chat
9. [Approver] goes online.

@mananjadhav could you please post a video test for this one? it seems like there is one step missing there.
On Step 7, I don't have the reject option, I need to submit it again to have it, but then when I come online, I have an error.

[mananjadhav]

@lakchote The video is uploaded here

[trjExpensify]

@mananjadhav Lucien's auth PR is on prod.

[mananjadhav]

Thanks for the update. I'll resolve conflicts and test it once again.

[lakchote]

Thanks for the update. I'll resolve conflicts and test it once again.

@mananjadhav any update?

[mananjadhav]

@trjExpensify @lakchote Just tested the fix. It's working fine now.

@truph01 Please provide your final review and checklist so that we can merge soon.

web-twice-reject-gbr.mov

[mananjadhav]

Checking the TS error now.

[lakchote]

cc @truph01 can you please review it?

[mananjadhav]

@truph01 quick bump

[truph01]

Reviewing