Fix bugs for selfDM splits feature

[ZhenjaHorbach]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #91874
$ #91876
$ #91879
$ #91907
$ #91913
$ #91917
$ #91920
$ #91918
PROPOSAL:

Tests

#91874

Precondition:

• Create two workspaces.
• Make personal policy as default policy on OD.

Test:

1. Open App
2. Go to self DM
3. Create a distance expense
4. Open the expense
5. Click Rate field
6. Verify that the workspace selector opens
7. Close the RHP
8. Click More > Split
9. Click on any split
10. Click Rate field
11. Verify that rate field on split details page will open workspace selector

---

#91876

Precondition:

• Account has no workspace.

Test:

1. Open App
2. Go to self DM.
3. Create a distance expense.
4. Open the expense.
5. Click More > Split > Save.
6. Open any split.
7. Click Amount.
8. Click on the split.
9. Click Rate.
10. Click Upgrade > Confirm > Got it, thanks.
11. Enter rate and save it.
12. Verify rate list will show workspace rates when the current distance expense uses personal rate.

---

#91879

Precondition:

• Have a workspace.

Test:

1. Open App
2. Go to self DM.
3. Create an expense.
4. Open the expense.
5. Click More > Split.
6. Open any split.
7. Click Category.
8. Click Add category button.
9. Click back button on not here page.
10. Verify that add category button will open category creation page.

---

#91907

Test:

1. Open App
2. Go to self DM.
3. Create a manual expense.
4. Open the expense.
5. Click More > Split > Save.
6. Open any split.
7. Click on the header.
8. Click Submit it to someone.
9. Verify that:

• If you aren’t a member of a workspace, hide the ‘Submit to someone’ option on Split expenses
• If you’re a member of a workspace, filter the ‘Submit to someone’ option to workspaces for split expenses

---

#91913

Precondition:

• Account has a workspace.
• Account has Self DM.

Test:

1. Open App
2. Navigate to Self DM.
3. Create a manual expense.
4. Open the just created expense.
5. Click on "More" > "Split" > Save splits.
6. Open one of the splits.
7. Click on "More" > "Move to Report" > "Create Report"
8. Return to Self DM.
9. Right click and delete the remaining split.
10. Verify that self DM should still be visible after deleting a split on LHN

---

#91917

Test:

1. Open App
2. Open a workspace chat and create a manual expense.
3. Split the created expense.
4. Click on one of the split expenses.
5. Click More → Edit splits.
6. Select one of the splits and click Remove split.
7. Click Save.
8. Verify that the split expense should be removed successfully without displaying the “Hmm... it’s not here” message

---

#91918

Test:

1. Open App
2. Open a workspace chat and create a manual expense.
3. Split the created expense.
4. Go offline.
5. Select one of the split expenses and delete it.
6. Verify that only the selected split expense should be deleted, and no extra expense should appear while offline

---

#91920

Precondition:

Account has Self DM.

Test:

1. Open App
2. Navigate to Self DM.
3. Create a manual expense.
4. Navigate to "Spend" > "Expenses"
5. Select the just created expense.
6. Click on dropdown menu > "Split" > Save splits amount.
7. Select one of the splits.
8. Verify that after splitting an unreported expense and selecting a split on "Expenses" section, "Total Spend" should display the same amount as the selected split

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA 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
• 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

91874.mov

91876.mov

91879.mov

91907.mov

91913.mov

91918.mov

91920.mov

[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/PolicyUtils.ts	77.34% <100.00%> (ø)
src/libs/actions/IOU/BulkEdit.ts	84.72% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/actions/IOU/Split.ts	72.35% <ø> (+0.10%)	⬆️
src/libs/actions/Transaction.ts	76.92% <100.00%> (+1.16%)	⬆️
src/pages/inbox/report/ReportActionItem.tsx	90.69% <ø> (ø)
src/selectors/Policy.ts	75.93% <100.00%> (+0.55%)	⬆️
src/selectors/Transaction.ts	80.00% <100.00%> (+2.22%)	⬆️
src/libs/actions/IOU/SplitExpenseItems.ts	94.73% <85.71%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
...ox/report/actionContents/ChatActionableButtons.tsx	80.21% <85.71%> (-0.47%)	⬇️
src/hooks/useDeleteTransactions.ts	54.86% <0.00%> (-0.78%)	⬇️
... and 10 more
... and 183 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@dmkt9 @sobitneupane One of you needs to 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]

[ZhenjaHorbach]

@dmkt9 is a reviewer here

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 57e546e7df

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".

[ZhenjaHorbach]

@ZhenjaHorbach What about this comment? #92055 (comment). I've pinged you about it a few times.

2026-07-29.10-41-09.mp4

I already answered here

But probably yes
I think we can improve the logic a bit
Now it should be a bit better

[dmkt9]

LGTM

[lakchote]

LGTM

[github-actions]

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

[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.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #92055.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-2f02df8381f-01cb6a0-9cbcd4923ad639a8217c27499f2f0d1fed872ec4/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-2f02df8-01cb6a0-e1f25d89448885d16d9da527b50f5dfd98f56eb3/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://92055.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.4.46-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes required.

I reviewed this PR against the help site files in App/docs/articles (applying HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, and TEMPLATE.md).

All eight linked issues are bug fixes to the Self DM / split-expenses feature — they restore intended behavior rather than add or change any documented workflow:

• Expense - Rate field is disabled when account has only non-default workspaces #91874 / Expense - Rate list is blank when current distance expense uses personal rate #91876 — Rate field opens the workspace selector / shows workspace rates
• Expense - Add category button opens not here page when splitting expense in self DM #91879 — Add category button opens the category creation page
• Expense - Unreported split is not reverted after submitting it to IOU report and deleting it #91907 — "Submit it to someone" option correctly filtered/hidden for split expenses
• Split - Self DM disappears after moving one split to workspace and deleting remaining one. #91913 — Self DM stays visible after deleting a split
• Split – “Hmm... it’s not here” displayed when removing a split expense #91917 / Expense – Extra expense displayed when deleting a split expense offline #91918 — Split removal works without the "Hmm... it's not here" error; only the selected split is deleted offline
• Spend - Incorrect "Total Spend" amount displayed after splitting unreported expense. #91920 — Total Spend matches the selected split amount

The relevant article, Split Expenses, already documents the intended split, edit, remove, and revert flows plus the validation rules these fixes bring the app back in line with. Nothing in the documented behavior changed, so no draft PR is needed.

If you believe any of these fixes exposes newly documented behavior (e.g., a workflow not yet described in the article), let me know which one and I'll draft the corresponding update.

@ZhenjaHorbach, please review the linked help site PR and confirm it reflects the current behavior. Then mark the linked help site PR Ready for review

[mitarachim]

Deploy Blocker #97395 was identified to be related to this PR.

[lanitochka17]

Deploy Blocker #97400 was identified to be related to this PR.

[mitarachim]

Deploy Blocker #97403 was identified to be related to this PR.

[vincdargento]

Deploy Blocker #97413 was identified to be related to this PR.

[jponikarchuk]

Deploy Blocker #97424 was identified to be related to this PR.