Clear expense report hasOutstandingChildRequest optimistically on approve

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

After approving an expense report, the LHN row briefly showed a spurious green dot ("greenlight" / GBR indicator) until OpenReport refetched fresh server data.

The green dot is driven by the expense report's own hasOutstandingChildRequest field (via getReasonAndReportActionThatRequiresAttention → brickRoadStatus = INFO). The optimistic approve flow in approveMoneyRequest recomputed hasOutstandingChildRequest only on the parent chat report — it never updated it on the expense report — so the expense report kept the stale value true and showed the green dot until the server returned false.

This PR:

• Sets hasOutstandingChildRequest: false on the expense report's optimistic merge in the non-DEW branch (alongside the existing stateNum/statusNum/managerID/nextStep updates). The current user just approved the report, so it no longer awaits their action — mirroring the server's OpenReport value and clearing the green dot optimistically.
• Adds a matching failureData rollback that restores the original hasOutstandingChildRequest if the approve request fails, so the green dot reappears.

The DEW branch is intentionally left unchanged, since it deliberately avoids optimistic workflow-state changes.

A unit test in tests/actions/IOUTest/ReportWorkflowTest.ts asserts the optimistic update clears the flag and the failure rollback restores it.

Fixed Issues

$ #93483
PROPOSAL: #93483 (comment)

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your changed worked.

1. Be the approver of an expense report that shows the green Approve badge in the LHN.
2. Approve the report.
3. Verify the LHN row shows no action badge and no green dot immediately after approving (no need to navigate away and back).

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Be the approver of an expense report that shows the green Approve badge in the LHN.
2. Go offline.
3. Approve the report and verify no green dot appears on the LHN row.

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas do they need to test for regressions.

• 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 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 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.
• 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]

Fixed the failing spellcheck check.

Root cause: cspell flagged the word refetches in a code comment at ReportWorkflow.ts:546 — it's not in the project dictionary.

Fix: Reworded the comment to use re-fetches, which passes cspell. Comment-only change, no logic touched. Verified locally with npm run spell-changed (0 issues).

The checklist check (PR Author Checklist) is expected to remain until the human co-author fills out the Tests/QA sections — I don't complete those.