Fix regressions from SelfDM splits flow by ZhenjaHorbach · Pull Request #97475 · Expensify/App

ZhenjaHorbach · 2026-07-30T13:45:34Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #97403
#97413
#97424
PROPOSAL:

Tests

#97403 — Merchant and Distance field must use the same unit

Precondition: a workspace with Distance rates enabled, unit set to Miles.

Go to the workspace chat and create a distance expense.
Open the expense, click More > Split > Save.
Go to Workspace settings > Distance rates > Settings > Unit and change it to Kilometer.
Go back to the workspace chat and open any split.
Click Amount > Add split, enter an amount for the new split and save the splits.
Verify that the merchant of the new split shows the unit the expense was created with (mi).
Open the new split and verify that the Distance field and the Rate page show the same unit as
the merchant (mi).
Go back to the splits list and click Make splits even.
Verify that every split gets an even amount, the amounts add up to the expense total, and
each merchant still shows mi.
Click Date, pick a date range, save, then click Make splits even.
Verify that the amounts stay evenly distributed and each split keeps the mi unit.

#97413 — Deleting splits from Spend must not leave a stuck preview in Self DM

Precondition: account has a Self DM.

Go to Self DM and create a manual expense.
Go to Spend > Expenses and select the expense you just created.
Click the dropdown menu > Split > Save splits.
Select one of the splits and delete it.
Select the remaining split and delete it too.
Go to Self DM.
Verify that no expense preview is left in the chat — in particular none stuck on a loading spinner.
Verify that nothing in the chat opens the "It's not here" page.

#97424 — Moving the remaining split to a workspace must not leave a message in Self DM

Precondition: account has a Self DM and at least one workspace.

Go to Self DM and create a manual expense.
Open the expense, click More > Split > Save.
Right click the split at the bottom and delete it.
Open the remaining expense.
Click the report field > Create Report.
Go back to Self DM.
Verify that no "Tracked $XX" message is left in the chat.
Verify that the expense is shown in the workspace chat.
Delete the expense from the workspace chat and verify it is removed with a single delete.

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

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

2026-07-30.11.46.07.mov

2026-07-30.12.49.51.mov

2026-07-30.14.26.28.mov

2026-07-30.15.25.10.mov

melvin-bot · 2026-07-30T13:45:41Z

@dmkt9 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]

codecov · 2026-07-30T13:51:48Z

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/TransactionPreviewUtils.ts	`85.84% <100.00%> (ø)`
src/libs/actions/IOU/SplitTransactionUpdate.ts	`91.18% <ø> (ø)`
src/libs/actions/Transaction.ts	`76.92% <ø> (ø)`
src/pages/iou/SplitExpenseEditPage.tsx	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
src/pages/iou/SplitExpensePage.tsx	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
src/hooks/useDeleteTransactions.ts	`57.41% <90.00%> (+2.24%)`	⬆️
src/libs/actions/IOU/SplitExpenseItems.ts	`94.77% <94.44%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
src/pages/iou/SplitExpenseCreateDateRagePage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 36 files with indirect coverage changes

ZhenjaHorbach · 2026-07-30T13:53:09Z

About this issue — it's a fairly specific bug, we discussed it here
I've added a temporary fix
With it, reverting a split no longer leaves the removed splits on screen, and the restored expense isn't greyed out
But this is much better than deleted splits that do not disappear

2026-07-30.15.25.10.mov

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 5865e216f7

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".

lakchote · 2026-07-30T15:34:04Z

@dmkt9 can you please start reviewing it?

dmkt9 · 2026-07-30T15:57:10Z

@dmkt9 can you please start reviewing it?

Yes, I will review this tomorrow. Currently, it’s 11 p.m. in my local time zone

dmkt9 · 2026-07-31T08:14:29Z

+        // A reverse split brings the original transaction back in place of every split, so all of them are removed
+        // outright rather than marked for deletion. A split left marked keeps its report action visible (the offline
+        // surfaces render a pending deletion on purpose), and its pending state has nothing left to resolve it.


I don't think not adding a pending deletion is the right approach. Without it, when a transaction is deleted while offline, it disappears immediately, which isn't the expected behavior.

We should resolve this issue completely (perhaps in a follow-up PR) rather than adding a temporary fix.

I already answered here
#97475 (comment)
And I think this case is more minnor then main issue

No. If we're going with this approach, you should get confirmation from production first, since it changes the behavior.

This change only affects offline behaviour until online is restored
In the case of the old behavior, we had dead expenses in offline mode all the time or until the cache was cleared
But asked here
https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C07NMDKEFMH/p1785489150929189?thread_ts=1785236402.359539&cid=C07NMDKEFMH

dmkt9 · 2026-07-31T08:54:26Z

This doesn't fully resolve #97403.

2026-07-31.15-39-37.mp4

dmkt9 · 2026-07-31T08:54:44Z

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 0dfb8d87b0

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".

dmkt9 · 2026-07-31T09:02:17Z

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

97403.mp4

97413.mp4

97424.mp4

ZhenjaHorbach · 2026-07-31T09:29:03Z

This doesn't fully resolve #97403.

2026-07-31.15-39-37.mp4

By the way
We have the same behaviour with non-splits expenses

2026-07-31.11.29.18.mov

dmkt9 · 2026-07-31T09:33:23Z

This doesn't fully resolve #97403.
2026-07-31.15-39-37.mp4

By the way We have the same behaviour with non-splits expenses

2026-07-31.11.29.18.mov

It's still different from our case. In my video, you can see that the distance rate, distance amount, and merchant are displayed incorrectly after splitting.

dmkt9 · 2026-08-03T07:00:11Z

It's still different from our case. In my video, you can see that the distance rate, distance amount, and merchant are displayed incorrectly after splitting.

@ZhenjaHorbach Did you check this comment? Should we address this one as well?

dmkt9 · 2026-08-03T07:09:09Z

#97400 — Deleted splits must not come back offline

The fix for issue #97400 has been removed from this PR. Please also remove the associated test steps.

ZhenjaHorbach · 2026-08-03T07:14:10Z

I will ping when this PR is ready for rechecking

ZhenjaHorbach · 2026-08-03T09:41:57Z

@dmkt9
You can recheck
Only if you notice a similar BE issue, you can ignore it
Lucien is working on it

{
    "code": 666,
    "jsonCode": 666,
    "type": "Expensify\\Libs\\Error\\ExpError",
    "UUID": "316B55A7-9DFB-4326-87FC-CC4DCABFE553",
    "message": "This workspace doesn't support distance expenses",
    "title": "",
    "data": {
        "onyxData": [
            {
                "onyxMethod": "merge",
                "key": "transactions_7169321055441496359",
                "value": {
                    "errors": {
                        "1785747785902630": "This workspace doesn't support distance expenses"
                    }
                }
            }
        ]
    },
    "htmlMessage": "",
    "onyxData": [
        {
            "onyxMethod": "merge",
            "key": "transactions_7169321055441496359",
            "value": {
                "errors": {
                    "1785747785902630": "This workspace doesn't support distance expenses"
                }
            }
        }
    ],
    "requestID": "a25425acde28f988-LAX"
}

dmkt9 · 2026-08-03T14:47:13Z

@ZhenjaHorbach Could you recheck? I still see that the bug hasn't been resolved with these changes.

2026-08-03.21-44-21.mp4

ZhenjaHorbach · 2026-08-03T15:18:37Z

It's a BE issue
Since optimistically, we handle this correctly
But we decided to fix it by passing distanceUnit to the BE
So it will be fixed when we update the BE

Fix selft dm split issues

5865e21

ZhenjaHorbach requested review from a team as code owners July 30, 2026 13:45

melvin-bot Bot assigned ZhenjaHorbach Jul 30, 2026

melvin-bot Bot requested review from dmkt9 and flaviadefaria and removed request for a team July 30, 2026 13:45

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team July 30, 2026 13:45

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jul 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/hooks/useDeleteTransactions.ts Outdated

Fix spellcheck and codex comment

0dfb8d8

dmkt9 reviewed Jul 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jul 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/hooks/useDeleteTransactions.ts Outdated

Fix comments and revert fix for 97400

be05814

Improve logic for using different units for splits

4238173

Fix conflicts

fe07057

Pass distanceUnit to BE

5b70762

Uh oh!

Conversation

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jul 30, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 30, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jul 30, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jul 30, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lakchote commented Jul 30, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Jul 30, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 Jul 31, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dmkt9 Jul 31, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach Jul 31, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dmkt9 Jul 31, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach Jul 31, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Jul 31, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Jul 31, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Jul 31, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jul 31, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Jul 31, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Aug 3, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Aug 3, 2026

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach commented Aug 3, 2026

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach commented Aug 3, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Aug 3, 2026

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach commented Aug 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jul 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Jul 30, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jul 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ZhenjaHorbach Jul 31, 2026 •

edited

Loading

dmkt9 commented Jul 31, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jul 31, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ZhenjaHorbach commented Aug 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading