Skip to content

[Due for payment 2026-10-30] Expense is not moved to self DM after switching to table view and deleting report from More #103387

Closed

Description

@applause-bot

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding. To join our Slack channel, fill out this form.


Version Number: 9.5.5-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: N/A - new feature, doesn't exist in prod
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from BrowserStack: #103121
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): [email protected]
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Bug source: Exploratory - Significant User Experience Deterioration
Device used: Mac 26.5 / Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

  1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
  2. Go to workspace chat.
  3. Create an expense.
  4. Open the report.
  5. Click More > Switch to table view.
  6. Click More > Delete > Delete.

Expected Result:

Expense will be moved to self DM after switching to table view and deleting report from More menu.

Actual Result:

Expense is not moved to self DM after switching to table view and deleting report from More menu.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

  • Android: App
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: App
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • iOS: mWeb Chrome
  • Windows: Chrome
  • MacOS: Chrome Safari

Screenshots/Videos

Bug7280478_1791403790651.2.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Applause Internal Information
Exported by: Nathan Lemma
Bug ID: 7280478

Issue OwnerCurrent Issue Owner: @daledah

Activity

  1. applause-bot commented on Oct 7, 2026

    @applause-bot
    Author

    While Applause doesn't embed attachments for this bug, here are the links for quick view:
    https://platform.applause.com/services/links/v1/external/dc899b3c0639c695d6e8f01e080f72c297df2562a6774b2a5dc0e2567cafa2b8

  2. added
    BugSomething is broken. Auto assigns a BugZero manager.
    on Oct 7, 2026
  3. melvin-bot commented on Oct 7, 2026

    @melvin-bot

    You have been assigned to this deploy blocker because you recently merged this PR: #103121

  4. melvin-bot commented on Oct 7, 2026

    @melvin-bot

    @Beamanator @daledah you have been assigned to this deploy blocker because you reviewed the offending PR: #103121

  5. melvin-bot commented on Oct 7, 2026

    @melvin-bot

    💬 A slack conversation has been started in #expensify-open-source

  6. github-actions commented on Oct 7, 2026

    @github-actions
    Contributor

    👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

    1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
    2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
    3. Fix the issue yourself.
  7. MelvinBot commented on Oct 7, 2026

    @MelvinBot
    Contributor

    Deploy Blocker Analysis

    Causing PR: Add a More menu option to switch single-expense reports between expense view and table view (Expensify/App#103121), merged 2026-10-07. This is a gap in a new feature, not a regression in existing behavior. Production is not affected.

    Root cause: The More > Delete handler chooses its path by expense count, not by view. When a report has one expense you own, Delete always takes the "Delete expense" path. That path permanently deletes the expense instead of calling deleteAppReport, which moves expenses to self DM (useExpenseActions.ts#L537). The PR lets a single-expense report render as a table, but it did not update Delete to use report-level delete in that view.

    Recommendation: fix forward. The fix is small. Reverting would remove a 34-file opt-in feature. In src/hooks/useExpenseActions.ts, skip the single-expense path when the table view is on:

    const {shouldUseTableViewForSingleExpense} = useSingleExpenseReportView();
    // ...
    if (transactionCount === 1 && isDeletingOwnExpense && !shouldUseTableViewForSingleExpense) {

    Also add !shouldUseTableViewForSingleExpense to shouldShowEditSplitOnDeleteAction (L198). Otherwise the menu could say "Edit splits" while the action deletes the report.

    If product decides that "Delete expense" is correct in the table view, you can demote this instead. The default view behaves the same way, and the confirm modal already says "Delete expense".

    Investigation details
    • Delete paths: One own expense → "Delete expense" modal → deleteTransactions. This path never moves anything to self DM (useExpenseActions.ts#L535-L603). Any other case → "Delete report" → deleteAppReport (useExpenseActions.ts#L605-L644). deleteAppReport moves the owner's expenses to self DM (Report/index.ts#L7195-L7199).
    • What the PR added: The PR renders one-expense reports as a table (MoneyRequestReportUtils.ts#L172-L185) and adds the toggle to the More menu (ReportSecondaryActionUtils.ts#L1209-L1212). Both views use the same MoneyReportHeaderSecondaryActions menu, so Delete behaves the same in both.
    • Other PRs ruled out: No other PR in the current deploy checklist touches the delete code (useExpenseActions.ts, useDeleteTransactions.ts, deleteAppReport). That code is unchanged between production 9.5.4-3 and main.
    • Default view: Deleting from the default view also permanently deletes the expense. That is existing production behavior. The bug appears only when users expect report-level delete in a table-layout report.
    • Test to add: With the table view on and a single-expense report you own, confirm Delete. Expect deleteAppReport to be called and deleteTransactions not to be called.
    • Not verified: I couldn't open the Applause video, so I didn't confirm the staging modal text visually. I traced the mechanism through the code.

    Next Steps: Reply with @MelvinBot implement this to create a draft PR, or @MelvinBot <your feedback> to refine this analysis.


    view run

  8. melvin-bot commented on Oct 7, 2026

    @melvin-bot

    ⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

    If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

    If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

    If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

  9. melvin-bot commented on Oct 7, 2026

    @melvin-bot

    ⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

    If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

    If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

    If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

  10. 19 remaining items

  11. melvin-bot commented on Oct 21, 2026

    @melvin-bot

    ⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

    If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

    If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

    If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

  12. mitarachim commented on Oct 21, 2026

    @mitarachim

    Deploy Blocker #104657 was identified to be related to the PR #103703 that attempted to fix this issue.

  13. melvin-bot commented on Oct 21, 2026

    @melvin-bot

    ⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

    If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

    If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

    If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

  14. melvin-bot commented on Oct 22, 2026

    @melvin-bot

    ⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

    If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

    If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

    If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

  15. jponikarchuk commented on Oct 22, 2026

    @jponikarchuk

    Deploy Blocker #104676 was identified to be related to the PR #103703 that attempted to fix this issue.

  16. jponikarchuk commented on Oct 22, 2026

    @jponikarchuk

    Deploy Blocker #104678 was identified to be related to the PR #103703 that attempted to fix this issue.

  17. jponikarchuk commented on Oct 22, 2026

    @jponikarchuk

    Deploy Blocker #104681 was identified to be related to the PR #103703 that attempted to fix this issue.

  18. melvin-bot commented on Oct 22, 2026

    @melvin-bot

    ⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

    If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

    If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

    If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

  19. jponikarchuk commented on Oct 22, 2026

    @jponikarchuk

    Deploy Blocker #104682 was identified to be related to the PR #103703 that attempted to fix this issue.

  20. melvin-bot commented on Oct 22, 2026

    @melvin-bot

    ⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

    If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

    If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

    If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

  21. changed the title [-]Expense is not moved to self DM after switching to table view and deleting report from More[/-] [+][Due for payment 2026-10-30] Expense is not moved to self DM after switching to table view and deleting report from More[/+] on Oct 23, 2026
  22. melvin-bot commented on Oct 23, 2026

    @melvin-bot

    @daledah

    The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.5.18-1 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

    If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2026-10-30. 🎊

    The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the Contributor+ Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]. If no checklist is needed for this issue, you can click: [no checklist button]

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Labels

BugSomething is broken. Auto assigns a BugZero manager.DailyKSv2Engineering

Type

No type

Projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions