Skip to content

[Due for payment 2026-10-30] Report -User lands on "It´s not here" page after keeping one duplicate while in Table View #103425

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: Motorola MotoG60 / Android 12 (Hybrid app) - Windows 11 / Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

Prerequisite: Account has a workspace.

  1. Open the staging.new.expensify.com website.
  2. Open any workspace chat.
  3. Create a manual expense.
  4. Open the just created expense.
  5. Click on "More" > "Switch to table view"
  6. Click on "More" > "Duplicate Report"
  7. Navigate to the new report.
  8. Click on "Review Duplicates"
  9. Select the expense from the other report > "Keep Selected" > "Confirm"
  10. Note that you land on "It´s not here" page.

Expected Result:

After keeping one duplicate, user should land on report of the kept expense.

Actual Result:

After keeping one duplicate while in "Table View", user lands on "It´s not here" page.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

Bug7280747_1791430273623.Table_Review.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Applause Internal Information
Exported by: Julia Ponikarchuk
Bug ID: 7280747

Issue OwnerCurrent Issue Owner: @daledah

Activity

  1. applause-bot commented on Oct 8, 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/6961ef2fef7b82ecc74c3168a18084e77691ec4ebc4b42833d5502b08e5bf5d1

  2. added
    BugSomething is broken. Auto assigns a BugZero manager.
    on Oct 8, 2026
  3. melvin-bot commented on Oct 8, 2026

    @melvin-bot

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

  4. melvin-bot commented on Oct 8, 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 8, 2026

    @melvin-bot

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

  6. github-actions commented on Oct 8, 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 8, 2026

    @MelvinBot
    Contributor

    Deploy Blocker Analysis

    Causing PR: Add a More menu option to switch single-expense reports between expense view and table view (high confidence on web).

    Recommendation: revert. A mergeable revert already exists: Revert "Add a More menu option to switch single-expense reports between expense view and table view". That PR has caused several table-view blockers on this checklist, so one-by-one fixes aren't realistic before the deploy.

    Root cause: Table view makes a single-expense report use the super-wide panel. After the merge, the Confirm step returns the user to that panel instead of the kept report. That report just lost its only expense, so it shows "It's not here".

    Investigation details

    Code references use App commit 4bb6832, which includes the PR.

    1. The PR changed the layout rule so a single expense in table view counts as multi-expense: MoneyRequestReportUtils.ts:183-185. The page then uses the super-wide panel: SearchMoneyRequestReportPage.tsx:189-193.
    2. handleMergeDuplicates builds the kept-report route (DynamicConfirmationPage.tsx:113). When the super-wide panel shows, it calls dismissToSuperWideRHP() and returns early (DynamicConfirmationPage.tsx:124-127). It never reaches the navigate-to-kept-report path (L133-136).
    3. Before the PR, a single-expense report never used the super-wide panel, so the flow always took the L133-136 path. That is the expected result in this issue.
    4. mergeDuplicates deletes the discarded expense from the new report (Duplicate.ts:224-228). The report is now empty, so its not-found check fires (SearchMoneyRequestReportPage.tsx:339-356).

    Other PRs checked: No other PR in the 9.5.5-0 checklist touches the duplicate-review flow, the panel-width logic, or table view.

    Android: Not confirmed in code. On native, the panel-width hook does nothing (useRHPWidth/index.native.ts:3-4), so Android takes a different branch. It still only happens in table view, which only exists because of this PR, so the revert fixes both platforms.

    Related: Expense - Not here page opens after switching to table view and deleting expense looks like the same pattern: the user returns to a report that just became empty.

    Fix to include when the PR is re-landed: In handleMergeDuplicates, only call dismissToSuperWideRHP() when the current report still has expenses after the merge. Otherwise use the existing dismissModal + navigate(keptReportRoute, {forceReplace: true}) path. Better still, base the decision on the report's expense count, not the panel width, since table view now separates the two. Verify the Android path on a device before re-landing.


    Next Steps: Merge the revert PR, or reply with @MelvinBot <your feedback> to refine this analysis.


    view run

  8. melvin-bot commented on Oct 8, 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 8, 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 [-]Report -User lands on "It´s not here" page after keeping one duplicate while in Table View[/-] [+][Due for payment 2026-10-30] Report -User lands on "It´s not here" page after keeping one duplicate while in Table View[/+] 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