Allow $0 distance rates and $0 distance expenses, including splits by FitseTLT · Pull Request #104756 · Expensify/App

FitseTLT · 2026-10-22T15:02:00Z

Explanation of Change

Lets workspaces use a $0 distance rate, for mileage that's tracked but not reimbursed.

Rates: validateRateValue accepts 0 and only rejects negative rates. lowRateError now reads "Rate can't be negative".
Expenses: a $0 rate is no longer treated as a missing rate (!rate becomes rate === undefined). This removes the "Pending..." merchant, the false "Rate out of policy" error and the disabled rate field. A distance of 0 stays blocked.
Splits: a $0 rate split is always $0, so these splits go by distance. The initial split, "Make splits even" and split by date divide the distance evenly. The amount and percent fields are read-only, with the info message "Amount can't be edited when the original total is $0.00." "Split" shows for $0 distance expenses, and saving accepts $0 parts that have a distance.

Saving a $0 split also needs the Auth change in https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/25159. Without it, SplitTransaction returns 402 Distance rate missing from policy.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/685239
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

As a workspace admin, open Workspace settings > Distance rates.
Add a rate with a value of 0.
Verify the rate saves with no error.
Edit an existing rate and type -1.
Verify the minus sign isn't accepted, so a negative rate can't be entered.
Clear the rate and type ..
Verify the input shows 0. and saves as $0.00.
Create a distance expense on the workspace with any distance type (Map, Manual, GPS or Odometer), and select the $0 rate.
Verify the confirmation page shows an amount of $0.00 and the rate's name, not "Pending...".
Verify the rate field is pressable and shows no "Rate out of policy" error.
Submit the expense.
Open the expense and verify it shows the $0 rate with no "Rate out of policy" error.
Create a manual distance expense with a distance of 0.
Verify the zero distance is rejected.
Open the $0 distance expense from step 11 and open the More menu.
Verify "Split" is available.
Tap "Split".
Verify there are two splits, each $0 with half of the distance.
Verify the split amounts are read-only and the info message "Amount can't be edited when the original total is $0.00." shows above Save.
Switch to the Percent tab and verify the percentages are read-only and the same message shows. Switch back to the Amount tab.
Tap "Add split", then tap "Make splits even".
Verify the distance is spread evenly across the three splits and every amount stays $0.
Save the split.
Verify the splits are created, each with its distance and a $0 amount (requires https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/25159).
Create a distance expense with a rate above $0 and split it.
Verify the amounts are editable, no info message shows, and amounts and distances are calculated as before.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Go offline.
Create a distance expense on the $0 rate.
Verify the expense shows as pending with its distance, the $0.00 rate in the merchant, and an amount of $0.00.
Go online.
Verify the expense is saved.

QA Steps

Same as tests. Step 24 requires https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/25159 to be deployed.

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

…stance-rate # Conflicts: # src/components/SelectionList/ListItem/SplitListItem.tsx # src/libs/PolicyDistanceRatesUtils.ts

… Split when the rate is on another workspace

…stance-rate

…stance-rate # Conflicts: # src/pages/iou/DynamicSplitExpensePage.tsx

…stance-rate

…nce expense even

…stance-rate

…usTest

…stance-rate

- Split a nonzero expense whose rate is now $0 with its historical rate - Give a $0 split of a positive rate expense no distance, and only accept $0 splits on a $0 rate - Put the remainder of a $0 rate distance on the first split, like Make splits even - Lock a split's amount only when the split itself is on a $0 rate - Look up the distance rate across workspaces before offering Split

…ility, edited amounts, distance error copy

…-rate # Conflicts: # src/components/MoneyRequestHeaderSecondaryActions.tsx # src/libs/ReportSecondaryActionUtils.ts

codecov · 2026-10-22T15:08:29Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...tConfirmationList/hooks/useDistanceRequestState.ts	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
...oneyRequestConfirmationList/sections/RateField.tsx	`69.87% <100.00%> (ø)`
...c/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx	`78.76% <100.00%> (ø)`
...c/components/Search/SearchWriteActionsProvider.tsx	`95.69% <100.00%> (+0.04%)`	⬆️
src/components/Search/selectionBuilders.ts	`99.19% <ø> (ø)`
...omponents/SelectionList/ListItem/SplitListItem.tsx	`94.68% <100.00%> (ø)`
...onList/ListItem/SplitListItem/SplitAmountInput.tsx	`96.15% <100.00%> (+96.15%)`	⬆️
...st/ListItem/SplitListItem/SplitPercentageInput.tsx	`100.00% <100.00%> (+100.00%)`	⬆️
src/hooks/useFrozenSplitTransactionIDs.ts	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
src/hooks/useSelectedTransactionsActions.ts	`80.00% <ø> (ø)`
... and 13 more
... and 60 files with indirect coverage changes

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: e7ed2e21a7

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".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-22T15:44:23Z

+    const isRateBeforeZeroRateChange = selectedRate.rate !== fallbackMileageRate.rate && (selectedRate.rate === 0 || fallbackMileageRate.rate === 0);
+    if (isRateBeforeZeroRateChange && customUnitRateID === fallbackMileageRate.customUnitRateID && isUsableSplitRate(fallbackMileageRate.rate)) {


Preserve historical rates for independently rated splits

When editing an existing distance split whose child was assigned a rate different from the parent, a later workspace change of that child rate to or from $0 is not handled: this condition only substitutes a historical rate when the child's ID equals the parent's fallback ID. A child created at $0 and later changed positive is removed from zeroRateSplitTransactionIDs, so its valid zero amount blocks every save; the reverse transition leaves a nonzero amount locked to a live $0 rate. Infer the historical rate from the child transaction/split's own amount and quantity rather than limiting the transition logic to the parent's rate ID.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

FitseTLT · 2026-10-23T18:34:52Z

Update: working on issues i found while I reviewed the code
Eg.
non-zero rate distance expense updated to zero amount can be split - which I think is not expected

trjExpensify · 2026-10-26T13:00:13Z

@FitseTLT can @marufsharifi begin the review?

FitseTLT · 2026-10-26T13:01:51Z

Nope still working

FitseTLT · 2026-10-26T17:22:13Z

@marufsharifi @NicolasBonet bugs 2 and 3 are edge cases where it is impossible to determine if an expense is really zero rate at the time of creation.

Case 1 — exact-zero collision (BUG#2): Not fixable with this math: once the live rate is exactly $0 and the stored amount is also $0, "always was $0" and "was positive but rounded/changed to $0" produce identical inputs, so there's nothing left to distinguish them.

Case 2 — fully-excluded collision (BUG#3): Also not fixable with this math: once reimbursableDistance is 0 (trip shorter than the exclusion), a genuinely-$0-rate trip and a positive-rate trip that's just fully excluded both produce amount = 0, reimbursableDistance = 0 with a positive current rate — identical inputs, no way to tell which happened.

Both need the rate value persisted at creation time rather than reconstructed from amount/quantity/rate after the fact. One workaround I found is parsing from the frozen merchant text of the transaction but I can't be 100% sure if it is a perfect solution.

My question is if allowing splits for $0 amount distance expenses is the fact that we can split distances of the original transaction what if we allow spliting distance expense of zero amount with non-zero distance as a whole. This would simplify a lot of our code and be certain it will for all cases. Let me know your opinons otherwise I will apply the calculation from merchant field to determine zero rates.

FitseTLT · 2026-10-26T18:16:05Z

@marufsharifi back to you

marufsharifi · 2026-10-28T10:14:30Z

@FitseTLT, could you please merge the main. thanks.

marufsharifi · 2026-10-28T13:08:48Z

reviewing.

trjExpensify · 2026-10-28T17:55:27Z

@marufsharifi do you think you can complete the review today?

marufsharifi · 2026-10-29T11:06:39Z

@NicolasBonet, could you please share your thoughts here: #104756 (comment), thanks.

NicolasBonet · 2026-10-29T14:16:39Z

@FitseTLT could you please elaborate or exemplify what this means?

My question is if allowing splits for $0 amount distance expenses is the fact that we can split distances of the original transaction what if we allow spliting distance expense of zero amount with non-zero distance as a whole. This would simplify a lot of our code and be certain it will for all cases. Let me know your opinons otherwise I will apply the calculation from merchant field to determine zero rates.

FitseTLT · 2026-10-29T15:20:24Z

Ok @NicolasBonet
Before this pr split is disabled for 0 amount expense. From what I understand from the work so far in this pr you were trying to only allow a distance expense to be split even if it has 0 amount if the distance rate it was created with is 0 right?

What I am saying is the logic to determine if the expense was created with 0 rate or not doesn't always work? Like for the cases of Bug 2 and 3 @marufsharifi reported.
Example: lets say there was an unreported expense whose distance rate is deleted from the workspace (so it's value cannot be determined) to determine if it was created with a zero rate you guys assumed a zero amount with non-zero distance must have been from a zero rate but the problem is amount of distance request can be updated to zero amount even with a non-zero rate. We can't differentiate between the two cases.

Workaround: the only workaround is to calculate from the merchant of the transaction but I am not sure how sustainable that fix is.

Proposal: instead what I propose is because we are allowing split with zero amount based on the logic that the distances can be split why don't we allow split of 0-amount transactions whether they have a zero rate or not. WDYT

NicolasBonet · 2026-10-29T19:11:18Z

I think that works, thoughts @trjExpensify ?

trjExpensify · 2026-10-30T01:35:09Z

why don't we allow split of 0-amount transactions whether they have a zero rate or not

Does that mean allow regular $0 expenses to be split? (CC: @garrettmknight @lakchote to this convo on split btw)

lakchote · 2026-10-30T09:15:00Z

@trjExpensify I read @FitseTLT's proposal as distance only. A $0 distance expense still has a distance to split, whether the rate was $0 or the amount was edited down to $0, so we don't have to tell those two cases apart.

A regular $0 expense would normally split into parts that are all $0, so each part could only differ by category, tag or date. Creating those splits already works on the backend, it's only blocked in the app.

Removing a part later can fail, though. If another part is already on an approved, paid or closed report and a third one can still be edited, what's left adds up to $0 and the backend refuses it. The app only shows "Unexpected error editing this expense. Please try again later."

So if we allow it, that check needs to change too on the backend.

FitseTLT · 2026-10-30T16:56:00Z

@trjExpensify I read @FitseTLT's proposal as distance only. A $0 distance expense still has a distance to split, whether the rate was $0 or the amount was edited down to $0, so we don't have to tell those two cases apart.

A regular $0 expense would normally split into parts that are all $0, so each part could only differ by category, tag or date. Creating those splits already works on the backend, it's only blocked in the app.

Removing a part later can fail, though. If another part is already on an approved, paid or closed report and a third one can still be edited, what's left adds up to $0 and the backend refuses it. The app only shows "Unexpected error editing this expense. Please try again later."

So if we allow it, that check needs to change too on the backend.

@lakchote So does this change be made for Zero-amount distance expenses too. This issue is scoped on zero amount distance expenses. If I got your point correct other split fields can be updated when one is already approved. Like here

2026-10-30.19-39-26.mp4

trjExpensify · 2026-11-02T13:16:46Z

So does this change be made for Zero-amount distance expenses too. This issue is scoped on zero amount distance expenses

Sorry @FitseTLT, I don't understand this sentence.

FitseTLT · 2026-11-02T13:19:59Z

So does this change be made for Zero-amount distance expenses too. This issue is scoped on zero amount distance expenses

Sorry @FitseTLT, I don't understand this sentence.

In change, I meant the BE change that has to be made @lakchote is claiming; Should the BE change be made for distance expenses too or we can continue on working on the FE changes in this pr without BE change.

But the main point is what should we do next here 😄

lakchote · 2026-11-02T17:32:58Z

@FitseTLT no, the backend change isn't needed for distance expenses. The check that refuses remaining splits adding up to $0 skips them, so you can keep going with the App changes here.

NicolasBonet and others added 27 commits October 2, 2026 12:59

Allow $0 workspace distance rates and treat a $0 rate as a real rate

9a93822

Support splitting $0 distance expenses by distance

f0474e4

Pass the full rate form values in the validateRateValue tests

c2fa242

Make split amounts read-only for $0 distance expenses and explain why

c4b37e1

Merge branch 'main' into nicolas/allow-zero-distance-rate

23fc4a3

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into nicolas/allow-zero-di…

c3d79c6

…stance-rate # Conflicts: # src/components/SelectionList/ListItem/SplitListItem.tsx # src/libs/PolicyDistanceRatesUtils.ts

Remove the onInputBlur prop from the split input editability tests

6926c27

Only use a $0 rate for $0 distance expenses when splitting, and offer…

0900651

… Split when the rate is on another workspace

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into nicolas/allow-zero-di…

274f787

…stance-rate

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into nicolas/allow-zero-di…

d2ae35e

…stance-rate # Conflicts: # src/pages/iou/DynamicSplitExpensePage.tsx

Restore GitHub Actions builds from main

3a604b8

Merge branch 'main' into nicolas/allow-zero-distance-rate

03e7847

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into nicolas/allow-zero-di…

847c75d

…stance-rate

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into nicolas/allow-zero-di…

07f83b1

…stance-rate

Split the zero-rate distance comment into plain sentences

808fdfa

Recalculate positive-rate splits when making the splits of a $0 dista…

2245eba

…nce expense even

Add the required transaction fields to the zero-total split test

1f4ab34

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into nicolas/allow-zero-di…

0d65a29

…stance-rate

Stub on-mount policy category/tag loaders in CategoryTagPickerAutoFoc…

3a222fe

…usTest

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into nicolas/allow-zero-di…

3697787

…stance-rate

Keep a split's distance when its odometer readings are saved unchanged

1b77e8a

Make the amount of a split on a $0 rate read-only

6df1c00

Merge branch 'main' into nicolas/allow-zero-distance-rate

2101809

Merge branch 'main' into nicolas/allow-zero-distance-rate

a0bd406

Fix $0 distance split edge cases: rate changed from $0, Search eligib…

bf8855f

…ility, edited amounts, distance error copy

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into allow-zero-distance…

e7ed2e2

…-rate # Conflicts: # src/components/MoneyRequestHeaderSecondaryActions.tsx # src/libs/ReportSecondaryActionUtils.ts

FitseTLT requested review from a team as code owners October 22, 2026 15:02

melvin-bot Bot assigned FitseTLT Oct 22, 2026

FitseTLT requested review from marufsharifi and removed request for parasharrajat October 22, 2026 15:02

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Oct 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into allow-zero-distance-rate

6194fac

FitseTLT added 2 commits October 26, 2026 16:50

minor fixes

3aeafc2

fix zero distance error calculation

bb069e9

standardize tests

87d6312

FitseTLT added 2 commits October 28, 2026 15:16

Merge branch 'main' into allow-zero-distance-rate

b7cb171

minor fix

7bd4cb5

FitseTLT added 2 commits October 30, 2026 19:16

Merge branch 'main' into allow-zero-distance-rate

8fcbc9c

revert

3facc38

		const isRateBeforeZeroRateChange = selectedRate.rate !== fallbackMileageRate.rate && (selectedRate.rate === 0 \|\| fallbackMileageRate.rate === 0);
		if (isRateBeforeZeroRateChange && customUnitRateID === fallbackMileageRate.customUnitRateID && isUsableSplitRate(fallbackMileageRate.rate)) {

Conversation

FitseTLT commented Oct 22, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Oct 22, 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!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Oct 22, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Oct 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Oct 26, 2026

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Oct 26, 2026

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Oct 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Oct 26, 2026

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Oct 28, 2026

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Oct 28, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Oct 28, 2026

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Oct 29, 2026

Uh oh!

NicolasBonet commented Oct 29, 2026

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Oct 29, 2026

Uh oh!

NicolasBonet commented Oct 29, 2026

Uh oh!

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

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

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

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Oct 30, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Nov 2, 2026

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Nov 2, 2026

Uh oh!

lakchote commented Nov 2, 2026

Uh oh!

This branch has not been deployed

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

codecov Bot commented Oct 22, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

FitseTLT commented Oct 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

FitseTLT commented Oct 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

trjExpensify commented Oct 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

lakchote commented Oct 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading