Skip to content

[No QA] refactor: remove unsafe assertions from bank and expense report flows - #104928

Draft
KJ21-ENG wants to merge 1 commit into
Expensify:mainfrom
KJ21-ENG:seatbelt-v2/batch-20261023-804bc132-run-3-aac2b053
Draft

KJ21-ENG wants to merge 1 commit into
Expensify:mainfrom
KJ21-ENG:seatbelt-v2/batch-20261023-804bc132-run-3-aac2b053

Conversation

@KJ21-ENG

@KJ21-ENG KJ21-ENG commented Oct 24, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

Use the existing bank form, report, transaction, and owner-name contracts instead of unsafe assertions. Reuse the transaction-key guard in the Search snapshot fallback while preserving its prefix test, insertion order, matching-report selection, and violation lookup, and add focused regression coverage.

Changed files:

  • src/components/Search/SearchList/ListItem/UserInfoAndActionButtonRow.tsx
  • src/pages/ReimbursementAccount/ReimbursementAccountPage.tsx
  • src/pages/ReimbursementAccount/USD/BeneficialOwnerInfo/subSteps/BeneficialOwnerDetailsFormSubSteps/LegalNameUBO.tsx
  • src/pages/ReimbursementAccount/USD/BusinessInfo/subSteps/ConfirmationBusiness.tsx
  • src/pages/Search/SearchMoneyRequestReportPage.tsx
  • src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/DuplicateTransactionItem.tsx
  • src/types/form/ReimbursementAccountForm.ts
  • tests/ui/ConfirmationBusinessTest.tsx
  • tests/ui/DuplicateTransactionItemTest.tsx
  • tests/ui/LegalNameUBOTest.tsx
  • tests/ui/ReimbursementAccountPageCurrencyTest.tsx
  • tests/ui/SearchMoneyRequestReportPageTest.tsx

Fixed Issues

$ #94739
PROPOSAL: #94739 (comment)

Tests

Focused checked-in Jest tests passed for currency routing, company-summary validation, owner-specific saved names, duplicate selection and previews, and Search first-match object identity, own violations, absent/no-match handling, and live-data precedence. Changed-file lint, type checking, formatting, spelling, and React Compiler comparison checks passed; CI also passed typecheck, lint, format, React Compiler, and the selected Jest suites.

Offline tests

N/A. This diff changes no network requests, cache updates, persistence, queued writes, or recovery behavior. The Search fallback preserves the transaction-key prefix test and transaction/violation selection.

QA Steps

Manual QA not required.

The refactor preserves runtime values and handlers. Focused tests discriminate the Search fallback's unchanged prefix/report matching, first-match object identity, own violations, and live-data precedence; rendering, provider, and thread code and inputs are unchanged.

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 verified any copy / text that was added to the app 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 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 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.
  • If the PR adds or modifies the UI:
    • I asked an AI agent to review the changes for accessibility issues and addressed its findings.
    • I tested with a screen reader (VoiceOver on macOS) and verified all new/changed elements are reachable with a logical focus order.
    • I verified all new/changed elements have meaningful accessible names and roles.
    • I verified state changes are announced (e.g. checked/unchecked, expanded/collapsed, selected).
  • 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

Screenshots/Videos

No manual execution evidence or recordings are required supplied.

Seatbelt-Operation: sign-aac2b053-20261024-dc7dbd59
@KJ21-ENG KJ21-ENG changed the title Remove unsafe type assertions from bank setup and expense report flows refactor: remove unsafe assertions from bank and expense report flows Oct 24, 2026
@KJ21-ENG KJ21-ENG changed the title refactor: remove unsafe assertions from bank and expense report flows [No QA] refactor: remove unsafe assertions from bank and expense report flows Oct 24, 2026

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant