[Due for payment 2025-07-15] [$250] Excluded User Still Sees “Your Split” Label in Split Expense UI

@dubielzyk-expensify

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

Version Number: 9.1.71-8
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @dubielzyk-expensify
Slack conversation (hyperlinked to channel name): #Expensify Bugs

Action Performed:

Go to a group chat with 4 members (e.g., Users A, B, C, D)
Have User A create a split expense including all 4 members
Then, have User A create another split expense, but this time include only Users A, C, and D, excluding User B
Login as User B
Observe the expense

Expected Result:

If a user is excluded from a split, the UI should not show “Your split”

Actual Result:

Excluded users see a “Your split” label

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Select the officially supported platforms where the issue was reproduced:

Platforms Tested:

On which of our officially supported platforms was this issue tested:

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Recording.1334.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021938303481336886209
Upwork Job ID: 1938303481336886209
Last Price Increase: 2025-06-26

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @clarajones-expensify

@slafortune

Triggered auto assignment to @slafortune (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

@dukenv0307

Proposal by @dukenv0307

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Split expense says Your split: $X.XX even though th user is not part of the split:

What is the root cause of that problem?

The shouldShowSplitShare is always true for split bill

App/src/libs/TransactionPreviewUtils.ts

Line 324 in 6b934d1

    
           const shouldShowSplitShare = isBillSplit && !!requestAmount && requestAmount > 0;

And we always fallback the splitShare amount with calculateAmount even though the current user is not a part of the split bill

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/TransactionPreview/TransactionPreviewContent.tsx

Lines 146 to 152 in 6b934d1

    
           const splitShare = useMemo( 
        
               () => 
        
                   shouldShowSplitShare 
        
                       ? (transaction?.comment?.splits?.find((split) => split.accountID === sessionAccountID)?.amount ?? 
        
                         calculateAmount(isReportAPolicyExpenseChat ? 1 : participantAccountIDs.length - 1, requestAmount ?? 0, requestCurrency ?? '', action?.actorAccountID === sessionAccountID)) 
        
                       : 0, 
        
               [

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

We can update shouldShowSplitShare condition to false if the user is not a part of the split bill.

const participantAccountIDs = isMoneyRequestAction(action) && isBillSplit ? (getOriginalMessage(action)?.participantAccountIDs ?? []) : [];
const shouldShowSplitShare = isBillSplit && !!requestAmount && requestAmount > 0 && participantAccountIDs.includes(getCurrentUserAccountID());

App/src/libs/TransactionPreviewUtils.ts

Line 324 in 6b934d1

    
           const shouldShowSplitShare = isBillSplit && !!requestAmount && requestAmount > 0;

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

Update createTransactionPreviewConditionals unit test to verify shouldShowSplitShare is only true if the user is a part of the split bill transaction.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We can return 0 here if the current user is not in participantAccountIDs

shouldShowSplitShare
    ? (transaction?.comment?.splits?.find((split) => split.accountID === sessionAccountID)?.amount ??
      (!participantAccountIDs.includes(sessionAccountID ?? 0)
          ? 0
          : calculateAmount(
                isReportAPolicyExpenseChat ? 1 : participantAccountIDs.length - 1,
                requestAmount ?? 0,
                requestCurrency ?? '',
                action?.actorAccountID === sessionAccountID,
            )))
    : 0,

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/TransactionPreview/TransactionPreviewContent.tsx

Lines 146 to 152 in 6b934d1

    
           const splitShare = useMemo( 
        
               () => 
        
                   shouldShowSplitShare 
        
                       ? (transaction?.comment?.splits?.find((split) => split.accountID === sessionAccountID)?.amount ?? 
        
                         calculateAmount(isReportAPolicyExpenseChat ? 1 : participantAccountIDs.length - 1, requestAmount ?? 0, requestCurrency ?? '', action?.actorAccountID === sessionAccountID)) 
        
                       : 0, 
        
               [

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021938303481336886209

@ahmedGaber93

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @ahmedGaber93 (External)

@ahmedGaber93

@ahmedGaber93 Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

reviewing today

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

@ahmedGaber93

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.1.77-2 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

Excluded User Still Sees “Your Split” Label in Split Expense UI #65360

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-07-15. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

@ahmedGaber93 requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
@dukenv0307 requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests

@ahmedGaber93

@ahmedGaber93 / @dukenv0307 @clarajones-expensify The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero 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]

BugZero Checklist:

[Contributor] Classify the bug:

Bug classification

Source of bug:

1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
1b. Mistake during implementation
1c. Backend bug
1z. Other:

Where bug was reported:

2a. Reported on production (eg. bug slipped through the normal regression and PR testing process on staging)
2b. Reported on staging (eg. found during regression or PR testing)
2d. Reported on a PR
2z. Other:

Who reported the bug:

[Contributor] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake.

Link to comment:
[Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner.

Link to discussion:
[Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.

Regression Test Proposal Template

[BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

Link to issue:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

@ahmedGaber93

Hi @ahmedGaber93 - would you fill out the above checklist? Thanks!

@ahmedGaber93

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

Reviewer: @ahmedGaber93 owed $250 via NewDot
Reviewer: @dukenv0307 owed $250 via NewDot

BugZero Checklist (@clarajones-expensify)

I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the necessary manual offers
I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants/1938303481336886209/hired)
I have verified the PR was not reverted
I have applied any discounts due to bugs/regressions introduced by this PR
I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
I have verified the payment summary above is correct

BugZero Checklist:

[Contributor] Classify the bug:

Bug classification

Source of bug:

1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
1b. Mistake during implementation
1c. Backend bug
1z. Other:

Where bug was reported:

2a. Reported on production (eg. bug slipped through the normal regression and PR testing process on staging)
2b. Reported on staging (eg. found during regression or PR testing)
2d. Reported on a PR
2z. Other:

Who reported the bug:

[Contributor] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake.

Link to comment: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/57614/files#r2208098724
[Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner.

Link to discussion: N/A
[Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.

Regression Test Proposal Template

[BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

Link to issue:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

Go to a group chat with 4 members (e.g., Users A, B, C, D)
Have User A create a split expense including all 4 members
Then, have User A create another split expense, but this time include only Users A, C, and D, excluding User B
Login as User B
Observe the expense
Verify that If a user is excluded from a split, the UI should not show “Your split”

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

@clarajones-expensify

@clarajones-expensify checklist have been completed.

@ahmedGaber93

Payment Summary

C+: @ahmedGaber93 owed $250 via NewDot
Contributor: @dukenv0307 owed $250 via NewDot

@JmillsExpensify good to go

@dukenv0307

Approved $250 for @dukenv0307

@ahmedGaber93

approved $250 for @ahmedGaber93.

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

[Due for payment 2025-07-15] [$250] Excluded User Still Sees “Your Split” Label in Split Expense UI #65027

Action Performed:

Expected Result:

Actual Result:

Workaround:

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

What is the root cause of that problem?

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

22 remaining items

BugZero Checklist:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

Payment Summary

BugZero Checklist (@clarajones-expensify)

BugZero Checklist:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

Payment Summary

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

	const splitShare = useMemo(
	() =>
	shouldShowSplitShare
	? (transaction?.comment?.splits?.find((split) => split.accountID === sessionAccountID)?.amount ??
	calculateAmount(isReportAPolicyExpenseChat ? 1 : participantAccountIDs.length - 1, requestAmount ?? 0, requestCurrency ?? '', action?.actorAccountID === sessionAccountID))
	: 0,
	[

[Due for payment 2025-07-15] [$250] Excluded User Still Sees “Your Split” Label in Split Expense UI #65027

Description

Action Performed:

Expected Result:

Actual Result:

Workaround:

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

Activity

melvin-bot commented on Jun 26, 2025

m-natarajan commented on Jun 26, 2025

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

What is the root cause of that problem?

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

melvin-bot commented on Jun 26, 2025

melvin-bot commented on Jun 26, 2025

melvin-bot commented on Jun 30, 2025

ahmedGaber93 commented on Jun 30, 2025

22 remaining items

melvin-bot commented on Jul 8, 2025

melvin-bot commented on Jul 8, 2025

melvin-bot commented on Jul 8, 2025

clarajones-expensify commented on Jul 11, 2025

BugZero Checklist:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

clarajones-expensify commented on Jul 11, 2025

melvin-bot commented on Jul 15, 2025

Payment Summary

BugZero Checklist (@clarajones-expensify)

ahmedGaber93 commented on Jul 15, 2025

BugZero Checklist:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

ahmedGaber93 commented on Jul 15, 2025

clarajones-expensify commented on Jul 15, 2025

Payment Summary

flaviadefaria commented on Aug 4, 2025

trjExpensify commented on Nov 5, 2025

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions