[Due for payment 2025-09-19] [$250] Scan - Image can be dropped on scan zone in room when there are 2 members which leads to error

@Krishna2323

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: 9.1.82-2
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: #62650
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): jsdnoisjiosdjdoi@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Mac 15.5 / Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

Go to staging.expensify.com
Open FAB > Start chat > Room.
Create a room.
Open room header > Members.
Invite two members to the room.
Close the RHP.
Drag and drop an image to Scan zone.
Click Create expense on the confirm page.
Wait for error to show up on the expense preview.
Click on the expense preview.

Expected Result:

In Step 7, Scan zone should be disabled in room if split expense cannot be created in room via drag and drop.

Actual Result:

In Step 7, Scan zone is not disabled in room and photo can be dropped on the Scan zone.
In Step 10, error shows up because the scan expense cannot be created in room via drop zone when there are at least 2 members in the room.

If only one member is invited to the room, Scan expense is created in 1:1 DM when the photo is dropped on Scan zone in the room.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

bug.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021947236346996745937
Upwork Job ID: 1947236346996745937
Last Price Increase: 2025-08-04
Automatic offers:

Krishna2323 | Contributor | 108293324

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @Krishna2323

@sonialiap

Triggered auto assignment to @sonialiap (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.

Proposal

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

Image can be dropped on scan zone in room when there are 2 members which leads to error

What is the root cause of that problem?

We are missing room check here

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/ReportActionCompose.tsx

Line 234 in 48a96b0

    
           const shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt = (isTransactionThreadView || isSingleTransactionView) && !isDistanceRequest(transaction);

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

Add the room check here

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/ReportActionCompose.tsx

Line 234 in 48a96b0

    
           const shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt = (isTransactionThreadView || isSingleTransactionView) && !isDistanceRequest(transaction);

to prevent showing the receipt option in rooms

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

NA

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

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.

Proposal

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

Scan - Image can be dropped on scan zone in room when there are 2 members which leads to error

What is the root cause of that problem?

shouldDisplayDualDropZone only checks if money request options are available but doesn't validate whether scan requests can actually be processed in the current report

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/ReportActionCompose.tsx

Lines 238 to 242 in be6876c

    
           const shouldDisplayDualDropZone = useMemo(() => { 
        
               const parentReport = getParentReport(report); 
        
               const isSettledOrApproved = isSettled(report) || isSettled(parentReport) || isReportApproved({report}) || isReportApproved({report: parentReport}); 
        
               return (shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt && !isSettledOrApproved) || !!temporary_getMoneyRequestOptions(report, policy, reportParticipantIDs).length; 
        
           }, [shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt, report, policy, reportParticipantIDs]);

The temporary_getMoneyRequestOptions function returns CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT for rooms with multiple participants, which makes shouldDisplayDualDropZone return true and shows the scan drop zone

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

We can add validation to check for isChatRoom

    const shouldDisplayDualDropZone = useMemo(() => {
        const parentReport = getParentReport(report);
        const isSettledOrApproved = isSettled(report) || isSettled(parentReport) || isReportApproved({report}) || isReportApproved({report: parentReport});
        const hasMoneyRequestOptions = !!temporary_getMoneyRequestOptions(report, policy, reportParticipantIDs).length;
        return ((shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt && !isSettledOrApproved) || hasMoneyRequestOptions) && !isChatRoom(report);
    }, [shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt, report, policy, reportParticipantIDs]);

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

N/A

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

N/A

Proposal

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

Scan - Image can be dropped on scan zone in room when there are 2 members which leads to error

What is the root cause of that problem?

The iou type is always CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT if the isSelfDM is false.

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/ReportActionCompose.tsx

Lines 508 to 521 in be6876c

    
                       const newTransactionID = newTransaction?.transactionID ?? CONST.IOU.OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_ID; 
        
                       setMoneyRequestReceipt(newTransactionID, source, file.name ?? '', true); 
        
                       setMoneyRequestParticipantsFromReport(newTransactionID, report); 
        
                   }); 
        
                   Navigation.navigate( 
        
                       ROUTES.MONEY_REQUEST_STEP_CONFIRMATION.getRoute( 
        
                           CONST.IOU.ACTION.CREATE, 
        
                           isSelfDM(report) ? CONST.IOU.TYPE.TRACK : CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT, 
        
                           CONST.IOU.OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_ID, 
        
                           reportID, 
        
                       ), 
        
                   ); 
        
               } 
        
           };

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

We should check if the report is a group chat or a room chat with multiple members and change the IOU type to split:

            const allParticipants = getParticipantsAccountIDsForDisplay(report, false, true, undefined, reportMetadata);
            const hasMultipleParticipants = allParticipants.length > 1;
            const shouldSplit = isGroupChat(report) || (isChatRoom(report) && hasMultipleParticipants);
            const defaultIOUType = shouldSplit ? CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT : CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT;
            Navigation.navigate(
                ROUTES.MONEY_REQUEST_STEP_CONFIRMATION.getRoute(
                    CONST.IOU.ACTION.CREATE,
                    isSelfDM(report) ? CONST.IOU.TYPE.TRACK : defaultIOUType,
                    CONST.IOU.OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_ID,
                    reportID,
                ),
            );
        }

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

N/A

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We can create a util function and for each type of report, we will return the default iou action accordingly.

We should use the getMoneyRequestOptions function for reference and return a default iou type for each type of report if scanning is allowed in that specific type of report. e.g. return iou type create for workspace expense chat, split for room/group chat with multiple participants, null for invoice report chat.

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 8589 to 8674 in be6876c

    
           function getMoneyRequestOptions(report: OnyxEntry<Report>, policy: OnyxEntry<Policy>, reportParticipants: number[], filterDeprecatedTypes = false): IOUType[] { 
        
               const teacherUnitePolicyID = environment === CONST.ENVIRONMENT.PRODUCTION ? CONST.TEACHERS_UNITE.PROD_POLICY_ID : CONST.TEACHERS_UNITE.TEST_POLICY_ID; 
        
               const isTeachersUniteReport = report?.policyID === teacherUnitePolicyID; 
        
               // This will get removed as part of https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/59961 
        
               // eslint-disable-next-line deprecation/deprecation 
        
               const reportNameValuePairs = getReportNameValuePairs(report?.reportID); 
        
               // In any thread, task report or trip room, we do not allow any new expenses 
        
               if (isChatThread(report) || isTaskReport(report) || isInvoiceReport(report) || isSystemChat(report) || isArchivedReport(reportNameValuePairs) || isTripRoom(report)) { 
        
                   return []; 
        
               } 
        
               if (isInvoiceRoom(report)) { 
        
                   if (canSendInvoiceFromWorkspace(policy?.id) && isPolicyAdmin(report?.policyID, allPolicies)) { 
        
                       return [CONST.IOU.TYPE.INVOICE]; 
        
                   } 
        
                   return []; 
        
               } 
        
               // We don't allow IOU actions if an Expensify account is a participant of the report, unless the policy that the report is on is owned by an Expensify account 
        
               const doParticipantsIncludeExpensifyAccounts = lodashIntersection(reportParticipants, CONST.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS).length > 0; 
        
               // This will be fixed as part of https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/507850 
        
               // eslint-disable-next-line deprecation/deprecation 
        
               const policyOwnerAccountID = getPolicy(report?.policyID)?.ownerAccountID; 
        
               const isPolicyOwnedByExpensifyAccounts = policyOwnerAccountID ? CONST.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS.includes(policyOwnerAccountID) : false; 
        
               if (doParticipantsIncludeExpensifyAccounts && !isPolicyOwnedByExpensifyAccounts) { 
        
                   // Allow create expense option for Manager McTest report 
        
                   if (reportParticipants.some((accountID) => accountID === CONST.ACCOUNT_ID.MANAGER_MCTEST) && Permissions.isBetaEnabled(CONST.BETAS.NEWDOT_MANAGER_MCTEST, allBetas)) { 
        
                       return [CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT]; 
        
                   } 
        
                   return []; 
        
               } 
        
               const otherParticipants = reportParticipants.filter((accountID) => currentUserPersonalDetails?.accountID !== accountID); 
        
               const hasSingleParticipantInReport = otherParticipants.length === 1; 
        
               let options: IOUType[] = []; 
        
               if (isSelfDM(report)) { 
        
                   options = [CONST.IOU.TYPE.TRACK]; 
        
               } 
        
               if (canRequestMoney(report, policy, otherParticipants)) { 
        
                   // For Teachers Unite policy, don't show Create Expense option 
        
                   if (!isTeachersUniteReport) { 
        
                       options = [...options, CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT]; 
        
                       if (!filterDeprecatedTypes) { 
        
                           options = [...options, CONST.IOU.TYPE.REQUEST]; 
        
                       } 
        
                   } 
        
                   // If the user can request money from the workspace report, they can also track expenses 
        
                   if (isPolicyExpenseChat(report) || isExpenseReport(report)) { 
        
                       options = [...options, CONST.IOU.TYPE.TRACK]; 
        
                   } 
        
               } 
        
               // For expense reports on Teachers Unite workspace, disable "Create report" option 
        
               if (isExpenseReport(report) && report?.policyID === teacherUnitePolicyID) { 
        
                   options = options.filter((option) => option !== CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT); 
        
               } 
        
               // User created policy rooms and default rooms like #admins or #announce will always have the Split Expense option 
        
               // unless there are no other participants at all (e.g. #admins room for a policy with only 1 admin) 
        
               // DM chats will have the Split Expense option. 
        
               // Your own expense chats will have the split expense option. 
        
               // Only show Split Expense for TU policy 
        
               if ( 
        
                   (isChatRoom(report) && !isAnnounceRoom(report) && otherParticipants.length > 0) || 
        
                   (isDM(report) && otherParticipants.length > 0) || 
        
                   (isGroupChat(report) && otherParticipants.length > 0) || 
        
                   (isPolicyExpenseChat(report) && report?.isOwnPolicyExpenseChat && isTeachersUniteReport) 
        
               ) { 
        
                   options = [...options, CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT]; 
        
               } 
        
               // Pay someone option should be visible only in 1:1 DMs 
        
               if (isDM(report) && hasSingleParticipantInReport) { 
        
                   options = [...options, CONST.IOU.TYPE.PAY]; 
        
                   if (!filterDeprecatedTypes) { 
        
                       options = [...options, CONST.IOU.TYPE.SEND]; 
        
                   } 
        
               } 
        
               return options; 
        
           }

The update the condition below to use the new util function and check if any default option is returned or not, instead of checking the length of the getMoneyRequestOptions.

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/ReportActionCompose.tsx

Lines 238 to 242 in be6876c

    
           const shouldDisplayDualDropZone = useMemo(() => { 
        
               const parentReport = getParentReport(report); 
        
               const isSettledOrApproved = isSettled(report) || isSettled(parentReport) || isReportApproved({report}) || isReportApproved({report: parentReport}); 
        
               return (shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt && !isSettledOrApproved) || !!temporary_getMoneyRequestOptions(report, policy, reportParticipantIDs).length; 
        
           }, [shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt, report, policy, reportParticipantIDs]);

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional 2)

We can check if the last iou type returned from getMoneyRequestOptions can work with scanning or not and based on that we will set the iou type when evaluating shouldDisplayDualDropZone and navigating to confirmation page.
We can create a array of options which can work with scanning, e.g. ["create", "split"] and then check if the last iou type returned from getMoneyRequestOptions is an valid option in the array or not.

    function getPreferredScannableIOUType(iouOptions: IOUType[]): IOUType | undefined {
        const preferredOrder: IOUType[] = [CONST.IOU.TYPE.TRACK, CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT, CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT];

        return preferredOrder.find((type) => iouOptions.includes(type) && (type !== 'track' || isSelfDM(report)));
    }
    const scannableOption = getPreferredScannableIOUType(temporary_getMoneyRequestOptions(report, policy, reportParticipantIDs));

    const shouldDisplayDualDropZone = useMemo(() => {
        const parentReport = getParentReport(report);
        const isSettledOrApproved = isSettled(report) || isSettled(parentReport) || isReportApproved({report}) || isReportApproved({report: parentReport});

        return (shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt && !isSettledOrApproved) || !!scannableOption;
    }, [shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt, report, scannableOption]);

    Navigation.navigate(
        ROUTES.MONEY_REQUEST_STEP_CONFIRMATION.getRoute(CONST.IOU.ACTION.CREATE, scannableOption ?? CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT, CONST.IOU.OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_ID, reportID),
    );

Result

Monosnap.screencast.2025-07-18.11-04-39.mp4

PROPOSAL UPDATED

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021947236346996745937

@rushatgabhane

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

@hoangzinh

Payment summary:
@hoangzinh $250 please request in NewDot and complete the checklist
@Krishna2323 $250 please request in NewDot ~~to be paid in upwork - I see the offer was rejected, was that by accident?~~

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/65264/files#r2367777423
[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.
[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

Note: Tests are only for Web and Desktop app, mWeb and native app does not support drag and drop

Test:

Sign in to ND
Go to any room chat
Drag and drop an image to Scan zone
Verify that only attachment drop area is shown
Go to a group chat
Drag and drop an image to Scan zone
Verify that only attachment drop area is shown

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

@sonialiap

Thanks @sonialiap. I requested in ND

@sonialiap

@sonialiap I'm now eligible for payments through NewDot that's why I ended the Upwork contract.

Ref: #64948 (comment)

@Krishna2323

@Krishna2323 congrats! I've updated the payment summary asking you to request payment in NewDot

@Krishna2323

@Krishna2323 Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

Requested in NewDot!

@Krishna2323

$250 approved for @Krishna2323

@hoangzinh

Approved $250 to @hoangzinh

	const shouldDisplayDualDropZone = useMemo(() => {
	const parentReport = getParentReport(report);
	const isSettledOrApproved = isSettled(report) \|\| isSettled(parentReport) \|\| isReportApproved({report}) \|\| isReportApproved({report: parentReport});
	return (shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt && !isSettledOrApproved) \|\| !!temporary_getMoneyRequestOptions(report, policy, reportParticipantIDs).length;
	}, [shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt, report, policy, reportParticipantIDs]);

	const newTransactionID = newTransaction?.transactionID ?? CONST.IOU.OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_ID;
	setMoneyRequestReceipt(newTransactionID, source, file.name ?? '', true);
	setMoneyRequestParticipantsFromReport(newTransactionID, report);
	});
	Navigation.navigate(
	ROUTES.MONEY_REQUEST_STEP_CONFIRMATION.getRoute(
	CONST.IOU.ACTION.CREATE,
	isSelfDM(report) ? CONST.IOU.TYPE.TRACK : CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT,
	CONST.IOU.OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_ID,
	reportID,
	),
	);
	}
	};

	function getMoneyRequestOptions(report: OnyxEntry<Report>, policy: OnyxEntry<Policy>, reportParticipants: number[], filterDeprecatedTypes = false): IOUType[] {
	const teacherUnitePolicyID = environment === CONST.ENVIRONMENT.PRODUCTION ? CONST.TEACHERS_UNITE.PROD_POLICY_ID : CONST.TEACHERS_UNITE.TEST_POLICY_ID;
	const isTeachersUniteReport = report?.policyID === teacherUnitePolicyID;

	// This will get removed as part of https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/59961
	// eslint-disable-next-line deprecation/deprecation
	const reportNameValuePairs = getReportNameValuePairs(report?.reportID);

	// In any thread, task report or trip room, we do not allow any new expenses
	if (isChatThread(report) \|\| isTaskReport(report) \|\| isInvoiceReport(report) \|\| isSystemChat(report) \|\| isArchivedReport(reportNameValuePairs) \|\| isTripRoom(report)) {
	return [];
	}

	if (isInvoiceRoom(report)) {
	if (canSendInvoiceFromWorkspace(policy?.id) && isPolicyAdmin(report?.policyID, allPolicies)) {
	return [CONST.IOU.TYPE.INVOICE];
	}
	return [];
	}

	// We don't allow IOU actions if an Expensify account is a participant of the report, unless the policy that the report is on is owned by an Expensify account
	const doParticipantsIncludeExpensifyAccounts = lodashIntersection(reportParticipants, CONST.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS).length > 0;
	// This will be fixed as part of https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/507850
	// eslint-disable-next-line deprecation/deprecation
	const policyOwnerAccountID = getPolicy(report?.policyID)?.ownerAccountID;
	const isPolicyOwnedByExpensifyAccounts = policyOwnerAccountID ? CONST.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS.includes(policyOwnerAccountID) : false;
	if (doParticipantsIncludeExpensifyAccounts && !isPolicyOwnedByExpensifyAccounts) {
	// Allow create expense option for Manager McTest report
	if (reportParticipants.some((accountID) => accountID === CONST.ACCOUNT_ID.MANAGER_MCTEST) && Permissions.isBetaEnabled(CONST.BETAS.NEWDOT_MANAGER_MCTEST, allBetas)) {
	return [CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT];
	}
	return [];
	}

	const otherParticipants = reportParticipants.filter((accountID) => currentUserPersonalDetails?.accountID !== accountID);
	const hasSingleParticipantInReport = otherParticipants.length === 1;
	let options: IOUType[] = [];

	if (isSelfDM(report)) {
	options = [CONST.IOU.TYPE.TRACK];
	}

	if (canRequestMoney(report, policy, otherParticipants)) {
	// For Teachers Unite policy, don't show Create Expense option
	if (!isTeachersUniteReport) {
	options = [...options, CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT];
	if (!filterDeprecatedTypes) {
	options = [...options, CONST.IOU.TYPE.REQUEST];
	}
	}

	// If the user can request money from the workspace report, they can also track expenses
	if (isPolicyExpenseChat(report) \|\| isExpenseReport(report)) {
	options = [...options, CONST.IOU.TYPE.TRACK];
	}
	}

	// For expense reports on Teachers Unite workspace, disable "Create report" option
	if (isExpenseReport(report) && report?.policyID === teacherUnitePolicyID) {
	options = options.filter((option) => option !== CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT);
	}

	// User created policy rooms and default rooms like #admins or #announce will always have the Split Expense option
	// unless there are no other participants at all (e.g. #admins room for a policy with only 1 admin)
	// DM chats will have the Split Expense option.
	// Your own expense chats will have the split expense option.
	// Only show Split Expense for TU policy
	if (
	(isChatRoom(report) && !isAnnounceRoom(report) && otherParticipants.length > 0) \|\|
	(isDM(report) && otherParticipants.length > 0) \|\|
	(isGroupChat(report) && otherParticipants.length > 0) \|\|
	(isPolicyExpenseChat(report) && report?.isOwnPolicyExpenseChat && isTeachersUniteReport)
	) {
	options = [...options, CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT];
	}

	// Pay someone option should be visible only in 1:1 DMs
	if (isDM(report) && hasSingleParticipantInReport) {
	options = [...options, CONST.IOU.TYPE.PAY];
	if (!filterDeprecatedTypes) {
	options = [...options, CONST.IOU.TYPE.SEND];
	}
	}

	return options;
	}

[Due for payment 2025-09-19] [$250] Scan - Image can be dropped on scan zone in room when there are 2 members which leads to error #66643

Description

Action Performed:

Expected Result:

Actual Result:

Workaround:

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

Activity

melvin-bot commented on Jul 17, 2025

samranahm commented on Jul 17, 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)

ryntgh commented on Jul 17, 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)

Krishna2323 commented on Jul 17, 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)

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional 2)

Result

Krishna2323 commented on Jul 17, 2025

PROPOSAL UPDATED

melvin-bot commented on Jul 21, 2025

melvin-bot commented on Jul 21, 2025

60 remaining items

sonialiap commented on Sep 22, 2025

hoangzinh commented on Sep 22, 2025

BugZero Checklist:

Regression Test Proposal

Test:

hoangzinh commented on Sep 22, 2025

Krishna2323 commented on Sep 23, 2025

sonialiap commented on Sep 25, 2025

melvin-bot commented on Sep 26, 2025

Krishna2323 commented on Oct 4, 2025

garrettmknight commented on Oct 7, 2025

quinthar commented on Oct 18, 2025

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions