[Due for payment 2025-10-21] [$250] Expense - Review and red dot display after submit manual expense which add picture to receipt

@zanyrenney

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: v9.2.2-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: Explore
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): N/A
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Win 11/Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

Precondition: Create a workspace, enable Delay submissions manually, Add approvals and Make or track payments

Open https://staging.new.expensify.com
Go to workspace chat
Create a manual expense
Click on this expense
Upload a picture to receipt
Click Submit
Return to expense preview
Click on Review

Expected Result:

Review button only displays if have error message

Actual Result:

Review button is displayed on expense preview and red dot on LHN but no error message in expense detail

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021965736867491332301
Upwork Job ID: 1965736867491332301
Last Price Increase: 2025-09-10
Automatic offers:

abzokhattab | Contributor | 108744342

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @zanyrenney

@zanyrenney

Triggered auto assignment to @zanyrenney (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.

Review and red dot display after submit manual expense which add picture to receipt

What is the root cause of that problem?

we have this violation when the user added the image manual

Then we will return as false in canApprove function because of hasAnyViolations is true

App/src/libs/ReportPreviewActionUtils.ts

Line 102 in 2c4dcba

    
           return isExpense && isProcessing && !!isApprovalEnabled && (!hasAnyViolations || !shouldConsiderViolations) && reportTransactions.length > 0 && isCurrentUserManager;

Additionally we are not showing the RECEIPT_NOT_SMART_SCANNED violation to the submitter here

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Lines 1070 to 1072 in 2c4dcba

    
           if (violationName === CONST.VIOLATIONS.RECEIPT_NOT_SMART_SCANNED) { 
        
               return isPolicyMember && !isSubmitter && !isReportOpen; 
        
           }

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

We should also show this violation to the submitter

    if (violationName === CONST.VIOLATIONS.RECEIPT_NOT_SMART_SCANNED) {
        return isPolicyMember && !isReportOpen;
    }

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Lines 1070 to 1072 in 2c4dcba

    
           if (violationName === CONST.VIOLATIONS.RECEIPT_NOT_SMART_SCANNED) { 
        
               return isPolicyMember && !isSubmitter && !isReportOpen; 
        
           }

Note: We can review the condition here, we can add approver, admin... in this condition depending on the decision of the internal team

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

We can write a test function for the shouldShowViolation function to cover this case

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Proposal

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

Review button and red dot display after submit manual expense which add picture to receipt, but no error message in expense detail

What is the root cause of that problem?

The issue is in the canReview function in ReportPreviewActionUtils where it uses hasAnyViolations which checks if violations exist, but doesn't consider whether those violations are visible to the current user

App/src/libs/ReportPreviewActionUtils.ts

Line 197 in 2c4dcba

!hasAnyViolations ||
When a submitter manually adds a receipt, a RECEIPT_NOT_SMART_SCANNED violation is created but hidden from the submitter (per the design in issue [Due for payment 2025-07-23] [$500] [Auth Violations] Update client code for NewDot and Classic versions of the app to decide when to show some violations #63894:

receiptNotSmartScanned: should be shown if all the following are true:
The user has access to the workspace
The user is not the submitter, and
The user is not a workspace admin or the report isn't open

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Lines 1070 to 1072 in 2c4dcba

    
           if (violationName === CONST.VIOLATIONS.RECEIPT_NOT_SMART_SCANNED) { 
        
               return isPolicyMember && !isSubmitter && !isReportOpen; 
        
           }

This causes hasAnyViolations to return true (violations exist) but the submitter sees no error messages (violations not visible), resulting in the Review button showing incorrectly

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

• Update the canReview function to check for violations that are actually visible to the current user by using the existing shouldShowViolation logic:

to do that, we need to add a helper function (can be added as a util function)

function hasVisibleViolationsForUser(report: Report, violations: OnyxCollection<TransactionViolation[]>, policy?: Policy, transactions?: Transaction[]): boolean {
    if (!violations || !transactions) {
        return false;
    }

    return transactions.some((transaction) => {
        const transactionViolations = violations[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS}${transaction.transactionID}`];
        if (!transactionViolations) {
            return false;
        }

        return transactionViolations.some((violation) => {
            return shouldShowViolation(report, policy, violation.name);
        });
    });
}

then inside the canReview function use:

    const hasVisibleViolations = hasAnyViolations && hasVisibleViolationsForUser(report, violations, policy, transactions);

and update this to :

    if (
        !hasVisibleViolations ||

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

Test that Review button doesn't show for submitters when RECEIPT_NOT_SMART_SCANNED violation exists but is hidden
Test that Review button shows for non-submitters when RECEIPT_NOT_SMART_SCANNED violation is visible

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

Proposal

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

Expense - Review and red dot display after submit manual expense which add picture to receipt

What is the root cause of that problem?

The user was seeing a receiptNotSmartScanned violation (red dot indicator) even though they were the submitter of the expense. According to the existing shouldShowViolation logic in TransactionUtils.ts, this violation should NOT be shown to submitters:

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Lines 1070 to 1072 in 27f5fc2

    
           if (violationName === CONST.VIOLATIONS.RECEIPT_NOT_SMART_SCANNED) { 
        
               return isPolicyMember && !isSubmitter && !isReportOpen; 
        
           }

However, the violation was still appearing in places:
Report Preview - Showing "Review" button instead of "Submit/Approve"
Left Hand Navigation (LHN) - Showing red dot indicator
Search preview
...

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

Fix Report Preview - Showing "Review" button instead of "Submit/Approve"

Create util function for check visible vilotions for LHN

function hasVisibleViolationsForLHN(report: OnyxEntry<Report>, transactionViolations: OnyxCollection<TransactionViolation[]>, policy?: OnyxEntry<Policy>): boolean {
    if (!report || !transactionViolations) {
        return false;
    }

    const transactions = getReportTransactions(report.reportID);
    return transactions.some((transaction) => {
        const violationsForTransaction = transactionViolations[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS}${transaction.transactionID}`];
        if (!violationsForTransaction) {
            return false;
        }

        return violationsForTransaction.some((violation) => {
            return shouldShowViolation(report, policy, violation.name);
        });
    });
}

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Line 8122 in 9b653ae

Then update condition to show violations RBR In LHN to match with report details

    const policy = getPolicy(report.policyID);

    // If any report has a violation that should be visible to the current user, then it should have a RBR
    const potentialReports = Object.values(reportsByPolicyID[report.policyID] ?? {}) ?? [];
    return potentialReports.some((potentialReport) => {
        if (!potentialReport || isInvoiceReport(potentialReport)) {
            return false;
        }

        return hasVisibleViolationsForLHN(potentialReport, transactionViolations, policy);
    });

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 8140 to 8153 in 9b653ae

    
           // If any report has a violation, then it should have a RBR 
        
           const potentialReports = Object.values(reportsByPolicyID[report.policyID] ?? {}) ?? []; 
        
           return potentialReports.some((potentialReport) => { 
        
               if (!potentialReport) { 
        
                   return false; 
        
               } 
        
               return ( 
        
                   !isInvoiceReport(potentialReport) && 
        
                   (hasViolations(potentialReport.reportID, transactionViolations, true) || 
        
                       hasWarningTypeViolations(potentialReport.reportID, transactionViolations, true) || 
        
                       hasNoticeTypeViolations(potentialReport.reportID, transactionViolations, true)) 
        
               ); 
        
           });

Fix: Left Hand Navigation (LHN) - Showing red dot indicator

Create function to check visible for violations for user

function hasVisibleViolationsForUser(report: Report, violations: OnyxCollection<TransactionViolation[]>, policy?: Policy, transactions?: Transaction[]): boolean {
    if (!violations || !transactions) {
        return false;
    }

    return transactions.some((transaction) => {
        const transactionViolations = violations[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS}${transaction.transactionID}`];
        if (!transactionViolations) {
            return false;
        }

        return transactionViolations.some((violation) => {
            return shouldShowViolation(report, policy, violation.name);
        });
    });
}

    const hasVisibleViolations = hasAnyViolations && hasVisibleViolationsForUser(report, violations, policy, transactions);

...

    // Update hasAnyViolations to use hasVisibleViolations in if statement

App/src/libs/ReportPreviewActionUtils.ts

Lines 196 to 202 in d521abf

    
           if ( 
        
               !hasAnyViolations || 
        
               isReimbursed || 
        
               (!(isSubmitter && isOpen && policy?.areWorkflowsEnabled) && 
        
                   !canApprove(report, violations, policy, transactions, false) && 
        
                   !canPay(report, violations, isReportArchived, policy, policy, false)) 
        
           ) {

Fix: Search preview

function hasVisibleViolationsForSearch(report: OnyxEntry<OnyxTypes.Report>, violations: OnyxCollection<OnyxTypes.TransactionViolation[]>, policy?: OnyxEntry<OnyxTypes.Policy>, transactions?: OnyxTypes.Transaction[]): boolean {
    if (!report || !violations || !transactions) {
        return false;
    }

    return transactions.some((transaction) => {
        const transactionViolations = violations[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS}${transaction.transactionID}`];
        if (!transactionViolations) {
            return false;
        }

        return transactionViolations.some((violation) => {
            return shouldShowViolation(report, policy, violation.name);
        });
    });
}

....
    const hasAnyViolationsForReport = hasAnyViolations(report.reportID, allViolations, allReportTransactions);
    const hasVisibleViolationsForReport = hasAnyViolationsForReport && hasVisibleViolationsForSearch(report, allViolations, policy, allReportTransactions);
    if ((isSubmitter || isApprover || isAdmin) && hasVisibleViolationsForReport) {

App/src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts

Line 1156 in c5e797a

    
           if ((isSubmitter || isApprover || isAdmin) && hasAnyViolations(report.reportID, allViolations, allReportTransactions)) {

We need to do similar to all other places that showing error indicator

Note: We may have some minor changes and refactor which can be discussed in PR phase if needed

Before:

After:

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

Update tests to cover this case for LHN and report preview

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.

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021965736867491332301

@brunovjk

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

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

@abzokhattab

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.2.30-6 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

Fix RECEIPT_NOT_SMART_SCANNED violation visibility across Report Preview, LHN, and Search #70507

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-10-21. 🎊

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

@abzokhattab requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
@brunovjk requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests

@brunovjk

@brunovjk @zanyrenney 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] 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: No PR directly introduced this bug; it's more of an edge case. We've updated the violation filter based on user visibility.
[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

Test:

Create a new workspace
Create a new manual expense
Go to expnse details
Add receipt
Submit the expense
Go to expense preview and validate there is no error indicator
Go to Left Hand Navigation (LHN) and validate there is no error indicator
Go to Reports > Expenses and validate there is no error indicator

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

@abzokhattab

Payment summary

@abzokhattab requires payment automatic offer (Contributor) - paid via job on Upwork.
@brunovjk requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests - please request $250 via ND.

@brunovjk

$250 approved for @brunovjk

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

[Due for payment 2025-10-21] [$250] Expense - Review and red dot display after submit manual expense which add picture to receipt #70038

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)

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)

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)

23 remaining items

BugZero Checklist:

Regression Test Proposal

Test:

Payment summary

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

	if (violationName === CONST.VIOLATIONS.RECEIPT_NOT_SMART_SCANNED) {
	return isPolicyMember && !isSubmitter && !isReportOpen;
	}

	// If any report has a violation, then it should have a RBR
	const potentialReports = Object.values(reportsByPolicyID[report.policyID] ?? {}) ?? [];
	return potentialReports.some((potentialReport) => {
	if (!potentialReport) {
	return false;
	}

	return (
	!isInvoiceReport(potentialReport) &&
	(hasViolations(potentialReport.reportID, transactionViolations, true) \|\|
	hasWarningTypeViolations(potentialReport.reportID, transactionViolations, true) \|\|
	hasNoticeTypeViolations(potentialReport.reportID, transactionViolations, true))
	);
	});

	if (
	!hasAnyViolations \|\|
	isReimbursed \|\|
	(!(isSubmitter && isOpen && policy?.areWorkflowsEnabled) &&
	!canApprove(report, violations, policy, transactions, false) &&
	!canPay(report, violations, isReportArchived, policy, policy, false))
	) {

[Due for payment 2025-10-21] [$250] Expense - Review and red dot display after submit manual expense which add picture to receipt #70038

Description

Action Performed:

Expected Result:

Actual Result:

Workaround:

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

Activity

melvin-bot commented on Sep 7, 2025

daledah commented on Sep 7, 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)

abzokhattab commented on Sep 7, 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)

lorretheboy commented on Sep 8, 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 Sep 10, 2025

melvin-bot commented on Sep 10, 2025

23 remaining items

melvin-bot commented on Oct 14, 2025

melvin-bot commented on Oct 14, 2025

melvin-bot commented on Oct 14, 2025

brunovjk commented on Oct 20, 2025

BugZero Checklist:

Regression Test Proposal

Test:

zanyrenney commented on Oct 22, 2025

Payment summary

garrettmknight commented on Oct 24, 2025

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions