[Due for payment 2025-11-07] [Due for payment 2025-10-30] [$250] Expense - Scan expense with video as receipt can be created by dropping video to Scan zone

@kadiealexander

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: 9.2.29-1
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: https://test-management.browserstack.com/projects/2219752/test-runs/TR-1237/41237997/945417200?q=drag&issue_type=jira
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): jsdoinjsoijsiodj@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to workspace chat
Click + > Create expense > Scan
Drag and drop a video to the Scan RHP
→ Invalid file type error shows up - Expected behavior
Close the RHP
Drag and drop a video to Scan zone
Click Create expense
Open the expense thread

Expected Result:

"Invalid file type" error will show up when dropping a video to Scan zone in workspace chat

Actual Result:

User can create a scan expense with video as receipt by dropping a video to Scan zone in workspace chat
There is no "Invalid file type" error
After creating the expense, error shows up in transaction thread

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

Bug6972307_1760211709021.video_receipt.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021977603641386532131
Upwork Job ID: 1977603641386532131
Last Price Increase: 2025-10-27

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @kadiealexander

@kadiealexander

Triggered auto assignment to @kadiealexander (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.

🚨 Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2025-10-13 07:13:05 UTC.

Proposal

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

When a user drags and drops a video file to the Scan zone in a workspace chat, the video is accepted and can be used to create a scan expense. However, videos are not allowed as receipt types. The expected behavior is that an "Invalid file type" error should appear when dropping a video to the Scan zone, similar to what happens when dropping a video in the Scan RHP (Right Hand Panel).

What is the root cause of that problem?

The root cause is that the useFilesValidation hook is initialized with the wrong isValidatingReceipts parameter value in useAttachmentUploadValidation.

The issue occurs in this file:

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/useAttachmentUploadValidation.ts

Line 119 in 89c45c9

    
           const {validateFiles, PDFValidationComponent, ErrorModal} = useFilesValidation(onFilesValidated, false);

The hook is initialized with isValidatingReceipts = false:

const {validateFiles, PDFValidationComponent, ErrorModal} = useFilesValidation(onFilesValidated, false);

This single hook instance is then used for both:

Attachment drops (correct - should use false)
Receipt/Scan zone drops (WRONG - should use true)

Why this causes the bug:

When isValidatingReceipts = false is passed to useFilesValidation, the validation flow becomes:

validateFiles is called with the video file
Internally calls isValidFile:

App/src/hooks/useFilesValidation.tsx

Line 118 in 89c45c9

if (error) {

Which calls validateAttachment with isValidatingReceipts = false:

App/src/libs/fileDownload/FileUtils.ts

Lines 550 to 566 in 89c45c9

    
           const validateAttachment = (file: FileObject, isCheckingMultipleFiles?: boolean, isValidatingReceipt?: boolean) => { 
        
               const maxFileSize = isValidatingReceipt ? CONST.API_ATTACHMENT_VALIDATIONS.RECEIPT_MAX_SIZE : CONST.API_ATTACHMENT_VALIDATIONS.MAX_SIZE; 
        
               if (isValidatingReceipt && !isValidReceiptExtension(file)) { 
        
                   return isCheckingMultipleFiles ? CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.WRONG_FILE_TYPE_MULTIPLE : CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.WRONG_FILE_TYPE; 
        
               } 
        
               if (!Str.isImage(file.name ?? '') && !hasHeicOrHeifExtension(file) && (file?.size ?? 0) > maxFileSize) { 
        
                   return isCheckingMultipleFiles ? CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.FILE_TOO_LARGE_MULTIPLE : CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.FILE_TOO_LARGE; 
        
               } 
        
               if (isValidatingReceipt && (file?.size ?? 0) < CONST.API_ATTACHMENT_VALIDATIONS.MIN_SIZE) { 
        
                   return CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.FILE_TOO_SMALL; 
        
               } 
        
               return ''; 
        
           };

The critical check at line 553 is SKIPPED because isValidatingReceipt is false:

App/src/libs/fileDownload/FileUtils.ts

Lines 553 to 555 in 89c45c9

    
           if (isValidatingReceipt && !isValidReceiptExtension(file)) { 
        
               return isCheckingMultipleFiles ? CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.WRONG_FILE_TYPE_MULTIPLE : CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.WRONG_FILE_TYPE; 
        
           }

if (isValidatingReceipt && !isValidReceiptExtension(file)) {
    return isCheckingMultipleFiles ? CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.WRONG_FILE_TYPE_MULTIPLE : CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.WRONG_FILE_TYPE;
}

Since the check is skipped, video files pass validation and are allowed to create expenses.

In contrast, the Scan RHP works correctly:

App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepScan/index.tsx

Line 650 in 89c45c9

    
           const {validateFiles, PDFValidationComponent, ErrorModal} = useFilesValidation(setReceiptFilesAndNavigate);

The hook is called with isValidatingReceipts = true (the default), so videos are properly rejected.

Video extensions are NOT in the allowed list:

App/src/CONST/index.ts

Line 264 in 89c45c9

    
           ALLOWED_RECEIPT_EXTENSIONS: ['heif', 'heic', 'jpg', 'jpeg', 'gif', 'png', 'pdf', 'htm', 'html', 'text', 'rtf', 'doc', 'tif', 'tiff', 'msword', 'zip', 'xml', 'message'],

The ALLOWED_RECEIPT_EXTENSIONS array does not include video formats like 'mp4', 'mov', 'avi', etc.

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

We need to use two separate instances of the useFilesValidation hook:

One for attachments with isValidatingReceipts = false
One for receipts with isValidatingReceipts = true

This follows the hook's intended design pattern where isValidatingReceipts is a configuration parameter set at initialization, not a runtime parameter.

Changes needed in:

https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/89c45c98a802b6d039a6d36d7afc761083e89212/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/useAttachmentUploadValidation.ts

Step 1: Add useMemo to imports (line 1):

import {useCallback, useContext, useMemo, useRef} from 'react';

Step 2: Split the unified onFilesValidated callback into two separate callbacks (replace lines 70-117):

const onAttachmentFilesValidated = useCallback(
    (files: FileObject[], dataTransferItems: DataTransferItem[]) => {
        showAttachmentModalScreen(files, dataTransferItems);
    },
    [showAttachmentModalScreen],
);

const onReceiptFilesValidated = useCallback(
    (files: FileObject[], dataTransferItems: DataTransferItem[]) => {
        if (files.length === 0) {
            return;
        }

        if (shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt && transactionID) {
            const source = URL.createObjectURL(files.at(0) as Blob);
            replaceReceipt({transactionID, file: files.at(0) as File, source});
            return;
        }

        const initialTransaction = initMoneyRequest({
            reportID,
            newIouRequestType: CONST.IOU.REQUEST_TYPE.SCAN,
            report,
            parentReport: newParentReport,
            currentDate,
        });

        files.forEach((file, index) => {
            const source = URL.createObjectURL(file as Blob);
            const newTransaction =
                index === 0
                    ? (initialTransaction as Partial<OnyxTypes.Transaction>)
                    : buildOptimisticTransactionAndCreateDraft({
                          initialTransaction: initialTransaction as Partial<OnyxTypes.Transaction>,
                          currentUserPersonalDetails,
                          reportID,
                      });
            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,
            ),
        );
    },
    [currentDate, currentUserPersonalDetails, newParentReport, report, reportID, shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt, transactionID],
);

Step 3: Replace the single hook instance with two separate instances (replace line 119):

// Separate validation hooks for attachments (isValidatingReceipts=false) and receipts (isValidatingReceipts=true)
const {validateFiles: validateAttachmentFiles, PDFValidationComponent: AttachmentPDFValidationComponent, ErrorModal: AttachmentErrorModal} = useFilesValidation(
    onAttachmentFilesValidated,
    false,
);
const {validateFiles: validateReceiptFiles, PDFValidationComponent: ReceiptPDFValidationComponent, ErrorModal: ReceiptErrorModal} = useFilesValidation(onReceiptFilesValidated, true);

Step 4: Update validateAttachments to use the attachment-specific validation (line 164):

Replace:

attachmentUploadType.current = 'attachment';
validateFiles(fileObjects, filteredItems);

With:

validateAttachmentFiles(fileObjects, filteredItems);

And update the dependency array (line 166):

[isAttachmentPreviewActive, validateAttachmentFiles],

Step 5: Update onReceiptDropped to use the receipt-specific validation (replace lines 179-191):

Replace:

const files = getFilesFromClipboardEvent(e);
const items = Array.from(e.dataTransfer?.items ?? []);

if (shouldAddOrReplaceReceipt && transactionID) {
    const file = files.at(0);
    if (!file) {
        return;
    }

    attachmentUploadType.current = 'receipt';
    validateFiles([file], items);
}

attachmentUploadType.current = 'receipt';
validateFiles(files, items);

With:

const files = getFilesFromClipboardEvent(e);
const items = Array.from(e.dataTransfer?.items ?? []);

validateReceiptFiles(files, items);

And update the dependency array (line 192):

[policy, validateReceiptFiles],

Step 6: Remove the attachmentUploadType ref (line 70) - it's no longer needed:

Delete:

const attachmentUploadType = useRef<'receipt' | 'attachment'>(undefined);

Step 7: Combine the validation components from both hooks (replace lines 195-200):

Replace:

return {
    validateAttachments,
    onReceiptDropped,
    PDFValidationComponent,
    ErrorModal,
};

With:

// Combine PDF validation components from both hooks
const combinedPDFValidationComponent = useMemo(() => {
    const components = [];
    if (AttachmentPDFValidationComponent) {
        components.push(...(Array.isArray(AttachmentPDFValidationComponent) ? AttachmentPDFValidationComponent : [AttachmentPDFValidationComponent]));
    }
    if (ReceiptPDFValidationComponent) {
        components.push(...(Array.isArray(ReceiptPDFValidationComponent) ? ReceiptPDFValidationComponent : [ReceiptPDFValidationComponent]));
    }
    return components.length > 0 ? components : undefined;
}, [AttachmentPDFValidationComponent, ReceiptPDFValidationComponent]);

// Use receipt error modal by default, fall back to attachment error modal
const combinedErrorModal = useMemo(() => ReceiptErrorModal ?? AttachmentErrorModal, [AttachmentErrorModal, ReceiptErrorModal]);

return {
    validateAttachments,
    onReceiptDropped,
    PDFValidationComponent: combinedPDFValidationComponent,
    ErrorModal: combinedErrorModal,
};

Proposal

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

Expense - Scan expense with video as receipt can be created by dropping video to Scan zone

What is the root cause of that problem?

The issue originates from how we validate files in ReportActionCompose using the validateAttachments function:

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

Line 483 in 89c45c9

const {validateAttachments, onReceiptDropped, PDFValidationComponent, ErrorModal} = useAttachmentUploadValidation({
This function comes from:

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/useAttachmentUploadValidation.ts

Line 119 in 89c45c9

const {validateFiles, PDFValidationComponent, ErrorModal} = useFilesValidation(onFilesValidated, false);
In the above implementation, the isValidatingReceipts parameter is incorrectly passed as false, even when the file is being validated as a receipt.
As a result, when the validateFiles function is called:
- App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/useAttachmentUploadValidation.ts
  
  Line 186 in 89c45c9
  
  validateFiles([file], items);
- App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/useAttachmentUploadValidation.ts
  
  Line 190 in 89c45c9
  
  validateFiles(files, items);
it performs standard file validation instead of the stricter validation required for receipts, allowing unsupported file types like videos.

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

We should correctly pass the newly introduced isValidatingReceipts parameter through the validation chain to ensure receipt files are properly validated.
Update the function calls in the following lines to include the isValidatingReceipts argument:

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/useAttachmentUploadValidation.ts

Line 186 in 89c45c9

validateFiles([file], items);

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/useAttachmentUploadValidation.ts

Line 190 in 89c45c9

validateFiles(files, items);

                validateFiles([file], items, true);  // In other places call validateFiles([file], items, false)

That value will be passed down to

App/src/hooks/useFilesValidation.tsx

Line 279 in 89c45c9

validateAndResizeFiles(files, items ?? []);

validateAndResizeFiles(files, items ?? [], isValidatingReceipts)

, then pass down to

App/src/hooks/useFilesValidation.tsx

Line 191 in 89c45c9

    
           Promise.all(files.map((file, index) => isValidFile(file, items.at(index), files.length > 1).then((isValid) => (isValid ? file : null))))

Promise.all(files.map((file, index) => isValidFile(file, items.at(index), files.length > 1, isValidatingReceipts).then((isValid) => (isValid ? file : null))))

Finally, that value will be used in

App/src/hooks/useFilesValidation.tsx

Line 117 in 89c45c9

const error = validateAttachment(normalizedFile, isCheckingMultipleFiles, isValidatingReceipts);

to do the correct validation process

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)

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021977603641386532131

@parasharrajat

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

@parasharrajat

Proposal

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

Expense - Scan expense with video as receipt can be created by dropping video to Scan zone

What is the root cause of that problem?

We have recently updated the default value of the hook to not validate receipts by default here:
852b073

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/useAttachmentUploadValidation.ts

Line 119 in 276a46a

    
           const {validateFiles, PDFValidationComponent, ErrorModal} = useFilesValidation(onFilesValidated, false);

The issue is that we are using the same function validateFiles for validating both receipts and attachments but at the time of hook instialiazation we are passing the value of false to isValidatingReceipts for the hook and after that if we have receipt file as well, it will be passed through the validation logic of attachment and not receipt. And for attachments video files are allowed, so it allows the video files to pass through the validation.

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

We can add a extra optional parameter isValidatingReceiptFiles to the function validateFiles, so that whenever we need to validate receipts, we can check value of the optional parameter first and also we can have a fallback to the default value of the hook parameter which is used during initialization, if the optional parameter is not passed. We need to pass this optional parameter through the chain of functions to finally reach to validateAttachment function where the logic to validate receipts and attachments is finally handled.
We need to add the following changes at the following places:

App/src/hooks/useFilesValidation.tsx

Line 268 in 276a46a

const validateFiles = (files: FileObject[], items?: DataTransferItem[]) => {

const validateFiles = (files: FileObject[], items?: DataTransferItem[], isValidatingReceiptFiles?: boolean) => {

App/src/hooks/useFilesValidation.tsx

Line 279 in 276a46a

validateAndResizeFiles(files, items ?? []);

validateAndResizeFiles(files, items ?? [], isValidatingReceiptFiles);

App/src/hooks/useFilesValidation.tsx

Line 178 in 276a46a

    
           const validateAndResizeFiles = (files: FileObject[], items: DataTransferItem[]) => {

const validateAndResizeFiles = (files: FileObject[], items: DataTransferItem[], isValidatingReceiptFiles?: boolean) => {

App/src/hooks/useFilesValidation.tsx

Line 191 in 276a46a

    
           Promise.all(files.map((file, index) => isValidFile(file, items.at(index), files.length > 1).then((isValid) => (isValid ? file : null))))

Promise.all(files.map((file, index) => isValidFile(file, items.at(index), files.length > 1, isValidatingReceiptFiles).then((isValid) => (isValid ? file : null))))

App/src/hooks/useFilesValidation.tsx

Line 104 in 276a46a

    
           const isValidFile = (originalFile: FileObject, item: DataTransferItem | undefined, isCheckingMultipleFiles?: boolean) => {

const isValidFile = (originalFile: FileObject, item: DataTransferItem | undefined, isCheckingMultipleFiles?: boolean, isValidatingReceiptFiles?: boolean) => {

And here we need to use initial hook value as fallback i.e isValidatingReceipts

App/src/hooks/useFilesValidation.tsx

Line 117 in 276a46a

    
           const error = validateAttachment(normalizedFile, isCheckingMultipleFiles, isValidatingReceipts);

const error = validateAttachment(normalizedFile, isCheckingMultipleFiles, isValidatingReceiptFiles ?? isValidatingReceipts);

And finally pass it true whereever we are validating receipts files:

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/useAttachmentUploadValidation.ts

Line 186 in 276a46a

validateFiles([file], items);

validateFiles([file], items, true);

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/useAttachmentUploadValidation.ts

Line 190 in 276a46a

validateFiles(files, items);

validateFiles([file], items, true);

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We could use two hook initialisations one for validating reciepts and one for attachments but i don't think that will be a good practice.
Note for C+ @parasharrajat : Since there are lot of small changes, i have already added my changes to my local branch for testing.
Local branch for testing: https://github.com/Burhan-Rashid/App/tree/fix/72402
Local PR for viewing the diff properly: https://github.com/Burhan-Rashid/App/pull/1/files
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.

@parasharrajat

Since this was a regression and both contributor and C+ from the original issue did the fix, no payment is required here. @parasharrajat does that sound right to you?

@kadiealexander

@kadiealexander, This was handled outside the regression period and exported, so it should be eligible for payment. The PR that caused this is part of a major refactoring, and multiple PRs have been created on that task, so I expect this to be eligible for payment.

@parasharrajat

@parasharrajat sounds good, could you please complete the checklist?

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: refactor: Migrate "Add Attachment" flows to AttachmentModalScreen #69523
[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: Not needed
[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: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/566446

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

Go to a report
Drop a video file (e.g. .mp4) in the right side (Scan receipt) of the Drag&Drop zone of the composer
Make sure the video get's rejected and there's an error about unsupported file type shown
Drop the same video into the left side of the Drag&Drop zone
Make sure the attachment modal is shown.

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

@chrispader

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

Contributor: @chrispader is from an agency-contributor and not due payment
Reviewer: @parasharrajat owed $250 via NewDot

BugZero Checklist (@kadiealexander)

(if NewFeature) I have created a PR for any necessary HelpDot updates, or I confirmed no updates are necessary.
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/1977603641386532131/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

Payment requested as per #72402 (comment)

@parasharrajat

approved $250 for @parasharrajat.

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

[Due for payment 2025-11-07] [Due for payment 2025-10-30] [$250] Expense - Scan expense with video as receipt can be created by dropping video to Scan zone #72402

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?

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 alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

26 remaining items

BugZero Checklist:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

Payment Summary

BugZero Checklist (@kadiealexander)

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

	const validateAttachment = (file: FileObject, isCheckingMultipleFiles?: boolean, isValidatingReceipt?: boolean) => {
	const maxFileSize = isValidatingReceipt ? CONST.API_ATTACHMENT_VALIDATIONS.RECEIPT_MAX_SIZE : CONST.API_ATTACHMENT_VALIDATIONS.MAX_SIZE;

	if (isValidatingReceipt && !isValidReceiptExtension(file)) {
	return isCheckingMultipleFiles ? CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.WRONG_FILE_TYPE_MULTIPLE : CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.WRONG_FILE_TYPE;
	}

	if (!Str.isImage(file.name ?? '') && !hasHeicOrHeifExtension(file) && (file?.size ?? 0) > maxFileSize) {
	return isCheckingMultipleFiles ? CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.FILE_TOO_LARGE_MULTIPLE : CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.FILE_TOO_LARGE;
	}

	if (isValidatingReceipt && (file?.size ?? 0) < CONST.API_ATTACHMENT_VALIDATIONS.MIN_SIZE) {
	return CONST.FILE_VALIDATION_ERRORS.FILE_TOO_SMALL;
	}

	return '';
	};

[Due for payment 2025-11-07] [Due for payment 2025-10-30] [$250] Expense - Scan expense with video as receipt can be created by dropping video to Scan zone #72402

Description

Action Performed:

Expected Result:

Actual Result:

Workaround:

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

Activity

melvin-bot commented on Oct 12, 2025

TaduJR commented on Oct 12, 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?

paulnjs commented on Oct 13, 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 Oct 13, 2025

melvin-bot commented on Oct 13, 2025

Burhan-Rashid commented on Oct 14, 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 alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

26 remaining items

kadiealexander commented on Oct 30, 2025

parasharrajat commented on Oct 30, 2025

kadiealexander commented on Oct 31, 2025

parasharrajat commented on Oct 31, 2025

BugZero Checklist:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

melvin-bot commented on Nov 7, 2025

Payment Summary

BugZero Checklist (@kadiealexander)

parasharrajat commented on Nov 10, 2025

trjExpensify commented on Nov 17, 2025

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions