You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Reports - "Multiple attendees required for this category" does not appear on expense row #78040
Version Number: 9.2.82-0 Reproducible in staging?: Yes Reproducible in production?: N/A - new feature, doesn't exist in prod If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from BrowserStack:#76687 Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):odjsodijsdoinjsdoi@gmail.com Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team Bug source: Pull Request QA execution Device used: Mac 26.1 / Chrome App Component: Search
Action Performed:
Precondition:
Rules are enabled.
Enable Attendee tracking in Rules.
1.Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat.
3. Create two expenses with Advertising category.
4. Go to workspace settings > Categories.
5. Open Advertising settings.
6. Click Require fields.
7. Enable Require attendees.
8. Go back to workspace chat.
9. Open expense report.
→ "Multiple attendees required for this category" violation is shown on the expense row.
10. Go to Reports > Expenses.
Expected Result:
"Multiple attendees required for this category" will appear on expense row on Reports.
Actual Result:
"Multiple attendees required for this category" does not appear on expense row on Reports.
👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:
Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
This comes from #76687, but I'm not sure whether BE actually returns that data in Reports - Expenses fetch, I have to check and confirm - I wouldn't block deploy on this though.
@ikevin127 since the violations showed on the report page, the transaction violation data should be in onyx. Since the violations aren't being shown on the Reports - Expenses page, I'm guessing it's due to the front end not displaying them
@mallenexpensify No need for assignment since PR causing this issue was reverted - this issue can be closed 👍 I noted down the issue for the rework PR ✅
Activity
melvin-bot commentedon Dec 18, 2025
Triggered auto assignment to @mallenexpensify (
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.melvin-bot commentedon Dec 18, 2025
Triggered auto assignment to @lakchote (
DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.melvin-bot commentedon Dec 18, 2025
💬 A slack conversation has been started in #expensify-open-source
github-actions commentedon Dec 18, 2025
👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:
ikevin127 commentedon Dec 18, 2025
This comes from #76687, but I'm not sure whether BE actually returns that data in Reports - Expenses fetch, I have to check and confirm - I wouldn't block deploy on this though.
cead22 commentedon Dec 19, 2025
I agree we don't need to block on this.
@ikevin127 since the violations showed on the report page, the transaction violation data should be in onyx. Since the violations aren't being shown on the Reports - Expenses page, I'm guessing it's due to the front end not displaying them
1 remaining item
ikevin127 commentedon Dec 19, 2025
Sure, I'll be checking on this tomorrow!
PR was reverted in the meantime due to another blocker - will keep this one in mind when reopening follow-up.
melvin-bot commentedon Dec 23, 2025
@lakchote, @mallenexpensify Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!
mallenexpensify commentedon Dec 24, 2025
@ikevin127 want to be assigned here?
ikevin127 commentedon Dec 24, 2025
@mallenexpensify No need for assignment since PR causing this issue was reverted - this issue can be closed 👍 I noted down the issue for the rework PR ✅
ikevin127 commentedon Dec 25, 2025
🟢 Fix applied in rework PR commit 81411ff. This issue can be closed as test was added to PR description 👍
mallenexpensify commentedon Dec 29, 2025
Closing per @ikevin127 's comments above