[Payment due @situchan] Hide unread markers on read reports by deetergp · Pull Request #100562 · Expensify/App

deetergp · 2026-09-08T01:17:28Z

Explanation of Change

This PR changes when two system messages show a “New” line:

Payment messages should show “New” for the submitter, not the payer. Auth tells the App who should be notified.
“Exported to NetSuite” should not show “New” for anyone unless they choose “Mark as unread.”

Other integrations keep working as before. This PR no longer changes how chats are marked read or unread, how messages load, how scrolling works, or the library that displays the message list. Choosing “Mark as unread” on a message still works as before.

The Auth change that tells the App who should be notified is already merged: https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/24311.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/677837
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Passed locally in desktop Chrome with submitter A and payer B. For the NetSuite test, we added an export message locally without sending data to NetSuite.

Submit an expense report as A.
Approve/pay it as B.
Navigate both users to other chats before the payment message arrives.
Confirm the report becomes unread for A only.
Open the report as A and confirm “New” appears above the payment message.
Open the report as B and confirm the payment alone creates no “New” divider.
Read the report as both users.
Navigate both users to other chats.
Export the report to NetSuite, or add a manual NetSuite export action in the local environment.
Confirm the export alone does not make the report unread for either user.
Open the report as both users and confirm the export message is visible without a “New” divider above it.
Navigate A to another chat.
Post an ordinary comment as B.
Confirm A’s report row becomes bold.
Open the report as A and confirm “New” appears above B’s comment.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

These steps have not been tested manually yet. Automated tests passed for messages received while offline.

Keep both users in other chats while a payment message arrives and syncs.
Disconnect from the network before opening the report.
Open it as A and confirm the payment has a “New” divider.
Open it as B and confirm the payment alone does not make it unread or create a “New” divider.
Reconnect and read the report as both users.
Navigate away and let a NetSuite export message arrive and sync.
Disconnect before reopening the report.
Confirm the export alone creates neither an unread row nor a “New” divider for either user.

QA Steps

Repeat the Tests section on staging on each supported platform. Use a workspace with automatic reimbursement enabled, and switch to another chat before the payment completes.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

AI Tests

Passed 2,542 tests across ReportActionsUtilsTest, useUnreadMarkerTest, UnreadIndicatorsTest, useMarkAsReadTest, ReportTest, and ReportUtilsTest (2 skipped).
Passed typecheck, lint, formatting, spelling, and React Compiler checks.
Added tests to check who sees payment messages as unread, that NetSuite exports do not show “New,” and that ordinary comments still do. Tests also cover messages received offline, opening a report before all its messages have loaded, and choosing “Mark as unread” on a message.

PR Author Checklist

Checklist notes: Chrome testing is complete; Safari, mobile, offline, high-traffic, and accessibility testing remain pending. This PR adds no app text, assets, form inputs, new code patterns, or generic components. It does not change how messages are edited or sent. No separate input-error test applies. Testing from links while signed in and signed out, and another manual test after the final merge, have not been completed for this smaller version.

Screenshots/Videos

Earlier recording, before the scope reduction:
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4117ea82-2e2c-4d7c-abe6-4c1a2c2151a0

Android: Native

Testing pending.

Android: mWeb Chrome

Testing pending.

iOS: Native

Testing pending.

iOS: mWeb Safari

Testing pending.

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Chrome: payment, NetSuite export, and ordinary-comment flows verified locally. Updated recording pending.
Safari: testing pending.

…read-markers # Conflicts: # src/hooks/useUnreadMarker.ts # src/pages/inbox/report/ReportActionsList.tsx

codecov · 2026-09-10T02:38:42Z

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/hooks/useUnreadMarker.ts	`98.68% <100.00%> (+0.15%)`	⬆️
src/libs/ReportActionsUtils.ts	`85.61% <100.00%> (+0.02%)`	⬆️
src/libs/actions/Report/index.ts	`76.09% <100.00%> (+0.05%)`	⬆️
...box/report/shouldDisplayNewMarkerOnReportAction.ts	`100.00% <100.00%> (+1.58%)`	⬆️
...box/report/useReportUnreadMessageScrollTracking.ts	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
... and 18 files with indirect coverage changes

…read-markers

melvin-bot · 2026-09-10T03:26:11Z

@situchan Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-09-10T03:26:19Z

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-03T03:18:34.299268Z	`c4f271c`	Manual request

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

situchan · 2026-09-10T03:34:13Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: HybridApp
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: HybridApp
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
If the PR adds or modifies the UI:
- I asked an AI agent to review the changes for accessibility issues and addressed its findings.
- I tested with a screen reader (VoiceOver on macOS) and verified all new/changed elements are reachable with a logical focus order.
- I verified all new/changed elements have meaningful accessible names and roles.
- I verified state changes are announced (e.g. checked/unchecked, expanded/collapsed, selected).
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

this.branch.mov

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 98d3973177

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

garrettmknight

Very excited for this one!

situchan

Please check automated review comments.

And can you please attach video to see how this works?

deetergp · 2026-10-30T22:02:56Z

This PR has gone full Akira with scope creep. I have reined it in and reduced it back to the intent of the original Github issue: Mark paid reports unread for just the submitter of the report (aka, the one who actually needs to be notified that their reimbursement is in their account), and that "Exported to $integration" messages do not get marked unread for anybody.

deetergp · 2026-11-03T00:44:18Z

@mollfpr All you, I think

situchan · 2026-11-03T03:14:01Z

Please pull main to avoid potential Oxfmt failure

MelvinBot · 2026-11-03T03:15:08Z

Review at `c4f271c`: 1 regression, 1 thing to confirm

The scoped-down version is clean. One predicate, canReportActionTriggerUnreadMarker, now feeds the scan, the lookahead, the offline boundary, and the pagination anchor. The tests cover both list directions and offline. Two things before merge:

🟡 1. LHN "Mark as unread" bolds the row but shows no "New" divider

LHN "Mark as unread" passes no action. So markCommentAsUnread sets lastReadTime to 1 ms before the newest action from another user and leaves the manual anchor null. If that action is a NetSuite export or someone else's reimbursement, the scan now skips it (shouldDisplayNewMarkerOnReportAction.ts:213-219). Nothing older is unread, so no divider appears.

This is situchan's precondition case, which you agreed should work. The fix in 64e3004 was dropped with the scope cut.

Jest repro

Input: the newest other-user action is a NetSuite export (or a reimbursement with actionableForAccountIDs: [otherUser]). unreadMarkerTime is its created minus 1 ms. There is no manual anchor.

Result: getUnreadMarkerReportAction returns [null, -1] for both isReversed values. On main, the same input puts the divider on that action.

Possible narrow fix: in the no-action path of markCommentAsUnread, skip actions that fail canReportActionTriggerUnreadMarker when picking latestReportActionFromOtherUsers. The divider then lands on the newest eligible action (for example, "approved"), and the manual-anchor logic stays untouched. If no eligible action exists, keep today's fallback.

2. Please confirm the bold row on staging (Tests steps 4, 6, and 10)

This PR changes only the divider. The bold LHN row still comes from isUnread, which compares lastReadTime with lastVisibleActionCreated. So "unread for A only" and "the export alone does not make the report unread" depend entirely on the report fields the server sends.

If the server still moves lastVisibleActionCreated forward for a NetSuite export made by another user, that user gets a bold row with no divider. Your NetSuite test used a locally added action. Please run step 10 on staging with a real export made by another user.

Nit

Your latest comment says "Exported to $integration" messages should not show "New" for anybody. The code filters only NetSuite, and the description says other integrations are unchanged. Please confirm that NetSuite-only is what you intend.

view run

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-11-03T03:18:32Z

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work!

Reviewed commit: c4f271c1f8

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

MelvinBot · 2026-11-03T03:25:25Z

Regression hunt at `c4f271c`: 1 new regression, 1 edge case, 1 still open

The branch hasn't changed since my last review. This pass covered the mark-as-read, scroll, and rendering paths. Collapsed system messages, the money-request list (oldest-first), and the "Latest messages" pill all look fine.

🟡 1. New: scrolling down no longer marks the report read after a hidden action arrives

Steps:

Open a report and scroll up more than the threshold.
A NetSuite export, or a reimbursement meant for someone else, arrives.
Scroll back down by hand instead of tapping the pill.

On main: the export gets a divider. When it scrolls into view, the deferred read completes and lastReadTime moves forward.

With this PR: there's no divider, so the read stays deferred. It completes only after you tap the pill, refocus the app, reopen the report, or another action arrives. Until then, the LHN row stays bold if the server counts the report as unread.

Code path

Because you're scrolled up, useMarkAsRead.ts:267-283 sets readActionSkippedRef instead of reading.
The only scroll-driven way to finish the read is onUnreadActionVisible → completeSkippedMarkAsRead. It is gated on unreadMarkerReportActionIndex !== -1 (useReportUnreadMessageScrollTracking.ts:165-168).
The report-change effect re-runs only when lastVisibleActionCreated, visibility, or loaded state change (useMarkAsRead.ts:290-292), so scrolling doesn't re-run it.
A Jest repro confirms it. On the PR, the scan returns [null, -1] for a new export while you're scrolled up, and onUnreadActionVisible never fires. The control case with a divider at index 0 does fire it.
Your earlier 1ce0048 fixed this case ("completes a deferred mark-as-read when the user scrolls to the end, even without a divider"). That fix was dropped with the scope cut.

Fix: in the scroll tracker, also call onUnreadActionVisible when there's no divider and the list is at the newest end.

🟢 2. Edge case: a late-arriving comment can lose its divider

You're scrolled up or the window is unfocused. A hidden export E (created 12:00) arrives with no divider, so useUnreadMarker.ts:177-179 moves unreadMarkerTime to 12:00. If a real comment created at 11:00 arrives in a later update (for example, after a reconnect), it counts as read and gets no divider. On main, E holds the divider, so the watermark doesn't move. A Jest repro confirms this. It needs out-of-order delivery, so it should be rare.

🟡 3. Still open: LHN "Mark as unread" shows no divider

This is from my last review. It applies when the newest action from another user is a NetSuite export or someone else's reimbursement.

view run

situchan · 2026-11-05T16:32:37Z

Please check if this is bug or expected:

"Mark as unread" from LHN shows no divider when the NetSuite export is the only action from another user

Workspace with NetSuite connected and Approvals off. A is the workspace admin, B is a member.
As B, create two expenses on the same report and submit it.
As A, open the report and choose Mark as exported (or Export to NetSuite).
As B, open the report, then switch to another chat.
As B, right-click the report in the LHN and choose Mark as unread.
Open the report.

main: "New" divider above "exported to NetSuite".
this branch: no divider shows.

main.mov

this.branch.mov

As this is non-critical and this PR is now narrowed to NetSuite only, I won't block on this.

situchan · 2026-11-05T16:35:28Z

@deetergp please merge main and fix Oxlint

melvin-bot · 2026-11-05T16:35:51Z

@justinpersaud Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

deetergp · 2026-11-10T19:18:02Z

@situchan Done!

deetergp · 2026-11-10T19:18:47Z

@MelvinBot why did you add @justinpersaud? @mollfpr is already the internal reviewer…

MelvinBot · 2026-11-10T19:26:59Z

The melvin-bot[bot] automation requested justinpersaud on November 5, immediately after situchan re-approved—not an action from my AI review.

mollfpr had already reviewed but was no longer a pending reviewer. The automation appears to have mistaken that for needing another internal reviewer; I haven’t verified its selection logic.

You’re right: mollfpr was already handling this, so the additional request was unnecessary. I haven’t changed the reviewers.

view run

deetergp · 2026-11-10T22:07:23Z

@mollfpr All you!

deetergp · 2026-11-12T20:18:21Z

Bump @mollfpr

melvin-bot Bot assigned deetergp Sep 8, 2026

deetergp added 2 commits September 7, 2026 18:21

Gate unread markers by report

d0c9c56

Test read report markers

50b756f

deetergp force-pushed the deetergp/677837-hide-read-markers branch from aedf1af to 50b756f Compare September 8, 2026 01:22

deetergp added 2 commits September 9, 2026 19:26

Preserve unread marker on open

68c6b42

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into deetergp/677837-hide-…

9892d62

…read-markers # Conflicts: # src/hooks/useUnreadMarker.ts # src/pages/inbox/report/ReportActionsList.tsx

deetergp added 9 commits September 9, 2026 19:43

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into deetergp/677837-hide-…

e18f08b

…read-markers

Test money request unread marker

d41461e

Format merged main files

33e1ac1

Format merged main files

686e442

Fix unread marker test mock

f59496e

Remove unread marker test mock

11af967

Test money request marker state

b17ec05

Type unread marker test mock

a538732

Type marker test module mock

98d3973

deetergp marked this pull request as ready for review September 10, 2026 03:26

deetergp requested review from a team as code owners September 10, 2026 03:26

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from situchan September 10, 2026 03:26

melvin-bot Bot requested review from garrettmknight and removed request for a team September 10, 2026 03:26

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Sep 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/hooks/useUnreadMarker.ts Resolved

Comment thread src/components/MoneyRequestReportView/MoneyRequestReportActionsList.tsx Resolved

garrettmknight reviewed Sep 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

situchan reviewed Sep 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

deetergp removed request for a team, AndrewGable, Julesssss, roryabraham, stephanieelliott and tgolen October 30, 2026 21:54

deetergp added 5 commits November 3, 2026 13:33

Merge main into scoped system-message unread fix

ed6732a

Choose an eligible message when marking a chat unread

461406d

Test chat unread marks beside filtered system messages

00b2987

Complete a skipped read after scrolling down without a divider

52baf45

Test skipped reads when no unread divider is shown

92b40ef

deetergp requested a review from situchan November 4, 2026 02:12

situchan approved these changes Nov 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from justinpersaud November 5, 2026 16:35

Merge main and update unread-marker test message fixtures

5db060e

deetergp removed the request for review from justinpersaud November 10, 2026 22:07

Conversation

deetergp commented Sep 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

AI Tests

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codex Review Summary

Uh oh!

situchan commented Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

garrettmknight left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

situchan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

deetergp commented Oct 30, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

deetergp commented Nov 3, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented Nov 3, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Nov 3, 2026

Review at c4f271c: 1 regression, 1 thing to confirm

🟡 1. LHN "Mark as unread" bolds the row but shows no "New" divider

2. Please confirm the bold row on staging (Tests steps 4, 6, and 10)

Nit

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Nov 3, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Nov 3, 2026

Regression hunt at c4f271c: 1 new regression, 1 edge case, 1 still open

🟡 1. New: scrolling down no longer marks the report read after a hidden action arrives

🟢 2. Edge case: a late-arriving comment can lose its divider

🟡 3. Still open: LHN "Mark as unread" shows no divider

Uh oh!

situchan commented Nov 5, 2026

"Mark as unread" from LHN shows no divider when the NetSuite export is the only action from another user

Uh oh!

situchan commented Nov 5, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Nov 5, 2026

Uh oh!

deetergp commented Nov 10, 2026

Uh oh!

deetergp commented Nov 10, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Nov 10, 2026

Uh oh!

deetergp commented Nov 10, 2026

Uh oh!

deetergp commented Nov 12, 2026

Uh oh!

This branch has not been deployed

Reviewers

deetergp commented Sep 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

situchan commented Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

deetergp commented Oct 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Review at `c4f271c`: 1 regression, 1 thing to confirm

Regression hunt at `c4f271c`: 1 new regression, 1 edge case, 1 still open