[Due for payment 2025-08-20] [$250] Missing violation on the expense preview and transaction thread when per diem rate is invalid

[jponikarchuk]

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: 9.1.74-9
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: Exp https://expensify.testrail.io/index.php?/tests/view/6414863
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): sdohisdojsdionjo@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Mac 15.5 / Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

Precondition:

• Workspace A has per diem rates.
• Workspace B does not have per diem rates.

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat A.
3. Submit a per diem expense with category to the workspace chat A.
4. Open the expense report.
5. Click More > Change workspace.
6. Select Workspace B.
7. The report preview in the main chat shows a Review button, but there is no violation on the expense preview.
8. Open the expense report.
9. There is no violation in the transaction thread.
10. Submit a manual expense to the same report.
11. Now "Rate not valid for this workspace" appears on the expense row.

Expected Result:

There should be a violation on the expense preview (Step 7) and the transaction thread (Step 9) because the report preview shows Review button instead of View button.

Actual Result:

There is no violation on the expense preview (Step 7) and the transaction thread (Step 9) when the report preview shows Review button instead of View button.

It only the the violation "Rate not valid for this workspace" on the expense row in the expense report when there are at least two expenses in the report.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

• Android: App
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: App
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• iOS: mWeb Chrome
• Windows: Chrome
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021942198155306826931
• Upwork Job ID: 1942198155306826931
• Last Price Increase: 2025-07-14
• Automatic offers:
• daledah | Contributor | 108060802

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @laurenreidexpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @laurenreidexpensify (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.

[Burhan-Rashid]

Proposal

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

Missing violation on the expense preview and transaction thread when per diem rate is invalid

What is the root cause of that problem?

The root cause is that the hasViolation function returns false for our case here
because we are passing the third argument showInReview as true to hasViolation function here:

App/src/libs/TransactionPreviewUtils.ts

Line 321 in ba687b4

const hasAnyViolations = hasViolationsOfTypeNotice || hasWarningTypeViolation(transaction, violations, true) || hasViolation(transaction, violations, true);

that is why hasViolation returns false in our case because violation.showInReview is not present in our violation object.

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Line 1147 in ba687b4

(showInReview === undefined || showInReview === (violation.showInReview ?? false)) &&

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

We can remove the third argument from the hasViolation function call here

    const hasAnyViolations = hasViolationsOfTypeNotice || hasWarningTypeViolation(transaction, violations, true) || hasViolation(transaction, violations);

similar to how we are displaying the review button here:

App/src/libs/ReportPreviewActionUtils.ts

Line 209 in ba687b4

hasViolations(report.reportID, violations) ||

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)

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.

[daledah]

Proposal

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

There is no violation on the expense preview (Step 7) and the transaction thread (Step 9) when the report preview shows Review button instead of View button.

What is the root cause of that problem?

Here is the violations

We have 2 issues here

1. There is no violation on the expense preview

We are passing showInReview as true here and Back End is returning data with showInReview being undefined

App/src/libs/TransactionPreviewUtils.ts

Line 321 in ba687b4

const hasAnyViolations = hasViolationsOfTypeNotice || hasWarningTypeViolation(transaction, violations, true) || hasViolation(transaction, violations, true);

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Line 1147 in ba687b4

(showInReview === undefined || showInReview === (violation.showInReview ?? false)) &&

2. There is no violation on the transaction thread

In MoneyRequestView, we only show the customUnitOutOfPolicy violation with the rate fields of the distance request transaction

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Lines 257 to 258 in ba687b4

	const isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy = transactionViolations.some((violation) => violation.name === CONST.VIOLATIONS.CUSTOM_UNIT_OUT_OF_POLICY);
	const rateToDisplay = isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy ? translate('common.rateOutOfPolicy') : DistanceRequestUtils.getRateForDisplay(unit, rate, currency, translate, toLocaleDigit, isOffline);

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

1. if we want to show the customUnitOutOfPolicy violations in expense preview, we need BE updated to return showInReview as true

2. We can show the customUnitOutOfPolicy violation in MoneyRequestView if it's isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy and isPerDiemRequest

                <View style={[styles.flexRow, styles.alignItemsCenter, styles.gap1, styles.mh4]}>
                    <Icon
                        src={DotIndicator}
                        fill={theme.danger}
                        height={16}
                        width={16}
                    />
                    <Text
                        numberOfLines={1}
                        style={[styles.textSupportingNormal, styles.pre, styles.flexShrink1, {color: theme.danger}]}
                    >
                        {translate('violations.customUnitOutOfPolicy')}
                    </Text>
                </View>

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

None

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

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.

[FitseTLT]

Proposal

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

Missing violation on the expense preview and transaction thread when per diem rate is invalid

What is the root cause of that problem?

We are passing shouldShowInReview as true here for the preview

App/src/libs/TransactionPreviewUtils.ts

Line 321 in ba687b4

const hasAnyViolations = hasViolationsOfTypeNotice || hasWarningTypeViolation(transaction, violations, true) || hasViolation(transaction, violations, true);

but the violation has no showInReview set so it will not appear in preview.
and in the transaction thread we only display CUSTOM_UNIT_OUT_OF_POLICY violations under rate menu

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Line 258 in ba687b4

const rateToDisplay = isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy ? translate('common.rateOutOfPolicy') : DistanceRequestUtils.getRateForDisplay(unit, rate, currency, translate, toLocaleDigit, isOffline);

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Line 419 in ba687b4

errorText={getErrorForField('customUnitRateID')}

under distanceRequestFields which is only displayed for distance requests

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

We need to either update the BE to return showInReview for this violation as true or to fix it in FE we can remove passing showInReview as true here

App/src/libs/TransactionPreviewUtils.ts

Line 321 in ba687b4

const hasAnyViolations = hasViolationsOfTypeNotice || hasWarningTypeViolation(transaction, violations, true) || hasViolation(transaction, violations, true);

just like we do here

    const hasAnyViolations = hasViolationsOfTypeNotice || hasWarningTypeViolation(transaction, violations, true) || hasViolation(transaction, violations);

Then for perdiem request we need to display CUSTOM_UNIT_OUT_OF_POLICY errors we can display it under any menu item like under the receipt here or any other field

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Line 586 in ba687b4

errors={errors}

or we can create a separate ErrorRowMessage under the receipt and display it alone for per-diem requests

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Lines 622 to 623 in ba687b4

	</OfflineWithFeedback>
	)}

  {isPerDiemRequest && !!getErrorForField('customUnitRateID') && (
                    <ErrorMessageRow
                        errorRowStyles={styles.mh4}
                        canDismissError={false}
                        errors={{0: getErrorForField('customUnitRateID')}}
                    />
                )}

Additionally, currently we are allowing moving a perdiem request to a workspace which hasn't enabled perdiem. We can consider disallowing moving to a workspace which hasn't enabled perdiem so if there is a perdiem transaction in the report then the workspaces list will only include those workspaces which canSubmitPerDiemExpenseFromWorkspace

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Line 10854 in ba687b4

return isPaidGroupPolicyPolicyUtils(newPolicy) && (isPolicyMember(submitterEmail, newPolicy?.id) || isPolicyAdmin(newPolicy?.id, policies));

return (
        isPaidGroupPolicyPolicyUtils(newPolicy) &&
        (reportsTransactions[report?.reportID ?? ''].every((transaction) => !isPerDiemRequest(transaction)) || canSubmitPerDiemExpenseFromWorkspace(newPolicy)) &&
        (isPolicyMember(submitterEmail, newPolicy?.id) || isPolicyAdmin(newPolicy?.id, policies))
    );

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

We can add a test for createTransactionPreviewConditionals that it returns shouldShowRBR when their is a violation with showInReview not set to true.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021942198155306826931

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @eh2077 (External)