[$250] Report - "It´s not here" page when moving track expense to report of deleted expense offline

[vincdargento]

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: 9.1.82-3
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nPID07oiJkVDfW0GDmVYKrbmvse7V_3BnW-Rmyyr_Hs/edit?gid=319833773#gid=319833773&range=D19
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): ibellicotest+1341@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Motorola MotoG60 / Android 12 / Chrome ( mWeb / Hybrid app) - Windows 10 / Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

Prerequisite: Account has at least one workspace.0

1. Open the staging.new.epensify.com
2. Open any workspace chat.
3. Submit a manual expense to it.
4. Turn off internet connection.
5. Long tap and delete the expense.
6. Return to "Inbox"
7. Create a new expense and submit it to Self DM.
8. Open Self DM.
9. Open the just created expense.
10. Tap on the report field, and select the report of the deleted expense.
11. Once the expense was moved, turn on internet connection.
12. Note that an "It´s not here" page appears.
13. Tap on the arrow on the top left corner.
14. Note that you land on an empty report, where only the header displays the expense amount.
15. Tap on the arrow on the top left corner again.
16. Note that you land on Self DM, and the last created expense, is displayed again, but now, system message is displayed above it.

Expected Result:

When recovering internet connection after moving a track expense to a report of a deleted expense, the moved expense should remain on report, while the deleted one should disappear automatically.

Actual Result:

When recovering internet connection after moving a track expense to a report of a deleted expense, an "It´s not here" page appears and when returning from that page, user lands on an empty report, where only the header displays the expense amount. Also, when returning to Self DM, expense reappears, but Concierge system message now appears above the expense.

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

bug.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021945907107487983677
• Upwork Job ID: 1945907107487983677
• Last Price Increase: 2025-07-17
• Automatic offers:
• FitseTLT | Contributor | 108126436

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @FitseTLT

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @clarajones-expensify (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.

[FitseTLT]

Proposal

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

Report - "It´s not here" page when moving track expense to report of deleted expense offline

What is the root cause of that problem?

We are not filtering out pending delete reports here

App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestEditReportCommon.tsx

Lines 81 to 91 in 48a96b0

	return expenseReports
	.sort((report1, report2) => sortOutstandingReportsBySelected(report1, report2, onlyReport?.reportID))
	.filter((report) => !debouncedSearchValue || report?.reportName?.toLowerCase().includes(debouncedSearchValue.toLowerCase()))
	.filter((report): report is NonNullable<typeof report> => report !== undefined)
	.map((report) => {
	const matchingOption = options.reports.find((option) => option.reportID === report.reportID);
	return {
	...matchingOption,
	alternateText: getPolicyName({report}) ?? matchingOption?.alternateText,
	value: report.reportID,
	isSelected: onlyReport && report.reportID === onlyReport?.reportID,

so moving the expense to a deleted expense will fail in BE

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

We should not allow moving to a pending delete reports so we should filter out or disable report options that are pending delete.
Currently, when all the expenses in the expense report is deleted (shouldDeleteIOUReport) we add pending delete on pendingfields.preview on the iou report

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Lines 8125 to 8127 in 48a96b0

	pendingFields: {
	preview: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.DELETE,
	},

So we can either utilize it or add pendingAction delete on the iou report here

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Lines 8123 to 8125 in 48a96b0

	key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${iouReport?.reportID}`,
	value: {
	pendingFields: {

We can add

                pendingAction: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.DELETE,

and also revert on failureData
Then we will add the whatever pending field we use above here to use the field in the page

App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestEditReportCommon.tsx

Line 37 in 48a96b0

type: report.type,

        pendingAction: report.pendingAction,

We can apply the filtering logic to getOutstandingReportsForUser for more generic solution so that report field menu will not be enabled when all the expense reports are pending delete ones as we use it to check if there are enough available reports to chose from.

 return Object.values(reports)
        .filter(
            (report) =>
                report?.pendingAction !== CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.DELETE &&
                isReportOutstanding(report, policyID, reportNameValuePairs) &&
                report?.ownerAccountID === reportOwnerAccountID,
        )

or if we want we can disable the option

                    isDisabled: report.pendingAction === CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.DELETE,

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

If need we can add a test for getOutstandingReportsForUser to assert it fitlers pending delete reports.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021945907107487983677

[melvin-bot]

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

[ZhenjaHorbach]

@FitseTLT
Thanks for your proposal
This proposal makes sense to me !
🎀👀🎀 C+

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @luacmartins, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.