[Due for payment 2025-10-09] [$250] Expense - Error when member splits expense when report is partially approved

[mitarachim]

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: 9.2.15-9
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://test-management.browserstack.com/projects/2219752/test-runs/TR-825/folder/13176741/41237129/899329509
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): sdoijdsoisnjdssosd22@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Mac 15.5 / Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

Precondition:
Prepare the following users and invite them to a workspace:

• User A - Admin
• User B - Member
• User C - Second approver (non-admin)

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. [User B] Go to invited workspace chat and create an expense.
3. [User B] Click Submit on the expense preview.
4. [User A] Open member's report and click Approve.
5. [User B] Open the expense report.
6. [User B] Click More > Split.
7. [User B] Click Save.

Expected Result:

Split option should be hidden for member when the report is partially approved.

Actual Result:

Split option is not hidden for member when the report is partially approved. When member splits the expense, error shows up.

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

Bug6948126_1758200269340.Screen_Recording_2025-09-18_at_20.49.57.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021970453109940958122
• Upwork Job ID: 1970453109940958122
• Last Price Increase: 2025-09-23
• Automatic offers:
• nkdengineer | Contributor | 108901356

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @sonialiap

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @sonialiap (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.

[nkdengineer]

Proposal

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

Split option is not hidden for member when the report is partially approved. When member splits the expense, error shows up.

What is the root cause of that problem?

After the report is forwarded, the backend returns the error that the transaction can't be edited

App/src/libs/ReportSecondaryActionUtils.ts

Line 126 in 111cfbf

return isSubmitter || isAdmin || isManager;

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

The admin/manger still can split expense, then we only need to hide this option for the submitter if the report is forwarded.

return (isSubmitter && isAwaitingFirstLevelApproval(report))  || isAdmin || isManager;

App/src/libs/ReportSecondaryActionUtils.ts

Line 126 in 111cfbf

return isSubmitter || isAdmin || isManager;

We already checked the approved/closed/settled here, then we only need to check the case forwarded

App/src/libs/ReportSecondaryActionUtils.ts

Line 102 in 111cfbf

if (report.stateNum && report.stateNum >= CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.APPROVED) {

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

Update ReportSecondaryActionUtils test to cover this case.

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.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021970453109940958122

[melvin-bot]

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

[parasharrajat]

@nkdengineer's proposal looks good to me. Let's add a comment as well to explain this condition.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed