[Due for payment 2026-08-14] [Hold #72230] [$250] Expense - In "Rate" field, "Rate out of policy" error is not shown.

[jponikarchuk]

Note

This is currently on hold for #72230

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: V9.2.39-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from BrowserStack: retesting https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/528139
https://test-management.browserstack.com/projects/2219752/folder/13176670/test-cases/41237109
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): Slottwo1@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Redminote 10s android 13 phone
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

1.Open the Expensify app.
2.Open any workspace chat.
3.Submit two expenses to it. (One of them, has to be distance expense)
4.Open the report of the just created expenses.
5.Tap on "More"
6.Delete the report
7.Return to LHN.
8.Note that the preview of the distance expense report, it now shows correctly.
9.Open Self DM.
10.Note that expenses are now displayed on that chat
11. Note distance receipt is displayed with empty space
12. Open the distance expense
Note that "Distance" field is displayed correctly,

Expected Result:

In "Rate" field, "Rate out of policy" error must be shown.

Actual Result:

In "Rate" field, "Rate out of policy" error is not shown.

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

Bug6986635_1761640622926.Screenrecorder-2025-10-28-13-57-36-673.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021983335586114224619
• Upwork Job ID: 1983335586114224619
• Last Price Increase: 2025-10-29
• Automatic offers:
• FitseTLT | Contributor | 109291007
• truph01 | Reviewer | 109369818
• daledah | Contributor | 109369820

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @francoisl

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @mallenexpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @NicMendonca (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.

[daledah]

Proposal

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

In "Rate" field, "Rate out of policy" error is not shown.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We are just checking the workspace conditions here.

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Lines 410 to 412 in 3c5bc03

	if (isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy && field === 'customUnitRateID') {
	return translate('violations.customUnitOutOfPolicy');
	}

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

We should update the logic to use utils function isUnreportedAndHasInvalidDistanceRateTransaction like we did in transaction preview here

App/src/libs/TransactionPreviewUtils.ts

Lines 260 to 262 in 3c5bc03

	if (RBRMessage === undefined && isUnreportedAndHasInvalidDistanceRateTransaction(transaction)) {
	RBRMessage = {translationPath: 'violations.customUnitOutOfPolicy'};
	}

    if (field === 'customUnitRateID' && (isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy || isUnreportedAndHasInvalidDistanceRateTransaction(transaction))) {
        return translate('violations.customUnitOutOfPolicy');
    }

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Lines 410 to 412 in 3c5bc03

	if (isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy && field === 'customUnitRateID') {
	return translate('violations.customUnitOutOfPolicy');
	}

Note: we can update the isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy variable here

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Line 306 in 3c5bc03

const isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy = transactionViolations.some((violation) => violation.name === CONST.VIOLATIONS.CUSTOM_UNIT_OUT_OF_POLICY) || (isDistanceRequest && !rate);

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)

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.

[hasib711]

Proposal

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

In "Rate" field, "Rate out of policy" error is not shown.

What is the root cause of that problem?

In the report list view, the rate error message appears below the code.
App/src/libs/TransactionPreviewUtils.ts

if (isDistanceRequest(transaction)) {
        previewHeaderText = [{translationPath: 'common.distance'}];

        if (RBRMessage === undefined && isUnreportedAndHasInvalidDistanceRateTransaction(transaction)) {
            RBRMessage = {translationPath: 'violations.customUnitOutOfPolicy'};
        }
    } 

And on the detail page, the rate error message appears below the code.
[App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx]
(

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Lines 306 to 412 in 3c5bc03

	const isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy = transactionViolations.some((violation) => violation.name === CONST.VIOLATIONS.CUSTOM_UNIT_OUT_OF_POLICY) || (isDistanceRequest && !rate);
	const rateToDisplay = isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy ? translate('common.rateOutOfPolicy') : DistanceRequestUtils.getRateForDisplay(unit, rate, currency, translate, toLocaleDigit, isOffline);
	const distanceToDisplay = DistanceRequestUtils.getDistanceForDisplay(hasRoute, distance, unit, rate, translate);
	let merchantTitle = isEmptyMerchant ? '' : transactionMerchant;
	let amountTitle = formattedTransactionAmount ? formattedTransactionAmount.toString() : '';
	if (isTransactionScanning) {
	merchantTitle = translate('iou.receiptStatusTitle');
	amountTitle = translate('iou.receiptStatusTitle');
	}
	const shouldNavigateToUpgradePath = !policyForMovingExpenses && !shouldSelectPolicy;
	const updatedTransactionDescription = useMemo(() => {
	if (!updatedTransaction) {
	return undefined;
	}
	return getDescription(updatedTransaction ?? null);
	}, [updatedTransaction]);
	const isEmptyUpdatedMerchant = updatedTransaction?.modifiedMerchant === '' || updatedTransaction?.modifiedMerchant === CONST.TRANSACTION.PARTIAL_TRANSACTION_MERCHANT;
	const updatedMerchantTitle = isEmptyUpdatedMerchant ? '' : (updatedTransaction?.modifiedMerchant ?? merchantTitle);
	const saveBillable = useCallback(
	(newBillable: boolean) => {
	// If the value hasn't changed, don't request to save changes on the server and just close the modal
	if (newBillable === getBillable(transaction) || !transaction?.transactionID || !report?.reportID) {
	return;
	}
	updateMoneyRequestBillable(transaction.transactionID, report?.reportID, newBillable, policy, policyTagList, policyCategories);
	},
	[transaction, report?.reportID, policy, policyTagList, policyCategories],
	);
	const saveReimbursable = useCallback(
	(newReimbursable: boolean) => {
	// If the value hasn't changed, don't request to save changes on the server and just close the modal
	if (newReimbursable === getReimbursable(transaction) || !transaction?.transactionID || !report?.reportID) {
	return;
	}
	updateMoneyRequestReimbursable(transaction.transactionID, report?.reportID, newReimbursable, policy, policyTagList, policyCategories);
	},
	[transaction, report, policy, policyTagList, policyCategories],
	);
	if (isCardTransaction) {
	if (transactionPostedDate) {
	dateDescription += ` ${CONST.DOT_SEPARATOR} ${translate('iou.posted')} ${transactionPostedDate}`;
	}
	if (formattedOriginalAmount) {
	amountDescription += ` ${CONST.DOT_SEPARATOR} ${translate('iou.original')} ${formattedOriginalAmount}`;
	}
	if (isCancelled) {
	amountDescription += ` ${CONST.DOT_SEPARATOR} ${translate('iou.canceled')}`;
	}
	} else {
	if (!isDistanceRequest && !isPerDiemRequest) {
	amountDescription += ` ${CONST.DOT_SEPARATOR} ${translate('iou.cash')}`;
	}
	if (isCancelled) {
	amountDescription += ` ${CONST.DOT_SEPARATOR} ${translate('iou.canceled')}`;
	} else if (isApproved) {
	amountDescription += ` ${CONST.DOT_SEPARATOR} ${translate('iou.approved')}`;
	} else if (shouldShowPaid) {
	amountDescription += ` ${CONST.DOT_SEPARATOR} ${translate('iou.settledExpensify')}`;
	}
	}
	if (isExpenseSplit) {
	amountDescription += ` ${CONST.DOT_SEPARATOR} ${translate('iou.split')}`;
	}
	const hasErrors = hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction);
	const pendingAction = transaction?.pendingAction;
	// Need to return undefined when we have pendingAction to avoid the duplicate pending action
	const getPendingFieldAction = (fieldPath: TransactionPendingFieldsKey) => (pendingAction ? undefined : transaction?.pendingFields?.[fieldPath]);
	const getErrorForField = useCallback(
	(field: ViolationField, data?: OnyxTypes.TransactionViolation['data'], policyHasDependentTags = false, tagValue?: string) => {
	// Checks applied when creating a new expense
	// NOTE: receipt field can return multiple violations, so we need to handle it separately
	const fieldChecks: Partial<Record<ViolationField, {isError: boolean; translationPath: TranslationPaths}>> = {
	amount: {
	isError: transactionAmount === 0,
	translationPath: canEditAmount ? 'common.error.enterAmount' : 'common.error.missingAmount',
	},
	merchant: {
	isError: !isSettled && !isCancelled && isPolicyExpenseChat && isEmptyMerchant,
	translationPath: canEditMerchant ? 'common.error.enterMerchant' : 'common.error.missingMerchantName',
	},
	date: {
	isError: transactionDate === '',
	translationPath: canEditDate ? 'common.error.enterDate' : 'common.error.missingDate',
	},
	};
	const {isError, translationPath} = fieldChecks[field] ?? {};
	if (readonly) {
	return '';
	}
	// Return form errors if there are any
	if (hasErrors && isError && translationPath) {
	return translate(translationPath);
	}
	if (isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy && field === 'customUnitRateID') {
	return translate('violations.customUnitOutOfPolicy');
	}

)

const isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy = transactionViolations.some((violation) => violation.name === CONST.VIOLATIONS.CUSTOM_UNIT_OUT_OF_POLICY) || (isDistanceRequest && !rate);
 ... ... ..
if (isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy && field === 'customUnitRateID') {
                return translate('violations.customUnitOutOfPolicy');
        }

But when we delete a report, we update the transaction’s violation.

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

We can fix the problem of updating a transaction’s violation when deleting a report.
App/blob/main/src/libs/actions/Report.ts

Line: 4951
function deleteAppReport(reportID: string | undefined) {
    if (!reportID) {
        Log.warn('[Report] deleteReport called with no reportID');
        return;
    }
... ... ...

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[FitseTLT]

Proposal

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

Expense - In "Rate" field, "Rate out of policy" error is not shown.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We already implemented showing rate out of policy for unreported expenses here and we implemented it for MoneyRequestView too

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Line 306 in a60b73b

const isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy = transactionViolations.some((violation) => violation.name === CONST.VIOLATIONS.CUSTOM_UNIT_OUT_OF_POLICY) || (isDistanceRequest && !rate);

and the rate was calculated with the expensePolicy but we updated the policy to use policyForMovingExpenses when isExpenseUnreported in #72102

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Line 157 in a60b73b

const policy = isExpenseUnreported ? policyForMovingExpenses : expensePolicy;

so we are getting the rate from the moved policy so the rate will still exist so the error will not show

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

We should get the rate without using policyForMovingExpenses for the case of isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy

 const isCustomUnitOutOfPolicy =
        transactionViolations.some((violation) => violation.name === CONST.VIOLATIONS.CUSTOM_UNIT_OUT_OF_POLICY) ||
        (isDistanceRequest && !DistanceRequestUtils.getRate({transaction, policy: expensePolicy}).rate);
   

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021983335586114224619

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @truph01 (External)

[truph01]

@hasib711 Your proposal would require backend changes to address the issue. However, we already have frontend logic in place to display the error, so your approach doesn't seem viable at this time.

---

@daledah @FitseTLT Both of your proposals follow a similar general approach: displaying an "out of policy" message below the rate field when the selected rate isn't defined in the expense policy. That said, there are some differences in the implementation details:

@daledah’s Proposal	@FitseTLT’s Proposal

I'd like to ask @Expensify/design team to determine which behavior is more appropriate in this case. Once we get their input, we can proceed with the preferred approach.

FYI: The behavior in @FitseTLT’s proposal aligns with the expected outcome described in the test steps.

[FitseTLT]

@truph01 I don't think we will need design input here this is a direct regression of test case linked to #65301 (comment) and the expected result clearly is depicted in the test steps

12. Note that "Distance" field is displayed correctly, "Rate" field is displayed as "Rate out of policy" and there is an error "Rate not valid for this workspace".