feat: remove isNewManualExpenseFlowEnabled beta flag

[thelullabyy]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #93854
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Login to ND
2. Verify that new manual expense flow works as default
3. Try to create expense
4. Verify create expense flow works correctly

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

1. Login to ND
2. Verify that new manual expense flow works as default
3. Try to create expense
4. Verify create expense flow works correctly

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and 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 followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
• If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• 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.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-06-21.at.15.43.27.mov

[melvin-bot]

@ikevin127 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]

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/CONST/index.ts	91.22% <ø> (ø)
...onents/MoneyRequestConfirmationFields/Provider.tsx	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...mponents/MoneyRequestConfirmationFields/context.ts	80.00% <ø> (ø)
src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationList.tsx	96.24% <100.00%> (+1.99%)	⬆️
...stConfirmationList/hooks/useConfirmationCtaText.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...onfirmationList/hooks/useConfirmationValidation.ts	89.61% <100.00%> (ø)
...stConfirmationList/hooks/useFormErrorManagement.ts	93.33% <100.00%> (ø)
...eyRequestConfirmationList/sections/AmountField.tsx	43.47% <100.00%> (-0.97%)	⬇️
...oneyRequestConfirmationList/sections/DateField.tsx	60.86% <100.00%> (-19.57%)	⬇️
...uestConfirmationList/sections/DescriptionField.tsx	70.96% <100.00%> (-6.46%)	⬇️
... and 12 more
... and 17 files with indirect coverage changes

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 6e25e242ad

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".

[trjExpensify]

Excited for it! 👍

[ikevin127]

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 proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and 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 that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• 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 and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • 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
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • 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 any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
• 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.
• 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

iOS: Native

96550	96609
96550.mov	96609.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-06-21.at.18.17.32.mov

[trjExpensify]

How you getting on with the review, @ikevin127?

[ikevin127]

Will complete today.

[ikevin127]

🟠 Merge order against the still-open #99947

This branch is based on a main that does not contain #99947. The blob hashes confirm it: useFormErrorManagement.ts goes 5b8480912985..4f7d2a79c75f here, and 5b8480912985 is exactly the pre-#99947 version. In this branch the suppression block still sits below the split branch, there is no isCreatedMissing clearing effect, there are no shouldShowDate / isReadOnly params, and DateField still takes clearFormErrors. Both PRs are open right now. Two consequences:

1. If this one lands first, fix (batch 5): isNewManualExpenseFlowEnabled beta flag regressions #99947 stops compiling. It references CONST.BETAS.NEW_MANUAL_EXPENSE_FLOW (deleted here) in its new Onyx.set(ONYXKEYS.BETAS, ...) test setup, and its new effect is gated on if (!isNewManualExpenseFlowEnabled || ...) against a param this PR deletes from UseFormErrorManagementParams. That is a hard conflict, not a textual one that git can resolve, which is why mergeable: MERGEABLE here is misleading.
2. More important for users: the three regression fixes in fix (batch 5): isNewManualExpenseFlowEnabled beta flag regressions #99947 (Expense- After opening referral page & returning, Create expense opens instead of contact list #96562, Split - Two "Invalid amount" errors are shown #96565, [Due for payment 2026-09-16] Expense - "This field is required" error is cleared after editing different field with error #96568) are not in this branch. Removing the beta ships the unfixed behavior to 100% of users, including the confirmed footer flicker where "Invalid amount" reappears above the Split expense button for one debounce tick right as the user fixes the amount, and the participant picker not reopening after the referral banner.

Land #99947 first, then rebase this one and strip the remaining isNewManualExpenseFlowEnabled gates it introduces. Worth calling out explicitly in the PR description so whoever merges does not pick the wrong order.

cc @thelullabyy

[ikevin127]

✅ Completed code-review. Awaiting this comment and the other code-related comments to be addressed first before moving forward.

[thelullabyy]

#100215 (comment)

@ikevin127 I don't think this is blocked by any PR - we are good to merge it

[thelullabyy]

@trjExpensify @ikevin127 I resolved conflicts, please check. Thank you

[trjExpensify]

Dammit, we picked up one more conflict @thelullabyy.

[ikevin127]

🟢 LGTM - All important comments addressed, tests well, hopefully no reverts this time.

[JmillsExpensify]

@puneetlath can you review again and merge when you're next online? TY!

[trjExpensify]

In the meantime, @thelullabyy conflict. 👍

[OSBotify]

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[github-actions]

🚧 puneetlath has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #100215.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-11018ec-cb54e06-62cdfc49746b1fcc6509aaaf10ef6fccec8e55c5/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-11018ec-cb54e06-fef6f5ea40ac4c648c1bb39ac8471dd68b825060/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://100215.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.4.75-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

[MelvinBot]

Yes — help site changes are required. Draft PR: #100752

Removing the newManualExpenseFlow beta makes the new flow the default, and the amount-then-Next step it replaced is documented in five articles that are now wrong.

What changed for users

After selecting Manual, you land straight on the expense details form. Amount is an inline field there alongside Merchant, Date, and Description, and the primary button reads Create expense. The separate amount screen with Next is gone.

Articles updated

Article	Section
Create-an-Expense.md	How to manually create a cash expense; split button label
Track-Expenses.md	How to manually add an expense (mobile and desktop)
Track-Personal-Expenses.md	How to Manually Enter an Expense
Join-your-company's-workspace.md	Manually add an expense
Free-Features-in-Expensify.md	How to enter expenses manually

Alongside the flow change, the PR also fixes stale button labels: Create Expense → Create expense, Submit expense → Create expense, Submit → Create expense, and Split → Split expense.

How the wording was verified

Live UI (NewDot web)

• The Manual tab renders the full form immediately: Amount, currency selector, Merchant, Description, Date, and a primary button labeled exactly Create expense. No amount keypad, no Next.
• The ➕ Create menu labels are exactly Create expense, Create report, Track distance, Start chat, New workspace.

Code

• iou.createExpenseWithAmount ("Create $25.00 expense") is no longer referenced anywhere in src/ after useConfirmationCtaText.ts was simplified, so the button never includes the amount.
• The split CTA is now always iou.splitExpense ("Split expense") rather than iou.splitAmount ("Split $X").
• The required-field guards in useConfirmationValidation.ts now run unconditionally, so Amount and Date are required and surface common.error.fieldRequired — "This field is required".

Checks run: npm run spell-changed passed (5 files, 0 issues). No app code changed and no new article files were added, so the code-test and docs-routing bundles do not apply.

One thing left open

This PR also ships the Merchant, Amount, and Date fields on the Scan tab confirmation screen — the subject of #93854. Those fields come from the same code path, but the browser session ended before I could walk that flow, so I changed no Scan-flow wording rather than guess at it. Tell me if you want it documented and I'll add it.

---

@thelullabyy, please review the linked help site PR and confirm it reflects the current behavior. Then mark the linked help site PR Ready for review

---

view run · no recording available

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.75-3 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	failure ❌
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.75-3 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	failure ❌
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android