feat: increase max allowed number of digits for manual expenses by samranahm · Pull Request #80163 · Expensify/App

samranahm · 2026-01-21T23:01:41Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #78643
PROPOSAL: #78643 (comment)

Tests

Open a workspace chat.
Click + Create expense > Manual.
Enter an amount and verify that the maximum number of digits allowed is 10 (for example, 123456789.0, 12345678.90, 1234567890).
Confirm that entering a decimal in the last or second-to-last position is displayed correctly.
Submit expense and verify no error appear regarding the amount

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as test

QA Steps

Same as tests and

Enable "Rules" in "More features" and open "Rules" page
Open "Max expense amount" menu item
Verify the maximum expense amount can be upto 10 digits

Open "Per diem" page and Import spreadsheet
Open Per diem amount page to edit amount and verify it support upto 10 digits amount

Open Reports page
Click filter and under Reports click "Total" in Filters page
Open "Equal to" and verify it support upto 10 digit amount
Open "Greater than" and "Less than" filter and verify it can take upto 10 digits amount

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android.Native.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

Android.mWeb.Chrome.mp4

iOS: Native

IOS.Native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

IOS.mWeb.Safari.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

macOS.chrome.mp4

Copilot

Pull request overview

This pull request increases the maximum allowed number of digits for manual expense amounts from 8 to 10 digits, addressing issue #78643. The change enables users to enter larger monetary amounts when creating manual expenses.

Changes:

Updated the AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH constant from 8 to 10
Modified input masks and validation regex patterns across multiple components to support 10-digit amounts
Updated all related test cases to reflect the new limit

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
`src/CONST/index.ts`	Increased `AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH` constant from 8 to 10
`src/components/AmountWithoutCurrencyInput.tsx`	Updated input mask patterns and validation regex to allow 10 digits
`src/libs/SearchAutocompleteUtils.ts`	Updated amount validation regex to support 10-digit amounts
`src/libs/PolicyDistanceRatesUtils.ts`	Updated rate value validation regex to allow 10 digits
`src/pages/ReimbursementAccount/USD/ConnectBankAccount/components/BankAccountValidationForm.tsx`	Updated amount validation regex to support 10 digits
`tests/unit/MoneyRequestUtilsTest.ts`	Updated test cases to validate 10-digit amounts and edge cases
`tests/unit/SearchAutocompleteUtilsTest.ts`	Updated test to verify 10-digit limit for amount filters

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

codecov · 2026-01-22T11:07:14Z

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/CONST/index.ts	`83.76% <ø> (ø)`
src/libs/SearchAutocompleteUtils.ts	`51.38% <100.00%> (ø)`
src/components/AmountWithoutCurrencyInput.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
src/libs/PolicyDistanceRatesUtils.ts	`13.88% <0.00%> (ø)`
...nkAccount/components/BankAccountValidationForm.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 22 files with indirect coverage changes

trjExpensify

Makes sense that we're consistent with Classic here 👍

linhvovan29546 · 2026-01-24T11:12:16Z

        const amountValues = getAmountValues(values);
        const outputCurrency = policy?.outputCurrency ?? CONST.CURRENCY.USD;
-        const amountRegex = RegExp(String.raw`^-?\d{0,8}([${permittedDecimalSeparator}]\d{0,${getCurrencyDecimals(outputCurrency)}})?$`, 'i');
+        const amountRegex = RegExp(String.raw`^-?\d{0,10}([${permittedDecimalSeparator}]\d{0,${getCurrencyDecimals(outputCurrency)}})?$`, 'i');


Could you please update number 10 to reuse AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH, and apply it in other places as well?

@samranahm I still see some places where the value 10 is used instead of AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH. Could you please check again?

Ahh my bad, I missed some places. Updating now

linhvovan29546 · 2026-01-24T11:22:36Z

            TRACK: 'track',
        },
-        AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH: 8,
+        AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH: 10,


Please check this as well. Since AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH is now 10, the old logic to add 2 is no longer necessary.

App/src/libs/SearchQueryUtils.ts

Lines 901 to 913 in d2334c9

.find((filter) => filter.operator === CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_OPERATORS.EQUAL_TO && validateAmount(filter.value.toString(), 0, CONST.IOU.AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH + 2, true))

?.value.toString() ?? filtersForm[equalToKey];

filtersForm[lessThanKey] =

filterList

.find((filter) => filter.operator === CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_OPERATORS.LOWER_THAN && validateAmount(filter.value.toString(), 0, CONST.IOU.AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH + 2, true))

?.value.toString() ?? filtersForm[lessThanKey];

filtersForm[greaterThanKey] =

filterList

.find((filter) => filter.operator === CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_OPERATORS.GREATER_THAN && validateAmount(filter.value.toString(), 0, CONST.IOU.AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH + 2, true))

?.value.toString() ?? filtersForm[greaterThanKey];

filtersForm[negatedKey] =

filterList

.find((filter) => filter.operator === CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_OPERATORS.NOT_EQUAL_TO && validateAmount(filter.value.toString(), 0, CONST.IOU.AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH + 2, true))

Absolutely, updated.

samranahm · 2026-01-25T00:14:53Z

All test passing, all your @linhvovan29546

linhvovan29546 · 2026-01-25T13:57:59Z

@samranahm The changes in this PR also impact other areas. Please add additional test steps to the description or relevant notes so that QA can verify these changes when deploying to staging.

samranahm · 2026-01-25T14:01:14Z

Agree, I'll add more relevant test steps shortly based on impact on product.

samranahm · 2026-01-25T14:35:48Z

@linhvovan29546 I've updated the QA steps. Thanks for highlighting this.

linhvovan29546 · 2026-01-26T02:09:49Z

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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- 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)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
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)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
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.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
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

Android: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-01-26.at.09.54.25.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-01-26.at.09.49.05.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-01-26.at.09.58.38.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-01-26.at.10.01.35.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-01-26.at.09.44.15.mov

Screen.Recording.2026-01-26.at.09.29.33.mov

linhvovan29546 · 2026-01-26T02:38:23Z

            filtersForm[equalToKey] =
                filterList
-                    .find((filter) => filter.operator === CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_OPERATORS.EQUAL_TO && validateAmount(filter.value.toString(), 0, CONST.IOU.AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH + 2, true))
+                    .find((filter) => filter.operator === CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_OPERATORS.EQUAL_TO && validateAmount(filter.value.toString(), 0, CONST.IOU.AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH, true))


@samranahm Sorry, but I think we need to add the + 2 again. Without it, we encounter an issue: if you enter 10 digits, the filter isn’t displayed. I was mistaken about my previous comment: "backend amount is an integer and is 2 digits longer than frontend amount."
I think we can update it to: backend converts the amount to cents, and the maximum is 12 digits.

Screen.Recording.2026-01-26.at.09.29.33.mov

You're absolutely right! The backend converts amounts to cents by multiplying by 100, which effectively adds 2 digits to the value. So while the frontend max is 10 digits, the backend can handle up to 12 digits. We should add the +2 back.

Updated.

Search.query.mp4

linhvovan29546 · 2026-01-27T02:59:08Z

@Julesssss All yours

samranahm · 2026-01-29T15:42:21Z

@Julesssss Gentle bump.

Julesssss · 2026-02-03T01:31:34Z

Sorry, was away last week.

OSBotify · 2026-02-03T02:14:23Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.3.11-19 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-02-05T20:19:11Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.3.12-1 🚀

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

aimane-chnaif · 2026-03-18T14:46:54Z

            TRACK: 'track',
        },
-        AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH: 8,
+        AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH: 10,


While increasing max allowed number here, it's out of view with some currency symbols.
#81243

samranahm added 2 commits January 22, 2026 03:50

fix: Increase max allowed digits for manual expenses to 10

6cde636

Update tests to validate 10-digit amounts

c5d71fe

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 21, 2026 23:01

samranahm requested review from a team as code owners January 21, 2026 23:01

melvin-bot Bot assigned samranahm Jan 21, 2026

melvin-bot Bot requested review from Julesssss, linhvovan29546 and trjExpensify January 21, 2026 23:01

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of samranahm January 21, 2026 23:02 View session

samranahm mentioned this pull request Jan 21, 2026

[Payment due 2026-02-13] [$250] Increase max allowed number of digits for expenses #78643

Closed

7 tasks

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into 78643/allowed-number-of-digits

8ca3a9a

trjExpensify removed the request for review from a team January 23, 2026 11:43

trjExpensify previously approved these changes Jan 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

linhvovan29546 reviewed Jan 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

remove +2 offset from SearchQueryUtils search filter validation

eb7084b

samranahm dismissed trjExpensify’s stale review via eb7084b January 24, 2026 23:33

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into 78643/allowed-number-of-digits

491954a

Update validation logic to use AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH instead of hardcoded 10

60ab889

linhvovan29546 suggested changes Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

Update amount validation to account for backend length

04a1464

linhvovan29546 approved these changes Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

Julesssss approved these changes Feb 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Julesssss merged commit b915dd9 into Expensify:main Feb 3, 2026
30 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Feb 3, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-01-28 #80808

Closed

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Feb 3, 2026

Investigate workflow job failing on main: createNewVersion / createNewVersion #81230

Closed

mitarachim mentioned this pull request Feb 3, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-03-18] [$250] Expense-Amount is out of view when max number of digits is applied, Save button shifts to left #81243

Closed

7 tasks

jponikarchuk mentioned this pull request Feb 3, 2026

[$250] "Amount over MYR 100,000,000.00/person limit" appears and disappears after splitting expense #81244

Closed

7 tasks

aimane-chnaif reviewed Mar 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

	.find((filter) => filter.operator === CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_OPERATORS.EQUAL_TO && validateAmount(filter.value.toString(), 0, CONST.IOU.AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH + 2, true))
	?.value.toString() ?? filtersForm[equalToKey];
	filtersForm[lessThanKey] =
	filterList
	.find((filter) => filter.operator === CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_OPERATORS.LOWER_THAN && validateAmount(filter.value.toString(), 0, CONST.IOU.AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH + 2, true))
	?.value.toString() ?? filtersForm[lessThanKey];
	filtersForm[greaterThanKey] =
	filterList
	.find((filter) => filter.operator === CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_OPERATORS.GREATER_THAN && validateAmount(filter.value.toString(), 0, CONST.IOU.AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH + 2, true))
	?.value.toString() ?? filtersForm[greaterThanKey];
	filtersForm[negatedKey] =
	filterList
	.find((filter) => filter.operator === CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_OPERATORS.NOT_EQUAL_TO && validateAmount(filter.value.toString(), 0, CONST.IOU.AMOUNT_MAX_LENGTH + 2, true))

Uh oh!

Conversation

samranahm commented Jan 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jan 22, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

trjExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 Jan 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

samranahm commented Jan 25, 2026

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Jan 25, 2026

Uh oh!

samranahm commented Jan 25, 2026

Uh oh!

samranahm commented Jan 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Jan 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Jan 27, 2026

Uh oh!

samranahm commented Jan 29, 2026

Uh oh!

Julesssss commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

samranahm commented Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Jan 22, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

linhvovan29546 Jan 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

samranahm commented Jan 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

linhvovan29546 commented Jan 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading