fix: 81235 Tighten check for last payment method when using bulk options by MrMuzyk · Pull Request #81296 · Expensify/App

MrMuzyk · 2026-02-03T12:07:26Z

Explanation of Change

Tightened check for last payment method in bulk pay. Previously we were only checking whether selectedPolicy exists but it needs to be narrowed down to whether selectPolicy exists and was used as lastPaymentMethod (Pay via workspace) option

Fixed Issues

$ #81235
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Same as QA steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Precondition:
Account is unverified.

Go to workspace chat.
Create an expense.
Go to Reports > Expenses.
Select the expense via checkbox.
Click dropdown button > Move expense.
Click RHP back button.
RHP will close.

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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  - If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
- 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 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)
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
I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
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.
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.
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

81235.mov

melvin-bot · 2026-02-03T12:07:33Z

@shubham1206agra 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]

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: e4092fbff5

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".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-02-03T12:14:50Z

    const {paymentType, selectedPolicy, shouldSelectPaymentMethod} = getActivePaymentType(item.key, activeAdminPolicies, latestBankItems, policy?.id);
-    // Policy id is also a last payment method so we shouldn't early return here for that case.
-    if (!isValidBulkPayOption(item) && !selectedPolicy) {
+    const hasPolicyLastPaymentMethod = selectedPolicy && !!lastPaymentMethods?.[selectedPolicy.id];
+    // Early return if item is not a valid payment method and user has no saved payment method for this policy
+    if (!isValidBulkPayOption(item) && !hasPolicyLastPaymentMethod) {


Allow pay-via-workspace on first-time bulk pay

The new guard requires lastPaymentMethods[selectedPolicy.id] to exist before allowing a policy-id option through. However the bulk-pay submenu for first-time payments includes policy-id entries (from useBulkPayOptions), and the whole point of this path is that there may be no saved last payment method yet. In that scenario (first bulk payment via a workspace), this early return prevents any action when the user selects “Pay via workspace,” so nothing happens. Consider allowing policy-id options even when there is no lastPaymentMethods entry yet, or gate this check on whether the option actually represents a saved last payment method.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

This comment might actually be true so looking into it

Indeed this one case wasn't working. Updated accordingly

shubham1206agra · 2026-02-03T12:16:14Z

@dominictb Please review this PR

codecov · 2026-02-03T12:17:36Z

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/libs/actions/Search.ts	`19.81% <0.00%> (-0.05%)`	⬇️
... and 30 files with indirect coverage changes

…dmin policies

dominictb · 2026-02-03T13:32:53Z

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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-02-03.at.20.48.27.mov

dominictb

🎀

srikarparsi · 2026-02-03T17:16:51Z

Requested CP to staging for the PR

…e-opens fix: 81235 Tighten check for last payment method when using bulk options (cherry picked from commit 80d94cb) (cherry-picked to staging by Julesssss)

OSBotify · 2026-02-03T17:29:35Z

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

OSBotify · 2026-02-03T17:49:12Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.3.11-35 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-02-03T18:03:12Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.3.11-36 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-02-05T20:29:26Z

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

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

fix: 81235 Tighten check for last payment method when using bulk options

e4092fb

MrMuzyk requested review from a team as code owners February 3, 2026 12:07

melvin-bot Bot assigned MrMuzyk Feb 3, 2026

melvin-bot Bot requested review from heyjennahay and shubham1206agra and removed request for a team and heyjennahay February 3, 2026 12:07

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team February 3, 2026 12:07

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Feb 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix: loosen the check and compare payment method value with list of a…

91bfed5

…dmin policies

joekaufmanexpensify requested review from dominictb and removed request for shubham1206agra February 3, 2026 13:20

dominictb approved these changes Feb 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from Julesssss February 3, 2026 13:49

srikarparsi approved these changes Feb 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

srikarparsi merged commit 80d94cb into Expensify:main Feb 3, 2026
30 of 31 checks passed

OSBotify added the CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging label Feb 3, 2026

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Feb 3, 2026

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

Closed

lanitochka17 mentioned this pull request Feb 3, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-02-17] [$250] Reports - Mark as paid option via Pay dropdown opens bank account flow #81349

Closed

7 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

MrMuzyk commented Feb 3, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Feb 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MrMuzyk Feb 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MrMuzyk Feb 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shubham1206agra commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Feb 3, 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!

dominictb commented Feb 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

dominictb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

srikarparsi commented Feb 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

codecov Bot commented Feb 3, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

dominictb commented Feb 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

srikarparsi commented Feb 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading