fix: 81349 Mark as paid via bulk by MrMuzyk · Pull Request #81403 · Expensify/App

MrMuzyk · 2026-02-04T13:30:35Z

Explanation of Change

Updated the logic inside getActivePaymentType. It will now return two policies with different purpose.

Fixed Issues

$ #81349
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Same as QA steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Join as new user & create new workspace
Go to workspace chat
Create a manual expense >> Submit & approve the expense
Create one more expense
Go to Reports >> Expenses
Select the expense via checkbox which has Pay option
Select Pay >> Pay with business account
Validate the account & close the RHP
Select again Pay >> Pay with business account
Observe bank account flow opens
Close the RHP
Select again Pay dropdown >> Mark as Paid
Expense should be paid when selecting Mark as Paid option via Pay dropdown in Reports page

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

81349.mp4

melvin-bot · 2026-02-04T13:30:42Z

@hungvu193 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 · 2026-02-04T13:52:56Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/PaymentUtils.ts	`45.34% <100.00%> (+0.64%)`	⬆️
src/libs/actions/Search.ts	`23.88% <ø> (+4.06%)`	⬆️
src/components/SettlementButton/index.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 253 files with indirect coverage changes

hungvu193 · 2026-02-04T16:02:02Z

@MrMuzyk I don't think it works for me. Could you double check?

Screen.Recording.2026-02-04.at.23.00.00.mov

hungvu193 · 2026-02-04T16:07:37Z

Oh I see, my case is a bit different, I'm having an in-progress bank account so !isEmpty(latestBankItems) will be true.

I think we should also filter the bankAccount is in progress (For the first time payment).

srikarparsi · 2026-02-04T18:02:48Z

@MelvinBot can you please review this PR and look at the comments in the discussion

MelvinBot · 2026-02-04T18:09:02Z

🔍 PR Review

@srikarparsi Thanks for asking me to review! I've analyzed the PR changes and the discussion comments.

Summary of Changes

This PR refactors getActivePaymentType() in PaymentUtils.ts to return two separate policies instead of one combined selectedPolicy:

policyFromContext - The policy related to the opened chat (matched by policyID)
policyFromPaymentMethod - The policy when user selects "Pay via workspace" option (matched by paymentMethod)

This separation fixes the original issue where "Mark as Paid" was incorrectly opening the bank account flow.

Review of @hungvu193's Feedback

@hungvu193 identified a valid edge case in their comment:

I'm having an in-progress bank account so !isEmpty(latestBankItems) will be true.
I think we should also filter the bankAccount is in progress (For the first time payment).

This is a legitimate concern. Looking at the code:

const shouldSelectPaymentMethod = isPaymentMethod || !isEmpty(latestBankItems);

The shouldSelectPaymentMethod flag is set to true whenever latestBankItems is non-empty. However, if the bank account is in-progress (not fully verified), then:

User selects "Pay with business account"
latestBankItems contains the in-progress bank account item
shouldSelectPaymentMethod becomes true
The KYC flow is triggered (expected - user needs to complete bank verification)

But then:

User closes the RHP and selects "Mark as Paid" instead
latestBankItems is still non-empty (the in-progress bank account is still there)
shouldSelectPaymentMethod is still true
The condition at line 1221 if (!!policyFromPaymentMethod || shouldSelectPaymentMethod) is true
KYC flow is triggered again instead of calling confirmPayment()

Recommended Fix

The shouldSelectPaymentMethod logic should be more restrictive. When the user explicitly selects "Mark as Paid" (ELSEWHERE), we shouldn't require payment method selection just because there are incomplete bank items.

One approach is to modify the condition in handleBulkPayItemSelected (Search.ts:1221):

// Only trigger KYC flow if:
// 1. User selected a policy-based payment option (Pay via workspace), OR
// 2. User selected a payment method that requires verification AND the payment type isn't ELSEWHERE
const shouldTriggerKYC = !!policyFromPaymentMethod ||
    (shouldSelectPaymentMethod && paymentType !== CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE.ELSEWHERE);

if (shouldTriggerKYC) {
    triggerKYCFlow({...});
    // ...
}

Alternatively, the filtering could be done in getActivePaymentType by not setting shouldSelectPaymentMethod to true from latestBankItems when the payment method is explicitly ELSEWHERE.

Summary

Aspect	Status
Original issue fix	✅ The PR correctly addresses issue #81349 by separating policy lookups
Code quality	✅ Well-structured refactor with clear naming
Tests	✅ Unit tests updated appropriately
@hungvu193's edge case	⚠️ Valid concern - in-progress bank accounts cause `shouldSelectPaymentMethod` to be true, which can still trigger KYC flow for "Mark as Paid"

@MrMuzyk Could you verify the scenario described by @hungvu193 (in-progress bank account) and consider the fix above? The current logic may still incorrectly trigger the KYC flow for "Mark as Paid" when there are incomplete bank verification items.

hungvu193 · 2026-02-05T02:13:43Z

@MrMuzyk Can you merge main?

I guess we still need to correct the logic for selectedPolicy

…9-bulk-mark-as-pay

MrMuzyk · 2026-02-05T08:08:43Z

I've rebased with main but at this point these changes are purely cosmetic - they only increase readability of the code

hungvu193 · 2026-02-05T09:58:20Z

I've rebased with main but at this point these changes are purely cosmetic - they only increase readability of the code

Yeah, it's worth fixing cause the current logic about selectedPolicy is wrong and this is the main RCA of #81349

App/src/libs/PaymentUtils.ts

Line 229 in 088ed06

    
           const selectedPolicy = activeAdminPolicies.find((activePolicy) => activePolicy.id === policyID || activePolicy.id === paymentMethod);

As I mentioned, selectedPolicy is the policy that we used to pay before.

Anw, changes LGTM, I'll do more testing.

MrMuzyk · 2026-02-05T10:03:35Z

Thanks, if you find any more edge cases let me know :D

hungvu193 · 2026-02-06T04:26:38Z


-        if ((!!selectedPolicy || shouldSelectPaymentMethod) && (isPayingWithMethod || isPayingViaWorkspace)) {
-            selectPaymentMethod(event, paymentType, triggerKYCFlow, selectedOption as PaymentMethod, selectedPolicy);
+        if ((!!policyFromContext || !!policyFromPaymentMethod || shouldSelectPaymentMethod) && (isPayingWithMethod || !!policyFromPaymentMethod)) {


Do we need to add policyFromContext here? 🤔

I guess we don't need it here. From the old condition, we only need to compare the selectedPolicy or payment method, I don't think policyFromContext is a valid payment method.

Yup, nice catch, removed it. It was just extra noise and logic remains the same

hungvu193 · 2026-02-06T09:24:08Z

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.2026-02-06.at.16.35.14.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-02-06.at.16.35.14.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-02-06.at.16.30.17.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-02-06.at.16.26.58.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-02-06.at.16.23.17.mov

hungvu193

LGTM!

github-actions · 2026-02-06T09:45:38Z

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

github-actions · 2026-02-06T09:50:25Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #81403.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-858b386-402921c1b1b03674ec5b541a32fc0c063fe3ebd7/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-858b386-da0275639e2f2378fb5e804f53426d582e960d0c/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://81403.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-02-06T09:55:03Z

✋ 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 · 2026-02-10T07:24:52Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/srikarparsi in version: 9.3.16-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-02-11T06:29:21Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.3.16-9 🚀

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

fix: 81349 Mark as paid via bulk

274bf48

MrMuzyk requested review from a team as code owners February 4, 2026 13:30

melvin-bot Bot assigned MrMuzyk Feb 4, 2026

melvin-bot Bot requested review from JmillsExpensify and hungvu193 and removed request for a team February 4, 2026 13:30

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team February 4, 2026 13:30

fix: updated tests

af363f5

MrMuzyk added 2 commits February 5, 2026 08:47

Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/Expensify/App into fix/8134…

9c75059

…9-bulk-mark-as-pay

fix: prettier

c11de88

hungvu193 reviewed Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix: remove redundant variable from condition

da6ca74

hungvu193 approved these changes Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from srikarparsi February 6, 2026 09:26

srikarparsi approved these changes Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

srikarparsi merged commit 858b386 into Expensify:main Feb 6, 2026
30 of 31 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-02-10 #81937

Closed

nlemma mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 2026

Report -"Waiting for and admin to pay expenses" on approved expense changes when reopening it #81967

Closed

7 tasks

hungvu193 mentioned this pull request Feb 20, 2026

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

Closed

7 tasks

Conversation

MrMuzyk commented Feb 4, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Feb 4, 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!

hungvu193 commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Feb 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

srikarparsi commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Feb 4, 2026

🔍 PR Review

Summary of Changes

Review of @hungvu193's Feedback

Recommended Fix

Summary

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MrMuzyk commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Feb 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

MrMuzyk commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

hungvu193 Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hungvu193 Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MrMuzyk Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hungvu193 commented Feb 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

hungvu193 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 11, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

codecov Bot commented Feb 4, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

hungvu193 commented Feb 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

hungvu193 commented Feb 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

hungvu193 commented Feb 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading