Don't trigger KYC flow if item.key is exactly Elsewhere in Search by srikarparsi · Pull Request #81448 · Expensify/App

srikarparsi · 2026-02-04T21:58:20Z

Explanation of Change

We created this PR to make sure that shouldSelectPaymentMethod is false if paymentMethod is Elsewhere.

But we also needed to make sure that selectedPolicy is falsy for certain cases. This PR takes care of that but @MrMuzyk is currently not available so this is a more succinct fix.

I confirmed with @joekaufmanexpensify that the Mark as paid button shouldn't trigger the bank account flow and that's what this PR does. If the item.key is exactly "Elsewhere" which it only is when Mark as paid is pressed, then it avoids triggering the bank account flow.

Fixed Issues

$ #81349
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Navigate to staging.new.expensify.com
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

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

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

Same as tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Screen.Recording.2026-02-04.at.5.03.55.PM.mov

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

codecov · 2026-02-04T22:08:36Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/actions/Search.ts	`19.81% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

srikarparsi · 2026-02-04T22:11:12Z

@MelvinBot can you please review this PR

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR fixes an issue where selecting "Mark as paid" from the Pay dropdown in the Reports page was incorrectly triggering the bank account (KYC) flow. The fix adds a specific check to ensure that when the payment method is exactly "Elsewhere" (which is the key for "Mark as paid"), the KYC flow is not triggered.

Changes:

Added a condition to prevent KYC flow trigger when item.key equals CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE.ELSEWHERE
Ensures "Mark as paid" works correctly without requiring bank account setup

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

MelvinBot · 2026-02-04T22:17:33Z

🔍 Code Review

PR: Don't trigger KYC flow if item.key is exactly Elsewhere in Search

Summary

This PR adds a condition to prevent the KYC/bank account flow from triggering when the user selects "Mark as Paid" (payment type ELSEWHERE) from the Pay dropdown in the Search bulk pay flow.

Analysis

The Change:

-    if (!!selectedPolicy || shouldSelectPaymentMethod) {
+    if ((!!selectedPolicy || shouldSelectPaymentMethod) && item.key !== CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE.ELSEWHERE) {

Root Cause Understanding: ✅ Correct

The issue occurs because:

When "Pay with business account" is used, selectedPolicy gets populated (line 229 in PaymentUtils.ts matches policyID)
When "Mark as Paid" (ELSEWHERE) is subsequently selected, selectedPolicy remains truthy because it's still found via the policyID match
This causes the condition !!selectedPolicy || shouldSelectPaymentMethod to be true, incorrectly triggering triggerKYCFlow() instead of confirmPayment()

Review Feedback

Aspect	Assessment
Correctness	✅ Fix is correct
Minimal Change	✅ Single line change
No Regressions	✅ Only affects `ELSEWHERE` case
Code Style	✅ Consistent with codebase

The fix is sound. When item.key === CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE.ELSEWHERE, the user has explicitly chosen to mark the expense as paid outside of Expensify, so there's no need for KYC verification or bank account setup. The payment happens externally, and we should proceed directly to confirmPayment().

Minor Observation

I noticed that PaymentUtils.ts:245 already has a similar guard:

const shouldSelectPaymentMethod = paymentMethod !== CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE.ELSEWHERE && (isPaymentMethod || !isEmpty(latestBankItems));

This ensures shouldSelectPaymentMethod is false for ELSEWHERE. However, the issue is that selectedPolicy can still be truthy (because policyID matches from a previous "Pay with business account" selection), which is why the additional check in Search.ts is necessary.

An alternative approach (as noted in @nyomanjyotisa's proposal) would be to fix this at the source in getActivePaymentType() by not populating selectedPolicy when paymentMethod === ELSEWHERE. However, this PR's approach is equally valid and more localized, making it appropriate for a deploy blocker fix.

Verdict

✅ Approved - This is a correct, minimal fix for the deploy blocker. The change ensures "Mark as Paid" bypasses the KYC flow and proceeds directly to marking the expense as paid, which matches the expected behavior confirmed by @joekaufmanexpensify.

Note: PR checks are passing. Ready for merge once a human reviewer approves.

melvin-bot · 2026-02-04T22:21:23Z

@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]

melvin-bot · 2026-02-04T22:22:02Z

@blimpich 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]

github-actions · 2026-02-04T22:24:03Z

Code Review Complete

I've completed the inline review of this PR. The change looks good overall - it's a targeted fix that prevents the KYC flow from being triggered when "Mark as paid" (Elsewhere) is selected.

Summary

Files changed: 1 (src/libs/actions/Search.ts)
Lines changed: 1 line modified
Change type: Bug fix - conditional logic update

The implementation correctly adds an additional condition to exclude the "Elsewhere" payment type from triggering the KYC flow, which aligns with the business requirement confirmed with @joekaufmanexpensify.

Any specific feedback has been posted as inline comments on the relevant lines.

Julesssss · 2026-02-04T22:38:20Z

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

github-actions · 2026-02-04T22:39:58Z

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

Don't trigger KYC flow if item.key is exactly Elsewhere in Search (cherry picked from commit 4ef16e3) (cherry-picked to staging by Julesssss)

github-actions · 2026-02-04T22:44:28Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #81448.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-4ef16e3-61b9931c578e2f3038d506c26c580cd89822a39a/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-4ef16e3-c63ad10025a8003f6fdea06cdfba56769d7cd652/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://81448.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-02-04T22:49:15Z

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

Julesssss · 2026-02-04T23:00:39Z

Requested QA testing here.

OSBotify · 2026-02-04T23:15:12Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.3.11-52 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-02-05T20:29:47Z

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

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

OSBotify · 2026-02-05T20:50:28Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.3.13-1 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-02-05T21:50:53Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.3.15-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-02-10T07:06:48Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.3.15-10 🚀

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

don't trigger KYC flow if item.key is exactly Elsewhere

9f8fdd8

melvin-bot Bot assigned srikarparsi Feb 4, 2026

srikarparsi requested a review from Julesssss February 4, 2026 21:58

srikarparsi requested a review from Copilot February 4, 2026 22:11

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of srikarparsi February 4, 2026 22:11 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

srikarparsi marked this pull request as ready for review February 4, 2026 22:21

srikarparsi requested review from a team as code owners February 4, 2026 22:21

melvin-bot Bot requested review from hungvu193 and joekaufmanexpensify and removed request for a team February 4, 2026 22:21

melvin-bot Bot requested review from a team and blimpich and removed request for a team February 4, 2026 22:21

srikarparsi removed request for blimpich and hungvu193 February 4, 2026 22:33

Julesssss approved these changes Feb 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Julesssss merged commit 4ef16e3 into main Feb 4, 2026
41 of 45 checks passed

Julesssss deleted the srikar-payOther branch February 4, 2026 22:39

OSBotify pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 4, 2026

Merge pull request #81448 from Expensify/srikar-payOther

c176fc7

Don't trigger KYC flow if item.key is exactly Elsewhere in Search (cherry picked from commit 4ef16e3) (cherry-picked to staging by Julesssss)

OSBotify added the CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging label Feb 4, 2026

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2026

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

Closed

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 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

srikarparsi commented Feb 4, 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!

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!

srikarparsi commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Feb 4, 2026

🔍 Code Review

Summary

Analysis

Review Feedback

Minor Observation

Verdict

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 4, 2026

Code Review Complete

Summary

Uh oh!

Julesssss commented Feb 4, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Julesssss commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

srikarparsi commented Feb 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Feb 4, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading