Fix AMEX card feed reconnect by scoping to the specific feed

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

The useUpdateFeedBrokenConnection hook had two bugs that prevented card feed reconnection from working correctly:

1. Used global aggregate state instead of per-feed state: The hook read all.isFeedConnectionBroken which is an OR-aggregate across ALL feeds. This meant it could report a broken connection for the wrong feed, or trigger reconnect logic for the wrong reason.

2. Picked the first broken card globally, not from the target feed: Object.entries(cardsWithBrokenFeedConnection).at(0) grabbed the first broken card across ALL feeds. If the user reconnected AMEX but a different feed's card came first in the dict, SyncCard targeted the wrong card entirely. Even if the right feed's card was picked, only ONE card was synced — but feeds can have multiple broken cards, and the derived isFeedConnectionBroken uses ||= aggregation, so leaving any card broken keeps the error banner visible.

This PR fixes both issues by:

• Using cardFeedErrors[feed]?.isFeedConnectionBroken for per-feed broken connection state
• Filtering cardsWithBrokenFeedConnection to only cards matching the target feed (via getCardFeedWithDomainID)
• Syncing ALL broken cards on the target feed, not just the first one

Fixed Issues

$ #84081
PROPOSAL: #84081 (comment)

Tests

1. Set up a workspace with multiple company card feeds (e.g. AMEX + another feed)
2. Simulate broken connections on multiple cards across different feeds
3. Navigate to Company Cards and observe the "Card feed connection is broken" error for the AMEX feed
4. Click to reconnect / log into AMEX
5. Successfully authenticate and get redirected back
6. Verify the error disappears for the AMEX feed specifically
7. Verify other feeds with broken connections still show their own error banner

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A - The reconnect flow requires an active network connection to authenticate with the bank.

QA Steps

1. Navigate to a workspace with company cards that has a broken card feed connection (AMEX or similar)
2. Click to reconnect and complete the bank authentication flow
3. Verify the "Card feed connection is broken" error clears after successful reconnection
4. If multiple feeds exist, verify only the reconnected feed's error clears

• 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 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

N/A - Logic-only change, no UI modifications

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/A - Logic-only change, no UI modifications

iOS: Native

N/A - Logic-only change, no UI modifications

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/A - Logic-only change, no UI modifications

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

N/A - Logic-only change, no UI modifications

[MelvinBot]

The failing check is test (job 8), specifically tests/ui/SessionTest.tsx — two tests in the "Deep linking" suite:

1. should not remember the report path of the last deep link login after signing out and in again — timed out at 120s
2. should not reuse the last deep link and log in again when signing out — cascading failure from the first timeout

This failure is unrelated to this PR. This PR only modifies src/hooks/useUpdateFeedBrokenConnection.ts (card feed reconnection logic). The failing SessionTest.tsx tests are about deep linking and session management — a completely different area of the codebase. The timeout and "Can't access .root on unmounted test renderer" errors indicate a flaky/slow test, not a regression from the card feed changes.

Recommendation: Re-run the failed test job. If it persists, it should be investigated as a separate flaky test issue.

[ShridharGoel]

@MelvinBot This doesn't work until we refresh the page after the connection is done.

[ShridharGoel]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Delightful!

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".

[MelvinBot]

Thanks for testing, ShridharGoel. I investigated the reactivity chain from updateBrokenConnection() through to the error banner, and identified two likely causes:

Analysis

How the flow works

1. User completes bank auth → BankConnection useEffect fires
2. isFeedConnectionBroken is true → calls updateBrokenConnection() → immediately calls Navigation.closeRHPFlow()
3. updateBrokenConnection() fires SyncCard for each broken card via updateWorkspaceCompanyCard()
4. Optimistic data sets lastScrapeResult = 200 on both CARD_LIST and WORKSPACE_CARDS_LIST
5. The derived CARD_FEED_ERRORS should recompute → isCardConnectionBroken() returns false for lastScrapeResult=200 → error banner should clear

Root Cause: SyncCard response likely reverts the optimistic update

updateWorkspaceCompanyCard (CompanyCards.ts:485-593) defines optimisticData, finallyData, and failureData — but no successData. This means:

1. Optimistic: lastScrapeResult = 200 → error clears temporarily
2. Server response: The SyncCard API response may include Onyx data with the card's actual lastScrapeResult (still broken, because the server-side scrape hasn't completed yet)
3. Finally: Only clears isLoadingLastUpdated and pendingFields — does not preserve lastScrapeResult
4. Result: The optimistic 200 gets overwritten by the server's broken value → error banner reappears

On page refresh, OpenPolicyCompanyCardsPage fetches fresh data. By then, the server has processed the bank auth and the scrape, so the data comes back clean.

Secondary factor: immediate navigation

In BankConnection (index.tsx:128-131):

if (isFeedConnectionBroken) {
    updateBrokenConnection();
    Navigation.closeRHPFlow();  // Navigates away immediately
    return;
}

The navigation happens synchronously after firing the API call. The derived value CARD_FEED_ERRORS recomputes asynchronously, so there's a window where the destination page renders with stale state before the optimistic update propagates.

Proposed Fix

Check pendingFields.lastScrape in the isCardConnectionBroken check — if a card has a pending scrape action, suppress the broken connection status. This keeps the error hidden while SyncCard is in flight, and only re-evaluates once the sync completes (when finallyData clears pendingFields.lastScrape):

function isCardConnectionBroken(card: Card): boolean {
    if (card.pendingFields?.lastScrape) {
        return false;  // Sync in progress — don't mark as broken
    }
    return !!card.lastScrapeResult && !CONST.COMPANY_CARDS.BROKEN_CONNECTION_IGNORED_STATUSES.includes(card.lastScrapeResult);
}

This approach:

• Suppresses the error banner while SyncCard optimistic data is in effect (pendingFields.lastScrape = UPDATE)
• After the server response + finallyData clears pendingFields.lastScrape, the derived value recomputes with the actual lastScrapeResult
• If the server response brings back a broken status, the error would reappear (correct behavior — the sync actually failed)
• If the server response or a subsequent pusher event brings a clean status, the error stays hidden (correct behavior — the sync succeeded)

Alternatively, if the intent is to guarantee the error clears immediately after triggering the sync, successData could be added to updateWorkspaceCompanyCard to explicitly keep lastScrapeResult = 200 on API success — though this would mask cases where the SyncCard API call succeeds but the actual scrape still fails.

Let me know if you'd like me to implement either of these approaches, or if you have additional context about what you're observing (e.g., does the error briefly disappear then reappear, or does it never clear at all?).

[ShridharGoel]

@MelvinBot Ok, implement the updated fix

[MelvinBot]

Pushed the fix in ea9eb2a.

What changed: Added a pendingFields.lastScrape guard to isCardConnectionBroken() in src/libs/CardUtils.ts. When a SyncCard operation is in flight (indicated by pendingFields.lastScrape being set), the card is treated as not broken — suppressing the error banner until the sync cycle fully completes.

How it works:

1. updateBrokenConnection() fires SyncCard → optimistic data sets pendingFields.lastScrape = UPDATE
2. Even if the server response overwrites lastScrapeResult with a stale broken value, pendingFields.lastScrape is still set → error banner stays hidden
3. finallyData clears pendingFields.lastScrape → isCardConnectionBroken re-evaluates with the actual lastScrapeResult
4. If the sync succeeded (clean data from server/pusher), the error stays gone. If it failed, the error correctly reappears.

[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/libs/CardUtils.ts	83.36% <66.66%> (-1.22%)	⬇️
src/hooks/useUpdateFeedBrokenConnection.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 702 files with indirect coverage changes

[ShridharGoel]

@claude review

[ShridharGoel]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Something went wrong. Try again later by commenting “@codex review”.

Failed to set up container

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".

[ShridharGoel]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Something went wrong. Try again later by commenting “@codex review”.

Failed to set up container

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".

[ShridharGoel]

@MelvinBot Mark this as ready for review

[MelvinBot]

Marked this PR as ready for review as requested.

[melvin-bot]

@ShridharGoel 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]

[ShridharGoel]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Something went wrong. Try again later by commenting “@codex review”.

Failed to set up container

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".

[joekaufmanexpensify]

I agree that what Melvin describes above sounds like a good change. If you have multiple broken connections and fix one of them, we should still show the error for any other(s). However, this logic is very delicate. I'd love if @carlosmiceli could review to make sure the code melvin is suggesting makes sense.

[carlosmiceli]

Let's still wait for @ShridharGoel's review first, though it seems ok to me (not entirely sure about the pending scrape added check).

[ShridharGoel]

Does this experience look fine?

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.3.39.13.PM.mov

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@ShridharGoel Could you be more specific about what you're asking for input on? The duplicate errors thing with a feed level and card level error on Company cards is not expected. We are tackling that in #86589

[ShridharGoel]

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.2026-04-03.at.3.39.13.PM.mov

[MelvinBot]

All checks on this PR are currently passing — no failures found. If you're seeing a specific failure, it may have been a transient/flaky issue that resolved on retry. Let me know if you're still seeing problems and I'll take another look.

[github-actions]

🚧 @carlosmiceli 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 #85126.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-9bea53b-b0990c7-6d19a789025720ce9b279fd461cca7e90674add1/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-9bea53b-b0990c7-7769e75afc832ceb494d147f4334bb187b08273c/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://85126.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[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.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/carlosmiceli in version: 9.3.58-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[MelvinBot]

No help site changes are required for this PR.

The changes are purely internal bug fixes to the useUpdateFeedBrokenConnection hook and CardUtils.ts — they correct how broken card feed connections are scoped (per-feed instead of global) and ensure all broken cards on a feed are synced during reconnection. There are no new features, renamed UI elements, changed navigation flows, or user-facing behavior changes that would affect documentation.

[IuliiaHerets]

Hi @MelvinBot. Unfortunately, we are blocked from testing this PR.
Can you please check it internally?

cc @carlosmiceli @joekaufmanexpensify @fedirjh

bandicam.2026-04-10.20-52-40-556.mp4

[joekaufmanexpensify]

I will test in a bit 👍

[AndrewGable]

@joekaufmanexpensify any update on qa?

[joekaufmanexpensify]

I tested. Fixing the broken connection when you have multiple worked fine on my Amex connection. One minor issue:

• We're missing an RBR on the feed selector if you still have another feed with a broken connection. It should guide the admin to click the feed selector and select the broken feed to fix it.
• Also, there is an extra RBR on the feed selector for the broken mock feed after I fixed my Amex feed. That should only be there if there is an additional broken feed. In this case, the mock feed is the only broken feed, though.

Neither of these feel like blockers to me, but @carlosmiceli @ShridharGoel could you address in a follow up?

Screenshots from test

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Checked off for QA 👍

[AndrewGable]

Much appreciated! 👏

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 9.3.58-9 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 9.3.58-9 🚀

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