[Payment due @thelullabyy] Fix mixed group export selection

[ShridharGoel]

Explanation of Change

Fixes mixed group exports so the App sends collapsed groups and individually selected expenses separately.

The grouped query now contains only groups that were selected as groups. Individually selected expenses are sent through transactionIDList, together with isGroupExport: true, so Auth can combine both selections without exporting the individual expense's full group.

This depends on:

• https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/22910
• https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/54528

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/643662
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Open an expense search and group it by member.
2. Expand group A, which must contain more than one expense.
3. Select only the first expense in group A.
4. Select another group B while it is collapsed.
5. Export the current view as CSV.
6. Verify the CSV contains only the selected expense from group A and every expense from group B.
7. Verify the other expenses from group A are not exported.
8. Verify the groups follow the selected sort order.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Repeat steps 2–5 above.
2. Go offline and try to export.
3. Verify the offline message appears and no export request is sent.
4. Go online, retry the export, and verify it succeeds.

QA Steps

Same as tests.

• 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 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 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)
• 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)
• 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.
• 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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

This is the result after selecting the full group "Benefits" and a single expense from the group "Advertising":

[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/actions/Search.ts	44.56% <ø> (ø)
...c/components/Search/SearchWriteActionsProvider.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/hooks/useSearchBulkActions.ts	54.05% <30.00%> (-0.07%)	⬇️
... and 8 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@thelullabyy 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: cc3151f5ff

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".

[thelullabyy]

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 proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • 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 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)
• 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)
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately
  • 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
  • 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 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.
• 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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-07-29.at.02.30.29.mov

[trjExpensify]

👍

[ShridharGoel]

Marking as draft for now, Web-E changes need to be merged again.

[ShridharGoel]

Web-E changes are on staging, this can be reviewed now.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: d294947afa

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".

[thelullabyy]

@ShridharGoel Test was failed

[thelullabyy]

@ShridharGoel Besides, could you please re-upload the recordings. It is broken now

[ShridharGoel]

Are you able to see the screenshot now?

[thelullabyy]

Yes, all good now @ShridharGoel

[melvin-bot]

🎯 @thelullabyy, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

A payment issue will be created for your review once this PR is deployed to production.
E/E issue linked to the PR - https://www.github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/643662.

If payment is not needed (e.g., regression PR review fix etc), react with 👎 to this comment to prevent the payment issue from being created.

[thelullabyy]

@ShridharGoel Code LGTM, however, let's update the test steps, it is confusing now

[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.

[github-actions]

🚧 JS00001 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 #96133.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-6de9966629f-846ff80-42322989fc36ae7e9c6de25d73b91c4bbccc013b/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-6de9966-846ff80-28a891ec232bb994e9289fb87dc2850be06979d4/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://96133.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/JS00001 in version: 9.4.46-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

Help site review — docs update created ✅

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site articles under docs/articles.

What this PR changes: it fixes mixed group export selection so a fully selected group and individually selected expenses from another group can be exported together correctly (selected expenses go through transactionIDList with isGroupExport: true, while whole groups stay in the grouped query).

Docs impact: The Export Expenses and Reports article's "Export grouped expenses" section previously framed group selection vs. individual-expense selection as an either/or choice. That framing no longer reflects current behavior — you can now mix both. This is the only user-facing behavior that maps to existing help content; no other articles were affected (this PR is otherwise internal export-selection logic).

Draft help site PR: #97386 — adds a short note documenting that mixed selections export every expense from fully selected groups plus only the specific expenses chosen from an expanded group. It follows HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, and TEMPLATE.md (content-only addition; no headings, UI labels, or button casing changed). Labeled HelpDot and assigned to ShridharGoel.

@ShridharGoel, please review the linked help site PR and confirm it reflects the current behavior. Then mark the linked help site PR Ready for review.

[jponikarchuk]

Deploy Blocker #97431 was identified to be related to this PR.

[izarutskaya]

@ShridharGoel In offline test step 4, the export process doesn’t succeed once the user back online. Does this means after going back online, we should redo the export process again (step 2-5 in test section) or the expense should be auto exported after back online? Thank you

ScreenRecording_07-30-2026.16-14-01_1.MP4

[ShridharGoel]

The export will need to be done again, updated the offline steps.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.4.46-10 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android

[melvin-bot]

🤖 Payment issue created: #97538