[Payment due @eh2077] [No QA] Prefer live account on personal details login collision by c3024 · Pull Request #96469 · Expensify/App

c3024 · 2026-07-20T10:28:40Z

Explanation of Change

When an account is merged away, the closed account's personal details are still served for old chat participants with the MERGED_ prefix stripped from its login, so the client can hold two personal details with the same login (the closed one and the live one). The emailToPersonalDetailsCache in PersonalDetailsUtils is keyed by login and previously let whichever entry came last (the higher accountID) win, so getAccountIDsByLogins could resolve an approver's email to the closed account's ID. Commands like SubmitReport then convert that stale ID back to the raw MERGED_0@... email and fail the workspace membership check ("Please select another approver...", see the linked issue — 18 workspaces affected).

This change makes the cache prefer the live entry on a login collision:

Prefer the entry that is not isClosed (new optional flag stamped by Auth in https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/23052, now deployed).
Otherwise keep the existing first-entry-wins behavior.

The same preference is applied to the loginToAccountIDMap derived value (src/libs/actions/OnyxDerived/configs/loginToAccountIDMap.ts), which is consumed by components like attendee cells/fields and would otherwise still resolve a colliding login to the closed account.

Server-side counterpart that hardens SubmitReport regardless of client state: https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/54680.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/660923
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Run npx jest tests/unit/libs/PersonalDetailsUtilsTest.ts tests/unit/OnyxDerived/loginToAccountIDMapTest.ts.
Verify all tests pass, including the login-collision cases for both the imperative cache and the derived map (live account wins regardless of accountID order).

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

None — the change only affects how the in-memory email→personal details cache and the derived login map pick between two entries with the same login; there is no network behavior change.

QA Steps

Cannot be QA'd organically: reproducing requires an account whose personal details contain a closed merged-away account colliding with a live login, which fresh test accounts never have. Covered by unit tests; validated in production via the linked issue's affected workspaces once deployed.

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

c3024 · 2026-07-20T10:59:37Z

@codex review!

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 28a107b821

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".

…ed-login-collision

Auth no longer needs the validated tie-break now that isClosed is deployed, so the login-collision preference simplifies to first-live-entry-wins. Apply the same preference to the loginToAccountIDMap derived value per review feedback.

Trim to the single reason this field exists on the client: detecting a merged-away login collision.

c3024 · 2026-07-29T08:40:34Z

@codex review

…ed-login-collision

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-07-29T08:53:33Z

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Already looking forward to the next diff.

Reviewed commit: 4669f98dd5

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".

Use accountID/login variables instead of literal numeric and email object keys.

melvin-bot · 2026-07-29T09:29:41Z

@eh2077 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: deffd206a5

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".

eh2077 · 2026-07-29T10:08:10Z

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 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.2026-07-29.at.8.11.45.PM.mov

An optimistic personal detail can collide with a real one on the same login before the real entry replaces it in Onyx, so treat isOptimisticPersonalDetail like isClosed in both the imperative cache and the derived login map.

c3024 · 2026-07-29T10:56:54Z

@codex review.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-07-29T11:01:31Z

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

Reviewed commit: 41b48d2a2d

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".

eh2077

looks good!

melvin-bot · 2026-07-29T13:00:19Z

🎯 @eh2077, 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/660923.

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.

mountiny · 2026-07-29T17:47:33Z

+            const login = personalDetails.login.toLowerCase();
+            const existingAccountID = loginToAccountIDMap[login];
+            const existingDetail = existingAccountID === undefined ? undefined : personalDetailsList[existingAccountID];
+            if (!existingDetail || existingDetail.isClosed || existingDetail.isOptimisticPersonalDetail) {
+                loginToAccountIDMap[login] = personalDetails.accountID;
+            }


I hope this wont have significant impact on performance cc @TMisiukiewicz @adhorodyski

OSBotify · 2026-07-29T18:01:00Z

✋ 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 · 2026-07-29T18:18:22Z

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

github-actions · 2026-07-29T18:24:54Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #96469.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-965899a09cd-0814dff-24db26d94590ed8938b168ae80fd3698f7f6cb44/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-965899a-0814dff-4e0171487fb02132e99ad89208a60a9d7651da85/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://96469.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-07-29T21:18:49Z

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

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

MelvinBot · 2026-07-29T21:21:29Z

Help site review — no changes required

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site articles under App/docs/articles and no documentation updates are required.

Why

This PR changes how the in-memory emailToPersonalDetailsCache and the derived loginToAccountIDMap pick between two personal-detail entries that share the same login (preferring the live account over a closed/merged-away or optimistic one). It touches only internal data-resolution logic:

src/libs/PersonalDetailsUtils.ts
src/libs/actions/OnyxDerived/configs/loginToAccountIDMap.ts
src/types/onyx/PersonalDetails.ts (new internal isClosed flag)
Unit tests

There is:

No new or changed feature, tab, setting, or button.
No change to any user-facing flow — the PR itself notes "there is no network behavior change" and that it "Cannot be QA'd organically."
No terminology or UI label that maps to anything documented on the help site.

The help site documents product behavior and workflows, none of which this correctness fix alters. It simply prevents an approver's email from resolving to a stale merged-away account ID.

Since no changes are required, I did not create a draft help site PR.

@c3024, let me know if you believe any specific help article is affected and I'll take another look.

OSBotify · 2026-07-31T07:34:29Z

🚀 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 · 2026-07-31T07:39:45Z

🤖 Payment issue created: #97540

Prefer live account on personal details login collision

28a107b

melvin-bot Bot assigned c3024 Jul 20, 2026

c3024 changed the title ~~Prefer live account on personal details login collision~~ [HOLD] Prefer live account on personal details login collision Jul 20, 2026

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jul 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/PersonalDetailsUtils.ts Outdated

c3024 added 2 commits July 28, 2026 09:44

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into chaitanya/660923-clos…

058f7e6

…ed-login-collision

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into chaitanya/660923-clos…

22fb071

…ed-login-collision

c3024 changed the title ~~[HOLD] Prefer live account on personal details login collision~~ Prefer live account on personal details login collision Jul 29, 2026

c3024 added 2 commits July 29, 2026 14:05

Shorten isClosed JSDoc

4669f98

Trim to the single reason this field exists on the client: detecting a merged-away login collision.

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into chaitanya/660923-clos…

e700391

…ed-login-collision

Fix naming-convention lint error in loginToAccountIDMapTest

deffd20

Use accountID/login variables instead of literal numeric and email object keys.

c3024 changed the title ~~Prefer live account on personal details login collision~~ [No QA] Prefer live account on personal details login collision Jul 29, 2026

c3024 requested a review from mountiny July 29, 2026 09:29

c3024 marked this pull request as ready for review July 29, 2026 09:29

c3024 requested review from a team as code owners July 29, 2026 09:29

melvin-bot Bot requested review from eh2077 and flaviadefaria and removed request for a team July 29, 2026 09:29

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team July 29, 2026 09:29

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/PersonalDetailsUtils.ts Outdated

eh2077 approved these changes Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot changed the title ~~[No QA] Prefer live account on personal details login collision~~ [Payment due @eh2077] [No QA] Prefer live account on personal details login collision Jul 29, 2026

mountiny approved these changes Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit 965899a into Expensify:main Jul 29, 2026
35 of 36 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jul 29, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-07-29 #97375

Closed

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Jul 31, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-08-07] Payment issue for E/App PR#96469 #97540

Closed

quinthar added the #quality label Aug 11, 2026

Conversation

c3024 commented Jul 20, 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!

c3024 commented Jul 20, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

c3024 commented Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

eh2077 commented Jul 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

c3024 commented Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

eh2077 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

mountiny Jul 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jul 29, 2026

Help site review — no changes required

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 31, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 31, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

c3024 commented Jul 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

eh2077 commented Jul 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading