Persist require fields tooltip dismissal and keep a direction always selected

[Krishna2323]

Explanation of Change

This PR fixes two regressions in Field requirements.

1. Coupling tooltip persisted incorrectly

The coupling tooltip tracked its dismissal in component state, so saving a rule and creating another remounted the row and caused the tooltip to reappear.

It now dismisses through the product training NVP, just like other educational tooltips, recording:

• 'x' for the close button
• 'click' for a tooltip press

The two tooltip names are excluded from ProductTrainingTooltipName so they reserve an NVP slot without joining the priority queue, since these tooltips render per row rather than through ProductTrainingContext.

Rendering also waits for the NVP to load, preventing an already-dismissed tooltip from briefly flashing.

2. "Don't require" state for Description and Attendees

Description and Attendees are stored as booleans, so "Don't require" is indistinguishable from having no override. As a result, reopening a saved rule showed neither option selected.

These fields now default to Don't require instead of undefined, and pressing the already-selected option is a no-op instead of clearing it.

Receipt fields keep their existing blank state, where no selection means there is no category override and the policy-level receipt requirement still applies.

Fixed Issues

$ #96795
$ #96814
PROPOSAL:

Tests

• Precondition:
  • Log in with Expensifail account.
  • Enable Rules.

#96795 Rules- Receipt require tooltip doesn't appears time after dismissal

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace settings > Rules > Field requirements.
3. Click Create field requirement rule.
4. Select a category.
5. Select Require for Description, Receipt and Itemized receipt.
6. Click X on the tooltip.
7. Click Save rule.
8. Click Add rule > Field requirements.
9. Repeat Step 4 to 5.
10. Verify tooltip does not appear again

#96814 Rules - Unable to save Don't require for Description and Attendees

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace settings > Rules > Field requirements.
3. Click Create field requirement rule.
4. Select a category.
5. Verify default is Don't require for Description and Attendee
6. Select Don't require for Receipt and Itemized receipt.
7. Click Save rule.
8. Open the created rule.
9. Verify Don't require is selected for Description and Attendee

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

• Same as tests

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
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web_chrome.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@situchan 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]

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/CONST/index.ts	94.81% <ø> (ø)
src/components/ProductTrainingContext/TOOLTIPS.ts	31.25% <ø> (ø)
...eFieldsRules/RequireFieldsRuleCategoryPageBase.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...s/RequireFieldsRules/RequireFieldsRulePageBase.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/types/onyx/DismissedProductTraining.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...reFieldsRules/FieldRequirementsDirectionToggle.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
.../RequireFieldsRules/FieldRequirementSettingRow.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/libs/RequireFieldsRulesUtils.ts	18.47% <6.25%> (-0.09%)	⬇️
... and 42 files with indirect coverage changes

[situchan]

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 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 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.
• 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.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

[situchan]

Description is "Don't require" as default (expected) but "Save rule" shows error "Please select at least one field".
I feel this is bug from user perspective because user might think Description is already selected as "Don't require"
This is confusing UX.

Screen.Recording.2026-08-04.at.8.32.27.PM.mov

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Code review — both fixes are structurally sound. The tooltip-persistence change (NVP-backed dismissal + reserving a slot outside ProductTrainingTooltipName, matching the existing MULTI_SCAN_EDUCATIONAL_MODAL pattern) and the canDeselect/default-Don't require change read cleanly. One design issue and two minor notes below.

1. situchan's flagged UX is a real gap introduced by this PR — please resolve before merge

The mismatch is genuine: fix #2 changes only the display so Description/Attendees now show Don't require selected on create, but the validation is unchanged — getRequireFieldsRuleValidationError still rejects with "Please select at least one field" because Don't require on a boolean-backed field persists nothing.

So the user sees a selected option but is told to select one. Before this PR the toggle was blank, so the same error was self-explanatory; the display change is what makes it confusing. This isn't a rendering bug — it's an inherent consequence of showing a state that validation treats as "nothing selected", so it needs a product decision (clearer copy, or disabling Save until a persistable selection exists) rather than a code tweak. Worth aligning with situchan before proceeding.

2. Minor — stale comment in RequireFieldsRuleCategoryPageBase

Details

In onSave, the new fallback means getRequireFieldsDisplayedSetting now returns Don't require (never undefined) for Description/Attendees, so those keys are always carried into preservedSettings on an edit category-change — even when the newly selected category has no override. The parenthetical "(active category overrides)" in the comment is no longer accurate.

I traced this through saveRequireFieldsRule and it's functionally harmless (the seeded Don't require equals the category default, so no phantom setPolicyCategoryDescriptionRequired/AttendeesRequired write fires). Just update the comment so the next reader isn't misled.

3. Minor — no unit tests

Codecov flags a coverage drop. RequireFieldsRulesUtils has no existing test file, so this isn't a regression, but the two new pure functions (canClearRequireFieldsField and the Don't require fallback branch in getRequireFieldsDisplayedSetting) are trivially unit-testable and would lock in the intended create-vs-edit / receipt-vs-boolean behavior.

---

Nothing else stood out — the coupling-tooltip NVP wait (isLoadingOnyxValue gate to avoid a flash), the x-vs-click dismissal method, and the receipt-fields-keep-blank carve-out all look correct. Item 1 is the one to settle.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: fe495af4f7

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".

[JS00001]

@Krishna2323 working on the BE PR for the tooltips. LEts replace

 REQUIRE_FIELDS_RULE_RECEIPT_COUPLING: 'requireFieldsRuleReceiptCoupling',
        REQUIRE_FIELDS_RULE_ITEMIZED_RECEIPT_COUPLING: 'requireFieldsRuleItemizedReceiptCoupling',

with

 REQUIRE_FIELDS_RULE_RECEIPT_COUPLING_TOOLTIP = "requireFieldsRuleReceiptCouplingTooltip";
REQUIRE_FIELDS_RULE_ITEMIZED_RECEIPT_COUPLING_TOOLTIP = "requireFieldsRuleItemizedReceiptCouplingTooltip";

[JS00001]

BE PR is merged, will need to be deployed

[Krishna2323]

@JmillsExpensify @JS00001 @Expensify/design, what do you think about this comment? Any thoughts on how we should handle it?

Maybe instead of "Don't require", we could show "Default" and simply close the RHP when nothing has changed?

[dannymcclain]

Description is "Don't require" as default (expected) but "Save rule" shows error "Please select at least one field". I feel this is bug from user perspective because user might think Description is already selected as "Don't require" This is confusing UX.

Is it not already selected in that video you shared? I don't think I totally understand what's going on there.

[dubielzyk-expensify]

I think we need some clarification from @JmillsExpensify here

[JmillsExpensify]

I'm not a huge fan of the "default" option, as I think we've seen that it's confusing in practice and users don't actually understand what it means. I think I prefer to simply have the Require options for Description and Attendees.

[JmillsExpensify]

As for receipts, Require and Not required are both valid states, so I think it's good to have those.

[dubielzyk-expensify]

Right, so is default doing nothing then? If so, then we still need that weird tap to unselect behavior, right? We could call it something different to default though

[Krishna2323]

@Expensify/design, since we're only going to have the Require option for Description/Attendees, should we consider using toggles instead?

[dubielzyk-expensify]

A toggle can't be untoggled so that's the problem. There's technically 3 options. Unset, always require, and never require. Unless I've misunderstood something.

[Krishna2323]

I think I prefer to simply have the Require options for Description and Attendees.

@dubielzyk-expensify I'm asking for the Description and Attendees rows, since we will only have require option, I think it's better to use a toggle?

[dubielzyk-expensify]

Ahh, yeah I so 👍 Unless we go for a different pattern across it all and wanna unify.

[Krishna2323]

The error message makes sense now, but does the UI look good as well or we should keep a single option pill? @Expensify/design 👀

[dubielzyk-expensify]

The left feels more right but it's a bit of a bummer that it looks so unbalanced. I think it's still also a bit confusing, cause if Require description is OFF that feels like Don't require description to me. My head is spinning. @JmillsExpensify help us out here 😂

[JmillsExpensify]

Hmm, yeah I see what you're saying @dubielzyk-expensify. Now that I see the UI, I guess I don't understand why we can support a toggle but not a segmented control? They are the same thing right?

[JmillsExpensify]

Discussed in Slack. I don't think we should hold up the release on this one. We can update/change post-launch.

[Krishna2323]

Updated description and attendee rows to use toggle:

Monosnap.screencast.2026-08-11.18-39-23.mp4

@situchan ready for review

[Krishna2323]

@JS00001 this one is ready for final review.

[github-actions]

🚧 JS00001 has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

[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]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #97726.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-7e8ce8e-b9ee1a7-7c482cba6b36bc94c9ba8ce4e553c622902f28eb/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-7e8ce8e-b9ee1a7-50de23b91173660fd6321acc1481508ef53d23fd/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://97726.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/JS00001 in version: 9.4.53-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Help site review: no changes required.

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site articles under docs/articles. This PR fixes two regressions in the existing Field requirements category rule — it doesn't add a new feature, setting, or workflow that the docs need to reflect:

1. Coupling tooltip dismissal now persists via the product training NVP — internal UI behavior that isn't (and shouldn't be) documented on the help site.
2. "Don't require" state for Description and Attendees — a bug fix so a saved rule correctly restores the selected option. This restores the intended behavior of an already-shipped feature rather than changing what's documented.

The relevant help article, Workspace-Rules.md (the Require fields section under Category Rules), already documents this feature accurately at the appropriate level. No draft PR was created since there's nothing to update.

If you feel the "Require" / "Don't require" options should be documented more explicitly on the help site, let me know and I'll draft that update.

[jponikarchuk]

Deploy Blocker #98640 was identified to be related to this PR.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.53-10 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android