[daledah]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #66414
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Open Self-DM report
2. Click the "+" button → select "Create expense"
3. Enter an amount → click Next
4. Fill in merchant/description → click Create expense
5. Verify that: the expense is created successfully in the Self-DM
6. Click More dropdown and select "duplicated expense"
7. Verify that: a duplicated expense is created in workspace chat

• 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
• 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 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 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.
• 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

Screen.Recording.2026-07-09.at.10.20.02.mov

[daledah]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

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

Reviewed commit: 8a34841d6a

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".

[melvin-bot]

@DylanDylann 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]

[trjExpensify]

PR doesn’t need product input as a refactor PR. Unassigning and unsubscribing myself.

[daledah]

Removing the isDraftReport fallback is safe. It only ever did a REPORT_DRAFT[chatReport.reportID] lookup. It never touched the report object - so a caller just has to reproduce which ID that resolution picks: isMoneyRequestReport(report) ? report.chatReportID : report.reportID.

Caller
ScanSkipConfirmation → createTransaction	✅
4 distance leaves → handleMoneyRequestStepDistanceNavigation	✅
AmountSubmitDataSync → IOUAmountSubmission	✅
Duplicate — passes report: undefined, so the chat is always the self-DM → literal false	✅
SubmitDetailsPage	✅
useExpenseSubmission	✅

@MelvinBot could you please verify that All six trackExpense callers pass a correct isDraftChatReport param value again?

[MelvinBot]

✅ Confirmed — all six trackExpense callers pass a correct isDraftChatReport.

The removed fallback resolved the chat the same way trackExpense still does today: currentChatReport = isMoneyRequestReport(report) ? getReportOrDraftReport(report?.chatReportID) : report, which becomes parentChatReport and then falls back to the self-DM when empty. So the old isDraftReport(chatReport?.reportID) checked REPORT_DRAFT[isMoneyRequestReport(report) ? report.chatReportID : report.reportID] (self-DM otherwise → never a draft → false). Each caller reproduces exactly that, on the same report it hands to trackExpense:

Caller	Draft ID it checks
ScanSkipConfirmation → createTransaction	reportIDToCheck = formula → !!reportDraft; passed through unchanged	✅
4 distance leaves → handleMoneyRequestStepDistanceNavigation	same formula in manual, distance, odometer, GPS → !!reportDraft; passed straight to trackExpense	✅
AmountSubmitDataSync → IOUAmountSubmission	reportIDToCheck = formula, via isDraftReportSelector → !!isDraftChatReport	✅
Duplicate	report: undefined → resolves to self-DM → literal false	✅
SubmitDetailsPage	call gated by isSelfDM(report), so non-MRR → formula = report.reportID = routeReportID/draftReportID → !!reportDraft	✅
useExpenseSubmission	recomputes currentChatReport identically; destinationChatReportID = isSelfDMDestination ? undefined : currentChatReport?.reportID, and trackReport = isSelfDMDestination ? undefined : report → !!isDraftChatReport	✅

Edge cases I checked for equivalence with the removed fallback

• Self-DM / report undefined (Duplicate, self-DM branches of SubmitDetailsPage/useExpenseSubmission): the old fallback resolved to the self-DM (or an optimistic one) — a real report that's never in REPORT_DRAFT, so false. The callers short-circuit to undefined/false before the Onyx lookup, matching.
• MRR whose chatReportID isn't in COLLECTION.REPORT: if it exists as a draft, getReportOrDraftReport returns it so both old and new resolve its ID → true; if it exists nowhere, old falls back to self-DM (false) and new's REPORT_DRAFT[chatReportID] is also false. Consistent either way.
• Not a real caller: useParticipantSubmission's local trackExpense() only navigates to the confirmation route — it never invokes the IOU action, so no isDraftChatReport is involved there.

Net: every path passes the same value the deleted isDraftReport(chatReport?.reportID) would have produced, so removing the fallback is safe.

---

view run

[DylanDylann]

@daledah Please ping me when the PR is ready

[daledah]

@DylanDylann this PR is ready for review

[DylanDylann]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

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

Reviewed commit: 4022c4b308

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".

[DylanDylann]

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

[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]

🚧 pecanoro 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 #98960.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-9ecc7ed-d38540d-3a2ee695100ee7cb6e470e01f5d95431aacb3e98/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-9ecc7ed-d38540d-b930d6ef5ddcd7bf4008ecef90fb03e8f25c7c17/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://98960.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/pecanoro in version: 9.4.74-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes are required for this PR.

This is an internal refactor for Expensify/App#66414 (deprecating Onyx.connect() for ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_DRAFT). It removes the isDraftReport helper from ReportUtils and makes isDraftChatReport a required parameter that callers pass down into the track-expense flow.

Nothing user-facing changes:

• No new or renamed features, tabs, settings labels, or buttons.
• No copy changes — no src/languages/*.ts files are touched.
• No change to any documented flow. Creating an expense in a self-DM and duplicating it behave exactly as before; the value that used to be read from Onyx inside getTrackExpenseInformation is now passed in by the caller instead.

Since the behavior described in the existing articles (for example, How to Duplicate an Expense and Create an Expense and Track Expenses) is unchanged, there is nothing to update under docs/articles, and I did not create a draft help site PR.

Note on the requested follow-up line: there is no linked help site PR to review, because no docs update is needed. If you disagree and want an article updated anyway, reply with which article and what you want it to say, and I'll open the draft PR.

---

view run · view recording

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.74-2 🚀

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