fix: UNREPORTEDTRANSACTION report action not show and no Explain sparkle link

[paulnjs]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$#87239
PROPOSAL:#87239 (comment)

Tests

Preconditions:

• logged in with a user that at least has one workspace and invited a member to the workspace
• set the member as approver of admin's expense in advanced workflow
• Go to Workspace > Workflows and ensure: Scheduled Submit is enabled and Approval workflow is configured with Manager as the approver

1. As Employee, create at least 2 expenses on the workspace
2. Submit the expense report (or wait for Scheduled Submit to auto-submit it)
3. As Manager, open the submitted expense report
4. Reject a single expense -- go to OldDot staging (staging.expensify.com), navigate to the submitted report approve screen, and click the reject (X) button on one individual transaction. Add an optional comment like "Missing receipt"
5. As member, delete the report is not rejected
6. As member open selfDM and open rejected report
7. Verify the UNREPORTED_TRANSACTION system message appears with an inline Explain sparkle link. moved this expense. Explain.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Preconditions:

• logged in with a user that at least has one workspace and invited a member to the workspace
• set the member as approver of admin's expense in advanced workflow
• Go to Workspace > Workflows and ensure: Scheduled Submit is enabled and Approval workflow is configured with Manager as the approver

1. As Employee, create at least 2 expenses on the workspace
2. Submit the expense report (or wait for Scheduled Submit to auto-submit it)
3. As Manager, open the submitted expense report
4. Reject a single expense -- go to OldDot staging (staging.expensify.com), navigate to the submitted report approve screen, and click the reject (X) button on one individual transaction. Add an optional comment like "Missing receipt"
5. As member, delete the report is not rejected
6. As member open selfDM and open rejected report
7. Verify the UNREPORTED_TRANSACTION system message appears with an inline Explain sparkle link. moved this expense. Explain.

• 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

android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-web.mov

iOS: Native

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-web.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

[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/ReportActionsUtils.ts	72.74% <0.00%> (-0.07%)	⬇️
... and 15 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@bernhardoj 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]

[bernhardoj]

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

[Beamanator]

just curious, would it be better to use hasReasoning here?

Suggested change

	const {fromReportID, reasoning} = unreportedTransactionOriginalMessage as OriginalMessageUnreportedTransaction;
	if (reasoning) {
	const {fromReportID} = unreportedTransactionOriginalMessage as OriginalMessageUnreportedTransaction;
	if (hasReasoning(reportAction)) {

[bernhardoj]

Oh, didn't know that existed. It basically does the same thing, checking whether reasoning exists or not.
The only difference is, hasReasoning accepts any type of action as the param, so it needs to check first whether the originalMessage contains reasoning or not.

App/src/libs/ReportActionsUtils.ts

Lines 4578 to 4581 in a327fc2

	function hasReasoning(action: OnyxInputOrEntry<ReportAction>): boolean {
	const originalMessage = getOriginalMessage(action);
	return !!originalMessage && typeof originalMessage === 'object' && 'reasoning' in originalMessage && !!originalMessage.reasoning;
	}

But in our case, we already checked the action name before, even though we typecast the original message unreportedTransactionOriginalMessage as OriginalMessageUnreportedTransaction;, which is honestly not the best way.

App/src/libs/ReportActionsUtils.ts

Lines 1241 to 1245 in a327fc2

	if (actionName === CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.UNREPORTED_TRANSACTION) {
	const unreportedTransactionOriginalMessage = getOriginalMessage(reportAction as OnyxEntry<ReportAction<typeof CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.UNREPORTED_TRANSACTION>>) ?? {};
	const {fromReportID} = unreportedTransactionOriginalMessage as OriginalMessageUnreportedTransaction;
	const fromReport = reports?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${fromReportID}`];
	return !!fromReport;

If we want to remove the typecast, we need to create a new function to narrow down the type

function isUnreportedTransactionAction(reportAction: OnyxInputOrEntry<ReportAction>): reportAction is ReportAction<typeof CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.UNREPORTED_TRANSACTION> {
    return isActionOfType(reportAction, CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.UNREPORTED_TRANSACTION);
}

...

if (isUnreportedTransactionAction(reportAction)) {
    const unreportedTransactionOriginalMessage = getOriginalMessage(reportAction);
    const fromReportID = unreportedTransactionOriginalMessage?.fromReportID;
    const reasoning = unreportedTransactionOriginalMessage?.reasoning;
    if (reasoning) {

[Beamanator]

aah i like your reasoning, thanks - let's keep it as is!

[Beamanator]

LGTM

[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]

🚧 @Beamanator 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 #87704.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-63bd1e7-d10f585-86d3f2457de6cd2aa154228b2875e190c01d12d2/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-63bd1e7-d10f585-766d70d1b27189c417c8b10f9312027b4df74edd/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://87704.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 9.3.60-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[MelvinBot]

No help site changes required.

This PR is a code-level bug fix in ReportActionsUtils.ts that corrects the visibility logic for UNREPORTED_TRANSACTION report actions when a reasoning field is present. It doesn't introduce new features, change UI labels, modify workflows, or alter any user-facing terminology that would require documentation updates.

The existing help site articles (Approve-Expenses, Understanding-Report-Statuses-and-Actions) already cover expense rejection behavior accurately.

[jponikarchuk]

This PR failing because of the issue #88139
This issue is reproducible in: All platforms

[Beamanator]

ok from my checks it doesn't look like that issue was caused by this PR, this PR's test steps just pointed it out