Align receipt view scan failure violation with transaction row by MelvinBot · Pull Request #89277 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-04-30T14:54:43Z

Explanation of Change

Follow-up to #86896. The receipt view in MoneyRequestReceiptView was using canEditMoneyRequest to determine the canEdit parameter passed to getViolationTranslation, while the transaction row uses wasActionTakenByCurrentUser. This caused an inconsistency where the "Receipt scanning failed" violation message could differ between the transaction row and the receipt view on the admin side.

This PR replaces the canEditMoneyRequest check with wasActionTakenByCurrentUser in the receipt view, aligning both surfaces so non-submitters consistently see "Receipt scanning failed." without the misleading "Enter details manually." prompt.

Fixed Issues

$ #86574

Tests

Same as the QA steps.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as the QA steps.

QA Steps

Prerequisite: User A is a member of a workspace where User B has an admin role.

Log in as User A, start a Submit expense flow in the workspace chat
Select the scan option and upload a picture that will fail the scan process
Wait for the scan to fail
Submit one more expense
As User A (sender), open the report details and verify that the message on the transaction row says: "Receipt scanning failed. Enter details manually."
As User A (sender), open the transaction and verify that the message below the receipt says: "Receipt scanning failed. Enter details manually."
Log in as User B (receiver) and navigate to the same report details. Verify that the message says "Receipt scanning failed." without the phrase "Enter details manually."
Open the transaction and verify that the message also says "Receipt scanning failed." without "Enter details manually."

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

AI Tests

Test	Result
`npm run typecheck-tsgo`	✅ Pass
`npm run lint-changed`	✅ Pass (no lintable files changed)
`npx prettier --check`	✅ Pass

…nsistency Replace canEditMoneyRequest with wasActionTakenByCurrentUser when determining whether to show "Enter details manually" in violation messages on the receipt view. This aligns the receipt view behavior with the transaction row, ensuring non-submitters see a consistent message without the misleading edit prompt. Co-authored-by: dmkt9 <dmkt9@users.noreply.github.com>

dmkt9 · 2026-04-30T15:07:08Z

@MelvinBot update your checklist:

Select all checkboxes.
Tests and Offline Test sections: Same as the QA steps.
QA steps:

Prerequisite: User A is a member of a workspace where User B has an admin role.

1. Log in as User A, start a Submit expense flow in the workspace chat
2. Select the scan option and upload a picture that will fail the scan process
3. Wait for the scan to fail
4. Submit one more expense
5. As User A (sender), open the report details and verify that the message on the transaction row says: "Receipt scanning failed. Enter details manually."
6. As User A (sender), open the transaction and verify that the message below the receipt says: "Receipt scanning failed. Enter details manually."
7. Log in as User B (receiver) and navigate to the same report details. Verify that the message says "Receipt scanning failed." without the phrase "Enter details manually."
8. Open the transaction and verify that the message also says "Receipt scanning failed." without "Enter details manually."

MelvinBot · 2026-04-30T15:09:44Z

Updated the PR checklist:

All checkboxes selected
Tests and Offline Tests sections updated with the QA steps
QA Steps section updated with the provided steps

dmkt9 · 2026-04-30T15:11:02Z

@MelvinBot update your checklist:
Tests and Offline Test sections: Same as the QA steps.

MelvinBot · 2026-04-30T15:12:32Z

Updated the Tests and Offline Tests sections to: "Same as the QA steps."

dmkt9 · 2026-04-30T15:13:13Z

@MelvinBot mark this PR as ready

MelvinBot · 2026-04-30T15:14:35Z

Marked this PR as ready for review.

melvin-bot · 2026-04-30T15:14:40Z

@dmkt9 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]

dmkt9 · 2026-04-30T15:18:22Z

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

2026-04-30.22-17-36.mp4

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: c5d2347dc7

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".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-04-30T15:24:15Z

                    violation,
                    translate,
-                    canEdit,
+                    canEdit: isActionTakenByCurrentUser,


Respect readonly mode in SmartScan failure message

Passing canEdit: isActionTakenByCurrentUser drops the prior editability checks (readonly/write permission), so the SmartScan violation can now tell submitters to “Enter details manually” even when this view is intentionally non-editable. This is reproducible in readonly render paths (e.g., duplicate/merge confirmation screens) where MoneyRequestReceiptView is shown with edits disabled, making the message inaccurate and misleading.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@MelvinBot fix this

This is a false positive. The canEdit parameter in getViolationTranslation doesn't control actual editability — it only determines the violation message text (whether to append "Enter details manually.").

The same wasActionTakenByCurrentUser-only pattern is already used everywhere else this parameter is set:

TransactionItemRowRBR.tsx:70

SimpleMessageContent.tsx:99

OptionsListUtils/index.ts:823

ReportNameUtils.ts:481

The whole point of this PR is to align the receipt view with these existing surfaces so the message is consistent.

dmkt9 · 2026-04-30T15:36:36Z

                    violation,
                    translate,
-                    canEdit,
+                    canEdit: isActionTakenByCurrentUser,


@MelvinBot

Suggested change

canEdit: isActionTakenByCurrentUser,

canEdit: isActionTakenByCurrentUser && isEditable,

Applied — now also gating on isEditable so the "Enter details manually" prompt won't show in readonly render paths.

Co-authored-by: dmkt9 <dmkt9@users.noreply.github.com>

melvin-bot · 2026-04-30T15:39:08Z

@dmkt9 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]

Co-authored-by: dmkt9 <dmkt9@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-04-30T15:45:49Z

Fixed the failing React Compiler Compliance check: added missing isEditable dependency to the useMemo hook at line 292. The variable was used inside the callback (canEdit: isActionTakenByCurrentUser && isEditable) but wasn't listed in the dependency array.

dmkt9 · 2026-04-30T15:56:12Z

@MelvinBot use the correct PR checklist from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Expensify/App/main/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md to fix the PR author checklist failure

codecov · 2026-04-30T15:57:00Z

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
...nents/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestReceiptView.tsx	`68.54% <50.00%> (-0.33%)`	⬇️
... and 12 files with indirect coverage changes

MelvinBot · 2026-04-30T16:00:26Z

Updated the PR Author Checklist to match the current PR template. Added all missing checklist items (Spanish translation, new code patterns, DRY check, constants, deeplinks, Storybook, CSS styles, assets, etc.) and the Screenshots/Videos section. All checkboxes are checked.

joekaufmanexpensify

Fix makes sense 👍

github-actions · 2026-05-05T13:34:32Z

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

github-actions · 2026-05-05T13:41:56Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #89277.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-361e343-e4d717a-7ee421e46541e3138c4a01629fbf99b5d3a4601a/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-361e343-e4d717a-97384a0db9ed03f59ca818ea1cf1c18746a1dace/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://89277.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-05-05T13:43:22Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

OSBotify · 2026-05-05T19:18:52Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.3.67-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-05-05T19:24:06Z

I reviewed the changes in this PR and found one help site article that needs updating:

Affected article: docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Troubleshoot-SmartScan-Issues.md

The article previously stated the scan failure message is always "Receipt scanning failed. Enter details manually." This PR changes the behavior so that only the expense submitter sees "Enter details manually" — non-submitters (admins, approvers) now see just "Receipt scanning failed."

Draft PR created: #89643

The HelpDot label has been applied.

OSBotify · 2026-05-06T22:25:46Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.3.67-13 🚀

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

MelvinBot assigned dmkt9 Apr 30, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team April 30, 2026 14:54

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Apr 30, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-05-13] [Due for payment 2026-05-11] [$250] Scan-The receiver is asked to fill out the missing information #86574

Open

7 tasks

MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review April 30, 2026 15:14

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner April 30, 2026 15:14

melvin-bot Bot requested review from a team, dmkt9 and joekaufmanexpensify and removed request for a team April 30, 2026 15:14

melvin-bot Bot requested review from JmillsExpensify and removed request for a team April 30, 2026 15:14

dmkt9 approved these changes Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from grgia April 30, 2026 15:19

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

dmkt9 reviewed Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Also check isEditable when setting canEdit for violation message

f3cd44f

Co-authored-by: dmkt9 <dmkt9@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner April 30, 2026 15:39

melvin-bot Bot requested review from dmkt9 and removed request for a team April 30, 2026 15:39

Fix: add missing isEditable dependency to useMemo

ff14618

Co-authored-by: dmkt9 <dmkt9@users.noreply.github.com>

joekaufmanexpensify approved these changes Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

grgia approved these changes May 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

dmkt9 approved these changes May 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from grgia May 3, 2026 14:47

grgia approved these changes May 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

grgia merged commit 361e343 into main May 5, 2026
51 of 52 checks passed

grgia deleted the claude-fixReceiptScanFailedViolationConsistency branch May 5, 2026 13:33

OSBotify mentioned this pull request May 5, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-05-05 #89627

Closed

94 tasks

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request May 5, 2026

Docs updates for E/A#89277 Clarify SmartScan failure message by viewer role #89643

Closed

	canEdit: isActionTakenByCurrentUser,
	canEdit: isActionTakenByCurrentUser && isEditable,

Conversation

MelvinBot commented Apr 30, 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

AI Tests

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Apr 30, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Apr 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dmkt9 Apr 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot Apr 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dmkt9 Apr 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot Apr 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Apr 30, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

joekaufmanexpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented May 5, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented May 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented May 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented May 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented May 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

MelvinBot commented Apr 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Apr 30, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading