fix: Reports - Highlight animation is visible on added expense after duplication

[TaduJR]

Explanation of Change

Symptom: Duplicating an expense while viewing its iouReport visibly swaps the chat-like ReportActionsView for the table-style MoneyRequestReportActionsList — perceived as an unexpected "highlight animation / navigation change" on the added expense.

Root cause: duplicateExpenseTransaction generated optimistic IDs but never called createNewReport, so the BE's REQUEST_MONEY attached the duplicate to the chat's open iouReportID. The viewed report went from 1 → 2 transactions, flipping shouldDisplayReportTableView false → true and swapping the subtree.

Fix: Mirror duplicateReport (bulk flow). Before requestMoney, call createNewReport to materialize a dedicated iouReport on the BE, then pass it as existingIOUReport. The viewed report is untouched — no subtree swap.

Follow-up fix (UI consistency): Once duplicates always go to a fresh iouReport, the activePolicyExpenseChat?.iouReportID === moneyRequestReport?.reportID branch in shouldDuplicateCloseModalOnSelect became a stale workaround. It closed the dropdown instantly on the first click (no ✓) while later clicks showed the smooth ✓ → fade. Dropped, so DUPLICATE_EXPENSE matches DUPLICATE_REPORT (always shouldCloseModalOnSelect: false).

Scope of change:

• src/libs/actions/IOU/Duplicate.ts — accept optional ownerPersonalDetails; pre-create via createNewReport when targetPolicy + ownerPersonalDetails and no existingIOUReport.
• src/hooks/useExpenseActions.ts — pass ownerPersonalDetails; drop the stale iouReport-equality condition.
• src/components/MoneyRequestHeaderSecondaryActions.tsx — pass ownerPersonalDetails (second live entry point for single-expense duplicate).
• tests/actions/IOUTest/DuplicateTest.ts — 4 new tests: CREATE_APP_REPORT fires under the new branch; its report flows to REQUEST_MONEY; back-compat when ownerPersonalDetails is omitted; bulk-duplicate path untouched when existingIOUReport is passed.

Fixed Issues

$ #86354
PROPOSAL: #86354 (comment)

Tests

Prerequisite: Account with at least one workspace (paid group workspace — TEAM or CORPORATE).

1. Open the Expensify app.
2. Open any workspace chat.
3. Create a manual expense.
4. Navigate to Reports > Expenses.
5. Open the just-created expense.
6. Tap More > Duplicate.
7. Verify (no view flip): No highlight animation or navigation/view change is visible on the source expense. The current view stays on the source expense; the duplicate appears as a separate, newly-created expense report visible in the Reports list (and workspace chat) without any flash or scroll on the currently viewed report.
8. Verify (tick animation): The Duplicate menu item briefly shows a checkmark (✓) icon, and the dropdown smoothly fades out — it does NOT close instantly.
9. Without navigating away, tap More > Duplicate on the same source expense again.
10. Verify (consistency): Same smooth ✓ → fade behavior as step 8.
11. Navigate to Reports > Expenses.
12. Verify (separate reports): Each duplicate appears as its OWN expense report. The original expense report still shows exactly 1 transaction.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."
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-Native.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

Android-mWeb.mp4

iOS: Native

iOS-Native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

iOS-Safari.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Macbook-Chrome.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@abzokhattab 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: 98b2144d3a

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".

[TaduJR]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 0d4d2963ef

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".

[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/hooks/useLatchedTransactionIDs.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/pages/inbox/ReportActionsList.tsx	95.00% <100.00%> (+0.55%)	⬆️
src/pages/inbox/report/ReportActionsView.tsx	80.43% <83.33%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
src/pages/Search/SearchMoneyRequestReportPage.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/pages/inbox/WideRHPReceiptPanel.tsx	11.76% <0.00%> (-0.74%)	⬇️
.../MoneyRequestReportView/MoneyRequestReportView.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 27 files with indirect coverage changes

[abzokhattab]

@codex review

[abzokhattab]

@MelvinBot review the changes

[MelvinBot]

Code Review

The fix is sound — it mirrors the existing duplicateReport (bulk) pattern by pre-creating a dedicated iouReport via createNewReport so the duplicate never lands on the currently-viewed report. The approach is correct and well-tested.

Verified:

• createNewReport returns {...optimisticReportData, reportPreviewReportActionID} — the destructuring {reportPreviewReportActionID, ...newReport} in Duplicate.ts:710 is correct.
• The guard !resolvedExistingIOUReport && targetPolicy && ownerPersonalDetails at Duplicate.ts:709 prevents double-creation when existingIOUReport is already provided (e.g. bulkDuplicateExpenses at line 1048).
• Removal of activePolicyExpenseChat?.iouReportID === moneyRequestReport?.reportID from shouldDuplicateCloseModalOnSelect is safe — since duplicates now always go to a fresh report, that condition was stale.
• Both call sites (useExpenseActions.ts and MoneyRequestHeaderSecondaryActions.tsx) correctly pass ownerPersonalDetails from the already-available useCurrentUserPersonalDetails() hook.
• Tests cover: happy path, report ID propagation to REQUEST_MONEY, backward compat (no ownerPersonalDetails), and bulk-duplicate exclusion.

Two minor non-blocking observations

1. Type cast: newReport as OnyxEntry<OnyxTypes.Report> widens OptimisticNewReport (a Pick<Report, ...>) to the full Report type. This works because downstream code only reads fields present on the optimistic object, and it matches the pre-existing pattern in duplicateReport (line 889). Not a regression, but a stricter type (e.g. Partial<Report>) would be safer long-term.

2. Personal expenses: When targetPolicy is falsy (no workspace), createNewReport is skipped and the old behavior is preserved. This appears intentional — the bug only manifests on workspace expenses where the viewed report can flip from single to multi-transaction view.

Overall this looks good to merge. Clean separation of concerns, follows established patterns, and comprehensive test coverage.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: cb2c0631eb

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".

[abzokhattab]

@MelvinBot Review

[MelvinBot]

Updated Review (post April 28 commits)

Since my last review, two new commits landed:

1. 3544da0 — Added && targetReport to the pre-create guard in Duplicate.ts, preventing createNewReport from firing when the target chat report is undefined.
2. a3e94a3 — New test asserting CREATE_APP_REPORT is NOT called when targetReport is undefined.

Verdict: Good hardening. The guard now correctly requires all four preconditions (!resolvedExistingIOUReport && targetPolicy && ownerPersonalDetails && targetReport) before pre-creating, which prevents a potential crash if the chat report hasn't loaded. The main merge conflict resolution (April 28) is clean — no logic drift.

No new concerns. Previous review assessment still holds — this looks good to merge.

[abzokhattab]

thanks i would review it later today

[abzokhattab]

@TaduJR

Bug: When duplicating an expense within the report, a new report is created. The expected result should be that a new expense is created within the same report:

Screen.Recording.2026-04-30.at.19.24.57.mov

[abzokhattab]

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

[abzokhattab]

@TaduJR kind reminder on this #88327 (comment)

[github-actions]

⚠️ This PR is possibly changing native code and/or updating libraries, it may cause problems with HybridApp. Please check if any patch updates are required in the HybridApp repo and run an AdHoc build to verify that HybridApp will not break. Ask Contributor Plus for help if you are not sure how to handle this. ⚠️

[github-actions]

All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅
_{Posted by the CLA Assistant Lite bot.}