[Due for payment 2025-10-21] [$250] If an expense report is not eligible to have reports moved to it, don't show it in the list

[clarajones-expensify]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number:
Reproducible in staging?:
Reproducible in production?:
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by:
Slack conversation (hyperlinked to channel name): quality

Action Performed:

Account pre-reqs: instant submit is turned on, there are no approvers in the workflow, and the report that you are going to move expenses to contains only non-reimbursable expenses.

1. Select expenses on an open report
2. Click More > move expenses
3. Select the report that meets the account pre-reqs from above
4. You will see that the expenses do not move to the new report, and there is no error message or warning to indicate to the customer why

Expected Result:

What should happen is that the report that is ineligible to have expenses moved to it should not even appear in the list of reports as an option to select.

Notes from engineering:

Make sure that only reports that we can move the expenses to are listed as an option (i.e. Draft and processing)

Platforms:

Select the officially supported platforms where the issue was reproduced:

• Android: App
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: App
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• iOS: mWeb Chrome
• Windows: Chrome
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Platforms Tested:

On which of our officially supported platforms was this issue tested:

• Android: App
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: App
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• iOS: mWeb Chrome
• Windows: Chrome
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

2025-09-10_08-27-53.3.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021966230998916008704
• Upwork Job ID: 1966230998916008704
• Last Price Increase: 2025-09-11
• Automatic offers:
• abzokhattab | Contributor | 108878612

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @clarajones-expensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @Christinadobrzyn (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021966230998916008704

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @allroundexperts (External)

[lorretheboy]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

If an expense report is not eligible to have reports moved to it, don't show it in the list

What is the root cause of that problem?

Improvement

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

We need to add function to check if it is instant submit enabled with no approvers

function isInstantSubmitEnabledWithNoApprovers(policy: OnyxInputOrEntry<Policy> | SearchPolicy): boolean {
    return isInstantSubmitEnabled(policy) && isSubmitAndClose(policy);
}

Then in isReportOutstanding we check if a workspace has instant submit with no approvers, they cannot add an expense to a nonreimbursable-only report as these are closed automatically

    if (isInstantSubmitEnabledWithNoApprovers(policy) && hasOnlyNonReimbursableTransactions(iouReport.reportID)) {
        return false;
    }

Add below here

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Line 10168 in b5d63c9

const shouldAllowSubmittedReport = allowSubmitted || isInstantSubmitEnabled(policy) || isProcessingReport(activeReport);

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

Update report utils test to test

• reports with only non-reimbursable transactions when policy has instant submit with no approvers
• reports with reimbursable transactions even when policy has instant submit with no approvers

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[abzokhattab]

🚨 Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2025-09-11 23:45:44 UTC.

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

If an expense report is not eligible to have reports moved to it, don't show it in the list

What is the root cause of that problem?

• The frontend shows all outstanding reports in the move expenses list without filtering out reports that meet specific backend validation criteria
• Backend throws 403 error when trying to add expenses to reports with instant submit enabled, no approvers, and only non-reimbursable transactions
• Frontend doesn't replicate this validation logic, causing users to see reports they can't actually use

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

• Add filtering logic in IOURequestEditReportCommon to exclude ineligible reports from the move expenses list
• Filter out reports that have both:
• Instant submit enabled with no approvers (isInstantSubmitEnabled(policy) && isSubmitAndClose(policy))
• Only non-reimbursable transactions (hasOnlyNonReimbursableTransactions(report.reportID))
  to do that we need to add this filter here

return expenseReports
.....
.filter((report) => {
const policy = getPolicy(report.policyID);
const isInstantSubmitWithNoApprovers = isInstantSubmitEnabled(policy) && isSubmitAndClose(policy);
const hasOnlyNonReimbursable = hasOnlyNonReimbursableTransactions(report.reportID);
return !(isInstantSubmitWithNoApprovers && hasOnlyNonReimbursable);
})

or we can do this filtering inside the expenseReports function

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

• Add comprehensive test coverage to verify the filtering works correctly in the IOURequestEditReportCommonTest

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

[github-actions]

⚠️ @abzokhattab Your proposal is a duplicate of an already existing proposal and has been automatically withdrawn to prevent spam. Please review the existing proposals before submitting a new one.