fix: Enable report payment for admins with business bank account access in New Expensify #78794

samranahm · 2026-01-02T19:07:47Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #78247
PROPOSAL: #78247 (comment)

Tests

Preconditions:

Create a workspace as admin A and add a business bank account to the workspace. Set admin A as the workspace payer.
Add admin B to the workspace as an admin who has access to the same business bank account. Set admin B as the approver.
Invite employee C to the workspace as a member.

Test:

As employee C, submit an expense report.
As admin B, approve the report.
Verify that admin B sees the option to pay the report since they have access to the business bank account.
Open the report as admin A and verify that the pay option is available since admin A is the actual payer.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Same as test

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

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

This PR will be tested by an internal engineer due to inability to add a real business bank account for testing. #78247 (comment)

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR fixes an issue where admins with business bank account access could not pay reports in New Expensify, even though they could in Expensify Classic. The fix enables the payment action for workspace admins who have access to the same business bank account as the reimburser, even if they are not the designated reimburser themselves.

Key Changes:

Modified the isPayer function to check if an admin has bank account access via the sharees field in addition to checking if they are the reimburser
Threaded the bankAccountList parameter through multiple utility functions and React components to enable bank account access validation
Added test coverage for the new bank account access logic

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
`src/libs/ReportUtils.ts`	Core logic change: Updated `isPayer` function to accept `bankAccountList` parameter and check if admin has bank account access via sharees
`src/libs/ReportSecondaryActionUtils.ts`	Updated function signatures to accept and pass `bankAccountList` for secondary actions (cancel payment, export, mark as exported)
`src/libs/ReportPrimaryActionUtils.ts`	Updated `isPrimaryPayAction` and `getReportPrimaryAction` to accept and pass `bankAccountList` parameter
`src/libs/ReportPreviewActionUtils.ts`	Updated `canPay` and `getReportPreviewAction` to accept and pass `bankAccountList` parameter
`src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts`	Updated next step calculation functions to accept and pass `bankAccountList` for correct payer determination
`src/hooks/useTodos.ts`	Added `bankAccountList` hook and passed it to `isPrimaryPayAction` for todo list calculations
`src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx`	Added `bankAccountList` hook and passed it through primary/secondary action calculations
`src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestReportPreview/MoneyRequestReportPreviewContent.tsx`	Added `bankAccountList` hook and included it in report preview action calculations
`tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts`	Added test case validating that admins with bank account access via sharees can pay reports

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

codecov · 2026-01-02T19:16:49Z

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
...ReportPreview/MoneyRequestReportPreviewContent.tsx	`61.20% <100.00%> (+0.13%)`	⬆️
src/components/Search/index.tsx	`34.22% <100.00%> (+0.16%)`	⬆️
...ts/SelectionListWithSections/Search/ActionCell.tsx	`54.90% <100.00%> (+0.90%)`	⬆️
...stWithSections/Search/TransactionGroupListItem.tsx	`71.69% <100.00%> (+0.26%)`	⬆️
src/hooks/useTodos.ts	`94.73% <100.00%> (+0.14%)`	⬆️
src/libs/ReportPreviewActionUtils.ts	`90.38% <100.00%> (-0.97%)`	⬇️
src/libs/ReportPrimaryActionUtils.ts	`90.65% <100.00%> (ø)`
src/libs/ReportSecondaryActionUtils.ts	`91.80% <100.00%> (ø)`
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts	`73.02% <100.00%> (-0.05%)`	⬇️
src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts	`59.32% <100.00%> (ø)`
... and 7 more
... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

samranahm · 2026-01-02T19:41:01Z

Failing checks are not related to our changes.

bernhardoj · 2026-01-03T03:42:52Z

@samranahm This missing bankAccountList from deps related to our PR.

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

src/libs/ReportPrimaryActionUtils.ts

src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts

… and related utilities

…rt-newdot

samranahm · 2026-01-03T14:53:02Z

WIP

bernhardoj · 2026-01-06T02:11:51Z

@samranahm also, please merge with main to see if the lint is fixed

JS00001

Code looks good to me, one comment thats not critical

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

bernhardoj · 2026-01-07T13:31:07Z

@samranahm please fix the conflicts and also this lint error

samranahm · 2026-01-07T13:32:12Z

On it, will fix them ASAP

…-report-newdot

JS00001 · 2026-01-07T13:45:32Z

Looks like prettier is failing

samranahm · 2026-01-07T15:11:31Z

@bernhardoj All yours.

trjExpensify · 2026-01-08T00:39:08Z

@bernhardoj can you re-review it today? It's a feature disparity gap we'd like to get fixed ASAP. 👍

bernhardoj · 2026-01-08T02:58:37Z

@samranahm the bankAccountList is still optional in getReportPrimaryAction, getSecondaryReportActions, and canIOUBePaid.

samranahm · 2026-01-08T10:39:47Z

Ahh, I’ll make them required here too and review all the changes again.

JS00001 · 2026-01-08T15:07:50Z

@samranahm let us know when this is ready for another review!

samranahm · 2026-01-08T15:14:58Z

I’m reviewing it one more time and will ping you shortly.

samranahm · 2026-01-08T16:14:58Z

@bernhardoj @JS00001 PR ready, please take a look.

bernhardoj · 2026-01-08T16:54:04Z

src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts

 });

+let allBankAccountList: OnyxEntry<OnyxTypes.BankAccountList> = {};
+Onyx.connectWithoutView({


I don't think we want to add a new Onyx.connectWithoutView usage in this file. Let's pass it all from useOnyx hook.

Btw, I see that we use it mostly for hasOutstandingChildRequest(). @JS00001 When the non-payer approver can pay (bcs the bank account is shared), should the hasOutstandingChildRequest be true or not?

If not, then we can just pass undefined to hasOutstandingChildRequest()

Yes, we should get confirmation here. Do we want to show the GBR for admins with bank account access, or should it only be displayed for the actual payer? I think passing undefined to hasOutstandingChildRequest makes sense. @JS00001 what do you think?

I don't think we want to add a new Onyx.connectWithoutView usage in this file. Let's pass it all from useOnyx hook.

Agree, lets remove this

Yes, we should get confirmation here. Do we want to show the GBR for admins with bank account access, or should it only be displayed for the actual payer?

I think it should show for only the payer, not all admins, cc @trjExpensify

Right, agreed. 👍

…-report-newdot

bernhardoj · 2026-01-09T01:32:50Z

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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
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

bernhardoj · 2026-01-09T01:33:42Z

Code LGTM. @JS00001 can we have an ad-hoc build so @joekaufmanexpensify can help us test this? (for ref)

samranahm added 4 commits January 2, 2026 23:37

Add bank account access check to isPayer function

1c88e73

Pass bank account list param to isPayer function

988e98e

Enable admin payments for bank-account sharees pass bankAccountList

14dcb94

Add test for admin payer access with bank account sharees

b724de5

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 2, 2026 19:07

samranahm requested review from a team as code owners January 2, 2026 19:07

melvin-bot bot assigned samranahm Jan 2, 2026

melvin-bot bot requested review from JS00001, JmillsExpensify, bernhardoj, flaviadefaria, heyjennahay, joekaufmanexpensify and trjExpensify January 2, 2026 19:07

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of samranahm January 2, 2026 19:08 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fix: failing checks

9b5620b

samranahm mentioned this pull request Jan 2, 2026

[CFI] [$250] Admin can pay report in Expensify Classic but not New Expensify #78247

Open

7 tasks

bernhardoj reviewed Jan 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

bernhardoj reviewed Jan 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportPrimaryActionUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

bernhardoj reviewed Jan 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

samranahm added 4 commits January 3, 2026 18:51

feat: add bank account list as required parameter to isPayer function…

571d620

… and related utilities

update function signature

20e03b0

update isPayer tests to pass required param

a663b0c

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream' into 78247/admin-can-pay-repo…

8908d79

…rt-newdot

samranahm added 2 commits January 6, 2026 12:18

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into 78247/admin-can-pay-report-newdot

36c9a87

fix: require bankAccountList param in shared functions

a68be7e

samranahm dismissed trjExpensify’s stale review via a68be7e January 6, 2026 17:13

fix: failing checks

4e5fff4

JS00001 requested changes Jan 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

samranahm added 2 commits January 7, 2026 18:39

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into 78247/admin-can-pay…

c6434c7

…-report-newdot

fix: correct parameter name

03dfd67

fix: failing cheks

e86cfac

JS00001 requested a review from bernhardoj January 7, 2026 14:03

samranahm added 3 commits January 8, 2026 16:10

make bankAccountList param required in getReportPrimaryAction

045e3b2

make bankAccountList param required in getSecondaryReportActions

909bcd3

Refactor IOU helpers to include bankAccountList as required param

a360342

samranahm added 2 commits January 8, 2026 20:38

fix: lint

299ddb7

lint

04c00b4

bernhardoj reviewed Jan 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

samranahm added 2 commits January 9, 2026 05:12

exclude hasOutstandingChildRequest for admins with bank account access

23d7726

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into 78247/admin-can-pay…

e4f5008

…-report-newdot

fix: Enable report payment for admins with business bank account access in New Expensify #78794

Are you sure you want to change the base?

fix: Enable report payment for admins with business bank account access in New Expensify #78794

Uh oh!

Conversation

samranahm commented Jan 2, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Key Changes:

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 2, 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!

samranahm commented Jan 2, 2026

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

samranahm commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Jan 6, 2026

Uh oh!

JS00001 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

samranahm commented Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

JS00001 commented Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

samranahm commented Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

samranahm commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

JS00001 commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

samranahm commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

samranahm commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

bernhardoj Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bernhardoj Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

samranahm Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JS00001 Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

trjExpensify Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Jan 9, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

codecov bot commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading