Skip reimbursable step in duplicate resolver for managed card transactions

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

The duplicate resolver decides which review steps to show and what values to merge from compareDuplicateTransactionFields in src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts. reimbursable was treated as a generic comparable field: when a manually-added cash expense (reimbursable: true) was a duplicate of a managed company-card transaction (reimbursable: false), the values differed, so reimbursable was added to the change map — surfacing the "Choose if transaction is reimbursable" step. The user could pick reimbursable, and the merge persisted reimbursable: true onto a managed card transaction, an invalid state with no in-product way to correct it.

This change adds a dedicated reimbursable branch in the field-comparison loop. The resolved reimbursable value is always applied to the transaction that is kept (the reviewing transaction — reviewDuplicates.transactionID, which buildMergeDuplicatesParams merges into), so the branch forces reimbursable into keep as false and never adds it to change only when that kept transaction is itself a managed card (isManagedCardTransaction(reviewingTransaction)). Because every Review* page derives its step list from Object.keys(change), dropping reimbursable from change removes the step everywhere, and seeding keep.reimbursable = false flows through setReviewDuplicatesKey so the transaction is merged as non-reimbursable. When the kept transaction is not a managed card, the existing equal/differ behavior is preserved — so a kept cash expense that legitimately is reimbursable is never silently converted to non-reimbursable, even when one of its duplicates is a managed card.

isManagedCardTransaction (!!transaction?.managedCard) is used deliberately rather than a broader card-import check, so personal/CSV card imports that can legitimately be reimbursable are unaffected — only centrally managed cards are constrained to non-reimbursable.

Fixed Issues

$ #94679
PROPOSAL: #94679 (comment)

Tests

1. Create a workspace and connect a company card feed; import some transactions.
2. Add a cash expense matching one of the imported managed card transactions so they are flagged as duplicates.
3. Click "Resolve duplicates" and choose to keep the managed card transaction, then step through the wizard.
4. Verify the "Choose if transaction is reimbursable" step is not shown.
5. Complete the merge and verify the resulting transaction is non-reimbursable.
6. Edge case: repeat steps 1–3 but choose to keep the cash expense instead. Verify the reimbursable step is shown (or the kept cash expense stays reimbursable) and is not silently forced to non-reimbursable.
7. Regression: resolve duplicates between two cash expenses with differing reimbursable values and verify the reimbursable step is still shown.
8. Verify that no errors appear in the JS console.

Automated coverage in tests/unit/TransactionUtilsTest.ts (compareDuplicateTransactionFields → reimbursable field comparison): keeping a managed-card transaction yields keep.reimbursable === false with no change.reimbursable; keeping a cash expense whose duplicate is a managed card surfaces the differing values in change.reimbursable instead of forcing false; and existing cash-vs-cash behavior is unchanged.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests.

QA Steps

1. Create a workspace and connect a company card feed; import some transactions.
2. Add a cash expense matching one of the imported managed card transactions so they are flagged as duplicates.
3. Click "Resolve duplicates", keep the managed card transaction, and step through the wizard.
4. Verify the "Choose if transaction is reimbursable" step is not shown and the merged transaction is non-reimbursable.
5. Edge case: repeat but keep the cash expense; verify it is not silently forced to non-reimbursable.
6. Regression: verify the reimbursable step still appears when resolving duplicates between two non-managed-card (cash) expenses with differing reimbursable values.

• 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 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)
• 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)
• 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.
• 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: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[MelvinBot]

I created this PR from an upstream branch since I don't have push access to your fork.

To take ownership of this branch and be able to push updates, run:

git remote add upstream https://github.com/Expensify/App.git
git fetch upstream claude-duplicateReimbursableManagedCard
git checkout -b claude-duplicateReimbursableManagedCard upstream/claude-duplicateReimbursableManagedCard
git push -u origin claude-duplicateReimbursableManagedCard

Then you can close this PR and open a new one from your fork.

[abzokhattab]

@MelvinBot complete the checklist and test steps, and mark screenshots as done since they’ll be added in the reviewer checklist.

[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 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)
• 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)
• 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.
• 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

Before:

Screen.Recording.2026-06-28.at.18.28.04.mov

After:

Screen.Recording.2026-06-28.at.19.50.40.mov

[abzokhattab]

@MelvinBot merge into latest main and mark the PR as ready

[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]

[melvin-bot]

@deetergp 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: 70c733f425

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]

Only force non-reimbursable for selected managed cards

If the user selects the cash expense to keep while one of its duplicates is a managed card transaction, getReviewNavigationRoute passes that cash transaction as the selected transaction and resolveDuplicates updates params.transactionID; this branch still sees the managed card elsewhere in transactions and writes keep.reimbursable = false, so a valid reimbursable cash expense is silently changed to non-reimbursable. Please gate this on the selected/reviewing transaction being managed, not on any duplicate in the set.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[abzokhattab]

fix this issue @MelvinBot and update the tests

[MelvinBot]

Good catch — addressed in 454c290.

The resolved reimbursable value is applied to the kept transaction (reviewDuplicates.transactionID, which buildMergeDuplicatesParams merges into), so the gate is now on whether that transaction is managed, not on any duplicate in the set:

if (isManagedCardTransaction(reviewingTransaction)) {
    keep[fieldName] = false;
} else if (areAllFieldsEqualForKey) {
    ...
}

• Keep the managed card → keep.reimbursable = false, step hidden (original bug fixed).
• Keep the cash expense (even when a duplicate is a managed card) → no longer forced to false; the differing values surface as the reimbursable step, so a valid reimbursable cash expense is preserved.

Tests updated in tests/unit/TransactionUtilsTest.ts (reimbursable field comparison): one case for keeping the managed card (forced false, no step) and a new case for keeping the cash expense (not forced; change.reimbursable is surfaced).

[melvin-bot]

@marcochavezf 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]

[abzokhattab]

There is a back-navigation bug in the current fix.

Root cause: Every Review* page and Confirmation.tsx independently re-derives the step list by calling compareDuplicateTransactionFields — this is what useReviewDuplicatesNavigation uses to compute prevScreen for the back button. These pages all pass undefined as selectedTransactionID and use the thread report's transaction as reviewingTransaction. When the user opens the cash expense but selects the managed card to keep, the thread's transaction is the cash one — isManagedCardTransaction(reviewingTransaction) is false — so reimbursable ends up in change, and pressing back from any later step (e.g. confirmation) routes through the reimbursable step.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Have a cash expense (reimbursable=true) flagged as a duplicate of a managed card transaction
2. Open the cash expense and tap "Review duplicates"
3. Select the managed card to keep → press "Keep selected"
4. The forward wizard correctly skips the reimbursable step
5. Press the back button → the "Choose if transaction is reimbursable" step appears

Fix: getReviewNavigationRoute already stores the selected transaction ID in REVIEW_DUPLICATES.transactionID via setReviewDuplicatesKey. All Review* pages and Confirmation already read reviewDuplicates from Onyx. The fix is:

1. In compareDuplicateTransactionFields, check the selected transaction rather than reviewingTransaction:

} else if (fieldName === 'reimbursable') {
    const selectedTransaction = transactions.find((t) => t?.transactionID === selectedTransactionID) ?? firstTransaction;
    if (isManagedCardTransaction(selectedTransaction)) {
        keep[fieldName] = false;

2. In each Review* page and Confirmation.tsx, pass reviewDuplicates?.transactionID as selectedTransactionID instead of undefined:

// Before
compareDuplicateTransactionFields(policyTags ?? {}, transaction, allDuplicates, reviewDuplicatesReport, undefined, policy, policyCategories)

// After
compareDuplicateTransactionFields(policyTags ?? {}, transaction, allDuplicates, reviewDuplicatesReport, reviewDuplicates?.transactionID, policy, policyCategories)

Affected files: ReviewBillable, ReviewCategory, ReviewDescription, ReviewMerchant, ReviewReimbursable, ReviewTag, ReviewTaxCode, Confirmation.

@MelvinBot

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts	88.70% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/ReviewBillable.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/ReviewCategory.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...c/pages/TransactionDuplicate/ReviewDescription.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/ReviewMerchant.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
.../pages/TransactionDuplicate/ReviewReimbursable.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/ReviewTag.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/ReviewTaxCode.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/Confirmation.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

[abzokhattab]

@MelvinBot review the PR