Preserve disabled category/tag/taxCode during duplicate resolution by MelvinBot · Pull Request #85612 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-03-18T04:21:26Z

Explanation of Change

In compareDuplicateTransactionFields, when resolving duplicate expenses where both have different disabled categories (or tags/taxCodes), the field was silently dropped from both keep and change because:

The change branch requires enabled options to be available
The keep branch requires all fields to be equal

When neither condition is met (different values, all disabled), the field falls through without being stored anywhere. This causes buildMergeDuplicatesParams to read reviewDuplicates?.category ?? '' which resolves to an empty string, blanking the category.

This PR adds fallback else clauses to preserve the first transaction's value (even if disabled) rather than silently dropping it. The same fix is applied to category, tag (non-multi-level), and taxCode fields which all have the identical gap.

Fixed Issues

$ #82925
PROPOSAL: #82925 (comment)

Tests

Open a workspace chat
Create 2 expenses with different categories (e.g., Advertising and Benefits), same merchant and amount
Disable both categories in the workspace settings
Open the expense report
Tap "Review duplicates" → "Keep this one"
Tap "Confirm"
Verify the category field shows the disabled category name (e.g., "Advertising") instead of being blank
Verify the error message consistently shows "Category no longer valid" and does not change to "Missing category"

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A - This change affects duplicate resolution logic which requires server interaction. The optimistic data flow is unchanged.

QA Steps

Open a workspace chat
Create 2 expenses with different categories (e.g., Advertising and Benefits), same merchant and amount so they are detected as duplicates
Disable both categories in workspace settings
Open the expense report
Tap "Review duplicates" → "Keep this one" → "Confirm"
Verify the category field retains the original category name with a "Category no longer valid" violation
Verify the same behavior with disabled tags and tax codes if applicable

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

When resolving duplicate expenses where both have disabled categories (or tags/taxCodes), the field was silently dropped from both 'keep' and 'change' in compareDuplicateTransactionFields, resulting in an empty string being used during merge. This adds fallback else clauses to preserve the first transaction's value even when no enabled options are available. Co-authored-by: Bernhard Owen Josephus <bernhardoj@users.noreply.github.com>

The PR intentionally preserves the first transaction's category/taxCode in keep when all options are disabled/deleted, instead of silently dropping the field. Update test expectations accordingly. Co-authored-by: Bernhard Owen Josephus <bernhardoj@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-03-18T04:35:44Z

Fixed the failing check: Updated 5 test assertions in TransactionUtilsTest.ts to match the new behavior where disabled/deleted category and taxCode values are preserved in keep (from the first transaction) instead of being silently dropped. The change assertions remain unchanged since disabled options are still correctly excluded from the change set.

bernhardoj · 2026-03-18T06:58:48Z

src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

                    keep[fieldName] = firstTransaction?.[keys[0]] ?? firstTransaction?.[keys[1]];
+                } else {
+                    // Preserve the first transaction's taxCode (even if disabled) to avoid blanking it during duplicate resolution
+                    keep[fieldName] = firstTransaction?.[keys[0]] ?? firstTransaction?.[keys[1]];


@MelvinBot It's the same code with the previous else block. Let's just combine it into 1 else block. Do for the others too

Combined the else if (areAllFieldsEqualForKey) and else blocks into a single else block for all three fields (taxCode, category, and tag). Since both branches had the same code, they're now a single else that handles both cases. Pushed in 2ca4bde.

bernhardoj · 2026-03-18T07:02:59Z

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

web.mp4

Co-authored-by: Bernhard Owen Josephus <bernhardoj@users.noreply.github.com>

bernhardoj · 2026-03-18T07:07:20Z

@MelvinBot mark this PR as ready

melvin-bot · 2026-03-18T07:08:56Z

@bernhardoj 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]

MelvinBot · 2026-03-18T07:08:59Z

Done — PR is now marked as ready for review. ✅

melvin-bot · 2026-03-18T07:23:17Z

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #82925 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

MelvinBot assigned bernhardoj Mar 18, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team March 18, 2026 04:21

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Mar 18, 2026

[$250] Expense - Category blank after resolving duplicate instead of showing disabled category #82925

Open

7 tasks

bernhardoj reviewed Mar 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

Combine duplicate else blocks for category/tag/taxCode fields

2ca4bde

Co-authored-by: Bernhard Owen Josephus <bernhardoj@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review March 18, 2026 07:08

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner March 18, 2026 07:08

melvin-bot bot requested a review from bernhardoj March 18, 2026 07:08

melvin-bot bot requested review from heyjennahay and removed request for a team March 18, 2026 07:08

bernhardoj approved these changes Mar 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from mjasikowski March 18, 2026 07:23

mjasikowski approved these changes Mar 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Preserve disabled category/tag/taxCode during duplicate resolution#85612

Preserve disabled category/tag/taxCode during duplicate resolution#85612
MelvinBot wants to merge 3 commits intomainfrom
claude-fixCategoryBlankAfterResolvingDuplicate

MelvinBot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

bernhardoj Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Conversation

MelvinBot commented Mar 18, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

bernhardoj Mar 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot Mar 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Mar 18, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants