fix: keep multi-expense drafts submittable when a subset of receipts …

[yusufdeveloper2903]

Explanation of Change

A draft expense report stopped surfacing its Submit affordance whenever it contained even a single receipt that failed SmartScan and was still missing required fields. The report disappeared from the To Do "to submit" tray, from Spend → Drafts, and lost its in-report Submit button, yet it remained findable via the manual status:drafts filter — exactly the reported symptom.

The root cause is that both submit predicates gate on hasSmartScanFailedWithMissingFields, which is a whole-report .some(...): one scan-failed/missing-fields receipt among many makes it true for the entire report.

• isSubmitAction (src/libs/ReportPrimaryActionUtils.ts) returns false on that gate → no To Do tray entry, no Submit button.
• canSubmitReport (src/libs/actions/IOU/ReportWorkflow.ts) returns false on the same gate → the report's computed action is no longer SUBMIT, so it drops out of the canned action:submit Drafts search.

This change makes both submit gates block only when there is genuinely nothing to submit — i.e. when every transaction is blocked — mirroring the "all" semantics the codebase already uses for the scanning check (transactions.every((t) => isScanningTransaction(t))):

• In isSubmitAction, the scanning gate and the scan-failed gate now block only when every transaction is scanning / scan-failed-with-missing-fields, so a partially-blocked draft stays submittable.
• In canSubmitReport, the hasSmartScanFailedWithMissingFields term is now evaluated per-transaction with .every, kept aligned with the already-every scanning term directly above it.

Single-expense reports are unchanged (one failed receipt is the only expense → genuinely nothing to submit). todos.ts and the report header need no changes — both derive from isSubmitAction.

Fixed Issues

$ #93949
PROPOSAL: #93949 (comment)

Tests

1. Log in to New Expensify on a group (collect/control) workspace as the report submitter.
2. Create a draft (Open) expense report and add multiple expenses to it.
3. Add at least one scan receipt that fails SmartScan and is missing required fields (e.g. amount/merchant), while keeping the other expenses valid.
4. Open the home page To Do tray and verify the report appears under "to submit".
5. Go to Spend → Drafts and verify the report is listed.
6. Open the report and verify the Submit button is shown.
7. Submit the report and verify it submits successfully (matching Expensify Classic behavior).
8. Edge case — create a draft where every expense is a scan-failed/missing-fields receipt, and verify the report is not submittable (no To Do entry, not in Spend → Drafts, no Submit button), preserving current behavior when there is genuinely nothing to submit.
9. Edge case — create a single-expense draft whose only expense is scan-failed/missing-fields, and verify it is not submittable (unchanged behavior).

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Open a multi-expense draft (with one scan-failed/missing-fields receipt) that already shows the Submit button.
2. Turn off the network connection.
3. Verify the Submit button, To Do tray entry, and Spend → Drafts listing remain visible and consistent.
4. Tap Submit while offline and verify the optimistic submit behaves as expected, syncing when the connection is restored.

QA Steps

1. Log in to New Expensify on a group workspace as the report submitter.
2. Create a draft expense report with multiple expenses, including at least one scan receipt that failed SmartScan and is missing required fields.
3. Verify the report appears in the home To Do "to submit" tray.
4. Verify the report appears under Spend → Drafts.
5. Open the report and verify the Submit button is present, then submit it successfully.
6. Verify a draft where all expenses are scan-failed/missing-fields is correctly not submittable.

• 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

Before fix:

Before-fix-mac-chrome.mp4

After fix:

After-fix-mac-chrome.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@brunovjk 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: 424f73b1ed

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".

[brunovjk]

I can reproduce this on both staging and dev with this PR:

• If the report has at least one scan-failed expense, the Submit button does not appear. As soon as I delete that scan-failed expense, Submit appears again.

Screen.Recording.2026-06-25.at.12.13.48.mov

According to the PR description, this shouldn't happen, right? Can you confirm if that is intentional? Thanks. @deetergp @yusufdeveloper2903

[yusufdeveloper2903]

@brunovjk that's expected here — Submit is hidden because that expense is scan-failed with missing required fields, so it's not in a submittable state and its SMARTSCAN_FAILED violation blocks the report. Deleting it clears the violation, which is why Submit comes back.

If we want, I can extend the fix so Submit still shows in this case too (as long as there's at least one valid expense) — just let me know if that's the desired behavior. cc @deetergp

[brunovjk]

Great, thanks for clarifying.

[brunovjk]

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

94456_android_web.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

94456_android_web.mov

iOS: HybridApp

94456_ios_native.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

94456_ios_web.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

94456_web_chrome.mov

[melvin-bot]

Congrats, that's your 5th PR merged! 🎉 Do you know about the ContributorPlus role? It's an opportunity to earn more in the Expensify Open Source community. Keep up the great work - thanks!

[github-actions]

🚧 deetergp has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

[OSBotify]

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #94456.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-abcb18bc6d4-e158efb-81b30948230cd893dbe12058a44be8152fc0f89b/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-abcb18b-e158efb-d6a7f1e475d4125ef63119e87bbc1d9903518c5b/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://94456.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/deetergp in version: 9.4.22-1 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	cancelled 🔪
🍎 iOS 🍎	cancelled 🔪

[jponikarchuk]

Deploy Blocker #94884 was identified to be related to this PR.

[jponikarchuk]

This PR failing because of the issue #94884
This issue is reproducible in: All platforms

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/deetergp in version: 9.4.24-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	failure ❌

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes required — I did not create a docs PR.

This PR is a bug fix that makes a multi-expense draft stay submittable when only a subset of its receipts fail SmartScan with missing fields. It restores the Submit affordance, the To Do "to submit" tray entry, and the Spend → Drafts listing for those partially-blocked drafts. It adds no new feature, setting, tab, or UI label.

The behavior this PR restores is already documented correctly in the help site, so nothing needs editing:

Why don't I see the "Submit" button?
The Submit button only appears once your report includes at least one valid expense.

— Create-and-Submit-Reports.md (live article).

The pre-fix code contradicted that line (one scan-failed receipt among several valid ones hid the button); the fix brings the app back in line with the existing docs. I checked the related articles too — Understanding-Report-Statuses-and-Actions.md and Expense-and-Report-Actions.md — and none of them describe the old (buggy) gating, so there is nothing inaccurate to update.

@yusufdeveloper2903, since no docs PR was needed, there is no linked help site PR to review. If you believe a doc should be added or clarified (e.g. explicitly calling out the partial scan-failure case in the Submit FAQ), let me know and I'll draft one.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.4.24-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	failure ❌

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/deetergp in version: 9.4.24-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	failure ❌