[WIP] [Performance] Resolve destinationReportID before confirmation mount in global-create

[JakubKorytko]

Explanation of Change

Fix single-screen global-create flows (workspace expenses, self-DM tracking) where transaction.reportID was undefined at Confirmation mount time, causing the pre-insert effect to miss its window. Extracted resolveEarlyReportID in useResetIOUType to set transaction.reportID immediately after initMoneyRequest. Also reset hasPreInsertFired in the pre-insert cleanup so it can re-fire when destinationReportID transitions from undefined to a valid value.

Sentry Evidence

Note: This bug only affects the NEW_MANUAL_EXPENSE_FLOW beta (single-screen amount + confirmation). The old multi-step flow is unaffected.

This is a regression introduced by the single-screen manual flow change (IOURequestStartPage now renders IOURequestStepConfirmation directly on the Manual tab). The old multi-step flow used AmountSubmission.ts which called setTransactionReport before navigation to confirmation:

// AmountSubmission.ts (old flow - no longer runs for manual tab)
setTransactionReport(transactionID, {reportID: transactionReportID}, true);

With the single-screen flow, this call is bypassed entirely. The embedded confirmation screen resolves default participants via useDefaultParticipants but never calls setTransactionReport for workspace participants. This causes destinationReportID to be undefined at first render, the pre-insert effect fires with no destination, and subsequent setTransactionReport triggers a cleanup that removes the pre-insert without replacement (because hasPreInsertFired stays true).

The impact contributes to the ~56% DEFAULT handler rate observed in Sentry (5.2k default vs 4k non-default in 24h).

Fixed Issues

$ #94462
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Prerequisites: Enable the NEW_MANUAL_EXPENSE_FLOW beta.

1. Open the app from any tab (Home, Spend, etc.) and tap the global FAB
2. Tap "Create expense", select a workspace as the recipient, fill in the amount and details, then submit
3. Verify [Sentry][ManualSubmitToDestinationVisible] Ending span appears in the console with a sub-two-second duration and fast_path_handler is NOT default
4. Verify the submit feels smooth - no jarring navigation jump after tapping Submit (the destination loads behind the modal before it dismisses)

---

1. Repeat the above but select yourself as the recipient (this creates a Track expense to your self-DM)
2. Verify the same smooth behavior - span ends sub-two-seconds, no navigation flash

---

1. Open an existing chat and tap the "+" button to create an expense from within that chat
2. Fill in the details and submit
3. Verify the behavior is unchanged - the expense posts to the same chat without any unexpected navigation

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Same as tests

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

[JakubKorytko]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🚀

Reviewed commit: 7340be7108

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".

[codecov]

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
src/hooks/useResetIOUType.ts	97.22% <100.00%> (+0.16%)	⬆️
src/libs/IOUUtils.ts	76.75% <100.00%> (+0.73%)	⬆️
...es/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx	64.96% <0.00%> (-0.21%)	⬇️
... and 74 files with indirect coverage changes