Add Explain support for UNREPORTEDTRANSACTION report actions by MelvinBot · Pull Request #86565 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-03-27T17:07:40Z

Explanation of Change

This PR adds Explain (Concierge reasoning) support for UNREPORTEDTRANSACTION report actions, mirroring the existing pattern from MovedTransactionAction.

When an RTER rejection unreports a transaction, the backend now sends a reasoning field on the UNREPORTEDTRANSACTION report action (via Web-Expensify #51341 + Auth #20363). This PR wires up the App frontend to display the inline Explain link when reasoning is present.

Changes:

OriginalMessage.ts — Added reasoning?: string to OriginalMessageUnreportedTransaction (matching OriginalMessageMovedTransaction)
UnreportedTransactionAction.tsx — Added childReport/originalReport props and a hasReasoning() check that renders ReportActionItemMessageWithExplain when reasoning exists (same pattern as MovedTransactionAction.tsx)
PureReportActionItem.tsx — Passed childReport and originalReport to UnreportedTransactionAction (matching the MOVED_TRANSACTION case)

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/608207

Tests

Trigger an RTER rejection (submit an expense that violates a receipt-required policy, then have the approver reject it)
Open the transaction thread for the rejected expense
Verify the UNREPORTEDTRANSACTION report action shows an inline Explain sparkle link
Click Explain → verify it opens a thread and Concierge responds with a meaningful explanation of the rejection
Long-press the UNREPORTEDTRANSACTION action → verify the Explain option appears in the context menu
Verify non-RTER unreport actions (manual unreport, no reasoning) render normally without the Explain link
Verify existing MOVEDTRANSACTION Explain still works (no regression)

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

No offline impact — the Explain feature only appears when reasoning is present in the report action data which comes from the server. Offline behavior is unchanged.

QA Steps

Trigger an RTER rejection flow
Navigate to the transaction thread
Verify the UNREPORTEDTRANSACTION action shows the Explain sparkle link
Click Explain and verify Concierge responds
Verify manually unreported transactions do NOT show the Explain link
Verify MOVEDTRANSACTION Explain still works

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

N/A — No visual UI changes; this enables an existing component pattern for a new action type.

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/A

iOS: Native

N/A

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/A

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

N/A

Add reasoning field to OriginalMessageUnreportedTransaction type and update UnreportedTransactionAction component to show the inline Explain link when reasoning is present, following the existing pattern from MovedTransactionAction. Co-authored-by: Alex Beaman <Beamanator@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-03-27T17:17:45Z

The failing check (test (job 6)) is unrelated to this PR.

Failing test: tests/unit/MiddlewareTest.ts — "OpenReport to a chat with preexistingReportID and clean up optimistic participant data"

Expected global.fetch to be called 2 times, but received 4 calls (line 343)

Why it's unrelated:

This PR only modifies UnreportedTransactionAction.tsx, PureReportActionItem.tsx, and OriginalMessage.ts (adding Explain support for UNREPORTEDTRANSACTION actions)
The failing test is about OpenReport middleware behavior, which is completely unrelated to the changes in this PR
The same test workflow passes on main (latest run succeeded), suggesting this is a flaky test

Recommendation: Re-run the failing job. If it persists, it may warrant a separate investigation.

Beamanator · 2026-03-27T17:23:02Z

The PR checklist item "I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix" is checked, but no tests were actually added.

tests/ui/PureReportActionItemTest.tsx has a describe('MOVED_TRANSACTION action') block with two test cases (renders without Explain when no reasoning, renders Explain link when reasoning is present). An equivalent describe('UNREPORTED_TRANSACTION action') block should be added with matching test cases to cover this new feature.

Beamanator · 2026-03-27T17:34:51Z

@MelvinBot address my comment ^

Add two test cases mirroring the existing MOVED_TRANSACTION tests: - Verify no Explain link renders when reasoning is absent - Verify Explain link renders when reasoning is present Co-authored-by: Alex Beaman <Beamanator@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-03-27T17:39:43Z

Added unit tests for UNREPORTED_TRANSACTION in b226e6e — two test cases mirroring the existing MOVED_TRANSACTION block:

No reasoning → verifies Explain link is NOT rendered
With reasoning → verifies Explain link IS rendered

All 25 tests in PureReportActionItemTest.tsx pass.

MelvinBot · 2026-03-27T17:41:56Z

The failing Check for unused styles check is unrelated to this PR's code changes. It failed during the git checkout step with a transient network error (GnuTLS recv error (-24): Decryption has failed) on the CI runner — it never got to actually analyzing the code.

Analysis: The error occurred 3 times during git fetch in the Checkout step, all with the same TLS decryption failure. This is a GitHub Actions infrastructure issue.
Evidence: The job failed before any code analysis ran. The PR changes (OriginalMessage.ts, UnreportedTransactionAction.tsx, PureReportActionItem.tsx) were never evaluated.

Please re-run the failed job to resolve this.

Beamanator · 2026-03-27T17:54:32Z

Minor test gap: the MOVED_TRANSACTION tests assert both the message text and the Explain link, but the UNREPORTED_TRANSACTION tests only check for Explain presence/absence. Adding a message-text assertion (e.g. expect(screen.getByText(/moved this expense/)).toBeOnTheScreen()) to both test cases would make them consistent and catch message-rendering regressions.

melvin-bot · 2026-03-27T17:56:35Z

@ikevin127 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: b226e6ebd6

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 · 2026-03-27T18:06:27Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/UnreportedTransactionAction.tsx

+    if (hasReasoning(action)) {
+        return (
+            <ReportActionItemMessageWithExplain
+                message={unreportedTransactionMessage}
+                action={action}
+                childReport={childReport}
+                originalReport={originalReport}
+            />
+        );


Preserve pending-delete formatting for explained unreports

When fromReport.pendingFields.preview is DELETE and the action includes reasoning, this early return skips the <del> rendering path entirely. That means the same UNREPORTED_TRANSACTION action is no longer shown as deleted (and keeps normal interactive styling) solely because reasoning is present, which regresses the previous pending-delete behavior for this action type. This is observable for optimistic/unsettled delete states where the source report is pending removal.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

this is known, and is how other report actions with Explain act too.

Beamanator · 2026-03-27T18:49:37Z

@ikevin127 would you please review and test and let me know if there's anything unclear here? 🙏

ikevin127 · 2026-03-28T04:08:10Z

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 tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- 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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- 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.js 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 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.
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.
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

TBD

ikevin127 · 2026-03-28T05:13:59Z

Code-wise this LGTM 🟢

📊 Summary

Category	Rating	Notes
Code Quality	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	Clean, follows patterns
Test Coverage	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	100% for new logic
Documentation	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	Clear comments
Performance	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	No concerns
Security	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	No issues identified

Overall Recommendation: ✅ APPROVE

The PR is ready for merge. It's a clean implementation that follows established patterns, has proper test coverage, and introduces minimal risk.

@Beamanator The only issue is I'm not able to actually manually test that BE-triggered UNREPORTEDTRANSACTION once the BE rejects the expense and makes it unreported (adding the reasoning), given the current testing steps.

Should I be able to test this manually but I'm not doing it right ? If so could you please provide some steps that you used to verify this ?

MelvinBot assigned Beamanator Mar 27, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team March 27, 2026 17:07

Beamanator marked this pull request as ready for review March 27, 2026 17:56

Beamanator requested a review from a team as a code owner March 27, 2026 17:56

melvin-bot bot requested review from heyjennahay and ikevin127 and removed request for a team March 27, 2026 17:56

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team March 27, 2026 17:56

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Mar 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

MelvinBot commented Mar 27, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Beamanator commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Beamanator commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Beamanator commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot Mar 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Beamanator Mar 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Beamanator commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

ikevin127 commented Mar 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

ikevin127 commented Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

ikevin127 commented Mar 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading