Add freezing for Approved, Paid and/or Done splits during updating other splits by ZhenjaHorbach · Pull Request #100281 · Expensify/App

ZhenjaHorbach · 2026-09-03T10:23:53Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #99190
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Precondition:

Admin creates a manual expense in the workspace chat and splits it into 2 expenses
One of the splits is moved to a new report and Approved (or Paid)

Steps:

Open New Expensify
Go to the workspace chat
Open the non approved/paid split expense (still in draft)
Click More > Edit splits > arrow on the remaining split > Remove split > Save
Verify the approved/paid split's amount does not change and does not revert
Repeat as the Submitter instead of Admin - same result

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

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

2026-09-04.11.31.24.mov

… statusNum to use actual statuses for splits

codecov · 2026-09-03T10:27:54Z

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/useFrozenSplitTransactionIDs.ts	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
src/libs/SplitExpenseUtils.ts	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
src/libs/actions/IOU/SplitTransactionUpdate.ts	`91.40% <100.00%> (+0.09%)`	⬆️
src/libs/actions/IOU/SplitExpenseItems.ts	`94.98% <91.30%> (-0.38%)`	⬇️
src/pages/iou/DynamicSplitExpensePage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
src/pages/iou/DynamicSplitExpenseEditPage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 11 files with indirect coverage changes

melvin-bot · 2026-09-04T09:32:42Z

@dmkt9 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]

JmillsExpensify

LGTM

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 3d8a7c1e7e

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".

dmkt9 · 2026-09-08T01:46:15Z

+        const itemTransaction = allTransactions?.[transactionKey] ?? searchResultsData?.[transactionKey];
+        const reportKey = `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${itemTransaction?.reportID}` as const;
+        const itemReport = allReports?.[reportKey] ?? searchResultsData?.[reportKey] ?? fallbackReport;
+        if (isSplitExpenseFrozen(itemReport)) {


Why don't we use a function like isSplitExpenseEditable in DynamicSplitExpensePage?

I'm not sure about it
Since isSplitExpenseEditable is a broad permission gate for the whole flow
But we need a narrow rule: when the report is already approved/paid/closed and the amount is fixed

Yeah, I'm not sure about it as well.
But if a split expense isn't editable while its amount can still change when I delete another split expense, that feels a bit odd.
@lakchote WDYT?

But okay
I think we can use isSplitAction here
But I would prefer to leave isSplitExpenseFrozen guard here also, since isSplitAction short-circuits true for selfDM regardless of status, so it alone wouldn't catch a selfDM report that's somehow approved/settled/closed even if it's an edge case

dmkt9 · 2026-09-08T02:35:34Z

I found a bug. I think this is a BE bug. The original transaction isn't available after "clear cache and restart" when the two split transactions are in separate reports. cc @lakchote

2026-09-08.09-31-06.mp4

dmkt9 · 2026-09-08T02:36:15Z

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: da7368376e

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".

dmkt9 · 2026-09-08T08:16:22Z

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: bfe1710673

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".

dmkt9 · 2026-09-08T08:47:54Z

@MelvinBot review, find any potential bugs

MelvinBot · 2026-09-08T08:55:51Z

🤖 Reviewed the diff. The core approach (derive frozen-ness live from each split's own report instead of a cached statusNum) looks right, and the no-frozen-splits path is behavior-identical to the old code. Four things I'd fix before merge, roughly in order of severity.

1. The snapshot fallback can silently miss, re-opening the exact bug this PR fixes

SplitTransactionUpdate.ts:316 and :2052 look up only allSnapshots[snapshot_<searchContext.currentSearchHash>]. Two comments in this same file — L1477-L1480 and L1547-L1551 — say currentSearchHash is undefined when the user starts the flow from a non-search route (selfDM, Expenses page), and both nearby blocks iterate every snapshot instead.

Failure: the split's report is missing from the Onyx REPORT collection but present in a snapshot, and currentSearchHash is undefined. hasEditableSplitExpenseLeft then falls back to STATUS_NUM.OPEN, isReverseSplitOperation flips true, and the Approved split gets reverted — the original symptom. Your own new test proves this path matters; it just pins currentSearchHash so the gap isn't exercised. Suggest scanning all snapshots for the report key, mirroring the two existing blocks.

2. Per diem gets the same dead-end that the card guard exists to prevent

DynamicSplitExpenseEditPage.tsx:162-164 hides Remove only when isManagedCardTransaction(transaction). But computeSplitSaveErrorMessage blocks sum-below-total for isPerDiem || isCard.

Failure: per diem expense, splits A (Approved) and B (open). Remove is shown on B. Removing it leaves A frozen at its old amount, sum < total → "total amount less than original" on Save, and there's nothing left to edit to fix it. The user is stuck. canRemoveSplit should use isManagedCardTransaction(transaction) || isPerDiemRequest(transaction).

3. The frozen split is still tappable and editable when its report only exists in the search snapshot

useFrozenSplitTransactionIDs reads searchResultsData, but isSplitExpenseEditable — which gates the amount input and onSelectRow — does not; it does allReports?.[...] ?? report.

So in the scenario your new test adds (Approved report present only in the snapshot), the Approved split still renders as editable: the user can open it and hit Remove, which drops it from the draft entirely. Redistribution is frozen but the row isn't. Worth routing both through the same resolver.

4. `useFrozenSplitTransactionIDs` ignores `splitExpense.reportID`

Its sibling in this PR, hasEditableSplitExpenseLeft, resolves allTransactionsList?.[key]?.reportID ?? expense.reportID. The hook skips the ?? item.reportID step and jumps to fallbackReport, which in the edit page is the currently edited split's report (the route is built with item.reportID), not the parent's. Any split whose transaction isn't loaded therefore has its frozen-ness decided by an unrelated report. Aligning the two resolvers would remove the divergence.

Smaller notes

redistributeExcludingFrozenSplits: the restore step puts isFrozenSplit(item) inside the find predicate, so it re-evaluates per candidate and the restore is O(n²). isFrozenSplit(item) ? (splitExpenses.find(...) ?? item) : item reads better, or key a Map by transactionID.
Same function: the doc comment says unlocking happens "so the total still has somewhere to redistribute to", but when every remaining split is frozen nothing gets unlocked, redistributeSplitExpenseAmounts returns early on uneditedCount === 0, and the draft is left with sum ≠ total. For cash that saves silently with a shrunken total. If that's intended, the comment should say so.
SplitExpenseUtils.test.ts: the isWaitingOnBankAccount case uses stateNum: SUBMITTED + statusNum: APPROVED, which isn't a state the backend produces — a real approved-and-waiting-on-bank report has stateNum: APPROVED and is frozen via isReportApproved. The test passes but documents behavior that doesn't exist.
Splits on a submitted (not yet approved) report are not frozen, while hasEditableSplitExpenseLeft treats statusNum >= SUBMITTED as non-editable. Probably deliberate, but the two definitions of "locked" now differ — worth a comment.
Verified no other redistribution path was missed: evenlyDistributeSplitExpenseAmounts and resetSplitExpensesByDateRange both rewrite every amount, but both are reachable only behind isInitialSplit, so no approved children can exist. All three live redistribution call sites are covered.

Findings 1–3 are the ones I'd want addressed; 4 and the notes are cleanup. This was a static review of the diff — I didn't run the flow.

view run · view recording

dmkt9 · 2026-09-09T04:44:38Z

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 7c5655f293

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".

dmkt9 · 2026-09-10T02:51:54Z

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 6cafbc58e5

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 · 2026-09-10T02:59:08Z

+        if (!liveTransaction) {
+            return original;
+        }
+        const liveAmount = hasValidModifiedAmount(liveTransaction) ? Number(liveTransaction.modifiedAmount) : (liveTransaction.amount ?? 0);


Normalize the live amount before restoring frozen splits

For a normal workspace expense, the transaction stored in Onyx uses the report-facing sign (for example, the new fixtures store amount: -5000), while the corresponding SplitExpense uses 5000. Copying the raw amount or modifiedAmount here therefore flips the frozen split negative whenever another split is added, removed, or edited. Cash splits below the original total are allowed through save validation, so this incorrect value can be submitted rather than merely producing a warning; restore the amount using the same sign conversion used by initSplitExpenseItemData/getTransactionDetails.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-09-10T02:59:09Z

+        allPolicies,
+        parentReport,
+    );
+    const frozenSplitsContext = {frozenSplitTransactionIDs, searchResultsData: currentSearchResults?.data};


Block saving a split after it becomes frozen

When the selected split's report becomes approved or paid while this per-split editor is open, the hook adds its ID to this context, but the context is only used by the Remove path. The Save button still calls updateSplitExpenseField without any frozen-ID guard, copying the dirty amount, tax, and other fields into the parent draft, after which the main save can update the finalized split. Fresh evidence after the earlier direct-edit guard is that updateSplitExpenseAmountField is now protected, while this separate updateSplitExpenseField path remains unprotected.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

dmkt9 · 2026-09-10T03:08:14Z

+        if (!liveTransaction) {
+            return original;
+        }
+        const liveAmount = hasValidModifiedAmount(liveTransaction) ? Number(liveTransaction.modifiedAmount) : (liveTransaction.amount ?? 0);


Should we use getAmount here instead?

Add SplitExpenseFrozen logic for Approved/paid/done splits and remove…

3d8a7c1

… statusNum to use actual statuses for splits

melvin-bot Bot assigned ZhenjaHorbach Sep 3, 2026

ZhenjaHorbach changed the title ~~Add freezing for Approved, Paid and/or Done splits during updating splits~~ Add freezing for Approved, Paid and/or Done splits during updating other splits Sep 3, 2026

ZhenjaHorbach marked this pull request as ready for review September 4, 2026 09:32

ZhenjaHorbach requested review from a team as code owners September 4, 2026 09:32

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from dmkt9 September 4, 2026 09:32

melvin-bot Bot requested review from JmillsExpensify and removed request for a team September 4, 2026 09:32

JmillsExpensify previously approved these changes Sep 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot reviewed Sep 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread tests/unit/libs/SplitExpenseUtils.test.ts Outdated

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Sep 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/hooks/useFrozenSplitTransactionIDs.ts Outdated

Comment thread src/libs/actions/IOU/SplitTransactionUpdate.ts Outdated

Fix comments

89ae7f8

ZhenjaHorbach dismissed JmillsExpensify’s stale review via 89ae7f8 September 4, 2026 09:57

Update tests

da73683

dmkt9 reviewed Sep 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Sep 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/actions/IOU/SplitTransactionUpdate.ts Outdated

Update hasEditableSplitExpenseLeft to use allTransactionsList

bfe1710

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Sep 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/actions/IOU/SplitExpenseItems.ts Outdated

Comment thread src/libs/actions/IOU/SplitTransactionUpdate.ts

ZhenjaHorbach added 3 commits September 8, 2026 11:29

Fix comments

0da714d

Fix conflicts

6123ed9

Fix ts issue

7c5655f

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Sep 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/actions/IOU/SplitExpenseItems.ts Outdated

Comment thread src/libs/actions/IOU/SplitTransactionUpdate.ts Outdated

ZhenjaHorbach added 2 commits September 9, 2026 09:35

Fix comments

72fa5a4

Fix conflicts

6cafbc5

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Sep 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

dmkt9 reviewed Sep 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Conversation

ZhenjaHorbach commented Sep 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Sep 3, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Sep 4, 2026

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dmkt9 Sep 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach Sep 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dmkt9 Sep 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach Sep 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Sep 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Sep 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

1. The snapshot fallback can silently miss, re-opening the exact bug this PR fixes

2. Per diem gets the same dead-end that the card guard exists to prevent

3. The frozen split is still tappable and editable when its report only exists in the search snapshot

4. useFrozenSplitTransactionIDs ignores splitExpense.reportID

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

ZhenjaHorbach commented Sep 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Sep 3, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

dmkt9 Sep 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ZhenjaHorbach Sep 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

dmkt9 commented Sep 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

MelvinBot commented Sep 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

4. `useFrozenSplitTransactionIDs` ignores `splitExpense.reportID`