Show list report fields when disabledOptions is shorter than values by MelvinBot · Pull Request #103060 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-10-05T16:03:35Z

Explanation of Change

List report fields that were not created in NewDot can arrive with an empty disabledOptions array, even when values has many entries. shouldHideSingleReportField only looked at the contents of disabledOptions, so [].some(...) returned false and the field was hidden. Because the same check drives the report field violation RBR, the fieldRequired violation was also hidden, leaving the user with a required field they couldn't see.

This PR adds hasEnabledListValue in ReportUtils. It iterates over values and treats a value without a matching disabledOptions entry as enabled, which matches how FieldsListValuesPage and DynamicEditReportFieldPage already read the array. shouldHideSingleReportField and isListFieldEmpty in FieldsSettingsPage now use it. A field whose values are all explicitly disabled ([true, true, ...]) is still hidden, so the original "hide fully disabled list fields" behavior is unchanged.

Unit tests cover an empty disabledOptions, a disabledOptions shorter than values, and a fully disabled list.

Fixed Issues

$ #102788
PROPOSAL: #102788 (comment)

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your changed worked.

Create workspace
Go to Reports
Enable Report fields
Create report fieild with List type and add few values
Go to workspace chat > Create expense
Make sure report fields diaplays correctly

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas do they need to test for regressions.
Same as tests

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

Co-authored-by: Eskalifer1 <Eskalifer1@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-10-05T16:03:55Z

I created this PR from an upstream branch since I don't have push access to your fork.

To take ownership of this branch and be able to push updates, run:

git remote add upstream https://github.com/Expensify/App.git
git fetch upstream claude-showReportFieldsWithEmptyDisabledOptions
git checkout -b claude-showReportFieldsWithEmptyDisabledOptions upstream/claude-showReportFieldsWithEmptyDisabledOptions
git push -u origin claude-showReportFieldsWithEmptyDisabledOptions

Then you can close this PR and open a new one from your fork.

Eskalifer1 · 2026-10-05T16:12:12Z

@codex review

MelvinBot · 2026-10-05T16:14:28Z

The failing check is unrelated to this PR, so I didn't push a fix. Please rerun the failed test (job 6) job.

Analysis: Only test (job 6) fails (Check independent approval just needs a second approval). The 3 failures are all in tests/unit/SelectFeaturesEmptyTagGroupTest.tsx, with ReferenceError: Request is not defined. The error comes from an unmocked network call reaching Expo's fetch polyfill in the Jest environment, through src/libs/HttpUtils.ts:118.

Evidence: This PR changes only src/libs/ReportUtils.ts, src/pages/workspace/fields/FieldsSettingsPage.tsx, and tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts. The failing test renders the Copy Policy Settings and Duplicate Workspace feature pages. Neither page uses hasEnabledListValue, shouldHideSingleReportField, or FieldsSettingsPage. The new ReportUtilsTest cases pass.

If the rerun fails the same way, the test needs its API call mocked on main, separate from this PR.

view run

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-05T16:16:37Z

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Can't wait for the next one!

Reviewed commit: 6b5129392a

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".

MelvinBot · 2026-10-05T16:20:43Z

🤖 Android test steps verification results: ✅ pass

Verified on standalone Android NewDot: Report fields were enabled, a List field "Department" with Sales/Engineering was created and displayed selectably on an expense report, and after disabling all its values the field correctly disappeared from the same report. The PR's Tests section is still a TODO, so these steps come from the linked issue's repro plus a fully-disabled regression check; the exact empty disabledOptions case (fields created outside NewDot) can't be created from the NewDot UI and was not reproduced.

Step	Status
Report fields enabled on the workspace Report fields toggle lives on the Workspace > Reports page and requires the Control plan. After a sandbox plan upgrade, the toggle showed enabled with an "Add field" button.	✅
Created List report field "Department" with values "Sales" and "Engineering", both enabled Both values showed as "Enabled". The field saved and appears in the Reports page field list.	✅
Created an expense report via a manual $10 expense in the workspace chat Workspace chat shows "Expense Report 2026-10-05, Draft, 1 expense".	✅
Department field is displayed on the expense report and "Sales" is selectable The report shows "Department, Sales". Tapping it listed Sales and Engineering; selecting Sales kept the field showing Sales.	✅
After disabling all Department values, the field is hidden on the same report Both values read "Disabled", and a system message confirmed all options were disabled. Reopening the report, the Department field no longer appears.	✅

view run · view recording

Eskalifer1

availableListValuesLength still counts only the false entries in disabledOptions, so a field that comes with disabledOptions: [] reports 0 available values here while hasEnabledListValue treats every value as enabled. This is the same check this PR moved to hasEnabledListValue in ReportUtils and FieldsSettingsPage, and this copy now disagrees with them.

App/src/pages/workspace/fields/FieldsInitialValuePage.tsx

Line 52 in 35dc6c3

    
           const availableListValuesLength = (reportField?.disabledOptions ?? []).filter((disabledListValue) => !disabledListValue).length;

Eskalifer1 · 2026-10-05T16:26:22Z

+ * Checks whether a list report field has at least one enabled value.
+ * A value without a matching `disabledOptions` entry is treated as enabled.


The comment explains what the function does but not why a missing disabledOptions entry counts as enabled. Fields created outside NewDot come with an empty disabledOptions array, and without that context this looks safe to "simplify" back to disabledOptions.some(...), which would bring the bug back. Let's mention that in the comment.

Done in 99f828d. The comment now says that fields created outside NewDot can arrive with an empty disabledOptions array. It also says that switching back to disabledOptions.some(...) would hide those fields again.

MelvinBot · 2026-10-05T16:33:11Z

🤖 Web test steps verification results: ⚠️ partial

Verified on dev NewDot web: a List report field "Department" renders on the report when it has an enabled value and disappears once all values are disabled; the JS console could not be read, so that step is unverified. The PR's Tests section is still a TODO, so these steps come from the linked issue's repro plus a fully-disabled regression check; the exact empty disabledOptions case (fields created outside NewDot) can't be created from the NewDot UI and was not reproduced.

Step	Status
Report fields enabled on the workspace Report fields requires the Control plan. After an in-app upgrade, the toggle switched to enabled.	✅
Created List report field "Department" with values "Sales" and "Engineering", both enabled Both values showed as "Enabled", and the Reports page listed "Department — List".	✅
Created an expense report via a manual $10 expense The expense generated a draft "Expense Report 2026-10-05".	✅
Department field is displayed on the expense report and "Sales" is selectable The field showed "Sales". Its selector listed Sales and Engineering; selecting Sales kept "Department: Sales".	✅
After disabling all Department values, the field is hidden on the same report Both values were set to Disabled. Reopening the report showed only Amount, Description, Merchant, Date, and Category.	✅
No errors in the JS console during the flow Not verified: the web test tool can't read the browser console. No error banners, crash screens, or broken UI appeared in any screenshot.	⚠️

view run · view recording

MelvinBot · 2026-10-05T16:33:37Z

This PR doesn't cause the test (job 6) failure, so I didn't push a fix. The same test is failing on other, unrelated PRs today, so the problem is on main.

What's failing: All 3 tests in tests/unit/SelectFeaturesEmptyTagGroupTest.tsx fail with ReferenceError: Request is not defined. This happens at src/libs/HttpUtils.ts:118.

Evidence: The same error appears in Jest runs on collect-deposit-account-setup, claude-attachmentDownloadFileExtension, fix-auto-select-rate-when-moving-track-expense-to-workspace, and arosiclair-admin-delete-card-transaction. The earliest run I found was at 15:09 UTC on 2026-10-05. This PR changes only report-field logic, and the failing pages don't use it. Rerunning won't help.

Next step: Someone needs to fix this test on main, then merge main into this branch. A possible lead is [Onyx bump] Bump react-native-onyx to 3.0.115, which merged at 14:08 UTC, but I haven't confirmed it.

The checklist and Check independent approval failures need a human to complete the checklist and give a second approval.

view run

MelvinBot · 2026-10-05T16:38:20Z

The failing check is still unrelated to this PR, so I didn't push a fix.

Analysis: The only real failure is still test (job 6). All 3 tests in tests/unit/SelectFeaturesEmptyTagGroupTest.tsx fail with ReferenceError: Request is not defined at src/libs/HttpUtils.ts:118. That test renders the workspace copy and duplicate pages, which don't use any code this PR changes. checklist and Check independent approval fail only because the checklist and a second approval are still pending.

Evidence: This PR changes only src/libs/ReportUtils.ts, src/pages/workspace/fields/FieldsSettingsPage.tsx, and tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts. The PR still has just one commit (6b51293), and the failing job hasn't been rerun. The only commit on main since then is a Mobile-Expensify submodule bump, so merging main won't fix it yet.

Next step: Rerun test (job 6) now, or after a fix for that test lands on main. I don't have permission to rerun jobs.

view run

Eskalifer1 · 2026-10-05T16:49:33Z

@MelvinBot Resolve this comments:
#103060 (review)
#103060 (comment)

Eskalifer1 · 2026-10-05T16:59:10Z

@MelvinBot please set the PR body to the content in the details section below

Details

Explanation of Change

List report fields that were not created in NewDot can arrive with an empty disabledOptions array, even when values has many entries. shouldHideSingleReportField only looked at the contents of disabledOptions, so [].some(...) returned false and the field was hidden. Because the same check drives the report field violation RBR, the fieldRequired violation was also hidden, leaving the user with a required field they couldn't see.

This PR adds hasEnabledListValue in ReportUtils. It iterates over values and treats a value without a matching disabledOptions entry as enabled, which matches how FieldsListValuesPage and DynamicEditReportFieldPage already read the array. shouldHideSingleReportField and isListFieldEmpty in FieldsSettingsPage now use it. A field whose values are all explicitly disabled ([true, true, ...]) is still hidden, so the original "hide fully disabled list fields" behavior is unchanged.

Unit tests cover an empty disabledOptions, a disabledOptions shorter than values, and a fully disabled list.

Fixed Issues

$ #102788
PROPOSAL: #102788 (comment)

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your changed worked.

Create workspace
Go to Reports
Enable Report fields
Create report fieild with List type and add few values
Go to workspace chat > Create expense
Make sure report fields diaplays correctly

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas do they need to test for regressions.
Same as tests

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

…eldsInitialValuePage Co-authored-by: Eskalifer1 <Eskalifer1@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-10-05T16:59:42Z

I fixed both review comments in 99f828d:

FieldsInitialValuePage.tsx:52 no longer uses its own availableListValuesLength count. It calls hasEnabledListValue now, so a field with disabledOptions: [] counts as having enabled values. That matches ReportUtils and FieldsSettingsPage.
The hasEnabledListValue doc comment now says why a value with no disabledOptions entry counts as enabled.

Typecheck and the ReportUtilsTest suite pass (1422 tests). ESLint found no new errors on the changed lines.

MelvinBot · 2026-10-05T17:07:31Z

🤖 I updated the PR body to the content you provided, word for word.

The two // TODO: **The human co-author** must fill out... lines are still in the Tests and QA Steps sections, because they were in your text. Remove them if you don't want them there.

view run

…dsWithEmptyDisabledOptions Co-authored-by: Eskalifer1 <Eskalifer1@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-10-05T17:09:45Z

I fixed the failing check by merging main into this branch in 54b6ff4. That brings in [No QA] Mock fetch in tests that render the GetRules prefetch, which fixes the broken test. CI is now rerunning.

My earlier comment called this flaky. That was wrong. The test was broken on main, and this PR didn't cause it.

Details

What failed: 3 tests in tests/unit/SelectFeaturesEmptyTagGroupTest.tsx failed with ReferenceError: Request is not defined, on both PR commits.
Root cause: Add rules engine types and merchant rule AST helpers added a GetRules request when the two pages this test renders load. The test didn't mock fetch, so the request reached the real network code and failed under Jest.
Not caused by this PR: 7 runs from unrelated branches today failed on the same 3 tests with the same error.
Fix: The merged PR mocks fetch in this test. After the merge, this PR still changes only its own 4 files.
I didn't run Jest locally. The new CI run will confirm the fix.
Check independent approval and checklist need actions from people, not code changes.

view run

codecov · 2026-10-05T17:13:35Z

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts	`87.89% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️
src/pages/workspace/fields/FieldsSettingsPage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
.../pages/workspace/fields/FieldsInitialValuePage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 11 files with indirect coverage changes

Eskalifer1 · 2026-10-05T17:28:27Z

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 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
- 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
- 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 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 the PR adds or modifies the UI:
- I asked an AI agent to review the changes for accessibility issues and addressed its findings.
- I tested with a screen reader (VoiceOver on macOS) and verified all new/changed elements are reachable with a logical focus order.
- I verified all new/changed elements have meaningful accessible names and roles.
- I verified state changes are announced (e.g. checked/unchecked, expanded/collapsed, selected).
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

103060-android-native.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

103060-android-web.mov

iOS: HybridApp

103060-ios-native.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

103060-ios-web.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

103060-web.mov

Eskalifer1 · 2026-10-05T17:28:43Z

@MelvinBot Mark this PR as ready for review

MelvinBot · 2026-10-05T17:32:09Z

I couldn't mark this PR as ready for review. My environment blocked the gh pr ready command in this run, so the PR is still a draft.

You can do it yourself with the Ready for review button at the bottom of the PR.

Before you do, fill in the Tests and QA Steps sections. They still contain the TODO placeholders for the human co-author.

view run

melvin-bot · 2026-10-05T17:39:15Z

@Eskalifer1 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]

Eskalifer1

LGTM!

luacmartins

LGTM

OSBotify · 2026-10-05T18:10:43Z

✋ 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 · 2026-10-05T18:20:00Z

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

github-actions · 2026-10-05T18:25:14Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #103060.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-4866c8a-b02f6b9-a1c5dd229787f67a3c42d916f9bf2ad8e7e1a0d9/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-4866c8a-b02f6b9-163dbebd066c406329d6fe5ffb09645cc39e1a93/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://103060.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-10-05T23:37:20Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.5.3-0 🚀

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

MelvinBot · 2026-10-05T23:42:26Z

No help site update is needed: this bug fix makes configured list report fields appear on reports as users already expect, and it doesn't make any sentence in App/docs/articles incorrect.

view run

OSBotify · 2026-10-06T21:58:11Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.5.3-4 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

Show list report fields when disabledOptions is shorter than values

6b51293

Co-authored-by: Eskalifer1 <Eskalifer1@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot assigned Eskalifer1 Oct 5, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team October 5, 2026 16:03

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-10-13] [$175] Report Fields are not displayed on reports in New Expensify despite being enabled and configured #102788

Open

1 of 7 tasks

melvin-bot Bot added Melvin-Test-Android Melvin-Test-Web Triggers Melvin to run the testing steps of the PR on web labels Oct 5, 2026

Eskalifer1 reviewed Oct 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Explain empty disabledOptions in hasEnabledListValue and use it in Fi…

99f828d

…eldsInitialValuePage Co-authored-by: Eskalifer1 <Eskalifer1@users.noreply.github.com>

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into claude-showReportFiel…

54b6ff4

…dsWithEmptyDisabledOptions Co-authored-by: Eskalifer1 <Eskalifer1@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review October 5, 2026 17:39

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner October 5, 2026 17:39

melvin-bot Bot requested review from Eskalifer1 and flaviadefaria October 5, 2026 17:39

melvin-bot Bot removed request for a team October 5, 2026 17:39

Eskalifer1 approved these changes Oct 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from luacmartins October 5, 2026 17:46

luacmartins approved these changes Oct 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

luacmartins merged commit 4866c8a into main Oct 5, 2026
48 of 50 checks passed

luacmartins deleted the claude-showReportFieldsWithEmptyDisabledOptions branch October 5, 2026 18:06

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-10-05 #103094

Closed

93 tasks done

Eskalifer1 mentioned this pull request Oct 12, 2026

fix: hide disabled list report fields #57923

Merged

50 tasks done

		* Checks whether a list report field has at least one enabled value.
		* A value without a matching `disabledOptions` entry is treated as enabled.

Conversation

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 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!

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Eskalifer1 commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Eskalifer1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Eskalifer1 Oct 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot Oct 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Eskalifer1 commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Eskalifer1 commented Oct 5, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Oct 5, 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!

Eskalifer1 commented Oct 5, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Eskalifer1 commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Eskalifer1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

luacmartins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

MelvinBot commented Oct 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Oct 5, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading