Honor the selected bank account when paying an expense report from the report preview by KioCoan · Pull Request #93110 · Expensify/App

KioCoan · 2026-06-09T20:03:58Z

Explanation of Change

When a payer chooses a specific business bank account (VBBA) to reimburse an expense report, that selection has to reach the backend as a top-level bankAccountID so the payment is drawn from the chosen account rather than the workspace's default reimburser.

The report header pay flows already send the selected account. The report preview pay flow (paying from the expense preview inside the chat) was dropping the selected methodID, so the backend always fell back to the workspace default. This PR threads the selected account through both report-preview pay paths so they match the header behavior.

Changes:

PayActionButton.tsx
- onHoldMenuOpen prop now carries a trailing methodID?: number.
- Held-expense branch forwards methodID to onHoldMenuOpen.
- Direct (non-held) payMoneyRequest call now sends methodID: type === VBBA ? methodID : undefined, matching the header components.
MoneyRequestReportPreviewContent.tsx
- Tracks the selected methodID in state, captures it in handleHoldMenuOpen, and passes it to <ProcessMoneyReportHoldMenu> (which already forwards methodID/bankAccountID to payMoneyRequest).
Added tests/ui/components/PayActionButtonTest.tsx covering the wiring.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/644593

Tests

Prerequisite test data (payer = User A, recipient = User B):

As User A, on a Collect/Control workspace, connect two verified business bank accounts (VBBAs) under Workflows > Payments, and set the first one as the default reimbursement account.
As User B, submit two expenses on User A's workspace and have them approved so they are ready to be paid.

Pay from the report preview inside the chat (the expense preview card, not the report header):

Open the chat with User B and locate the first report's preview card.
Click the Pay button's dropdown and confirm both business bank accounts are listed.
Pay the first report using the default account → verify the settlement message shows the default account.
On the second report's preview card, open the Pay dropdown and select the non-default account, then pay.
Verify the payment is made from the selected non-default account (the settlement message / report reflects the chosen account, not the workspace default).
Held-expense variant: put one expense on hold, then pay from the report preview selecting the non-default account, and verify the hold menu pays from the selected account.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Prerequisite test data (payer = User A, recipient = User B):

As User A, on a Collect/Control workspace, connect two verified business bank accounts (VBBAs) under Workflows > Payments, and set the first one as the default reimbursement account.
As User B, submit two expenses on User A's workspace and have them approved so they are ready to be paid.

Pay from the report preview inside the chat (the expense preview card, not the report header):

Open the chat with User B and locate the first report's preview card.
Click the Pay button's dropdown and confirm both business bank accounts are listed.
Pay the first report using the default account → verify the settlement message shows the default account.
On the second report's preview card, open the Pay dropdown and select the non-default account, then pay.
Verify the payment is made from the selected non-default account (the settlement message / report reflects the chosen account, not the workspace default).
Held-expense variant: put one expense on hold, then pay from the report preview selecting the non-default account, and verify the hold menu pays from the selected account.
Optional backend cross-check: confirm the PayMoneyRequest request is sent with a top-level bankAccountID equal to the selected account's id.

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

Report preview in chat with the Pay dropdown open. Both of the payer's verified business bank accounts are listed (Ending in 4191 and Ending in 0000, the workspace default reimburser), so the payer can choose which one to pay from.

Report paid from the preview after selecting the non-default account (4191). The PayMoneyRequest request body included bankAccountID: 2050811 and the backend reimbursed from that account: the REIMBURSED action returned accountNumber: "XXXXXX4191" and the report message shows "paid with bank account 4191" instead of the workspace default (0000).

Control test: a second report paid selecting the workspace default account (0000) in the same dropdown. The message correctly shows "paid with bank account 0000", confirming the displayed account follows the selection and not a hardcoded value.

Same paid report viewed by the submitter: the message renders "paid with bank account" with no digits. This is because the IOU pay action's originalMessage doesn't include accountNumber (only the REIMBURSED action does, and that action is hidden in NewDot). The FE now prefers accountNumber wherever present, so adding it to the IOU action message in PayMoneyRequest would complete this for all viewers.

codecov · 2026-06-09T20:10:58Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ReportPreview/MoneyRequestReportPreviewContent.tsx	`68.23% <100.00%> (+3.86%)`	⬆️
...Item/MoneyRequestReportPreview/PayActionButton.tsx	`91.04% <100.00%> (+91.04%)`	⬆️
...RequestReportPreview/ReportPreviewActionButton.tsx	`90.19% <ø> (ø)`
src/libs/ReportActionsUtils.ts	`78.54% <100.00%> (+0.95%)`	⬆️
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts	`85.17% <100.00%> (+0.36%)`	⬆️
... and 167 files with indirect coverage changes

│

melvin-bot · 2026-06-12T02:45:53Z

@marufsharifi 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]

marufsharifi · 2026-06-12T12:28:25Z

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 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.ts 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 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.
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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-06-12T12:36:09Z

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

MelvinBot · 2026-06-12T12:40:19Z

Review

The change is correct and faithfully mirrors the existing header pay flow. The methodID (selected VBBA) was being dropped on the report‑preview pay path, and this threads it through both the direct and held‑expense branches.

Verified against the header (PayPrimaryAction):

Direct (non‑held) pay → PayActionButton.tsx:209 sends methodID: type === VBBA ? methodID : undefined, exactly matching PayPrimaryAction.tsx:168.
Held‑expense pay → PayActionButton.tsx:170 forwards the raw methodID to the hold menu, matching the header's openHoldMenu call at PayPrimaryAction.tsx:124-129. Downstream, ProcessMoneyReportHoldMenu → useHoldMenuSubmit.ts:98 already passed methodID to payMoneyRequest, so the only gap was the preview not capturing it.
The approve path correctly calls onHoldMenuOpen without a methodID, so handleHoldMenuOpen resets it to undefined each time — no stale carryover between pay/approve invocations.

All CI checks (typecheck, tests, lint) are green, and the two added test files cover the wiring.

One minor non-blocker

The intermediate component still types onHoldMenuOpen as 3-arg:
ReportPreviewActionButton.tsx:43

onHoldMenuOpen: (requestType: string, paymentType?: PaymentMethodType, canPay?: boolean) => void;

It forwards this prop straight into PayActionButton (which now declares the 4-arg version). It works at runtime — the real function passed in is handleHoldMenuOpen, which accepts the 4th methodID arg, and TS permits assigning a narrower-arity function — but the type here no longer reflects the actual contract being threaded through. Consider adding methodID?: number to this signature so the type matches the data that actually flows through it. Not a blocker.

Why the runtime path is safe despite the type gap

MoneyRequestReportPreviewContent passes the real 4-arg handleHoldMenuOpen down through ReportPreviewActionButton into PayActionButton. PayActionButton invokes it with the 4th methodID argument, and because the underlying reference is the 4-arg function, methodID is received and stored in preview state. The intermediate 3-arg type annotation only affects documentation/intellisense, not behavior.

LGTM once the optional type tidy-up above is considered. Nice job matching the existing header behavior and adding targeted tests.

marufsharifi · 2026-06-12T14:09:50Z

@KioCoan, is this a No QA pr? thanks.

KioCoan · 2026-06-12T15:24:05Z

@KioCoan, is this a No QA pr? thanks.

@danieldoglas should we add a No QA to this? Or maybe handle it internally.

trjExpensify

Thanks for catching this! 👍

danieldoglas · 2026-06-12T18:38:17Z

I think our QA team should be able to test this.

@KioCoan, I think this PR does not use the accountNumber in the returned in reportAction message, which will show the correct bank account.

KioCoan · 2026-06-12T20:41:05Z

I included the account number changes and added the test evidences to the screenshot section.

KioCoan added 3 commits June 9, 2026 16:27

Add methodID to PayActionButton

b02070d

Update MoneyRequestReportPreviewContent with methodID

aea8299

Create PayActionButtonTest

a9f57e1

melvin-bot Bot assigned KioCoan Jun 9, 2026

KioCoan added 3 commits June 11, 2026 21:46

Merge branch 'main' into payMoneyRequestMultiAccount

6dd430b

Cover hold-expense methodID fowarding in report preview

300a7f2

│

Reset hold-menu mock holders in beforeEach to fix typecheck

56773f7

KioCoan marked this pull request as ready for review June 12, 2026 02:45

KioCoan requested review from a team as code owners June 12, 2026 02:45

melvin-bot Bot requested review from marufsharifi and removed request for a team June 12, 2026 02:45

melvin-bot Bot requested review from trjExpensify and removed request for a team June 12, 2026 02:45

KioCoan requested a review from danieldoglas June 12, 2026 02:47

Include methodID through REportPreviewActionButton onHoldMenuOpen type

4cd5387

trjExpensify previously approved these changes Jun 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

KioCoan added 3 commits June 12, 2026 17:28

Include accountNumber property to OrignalMessage

212d190

Check and return account number last digits

122f308

Include tests checking accountNumber

bc05d67

KioCoan dismissed trjExpensify’s stale review via bc05d67 June 12, 2026 20:30

Render real RpoertPreviewActionButton through the capture mock

b5f023d

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Honor the selected bank account when paying an expense report from the report preview#93110

Honor the selected bank account when paying an expense report from the report preview#93110
KioCoan wants to merge 11 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
KioCoan:payMoneyRequestMultiAccount

KioCoan commented Jun 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jun 9, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

KioCoan commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify left a comment

Uh oh!

danieldoglas commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

KioCoan commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Conversation

KioCoan commented Jun 9, 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 Jun 9, 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 Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Jun 12, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 12, 2026

Review

One minor non-blocker

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

KioCoan commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

danieldoglas commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

KioCoan commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

KioCoan commented Jun 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Jun 9, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading