Fix Concierge category update for multi-report selections on Spend > Expenses by MelvinBot · Pull Request #97879 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-08-05T14:02:01Z

Explanation of Change

On the Spend > Expenses page the search type is EXPENSE, so useSidePanelContext always attached reportID: contextReportID (currentRHPReportID ?? currentReportID) to the Concierge Anywhere sidePanelContext. On that page the selected transactions can span multiple reports, so contextReportID does not correspond to them — the backend scoped its lookup to that single report, couldn't find the selected transactions, and the category update failed.

This change adds a guarded branch for the EXPENSE search type: when selectedReportIDs is populated we drop the invalid reportID and send selectedReportIDs (+ selectedTransactionIDs) instead, mirroring the existing EXPENSE_REPORT branch. When no reports are selected the original behavior (sending reportID) is preserved.

Fixed Issues

$ #97476
PROPOSAL: #97476 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA Steps

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Navigate to an expense report with multiple transactions
Open Concierge Anywhere from the side pane
Send a message to Concierge "Update all transactions in this report to have category Car"
Verify the update succeeds for all transactions in the report
Select one specific transaction from the report and request Concierge to update the category to a different value
Verify the update succeeds for the specific transaction
Navigate to the Spend > Expenses page
Select multiple transactions and request Concierge to update their category
Verify that the update succeeds for the selected transactions

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Co-authored-by: dmkt9 <dmkt9@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-08-05T14:06:20Z

Both failing checks are process/human gates — neither is a code failure I can fix by pushing to the branch.

Check	Why it's failing	Who resolves it
`Check independent approval`	The PR has 0 approvals — it needs one independent Expensify employee to review and approve.	A human reviewer
`checklist` (PR Author Checklist)	0 of 38 checklist items are checked.	Human author — I don't fill out human checklists

All actual code/test checks are green (Bun tests, ESLint, Oxfmt, TypeScript, unit tests, builds, etc.), so there's nothing to fix in the code.

Evidence

Check independent approval log:

Insufficient independent peer review {
  commitAuthors: [ 'dmkt9', 'MelvinBot' ],
  approvers: [],
  independentApprovers: [],
  required: 1
}
Expensify/App#97879 does not have enough independent Expensify employee approvals.

checklist log:

You completed 0 out of 38 checklist items with 38 unfinished items
PR Author Checklist is not completely filled out.

Next step: fill out the PR Author Checklist above and get an Expensify engineer to review/approve. Once approved, Check independent approval will pass.

codecov · 2026-08-05T14:08:06Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
.../report/ReportActionCompose/useSidePanelContext.ts	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
... and 13 files with indirect coverage changes

MelvinBot · 2026-08-05T14:09:32Z

Re-checked — the situation is unchanged. All code/test checks now pass; the only two failing checks remain Check independent approval (needs an independent Expensify employee review/approval) and checklist (PR Author Checklist, 0/38 boxes — a human task).

Neither is fixable by pushing code, so there's nothing for me to commit. Next step is the same as before: fill out the author checklist and get an engineer to approve.

dmkt9 · 2026-08-05T15:08:11Z

@MelvinBot If the user has already selected some transactions and then opens the report by clicking on one of the selected transaction rows, reportID won't be sent to the backend. This would introduce a regression when the user asks Concierge to update transactions in that report.

…enses Co-authored-by: dmkt9 <dmkt9@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-08-05T15:18:48Z

Good catch — confirmed and fixed in 1c9591f.

The EXPENSE branch dropped reportID whenever any transactions/reports were selected, without checking whether a report was actually open in the RHP. So the exact flow you described — select transactions on Spend > Expenses, then click a selected row to open its report — set currentRHPReportID (making contextReportID a valid, meaningful report) while selectedReports stayed populated, so we'd wrongly strip the now-valid reportID.

The fix gates the branch on !currentRHPReportID: while no report is open we still drop the invalid reportID and send selectedReportIDs, but once a report is open in the RHP we fall through to the default return and keep sending reportID.

useSidePanelContext.ts:59-61

Why currentRHPReportID is the right discriminator

currentRHPReportID is set exclusively from the RightModalNavigator's focused-route reportID (useCurrentReportID.tsx:92-97) — a purpose-built signal for "a report is open in the RHP", and undefined on the plain Spend > Expenses list.
Clicking a transaction row navigates to SEARCH_MONEY_REQUEST_REPORT / SEARCH_REPORT, both registered under the RIGHT_MODAL_NAVIGATOR, so it opens the report in the RHP and sets currentRHPReportID.
Selections persist across that navigation (the Search page stays the topmost full-screen route, so the focus-based clear early-returns), which is exactly why the old condition kept firing.

Added a unit test (keeps sending reportID when a report is open in the RHP even though transactions are still selected); full useSidePanelContext suite passes (15/15), along with lint, typecheck, oxfmt, and React Compiler compliance.

MelvinBot · 2026-08-05T15:21:27Z

Re-checked — the situation is unchanged from my earlier comment. The only two failing checks are still human/process gates, not code failures:

Check independent approval — the PR still has 0 approvals; needs one independent Expensify employee to review/approve.
checklist (PR Author Checklist) — still 0/38 items checked; a human author must complete it.

Every code/test check is green, so there is nothing for me to fix by pushing to the branch. Fill out the checklist and get an Expensify engineer to approve, and both will clear.

MelvinBot · 2026-08-05T15:23:55Z

No change since my previous comment — the same two checks are red, and neither is a code failure I can push a fix for:

Check independent approval — 0 approvals. Needs an independent Expensify employee to review and approve.
checklist (PR Author Checklist) — still unfilled (0/38). Human-only; I don't complete author checklists.

Every code/test check (Bun tests, ESLint, Oxfmt, TypeScript, unit tests, builds) is green, so there's nothing in the code to fix.

To get to green: the author fills out the PR Author Checklist, and an Expensify engineer reviews/approves the PR.

dmkt9 · 2026-08-05T16:06:17Z

@MelvinBot update your checklist:

Check all checkboxes
Update Tests section to Same as QA Steps
Update Offline Tests section to N/A
Update QA Steps section to:

1. Navigate to an expense report with multiple transactions
2. Open Concierge Anywhere from the side pane
3. Send a message to Concierge "Update all transactions in this report to have category Car"
4. Verify the update succeeds for all transactions in the report
5. Select one specific transaction from the report and request Concierge to update the category to a different value
6. Verify the update succeeds for the specific transaction
7. Navigate to the `Spend > Expenses` page
8. Select multiple transactions and request Concierge to update their category
9. Verify that the update succeeds for the selected transactions

MelvinBot · 2026-08-05T16:09:48Z

Done — updated the PR description:

✅ Checked all 38 PR Author Checklist boxes
✅ Tests → Same as QA Steps
✅ Offline tests → N/A
✅ QA Steps → the 9-step flow you provided

Note: the checklist and Check independent approval checks are cached from the previous run and will re-evaluate on the next push/CI trigger — the checklist gate should clear now that all boxes are ticked, and Check independent approval still needs one independent Expensify employee approval.

dmkt9 · 2026-08-05T16:27:29Z

@MelvinBot mark this PR as ready

melvin-bot · 2026-08-05T16:30:05Z

@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]

MelvinBot · 2026-08-05T16:30:06Z

Done — this PR is now marked as ready for review.

dmkt9 · 2026-08-05T16:31:40Z

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.
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

chrome.mp4

dmkt9

LGTM

github-actions · 2026-08-05T17:24:11Z

🚧 JS00001 has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

OSBotify · 2026-08-05T17:31:55Z

✋ 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 · 2026-08-05T17:32:36Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #97879.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-d540f9896e6-0ad880f-7cd8bb6a4aec8f560a777c565e7619a937eaee5b/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-d540f98-0ad880f-7ededec42ec5bb4fd143d754431ae0aaa539bb5d/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://97879.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-08-05T23:03:31Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/JS00001 in version: 9.4.51-0 🚀

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

MelvinBot · 2026-08-05T23:09:10Z

No help site changes are required for this PR.

This change is an internal bug fix, not a user-facing behavior or feature change, so nothing under App/docs/articles needs updating and I did not create a draft PR.

Why no docs update is needed

The diff only touches useSidePanelContext.ts and its unit test. It fixes how the Concierge side panel builds backend request context on the Spend > Expenses page — sending selectedReportIDs + selectedTransactionIDs instead of an invalid single reportID when the selected transactions span multiple reports.
This restores already-expected behavior (Concierge updating the category on selected transactions) that was silently failing. It does not add a new feature, rename any tab/setting/button, or change any behavior the help site documents.
The existing Concierge AI articles — Expense-Assistant.md and What-Concierge-Can-Do.md — describe asking Concierge to update expenses in plain language. They never documented the broken multi-report path, so there is no stale content to correct.
Because no copy is being authored, there were no feature/tab/button labels to verify against the live UI.

If the team later wants to proactively document selecting multiple transactions on Spend > Expenses and asking Concierge to bulk-update them, What-Concierge-Can-Do.md would be the natural home — but that's a separate content decision, not something this bug-fix PR requires.

@dmkt9, no help site PR was created because no docs changes are required. If you believe the multi-select bulk-update flow should be documented anyway, let me know and I'll draft one.

Drop invalid reportID for Concierge on Spend > Expenses selections

2abff27

Co-authored-by: dmkt9 <dmkt9@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot assigned dmkt9 Aug 5, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team August 5, 2026 14:02

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Aug 5, 2026

Issue with Concierge updating category for selected expenses #97476

Open

7 tasks

Keep sending reportID when a report is open in the RHP on Spend > Exp…

1c9591f

…enses Co-authored-by: dmkt9 <dmkt9@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review August 5, 2026 16:29

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner August 5, 2026 16:30

melvin-bot Bot requested review from dmkt9 and removed request for a team August 5, 2026 16:30

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from garrettmknight August 5, 2026 16:30

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team August 5, 2026 16:30

dmkt9 approved these changes Aug 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from JS00001 August 5, 2026 16:32

JS00001 approved these changes Aug 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

JS00001 merged commit d540f98 into main Aug 5, 2026
47 of 49 checks passed

JS00001 deleted the claude-guardConciergeExpenseContextReportID branch August 5, 2026 17:20

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Aug 5, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-08-05 #97910

Open

44 tasks

applause-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Aug 6, 2026

Update category - Concierge replies "This chat/report does not have expenses" #97945

Open

7 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

MelvinBot commented Aug 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 Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Aug 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!

MelvinBot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Aug 5, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

dmkt9 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

MelvinBot commented Aug 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Aug 5, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading