Skip to content

Show the Consolidated Travel Billing warning when deleting a workspace offline - #106797

Open
wildan-m wants to merge 4 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
wildan-m:wildan/98262-block-offline-travel-billing-delete
Open

Show the Consolidated Travel Billing warning when deleting a workspace offline#106797
wildan-m wants to merge 4 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
wildan-m:wildan/98262-block-offline-travel-billing-delete

Conversation

@wildan-m

@wildan-m wildan-m commented Nov 12, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

Deleting a workspace offline when it has Consolidated Travel Billing enabled shows no warning. The workspace is removed optimistically and the delete is queued, so once the app is back online the backend rejects it and the workspace row shows the Expensify Cards message instead. The delete flow already blocks an offline delete up front when it knows locally that the workspace has active Expensify Cards, but it never checked the travel billing blocker, and the error it saved on the workspace was always the Expensify Cards one.

The offline check now covers both blockers, using the same condition that picks the warning after an online rejection, so the travel billing warning shows right away, nothing is queued, and the workspace row gets the matching message. Expensify Cards still take priority when both apply, as they do online. Travel billing funded by a domain lives on the domain's card program, which this check doesn't read, so those workspaces are still deleted offline as before.

Fixed Issues

$ #98262
PROPOSAL: #98262 (comment)

Tests

Precondition:

  • Use the Expensifail account
  • Create a workspace enable Travel, click on Let's go and complete flow
  • Enable Consolidated Travel Billing and add bank account to it
  1. Navigate to the Workspace tab or Overview
  2. Force offline
  3. Click on the three dots button -> Delete -> Confirm Delete
  4. Verify that Warning "Your company still has Consolidated Travel Billing enabled." is shown
  5. Click "Got it" and turn online
  6. Verify the workspace is still listed and no "Your company still has Expensify Cards" error is shown on it
  7. While online, click on the three dots button -> Delete -> Confirm Delete and verify the same Consolidated Travel Billing warning is shown
  8. On a workspace with an active Expensify Card, repeat steps 2-3 and verify the warning "Your company still has Expensify Cards. Please reach out to Concierge to remove them." is shown
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Steps 2-6 of Tests.

QA Steps

Same as tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
    • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
    • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
    • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
    • I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app 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 tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
  • 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 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).
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

Screenshots/Videos

My test account has no verified bank account to turn on Consolidated Travel Billing, so in these runs the workspace's travel billing settings and travel card were set in Onyx locally.

Android: Native
98262-android-native.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
98262-android-mweb.mp4
iOS: Native
98262-ios-native.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
98262-ios-mweb.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
98262-macos-chrome.mp4

@wildan-m
Block offline workspace delete when Consolidated Travel Billing is en…
9a38261 
…abled

The offline pre-flight guard only checked the Expensify Cards blocker, so a
workspace blocked by Consolidated Travel Billing was optimistically deleted
offline and later rejected with the Expensify Cards wording. Treat either
blocker as a known rejection while offline and surface the matching error.
@wildan-m
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into wildan/98262-block-…
fa426b4 
…offline-travel-billing-delete
@wildan-m
Check the offline delete blocker before scanning the policies
7ec8644 
The offline guard only needs the policy ID and the error key, so it now
returns before the policy list is filtered. The delete flow also shares
one blocked condition between the offline guard and the warning shown
after an online rejection.
@wildan-m
Add tests for the offline workspace delete guard
2a763d0
@wildan-m
wildan-m marked this pull request as ready for review November 13, 2026 01:30
@wildan-m
wildan-m requested review from a team as code owners November 13, 2026 01:30
@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested review from cretadn22 and removed request for a team November 13, 2026 01:30
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Nov 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@cretadn22 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]

@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested a review from dylanexpensify November 13, 2026 01:30
@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Nov 13, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Codex Review Summary: ✅ Completed

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-11-13T01:45:04.971157Z 2a763d0 Draft marked ready
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team November 13, 2026 01:30
@wildan-m wildan-m mentioned this pull request Nov 13, 2026
Open
2 of 7 tasks

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@cretadn22 cretadn22 Awaiting requested review from cretadn22
@dylanexpensify dylanexpensify Awaiting requested review from dylanexpensify

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@wildan-m wildan-m

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@wildan-m