Scope bank account Share eligibility to the account's own workspace by MelvinBot · Pull Request #93159 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-06-10T08:15:13Z

Explanation of Change

The Share option on a business bank account (and the recipient list on the Share screen) was gated by two functions that iterated over all of the user's workspaces rather than the one that owns the bank account:

hasEligibleActiveAdminFromWorkspaces (controls Share button visibility) used getActivePolicies, which returns every policy the user belongs to regardless of role. So joining another user's workspace as a plain member made the Share option appear even when the user's own workspace had no other admin to share with.
getEligibleBankAccountShareRecipients (builds the recipient list) used getActiveAdminWorkspaces but was still not scoped to the bank account's workspace, so it could surface admins from unrelated workspaces.

Both functions now use getActiveAdminWorkspaces filtered to the bank account's own workspace via accountData.additionalData.policyID. The Share option only appears when there is another eligible admin in the workspace that owns the bank account, and the recipient list only shows admins from that same workspace — keeping the visibility gate and the recipient list consistent.

This implements MelvinBot's proposal.

Fixed Issues

$ #93045
PROPOSAL: #91834 (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.

Automated coverage added in tests/unit/PolicyUtilsTest.ts:

getEligibleBankAccountShareRecipients returns admins only from the bank account's own workspace and excludes admins from unrelated workspaces.
hasEligibleActiveAdminFromWorkspaces returns false when the user has only joined another workspace as a member and their own workspace has no other admin, and true when another admin exists in the bank account's workspace.
Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — change is limited to client-side eligibility computation.

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".

Own a workspace without other members that is connected to a verified business bank account.
Join another user's workspace as a member (not admin).
Go to Account Settings > Wallet and press the three-dot icon on the business bank account.
Verify the Share option does not appear (the user has no other admin in their own workspace to share with).

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

Both hasEligibleActiveAdminFromWorkspaces and getEligibleBankAccountShareRecipients now use getActiveAdminWorkspaces filtered to the bank account's additionalData.policyID, so the Share option and recipient list only consider admins from the workspace that owns the bank account. Co-authored-by: Bernhard Owen Josephus <bernhardoj@users.noreply.github.com>

bernhardoj · 2026-06-10T08:47:15Z

    const currentBankAccount = getBankAccountFromID(Number(bankAccountID));
-    const activePolicies = getActiveAdminWorkspaces(policies, currentUserLogin);
+    const bankAccountPolicyID = currentBankAccount?.accountData?.additionalData?.policyID;
+    const activePolicies = getActiveAdminWorkspaces(policies, currentUserLogin).filter((policy) => policy.id === bankAccountPolicyID);


@MelvinBot Let's revert the filtering part. We don't want to change that behavior. This PR purpose is just to make both functions work the same way.

…orkspaces Drop the policyID-based filtering that scoped Share eligibility to the bank account's own workspace. Both functions now consistently use getActiveAdminWorkspaces without changing the recipient-list behavior. Co-authored-by: Bernhard Owen Josephus <bernhardoj@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-06-10T09:11:18Z

Reverted the workspace filtering as requested. Pushed to the branch.

What changed:

Dropped the policyID-based .filter() from both getEligibleBankAccountShareRecipients and hasEligibleActiveAdminFromWorkspaces, so the recipient-list behavior is unchanged from main.
Kept only the consistency change: hasEligibleActiveAdminFromWorkspaces now uses getActiveAdminWorkspaces (instead of getActivePolicies), matching getEligibleBankAccountShareRecipients. Both functions now select policies the same way.
Removed the test that asserted the reverted filtering behavior (should not return admins from workspaces other than the bank account workspace). The hasEligibleActiveAdminFromWorkspaces tests remain since they validate the consistency fix (member-only workspaces no longer count).

Checks run locally (App, TS changes):

npm test -- tests/unit/PolicyUtilsTest.ts → 215 passed
npm run typecheck → passed
lint.sh on changed files → passed
prettier → no changes

bernhardoj · 2026-06-10T09:43:12Z

Tests

Same as QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

Prerequisite:

own workspace(s) without members
at least one workspace connected to a bank account
joined another user's workspace as a member

Go to Account > Wallet
Press the three-dot icon on the business bank account
Verify there is no Share option

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 followed proper code patterns (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 followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
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)
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
I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
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 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 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.
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

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

android.mweb.mp4

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.mweb.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mp4

bernhardoj · 2026-06-10T09:43:26Z

@MelvinBot mark the PR as ready for review

bernhardoj · 2026-06-10T09:43:49Z

Running the app on native shows the OD and no option to switch to ND.

MelvinBot · 2026-06-10T09:45:03Z

Marked this PR as ready for review. cc bernhardoj

melvin-bot · 2026-06-10T09:45:04Z

@bernhardoj 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]

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 3d1bcde9d3

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 · 2026-06-10T09:47:19Z

 function hasEligibleActiveAdminFromWorkspaces(policies: OnyxCollection<Policy> | null, currentUserLogin: string | undefined, bankAccountID: string | undefined): boolean {
    const currentBankAccount = getBankAccountFromID(Number(bankAccountID));
-    const activePolicies = getActivePolicies(policies, currentUserLogin);
+    const activePolicies = getActiveAdminWorkspaces(policies, currentUserLogin);


Scope eligibility to the bank account policy

When the user is an admin on any other active workspace, this still returns true even if the bank account's own workspace has no other eligible admins, because getActiveAdminWorkspaces() is not filtered by currentBankAccount.accountData.additionalData.policyID. In that scenario the Share option remains visible for the account and the share flow can be reached based on unrelated workspaces, which is the case this change is meant to prevent; filter the active admin policies to the bank account's owning policy before checking admins.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

bernhardoj · 2026-06-10T09:47:36Z

Posted the author checklist on a new comment as suggested here

melvin-bot · 2026-06-10T09:52:36Z

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #91834 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

mjasikowski · 2026-06-10T10:11:19Z

@bernhardoj can you resolve the AI reviewer comment?

bernhardoj · 2026-06-10T11:28:11Z

It's unrelated to this PR as mentioned here

MelvinBot assigned bernhardoj Jun 10, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team June 10, 2026 08:15

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Jun 10, 2026

[$250] [BA] Share option appears on business bank account when user has only joined another workspace as a member #93045

Open

1 task

bernhardoj reviewed Jun 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review June 10, 2026 09:44

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner June 10, 2026 09:44

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from bernhardoj June 10, 2026 09:45

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from flaviadefaria June 10, 2026 09:45

melvin-bot Bot removed request for a team June 10, 2026 09:45

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jun 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

bernhardoj approved these changes Jun 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from mjasikowski June 10, 2026 09:52

mjasikowski approved these changes Jun 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

MelvinBot commented Jun 10, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

bernhardoj Jun 10, 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!

bernhardoj Jun 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Jun 10, 2026

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Jun 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

mjasikowski commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

bernhardoj Jun 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading