Skip to content

Filter members with existing workflows from new approval picker#84617

Open
MelvinBot wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
claude-filterExistingWorkflowMembers
Open

Filter members with existing workflows from new approval picker#84617
MelvinBot wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
claude-filterExistingWorkflowMembers

Conversation

@MelvinBot
Copy link
Contributor

@MelvinBot MelvinBot commented Mar 9, 2026

Explanation of Change

When creating a new approval workflow via Workspace > Workflows > Add approval, the "Expenses from" member picker was showing all workspace members including those already assigned to a non-default approval workflow. This caused members to appear as selectable even though they already had an existing approval flow.

The fix adds a useMemo in WorkspaceWorkflowsPage.tsx that filters availableMembers to exclude members who are already part of a non-default workflow before passing the list to setApprovalWorkflow() in the addApprovalAction callback. The edit flow remains unaffected since it uses mergeWorkflowMembersWithAvailableMembers separately in WorkspaceWorkflowsApprovalsEditPage.tsx.

Fixed Issues

$ #84379
PROPOSAL: #84379 (comment)

Tests

  1. Sign in with an account that has a Control workspace with 3+ members
  2. Navigate to Workspace > Workspace settings > Workflows
  3. Enable approvals if not already enabled
  4. Click "Add approval" and select 1-2 members in "Expenses from", then add an approver and finish the flow
  5. Click "Add approval" again
  6. Verify that the members selected in step 4 no longer appear in the "Expenses from" picker
  7. Go back and edit the existing workflow created in step 4
  8. Verify that all members (including those in the workflow) still appear in the edit flow's member picker
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — This change only affects client-side filtering of the member list when creating a new approval workflow. No network requests are involved in the filtering logic.

QA Steps

  1. Sign in with an account that has a Control workspace with 3+ members
  2. Navigate to Workspace > Workspace settings > Workflows
  3. Enable approvals if not already enabled
  4. Click "Add approval" and select 1-2 members in "Expenses from", add an approver and finish the flow
  5. Click "Add approval" again
  6. Verify that the members selected in step 4 do NOT appear in the "Expenses from" picker
  7. Edit the existing workflow from step 4
  8. Verify all members still appear in the edit flow's member picker (including those in the workflow)
  • 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
      • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
    • 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

N/A — no UI changes, logic-only filtering fix

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/A — no UI changes, logic-only filtering fix

iOS: Native

N/A — no UI changes, logic-only filtering fix

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/A — no UI changes, logic-only filtering fix

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

N/A — no UI changes, logic-only filtering fix

@MelvinBot @eVoloshchak
Fix: Filter members with existing workflows from new approval picker
3406da3 
Members already assigned to non-default approval workflows were
appearing in the "Expenses from" picker when creating a new workflow.
Filter them out in addApprovalAction while leaving the edit flow
unchanged (it uses mergeWorkflowMembersWithAvailableMembers).

Co-authored-by: Eugene Voloshchak <eVoloshchak@users.noreply.github.com>
@MelvinBot MelvinBot requested a review from a team March 9, 2026 17:29
@MelvinBot
Copy link
Contributor Author

MelvinBot commented Mar 9, 2026

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-filterExistingWorkflowMembers
git checkout -b claude-filterExistingWorkflowMembers upstream/claude-filterExistingWorkflowMembers
git push -u origin claude-filterExistingWorkflowMembers

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

@MelvinBot MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Mar 9, 2026
Open
7 tasks
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 9, 2026 •
edited by github-actions bot
Loading

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...ges/workspace/workflows/WorkspaceWorkflowsPage.tsx 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/libs/WorkflowUtils.ts 78.01% <0.00%> (-3.42%) ⬇️
... and 362 files with indirect coverage changes

eVoloshchak
eVoloshchak reviewed Mar 11, 2026
View reviewed changes
src/pages/workspace/workflows/WorkspaceWorkflowsPage.tsx Outdated
// Filter out members who are already assigned to a non-default approval workflow.
// This prevents them from appearing in the "Expenses from" picker when creating a new workflow.
// The edit flow is unaffected as it uses mergeWorkflowMembersWithAvailableMembers separately.
const availableMembersForNewWorkflow = useMemo(() => {
Copy link
Contributor

@eVoloshchak eVoloshchak Mar 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@MelvinBot, move this function to WorkflowUtils.ts

Copy link
Contributor Author

@MelvinBot MelvinBot Mar 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done — extracted the filtering logic into filterAvailableMembersForNewWorkflow in WorkflowUtils.ts and updated the page to call it.

@MelvinBot @eVoloshchak
Move member filtering logic to WorkflowUtils.ts
b1fa082 
Extract filterAvailableMembersForNewWorkflow from WorkspaceWorkflowsPage
into WorkflowUtils.ts as a standalone utility function.

Co-authored-by: Eugene Voloshchak <eVoloshchak@users.noreply.github.com>
@eVoloshchak
Copy link
Contributor

eVoloshchak commented Mar 11, 2026

@MelvinBot, add unit tests for this

@MelvinBot @eVoloshchak
Add unit tests for filterAvailableMembersForNewWorkflow
eea42d1 
Co-authored-by: Eugene Voloshchak <eVoloshchak@users.noreply.github.com>
@MelvinBot
Copy link
Contributor Author

MelvinBot commented Mar 11, 2026

Done — added 6 unit tests for filterAvailableMembersForNewWorkflow in tests/unit/WorkflowUtilsTest.ts. The tests cover:

  • No non-default workflows (all members returned)
  • Members in a single non-default workflow are filtered out
  • Members across multiple non-default workflows are filtered out
  • Empty workflows list (all members returned)
  • All members in non-default workflows (empty result)
  • Empty available members list (empty result)

All 54 tests in the file pass.

@MelvinBot
Copy link
Contributor Author

MelvinBot commented Mar 11, 2026

The failing check is unrelated to this PR.

Analysis: The test (job 7) failure is in tests/ui/components/IOURequestStepConfirmationPageTest.tsx with TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'GRANTED') at __mocks__/react-native-permissions.ts:11. This is a mock setup issue where RESULTS imported from react-native-permissions/dist/commonjs/permissions is undefined (that module only exports PERMISSIONS, not RESULTS).

Evidence:

  • This PR only changes src/libs/WorkflowUtils.ts, src/pages/workspace/workflows/WorkspaceWorkflowsPage.tsx, and tests/unit/WorkflowUtilsTest.ts — none of which are related to IOU request confirmation or permissions mocking.
  • The exact same RESULTS.GRANTED error also occurs on the unrelated revert-84512-issue-83884 branch (run 22977772416), confirming this is a pre-existing flaky test.
  • The mock file, test file, and all related source files are identical between this branch and main.

The test should pass on a re-run, or the flaky test needs a separate fix.

@eVoloshchak
Copy link
Contributor

eVoloshchak commented Mar 12, 2026

@MelvinBot, pull latest main, resolve conflicts and push the changes here

@MelvinBot @eVoloshchak
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into claude-filterExisting…
1e71e02 
…WorkflowMembers

Co-authored-by: Eugene Voloshchak <eVoloshchak@users.noreply.github.com>
@MelvinBot
Copy link
Contributor Author

MelvinBot commented Mar 12, 2026

Merged latest main into the branch — no conflicts. Changes pushed.

@eVoloshchak
Copy link
Contributor

eVoloshchak commented Mar 12, 2026 •
edited
Loading

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
Screen.Recording.2026-03-12.at.17.51.19.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2026-03-12.at.17.46.12.mov
iOS: HybridApp
Screen.Recording.2026-03-12.at.17.52.19.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2026-03-12.at.17.52.58.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2026-03-12.at.17.44.29.mov

@MelvinBot
Copy link
Contributor Author

MelvinBot commented Mar 12, 2026

The failing check is unrelated to this PR.

Analysis: The test (job 8) failure is in tests/ui/SessionTest.tsx — a deep linking/session test that times out after 120 seconds. This PR only modifies src/libs/WorkflowUtils.ts, src/pages/workspace/workflows/WorkspaceWorkflowsPage.tsx, and tests/unit/WorkflowUtilsTest.ts, which are completely unrelated to session/deep linking logic.

Evidence: The exact same SessionTest.tsx timeout failure is occurring on other unrelated branches at the same time (e.g., fix/84752 — run 23010272254). This is a pre-existing flaky test, not caused by this PR's changes.

@eVoloshchak

This comment was marked as duplicate.

Sign in to view
@eVoloshchak
Copy link
Contributor

eVoloshchak commented Mar 12, 2026

@MelvinBot, mark this as ready for review

@MelvinBot MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review March 12, 2026 16:56
@MelvinBot MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner March 12, 2026 16:56
@MelvinBot
Copy link
Contributor Author

MelvinBot commented Mar 12, 2026

Done — PR has been marked as ready for review.

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from joekaufmanexpensify and removed request for a team March 12, 2026 16:56
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 12, 2026

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #84379 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from arosiclair and eVoloshchak March 12, 2026 16:56
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 12, 2026

@eVoloshchak 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 removed the request for review from a team March 12, 2026 17:20
joekaufmanexpensify
joekaufmanexpensify approved these changes Mar 12, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@joekaufmanexpensify joekaufmanexpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@arosiclair
Copy link
Contributor

arosiclair commented Mar 13, 2026

Asking about this here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@joekaufmanexpensify joekaufmanexpensify joekaufmanexpensify approved these changes

@arosiclair arosiclair Awaiting requested review from arosiclair

+1 more reviewer

@eVoloshchak eVoloshchak eVoloshchak approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@eVoloshchak eVoloshchak

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@MelvinBot @eVoloshchak @arosiclair @joekaufmanexpensify