Fix IOU avatar overlap when sharing manual and scanned expenses

[marufsharifi]

Explanation of Change

This change makes the report preview avatar logic more cautious for scan expenses.

Before, the app could treat a zero-amount scan expense as if its sender was known, which sometimes caused a 1:1 chat preview to show a single combined avatar incorrectly when one person had sent both a manual expense and a scan expense.

Now we use the most reliable signal first: if the related IOU actions tell us who created each expense, we trust that. If that data is not available, we only fall back to transaction amounts when the direction is actually clear. For zero-value scan expenses that are still unresolved, we stop guessing and keep the preview ambiguous instead of showing the wrong single-avatar state.

Fixed Issues

$ #82488
PROPOSAL: #82488 (comment)

Tests

1. Sign in to ND as User A
2. Create a chat with User B
3. Send a manual expense to User B, observe the IOU creator avatar; it correctly shows User A's avatar
4. Send a scan expense in the same chat, and observe the avatar.
5. Verify that the IOU avatar shows only the expenses creator - User A

Other Test Cases:

1. Zero Amount Request

1. Sign in as User A.
2. Open a 1:1 chat with User B.
3. Send a manual expense to User B.
4. Verify the IOU preview shows only User A’s avatar.
5. In the same chat, send a scan expense to User B.
6. Make sure the scan is still unresolved, so its amount remains 0.
7. Verify the IOU preview still shows only User A’s avatar and does not switch to combined avatars.

2. Clear Cache / iouActions Unavailable

1. Sign in as User A.
2. Open a 1:1 chat with User B.
3. Send a manual expense to User B.
4. Switch to User B.
5. In the same chat, send a scan expense to User A.
6. Make sure the scan is still unresolved so its amount remains 0.
7. Clear the cache or reload the app.
8. Reopen the same 1:1 report before all report actions finish loading.
9. Verify the avatar preview does not incorrectly collapse to a single avatar for this mixed-actor report.

3. Two Devices (IOS & MacOS Web)

1. Sign in as User A (MacOS Web)
2. Open a 1:1 chat with User B (IOS native)
3. Send a scan expense and wait till the amount updates.
4. Verify that one single avatar displays
5. Switch to User B (IOS native)
6. On the same chat, create a scan expense
7. Wait for the amount updates
8. Verify the avatar preview does not incorrectly collapse to a single avatar for this mixed-actor report.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests.

QA Steps

Same as Tests.

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

• 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

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.7.55.45.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.7.47.19.PM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.7.37.22.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.7.41.11.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.7.16.56.PM.mov

[codecov]

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
...ts/ReportActionAvatars/useReportPreviewSenderID.ts	82.53% <65.38%> (-12.47%)	⬇️
... and 91 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@aimane-chnaif 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: 46eb07b5b0

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".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Avoid treating delegate actors as distinct report senders

This new actor-based gate can hide the single-avatar state for valid single-sender previews when requests are submitted by different delegates (or by a delegate plus the owner). In those flows, actorAccountID varies per action even though the preview sender should still resolve to the same childOwnerAccountID/childManagerAccountID, so the early return undefined incorrectly forces multi-avatar rendering. This regression is introduced by using raw actor IDs as the primary sameness check.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[marufsharifi]

I checked this case in the codebase and I don't think this concern applies here.

For IOU actions, delegate/copilot identity is stored separately in delegateAccountID, while the IOU action itself still uses actorAccountID for the main account:

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Line 7291 in 46eb07b

actorAccountID: deprecatedCurrentUserAccountID,

App/src/types/onyx/ReportAction.ts

Lines 241 to 242 in 46eb07b

	/** The accountID of the copilot who took this action on behalf of the user */
	delegateAccountID?: number;

The preview logic in ReportActionItemSingle also already treats delegate separately from the main sender account:

App/src/pages/inbox/report/ReportActionItemSingle.tsx

Line 92 in 46eb07b

const delegateAccountID = getDelegateAccountIDFromReportAction(action);

So I don’t see evidence that delegate-created IOU actions would cause different actorAccountIDs for the same visible sender in this flow.