Add selection mode Submit/Approve/Pay actions for mobile layout.

[Krishna2323]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #72502
PROPOSAL:

Tests

• Same as QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

• Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

1. Submit action via selection mode (Mobile)

1. Open the app in a narrow/mobile viewport (or on a mobile device)
2. Open an expense report where the primary action is "Submit"
3. Long-press an expense to enter selection mode
4. Select all expenses using the checkboxes
5. Verify the "X selected" dropdown appears at the top of the expense list (inside MoneyRequestReportActionsList)
6. Open the dropdown — verify "Submit" appears at the top
7. Click "Submit"
8. Verify the report is submitted, selections are cleared, and selection mode exits

2. Approve action via selection mode (Mobile)

1. Open the app in a narrow/mobile viewport
2. Open a submitted expense report as an approver
3. Long-press an expense to enter selection mode, then select all expenses
4. Open the "X selected" dropdown — verify "Approve" appears at the top
5. Click "Approve"
6. Verify the report is approved and selections are cleared

3. Pay action via selection mode (Mobile)

1. Open the app in a narrow/mobile viewport
2. Open an approved expense report ready to be paid
3. Long-press an expense to enter selection mode, then select all expenses
4. Verify the "X selected" dropdown renders as a KYC-integrated dropdown (not a plain button)
5. Open the dropdown — verify "Pay $X.XX" appears with a right arrow and payment method submenu items
6. Click "Pay $X.XX" — verify a submenu opens with payment methods
7. Select "Pay elsewhere"
8. Verify payment processes, selections are cleared, and "You're all set!" RHP does not open
9. Verify Pay is no longer shown in the dropdown

4. Approve with delegate restriction (Mobile)

1. Open the app in a narrow/mobile viewport
2. Log in as a delegate with restricted access
3. Open a submitted expense report
4. Long-press to enter selection mode, select all expenses
5. Open the "X selected" dropdown and click "Approve"
6. Verify the "no access" modal appears
7. Dismiss the modal
8. Verify selections are still active (not cleared)

5. Approve with held expenses (Mobile)

1. Open the app in a narrow/mobile viewport
2. Open a submitted expense report where some expenses are on hold
3. Long-press to enter selection mode, select all expenses
4. Open the "X selected" dropdown and click "Approve"
5. Verify the hold menu appears
6. Verify selections are cleared after confirming

6. Pay as business (Mobile)

1. Open the app in a narrow/mobile viewport
2. Open an approved expense report, long-press to enter selection mode, select all expenses
3. Open Pay submenu, select "Pay as business" (if available)
4. Verify payment processes without the "You're all set!" RHP opening
5. Verify selections are cleared

7. Partial selection — no report-level actions (Mobile)

1. Open the app in a narrow/mobile viewport
2. Open an expense report with 3+ expenses
3. Long-press to enter selection mode, select only some (not all) expenses
4. Open the "X selected" dropdown
5. Verify Submit/Approve/Pay do not appear — only transaction-level actions
6. Verify the dropdown renders as a plain ButtonWithDropdownMenu (not the KYC dropdown)

8. KYC dropdown vs plain dropdown rendering (Mobile-specific)

1. Open the app in a narrow/mobile viewport
2. Open an approved expense report (Pay action available)
3. Long-press to enter selection mode, select all expenses
4. Verify the dropdown renders as MoneyReportHeaderKYCDropdown (KYC-integrated)
5. Deselect one expense so not all are selected
6. Verify the dropdown switches back to a plain ButtonWithDropdownMenu
7. Re-select all expenses — verify it switches back to the KYC dropdown

9. Offline behavior (Mobile)

1. Open the app in a narrow/mobile viewport
2. Go offline
3. Open an expense report, long-press to enter selection mode, select all expenses
4. Verify Submit/Approve appear and can be clicked
5. Verify Pay does not appear

10. Submit blocked by policy rules (Mobile)

1. Open the app in a narrow/mobile viewport
2. Open an expense report where preventSelfApproval is enabled and the submitter is the next approver
3. Enter selection mode, select all expenses
4. Open the "X selected" dropdown
5. Verify Submit does not appear in the dropdown

• 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
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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

android_native.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

test_1-2-3.mp4

test_4.1.mp4

test_4.mp4

test_5.mp4

test_6.mp4

test_8.mp4

test_9.mp4

test_10.mp4

iOS: Native

ios_native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios_safari.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web_chrome.mp4

[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
src/CONST/index.ts	93.65% <ø> (ø)
src/components/MoneyReportHeaderKYCDropdown.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...equestReportView/MoneyRequestReportActionsList.tsx	55.68% <46.15%> (-0.33%)	⬇️
src/hooks/useSelectionModeReportActions.ts	83.16% <83.16%> (ø)
... and 18 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@situchan 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: b74539f3f8

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".

[MelvinBot]

Code Review

CI Status

• checklist: Failing (ignorable — PR Author/Reviewer Checklist)
• test (job 2): Failing — related to this PR (see below)
• All other checks pass (ESLint, TypeScript, Prettier, perf-tests, etc.)

Failing Test

The test useSelectionModeReportActions > hasPayInSelectionMode > returns true when all expenses selected and pay action exists fails because usePaymentOptions is mocked to return [], but the hook now additionally checks hasActualPaymentOptions:

const hasActualPaymentOptions = paymentButtonOptions.some((opt) =>
    Object.values(CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE).some((type) => type === opt.value)
);
const hasPayInSelectionMode = allExpensesSelected && hasPayAction && hasActualPaymentOptions;

Since the mock returns an empty array, hasActualPaymentOptions is always false, causing the assertion to fail. The usePaymentOptions mock in the test needs to return at least one option with a valid CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE value (e.g., ELSEWHERE) when testing the pay scenario.

Code Observations

1. Logic duplication between useSelectionModeReportActions and MoneyReportHeader

The new hook (src/hooks/useSelectionModeReportActions.ts, 720 lines) duplicates substantial logic already present in MoneyReportHeader.tsx — including selectionModeReportLevelActions, confirmPayment, confirmApproval, handleSubmitReport, buildPaymentSubMenuItems, and all the associated state/guards. Both MoneyReportHeader and MoneyRequestReportActionsList now independently compute these actions with their own Onyx subscriptions.

Ideally, MoneyReportHeader should also consume the extracted hook to avoid drift between two parallel implementations. As-is, any future changes to Submit/Approve/Pay selection mode logic need to be updated in two places.

2. Heavy Onyx subscription load

The hook creates ~20 useOnyx subscriptions (session, account, transaction violations, next step, amount owed, billing grace periods, bank accounts, policies, outstanding reports, betas, intro, onboarding tour, network status, active policy, invoice receiver policy). All of these become active whenever MoneyRequestReportActionsList mounts. Consider whether some of these could be passed as parameters from the parent (which already has some of these values) instead of subscribing independently.

3. hasActualPaymentOptions is computed in two places

The same check paymentButtonOptions.some((opt) => Object.values(CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE).some((type) => type === opt.value)) now appears in both MoneyReportHeader.tsx:2329 and useSelectionModeReportActions.ts:604. This is another duplication point that could drift.

4. Minor: shouldPopoverUseScrollView change in MoneyReportHeaderKYCDropdown.tsx

The change from applicableSecondaryActions.length >= CONST.DROPDOWN_SCROLL_THRESHOLD to shouldPopoverUseScrollView(applicableSecondaryActions) is a good consistency improvement — the utility function also checks for large subMenuItems arrays, which the inline check missed.

Summary

The overall approach of extracting selection mode logic into a reusable hook for mobile narrow layout is sound. The main concerns are:

1. Fix the failing test by updating the usePaymentOptions mock to return payment options with valid payment types
2. Consider having MoneyReportHeader consume the hook to eliminate the duplication
3. Consider reducing Onyx subscriptions by passing shared data from the parent component

[situchan]

Please address AI reviews and still add production gate (both web and mobile) to avoid revert.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 7ede93d634

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".

[JmillsExpensify]

Kicked off an adhoc. I'll have to come back to this one.

[github-actions]

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

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #85796.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-7ede93d-55a46af-7db938231a0f59ee3d50848d99e6874f888a1e76/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-7ede93d-55a46af-fb1389cfddb6fb506430e1d76f0ac286e8f55fd9/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://85796.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[JmillsExpensify]

@trjExpensify can you help with this PR while I'm out?

[trjExpensify]

Yep! CC: @puneetlath as well as you authored the parent issue. This is the mobile PR that follows adding it for web.

still add production gate (both web and mobile) to avoid revert.

Instead of this. If ya'll are worried this PR is big, it would be better to try and split it up. Maybe smaller PRs for each of the Submit > Approve > Pay actions in turn?

[Krishna2323]

@trjExpensify The three actions share too much infrastructure (KYC wall, hold menu state, payment options, hook setup) to split cleanly — Submit alone would carry ~80% of the diff. I think it's better to keep the production gate (or add a beta check) so we have a quick kill switch if anything goes wrong post-merge.

[Krishna2323]

Pay as business sometimes not working

@situchan can't repro this:

Monosnap.screencast.2026-04-02.03-19-49.mp4

[situchan]

ok let's not block on this. Please ping me when ready for review

[Krishna2323]

@situchan it's ready for review, will fix the failing test shortly.

[trjExpensify]

#85796 (comment)

I'll defer to @puneetlath here ultimately.

[MelvinBot]

Code Review (Updated)

CI Status

All checks are now passing.

Code Observations

1. handlePaySelected is dead code

At src/hooks/useSelectionModeReportActions.ts:535:

const handlePaySelected = useCallback(() => {}, []);

This is assigned to the Pay action's onSelected at line 640, but the Pay action also has subMenuItems (line 639). PopoverMenu navigates into submenus without calling onSelected, so handlePaySelected is never invoked. Additionally, MoneyReportHeader.tsx:1373-1375 sets isSelectionModePaymentRef.current = true in its equivalent onSelected, which is a behavioral signal the hook omits. If this is intentional (since the hook always calls clearSelectedTransactions/turnOffMobileSelectionMode after payment), consider adding a brief comment explaining why the no-op is correct here.

2. hasActualPaymentOptions is duplicated character-for-character

MoneyReportHeader.tsx:2085:

const hasActualPaymentOptions = paymentButtonOptions.some((opt) => Object.values(CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE).some((type) => type === opt.value));

useSelectionModeReportActions.ts:593:

const hasActualPaymentOptions = paymentButtonOptions.some((opt) => Object.values(CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE).some((type) => type === opt.value));

Consider extracting this into a small utility (e.g. hasActualPaymentOptions(options)) to avoid drift. This is a nit — fine to address in the follow-up refactoring PR.

3. Four redundant Onyx subscriptions

The hook subscribes to session, isUserValidated, betas, and introSelected via useOnyx, but the parent (MoneyRequestReportActionsList) already subscribes to the same keys. These could be passed as params to avoid duplicate listeners. Not a correctness issue, but worth noting for the refactoring PR since the hook already has ~20 subscriptions.

4. isOffline removal from dependency array — Correct

The base version had isOffline listed twice in the renderItem dependency array. The PR correctly removes the duplicate; the remaining instance is properly used in the callback body.

Summary

The feature is well-gated behind the SELECTION_MODE_REPORT_ACTIONS beta, CI is green, and test coverage is solid. The main concerns from the previous review (duplication, Onyx subscription load) remain as tech debt to address in the follow-up refactoring PR as discussed. No blocking issues.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Already looking forward to the next diff.

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".

[situchan]

@MelvinBot find any inconsistent/missing logic in useSelectionModeReportActions hook (for mobile layout) compared to MoneyReportHeader (added in #84077 for desktop layout)

[situchan]

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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[MelvinBot]

Inconsistencies Between useSelectionModeReportActions (Mobile) and MoneyReportHeader (Desktop)

I did a line-by-line comparison of the selection mode logic. Here are the inconsistencies/missing pieces, ordered by severity:

---

1. Missing shouldBlockDirectPayment check (Functional bug risk)

Desktop (MoneyReportHeader.tsx:668-671): confirmPayment checks shouldBlockDirectPayment(type) before proceeding and shows showNonReimbursablePaymentErrorModal() if it returns true.

Hook (useSelectionModeReportActions.ts:431-433): confirmPayment does NOT check shouldBlockDirectPayment. It goes straight from the !type || !chatReport guard to setPaymentType(type).

Impact: On mobile selection mode, non-reimbursable payment types that should be blocked could be processed.

---

2. Missing onSubmitted / onApproved / onPaid callbacks (Animation/UX difference)

Desktop: Passes animation callbacks to the API calls and skips them when from selection mode:

• submitReport receives onSubmitted: () => { if (skipAnimation) return; startSubmittingAnimation(); } (MoneyReportHeader.tsx:871-876)
• approveMoneyRequest receives onApproved: () => { if (skipAnimation) return; startApprovedAnimation(); } (MoneyReportHeader.tsx:815-818)
• payMoneyRequest receives onPaid: () => { if (isFromSelectionMode) return; startAnimation(); } (MoneyReportHeader.tsx:731-734)

Hook: None of these callbacks are passed:

• submitReport at useSelectionModeReportActions.ts:341-352: no onSubmitted
• approveMoneyRequest at useSelectionModeReportActions.ts:395-408: no onApproved
• payMoneyRequest at useSelectionModeReportActions.ts:469-484: no onPaid

Impact: If these callbacks trigger the "You're all set!" RHP or similar navigation, the behavior could differ on mobile. If the API layer defaults to no-op when callback is undefined, this is harmless. Worth verifying that omitting onPaid doesn't cause the "You're all set!" RHP to open on mobile (the PR's QA steps explicitly say it should NOT open).

---

3. Missing ProcessMoneyReportHoldMenu props: transactions and onNonReimbursablePaymentError

Desktop (MoneyReportHeader.tsx:2326-2327):

transactions={transactions}
onNonReimbursablePaymentError={showNonReimbursablePaymentErrorModal}

Mobile (MoneyRequestReportActionsList.tsx:1045-1058): Neither prop is passed.

Impact: transactions is used by ProcessMoneyReportHoldMenu for computing payment amounts. onNonReimbursablePaymentError handles the error modal when a non-reimbursable payment is attempted through the hold menu. Without it, the error case may be silently swallowed on mobile.

---

4. Missing requestType !== undefined guard on ProcessMoneyReportHoldMenu

Desktop (MoneyReportHeader.tsx:2300): The hold menu is conditionally rendered with {isHoldMenuVisible && requestType !== undefined && (.

Mobile (MoneyRequestReportActionsList.tsx:1045): The hold menu is always rendered (only isVisible controls visibility).

Impact: Minor -- ProcessMoneyReportHoldMenu likely handles undefined requestType gracefully since it's typed as optional, but the desktop guard adds an extra safety layer.

---

5. handleHoldMenuClose does not reset "from selection mode" state

Desktop (MoneyReportHeader.tsx:2305-2309): onClose resets isSelectionModePaymentRef.current = false, ensuring that if the hold menu is dismissed without paying, the next regular payment won't behave as if it came from selection mode.

Hook (useSelectionModeReportActions.ts:665-668): handleHoldMenuClose only resets selectedVBBAToPayFromHoldMenu and hides the menu. There's no equivalent "from selection mode" flag to reset.

Impact: Low in isolation (since the hook is only ever used in selection mode context), but creates a conceptual divergence. If the hook is ever used outside a pure selection-mode context, stale state could cause issues.

---

6. submitButtonText / approveButtonText vs raw translate() calls

Desktop (MoneyReportHeader.tsx:1343): Uses precomputed submitButtonText which includes custom text like "Submit to {approverName}" when there's a specific approver.

Hook (useSelectionModeReportActions.ts:619): Uses translate('common.submit') directly, which always yields "Submit".

Desktop (MoneyReportHeader.tsx:1356): Uses precomputed approveButtonText which may include "Approve {amount}".

Hook (useSelectionModeReportActions.ts:626): Uses translate('iou.approve') directly, which always yields "Approve".

Impact: Mobile selection mode will always show "Submit" and "Approve" without additional context (approver name, amount), while desktop shows richer button text. This may be intentional for mobile space constraints but is a UX inconsistency.

---

7. Beta gate inconsistency

Desktop (MoneyReportHeader.tsx:1338): selectionModeReportLevelActions has no beta gate (the isProduction check was removed in this PR).

Hook (useSelectionModeReportActions.ts:612-614): selectionModeReportLevelActions is gated by isSelectionModeReportActionsEnabled beta flag. hasPayInSelectionMode also includes the beta gate (line 594).

Impact: Desktop selection mode actions will show for all users; mobile will only show for users with the SELECTION_MODE_REPORT_ACTIONS beta. This appears intentional for a staged rollout, but worth confirming.

---

Summary Table

#	Issue	Desktop	Hook (Mobile)	Severity
1	shouldBlockDirectPayment	Checked	Missing	High
2	onSubmitted/onApproved/onPaid callbacks	Passed (skipped in selection mode)	Not passed	Medium
3	Hold menu transactions + onNonReimbursablePaymentError	Passed	Missing	Medium
4	Hold menu requestType guard	requestType !== undefined	Missing	Low
5	Hold menu close resets selection mode state	Resets isSelectionModePaymentRef	No equivalent	Low
6	Richer button text	submitButtonText/approveButtonText	Raw translate()	Low (UX)
7	Beta gate	None (removed)	isSelectionModeReportActionsEnabled	Intentional?

[situchan]

1. Missing shouldBlockDirectPayment check (Functional bug risk)

@Krishna2323 please apply changes from #83329 which was recently merged.

And address remaining concerns in #85796 (comment) and #85796 (comment) if applicable.

And fix React Compiler issue

[situchan]

Please also note that MoneyReportHeader was recently refactored in #86723.

[Krishna2323]

@MelvinBot made the changes, review again and find inconsistencies if any.

[MelvinBot]

Review — Inconsistency Check (Updated)

Good progress — several issues from the previous review are now fixed:

Previously Flagged	Status
Missing shouldBlockDirectPayment check	✅ Fixed
Missing ProcessMoneyReportHoldMenu props (transactions, onNonReimbursablePaymentError)	✅ Fixed
Missing requestType !== undefined guard	✅ Fixed
Raw translate() instead of richer button text	✅ Fixed

Remaining Issues

1. React Compiler — hook is still not compiled (flagged by situchan)

The hook has several patterns that prevent React Compiler from optimizing it:

• useEffect without dependency array (line ~411): confirmPaymentRef.current = confirmPayment runs every render. Wrapping confirmPayment in useCallback and adding it as a dependency would help.
• IIFEs instead of useMemo: workspacePolicyOptions, secondaryActions, paymentSubMenuItems, and selectionModeReportLevelActions are all computed via (() => { ... })(). These should be useMemo() calls so the compiler can track their dependencies.
• Functions not wrapped in useCallback: handleSubmitReport, confirmApproval, confirmPayment, handleApproveSelected, checkForNecessaryAction, onSelectionModePaymentSelect, etc. are all plain function declarations. The compiler needs useCallback to analyze stability.

This is the main open reviewer concern — situchan's April 2 comment "Still not compiled" with the screenshot showing the compiler skipping this hook.

2. Missing animation callbacks (Low — likely intentional)

MoneyReportHeader passes onSubmitted/onApproved/onPaid callbacks to submitReport/approveMoneyRequest/payMoneyRequest (and skips them when in selection mode). The hook omits these entirely. Since the desktop path explicitly no-ops these in selection mode, the behavior should be equivalent — but worth confirming that omitting onPaid doesn't cause the "You're all set!" RHP to open on mobile (QA step 3 says it shouldn't).

3. Beta gate divergence (Likely intentional — confirm)

Desktop (MoneyReportHeader) no longer has a beta gate (the isProduction check was removed in this PR). Mobile (hook) is still gated by isSelectionModeReportActionsEnabled. If this is a staged rollout, it's fine — just flagging for awareness.

[Krishna2323]

1. React Compiler — hook is still not compiled (flagged by situchan)

2. Missing animation callbacks (Low — likely intentional)

intentional

3. Beta gate divergence (Likely intentional — confirm)

intentional

@situchan ready for review.