Fix category rules regressions from the contextual Category rules section by Krishna2323 · Pull Request #97729 · Expensify/App

Krishna2323 · 2026-08-03T21:06:13Z

Explanation of Change

This PR fixes three regressions introduced by the contextual Category rules section in the category details RHP.

1. Creating a rule didn't preload existing category settings

Creating a new Field requirements or Flag for review rule opened an empty form, even when the category already had that rule.

Since both rule types are limited to one per category, re-selecting the same values counted as no change:

Field requirements showed "Please select at least one field.".
Flag for review could overwrite the existing amount with an empty value.

The Add pages now pass categoryName whenever the category already has that rule, so the form is prefilled the same way as when editing from the category RHP. They continue passing initialCategoryName, so saving still returns to the category details page instead of the New rule hub.

2. Optimistically deleted rules remained interactive

Rules pending deletion could still be opened.

Both rule types now expose isDisabled when pendingAction === DELETE, making the menu item non-interactive and removing the chevron.

3. Pending-delete Field requirements disappeared

A deleted Field requirements rule disappeared instead of remaining visible with a strikethrough.

getCategoryContextualRules now mirrors getRequireFieldsTableData:

Keep rules visible while they are pending delete.
Pass shouldIncludePendingDeleteFields so the summary continues to render.
Remove pending-delete rules only after the deletion resolves online, preventing UI flicker.

Fixed Issues

$ #97560
$ #97561
$ #97563
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Precondition:
- Log in with Expensifail account.
- Enable Rules.

#97560 Rules - "Please select at least one field" is shown when all fields are selected

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to workspace settings > Categories.
Open any category.
Click Create new rule > Field requirements.
Select Require for all fields > Save rule.
Click Create new rule > Field requirements.
Verify category is already selected and the existing settings are also pre-filled
Edit or save as is and verify it works without any error

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Precondition:
- Log in with Expensifail account.
- Enable Rules.

#97561 Rules - Deleted flag for review rule can be opened in offline mode

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to workspace settings > Categories.
Open any category.
Click Create new rule > Flag for review.
Enter the required field > Save rule.
Go offline.
Go to workspace settings > Rules > Flag for review.
Delete the rule in Step 5.
Open the same category whose rule is deleted.
Click on the deleted rule
Verify rule is disabled and nothing happens

#97563 Rules - Deleted field requirements rule disappears instead of showing crossed-out in offline

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to workspace settings > Categories.
Open any category.
Click Create new rule.
Create Flag for review rule and Field requirements rule.
Go offline.
Go to workspace settings > Rules > Flag for review.
Delete flag for review rule in Step 5.
Go to workspace settings > Rules > Field requirements.
Delete field requirements rule in Step 5.
Open the category whose rules are deleted in Step 8 and 10.
Verify both rules are there with stricke through, and are not tappable.

QA Steps

Same as tests
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

web_chrome.mp4

…tion Signed-off-by: krishna2323 <belivethatkg@gmail.com>

melvin-bot · 2026-08-03T21:11:01Z

@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: 8b1f329d57

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".

codecov · 2026-08-03T21:15:09Z

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/CategoryContextualRulesUtils.ts	`92.59% <100.00%> (+1.68%)`	⬆️
...ages/workspace/categories/CategorySettingsPage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
...s/RequireFieldsRules/RequireFieldsRulePageBase.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
...es/FlagForReviewRules/AddFlagForReviewRulePage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
...s/FlagForReviewRules/FlagForReviewRulePageBase.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
...es/RequireFieldsRules/AddRequireFieldsRulePage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 13 files with indirect coverage changes

…rules test Signed-off-by: krishna2323 <belivethatkg@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: krishna2323 <belivethatkg@gmail.com>

…7561-97563

situchan · 2026-08-04T19:43:21Z

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 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)
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)
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.
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

97560.mov

97561.mov

97563.mov

MelvinBot · 2026-08-04T20:31:10Z

Review

Looks solid — the three fixes are well-scoped and each mirrors an existing, proven pattern. All CI is green (ESLint, typecheck, all test jobs). I traced the logic and it holds up. 👍

What I verified

Fix #3 (pending-delete Field requirements stay visible) — CategoryContextualRulesUtils.ts:93-111 faithfully mirrors getRequireFieldsTableData: hasRequireFieldsRule = categoryHasAnyRequireFieldsRule || isPendingDelete, the isOffline || !isPendingDelete gate, and passing shouldIncludePendingDeleteFields into getRequireFieldsRuleDescriptionsForCategory so the summary isn't empty. Online-vs-offline behavior matches the table exactly.

Fix #2 (deleted rules non-interactive) — isDisabled = isPendingDelete on both rule types, consumed as interactive/disabled/shouldShowRightIcon at CategorySettingsPage.tsx:565-567. Consistent with disabled: isPendingDelete on the table item (RequireFieldsRulesUtils.ts:675). Partial-field deletes resolve to UPDATE, so isDisabled stays false and those rows remain openable — correct.

Fix #1 (prefill existing settings) — the codex-flagged async-load case (deep-link/refresh before policyCategories loads → hasExistingRule starts false → categoryName prop flips undefined→defined) is handled:

Flag: FlagForReviewRulePageBase.tsx:122 — the early-return now also requires draftMaxExpenseAmount !== undefined, so a category-only seed from the create branch gets re-seeded with the amount once the category arrives, rather than being left empty (which would let save overwrite the rule).
Require fields: RequireFieldsRulePageBase.tsx:189-198 already "always reseeds" when the draft category matches, so the same async flip is covered without extra logic.
The (!isEditing || !!initialCategoryName) back-navigation guard on both base pages correctly returns to the category RHP instead of the New rule hub.

Minor (optional): On the MenuItem you pass both interactive={!rule.isDisabled} and disabled={rule.isDisabled}. disabled dims the row on top of the DELETE strikethrough from OfflineWithFeedback — worth a quick glance that a pending-delete rule reads as "struck through" rather than "greyed out," matching how the same rule looks in the Rules table. It's consistent with the table's disabled: isPendingDelete today, so likely fine as-is.

I reviewed the code and CI only; I didn't run the beta-gated offline flows live. The added unit tests in CategoryContextualRulesUtilsTest.ts cover both the offline-listed-and-disabled and back-online-dropped cases, and the test jobs pass.

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 4a4c4c9a3d

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 · 2026-08-04T20:32:05Z

+    // really an edit. Passing categoryName seeds the amount from the category instead of opening it empty, which
+    // would otherwise overwrite the existing rule on save. initialCategoryName stays set so saving still returns
+    // to the category details page rather than the New rule hub we came from.
+    const hasExistingRule = !!scopedCategory && hasExplicitFlagAmount(scopedCategory.maxExpenseAmount);


Exclude pending deletes before editing an existing flag

When a flag-for-review rule is deleted while offline, the optimistic category keeps the old maxExpenseAmount while marking pendingFields.maxExpenseAmount as DELETE, so hasExplicitFlagAmount() still makes hasExistingRule true here. From the category page the disabled struck-through row can therefore be bypassed via Create new rule > Flag for review, which opens the pending-deleted rule in edit mode and lets a save requeue it instead of starting a fresh create. Please treat pending-delete flags as non-existing (or keep the create option disabled for that rule) before passing categoryName into the base page.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

github-actions · 2026-08-05T11:22:08Z

🚧 JS00001 has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

OSBotify · 2026-08-05T11:26:17Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

github-actions · 2026-08-05T11:27:57Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #97729.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-fd3f073e57b-0ad880f-7cd8bb6a4aec8f560a777c565e7619a937eaee5b/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-fd3f073-0ad880f-7ededec42ec5bb4fd143d754431ae0aaa539bb5d/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://97729.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

Fix category rules regressions from the contextual Category rules sec…

8b1f329

…tion Signed-off-by: krishna2323 <belivethatkg@gmail.com>

melvin-bot Bot assigned Krishna2323 Aug 3, 2026

Krishna2323 marked this pull request as ready for review August 3, 2026 21:10

Krishna2323 requested review from a team as code owners August 3, 2026 21:10

melvin-bot Bot requested review from heyjennahay and situchan and removed request for a team August 3, 2026 21:10

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team August 3, 2026 21:11

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Aug 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/pages/workspace/rules/FlagForReviewRules/AddFlagForReviewRulePage.tsx

Krishna2323 added 3 commits August 4, 2026 02:57

Seed the flag rule draft once categories load and fix the contextual …

0e50b22

…rules test Signed-off-by: krishna2323 <belivethatkg@gmail.com>

fix spell check.

c524e8a

Signed-off-by: krishna2323 <belivethatkg@gmail.com>

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into krishna2323/r4-regressions-97560-9…

4a4c4c9

…7561-97563

JS00001 self-requested a review August 4, 2026 18:47

situchan approved these changes Aug 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Aug 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

JS00001 approved these changes Aug 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

JS00001 closed this Aug 5, 2026

JS00001 reopened this Aug 5, 2026

JS00001 merged commit fd3f073 into Expensify:main Aug 5, 2026
43 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Aug 5, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-08-05 #97910

Open

40 tasks

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

Fix category rules regressions from the contextual Category rules section - #97729

Fix category rules regressions from the contextual Category rules section#97729
JS00001 merged 4 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
Krishna2323:krishna2323/r4-regressions-97560-97561-97563

Krishna2323 commented Aug 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Aug 3, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Aug 3, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

Uh oh!

situchan commented Aug 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Aug 4, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Aug 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

Krishna2323 commented Aug 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

1. Creating a rule didn't preload existing category settings

2. Optimistically deleted rules remained interactive

3. Pending-delete Field requirements disappeared

Fixed Issues

Tests

#97560 Rules - "Please select at least one field" is shown when all fields are selected

Offline tests

#97561 Rules - Deleted flag for review rule can be opened in offline mode

#97563 Rules - Deleted field requirements rule disappears instead of showing crossed-out in offline

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Aug 3, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Aug 3, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

situchan commented Aug 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Aug 4, 2026

Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Aug 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Krishna2323 commented Aug 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Aug 3, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

situchan commented Aug 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading