Skip to content

Fix: Tax name missing and tax unselected after changing tax code#92750

Open
marufsharifi wants to merge 6 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
marufsharifi:fix/tax-name-missing-after-tax-code-change-v2
Open

Fix: Tax name missing and tax unselected after changing tax code#92750
marufsharifi wants to merge 6 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
marufsharifi:fix/tax-name-missing-after-tax-code-change-v2

Conversation

@marufsharifi

@marufsharifi marufsharifi commented Jun 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

When a workspace admin renames a tax code, older expenses still store the old tax ID. This update makes the app resolve renamed tax codes before displaying tax names or validating tax rules. As a result, tax names show correctly, the tax picker stays selected, and tax out‑of‑policy violations no longer appear incorrectly for historical expenses.

Fixed Issues

$ #83111
#92657
PROPOSAL: #83111 (comment)

Tests

  1. Create an expense with the 0% tax rate.
  2. Create another expense with the 5% tax rate.
  3. Navigate to Workspace Settings → Taxes.
  4. Select the 0% rate and open the Tax Code.
  5. Upgrade the workspace.
  6. Edit the tax code and save the changes.
  7. Repeat steps 4–6 for the 5% rate.
  8. Open any expense created in steps 1 or 2.
  9. Click the Tax field.
  10. Verify that the tax name is displayed and remains selected.
  • 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.2026-03-08.at.10.00.08.AM.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2026-03-08.at.10.06.27.AM.mov
iOS: Native
iosnative.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2026-03-08.at.10.18.55.AM.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
macchrome.mp4

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jun 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...c/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx 75.38% <100.00%> (+0.06%) ⬆️
src/libs/PolicyUtils.ts 72.75% <100.00%> (+0.33%) ⬆️
src/libs/Violations/ViolationsUtils.ts 78.08% <100.00%> (+0.04%) ⬆️
src/libs/actions/IOU/MoneyRequest.ts 67.54% <100.00%> (+0.37%) ⬆️
src/libs/actions/IOU/SplitTransactionUpdate.ts 84.87% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
src/libs/actions/MergeTransaction.ts 67.89% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/actions/TaxRate.ts 62.22% <ø> (ø)
src/pages/Share/SubmitDetailsPage.tsx 85.45% <100.00%> (+0.08%) ⬆️
...stance/handleMoneyRequestStepDistanceNavigation.ts 83.83% <100.00%> (ø)
...equestStepScan/components/ScanSkipConfirmation.tsx 76.23% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 8 more
... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

@marufsharifi

marufsharifi commented Jun 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

This PR also fixes the regression reported in #92657.

What we missed was that the renamed tax code was only being resolved in the display/selection paths. Some submit/update flows were still sending the old taxCode, so after an offline submit it could fall back to the default/0% tax rate.

I updated those submit/share/split/merge/inline-edit paths to resolve the tax code against the current policy tax map before sending it.

REC-20260605113531.mp4

@marufsharifi marufsharifi marked this pull request as ready for review June 5, 2026 06:52
@marufsharifi marufsharifi requested review from a team as code owners June 5, 2026 06:52
@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot requested review from Krishna2323 and joekaufmanexpensify and removed request for a team June 5, 2026 06:52
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@Krishna2323 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 June 5, 2026 06:52
Comment thread src/libs/Violations/ViolationsUtils.ts Outdated
return !!tags && Object.values(tags).some((tag) => !!tag.enabled);
}

function resolveCurrentTaxCodeFromTaxRates(policyTaxRates: TaxRates, taxCode: string): string | undefined {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

❌ CONSISTENCY-3 (docs)

The new resolveCurrentTaxCodeFromTaxRates function duplicates the logic already present in getCurrentTaxID from PolicyUtils.ts, which is even imported in this same file. Both functions check if a tax code exists directly in the tax rates, and if not, search for a matching previousTaxCode. The only difference is the function signature (one takes TaxRates directly, the other takes Policy and extracts policy?.taxRates?.taxes).

Remove resolveCurrentTaxCodeFromTaxRates and use the already-imported getCurrentTaxID (or resolveCurrentTaxCode) instead. For example, at line 355:

// Instead of:
const currentTaxCode = resolveCurrentTaxCodeFromTaxRates(policyTaxRates, taxCode) ?? taxCode;

// Use the already-imported function:
const currentTaxCode = getCurrentTaxID({taxRates: {taxes: policyTaxRates}} as Policy, taxCode) ?? taxCode;

Or better yet, refactor the call site to pass the policy object and use resolveCurrentTaxCode(policy, taxCode) directly.


Reviewed at: a6ec3e5 | Please rate this suggestion with 👍 or 👎 to help us improve! Reactions are used to monitor reviewer efficiency.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@marufsharifi is this handled?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Krishna2323 Yeah, it is handled

@joekaufmanexpensify joekaufmanexpensify left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

fixing DB

@Krishna2323

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 5196fe23df

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".

[newTaxCode]: {
...originalTaxRate,
code: newTaxCode,
previousTaxCode: oldTaxCode,

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Preserve the full tax-code rename chain

When a tax code that was already renamed is renamed again (for example A -> B -> C), this overwrites originalTaxRate.previousTaxCode with only B. The new resolution helper only checks one previousTaxCode, so historical expenses still storing A stop resolving after the second rename and the missing-name/unselected-tax behavior returns for those older expenses. Preserve the prior alias (or otherwise resolve the chain) when writing the renamed tax rate.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When a tax code that was already renamed is renamed again (for example A -> B -> C), this overwrites originalTaxRate.previousTaxCode with only B

What I found is that the expense can still store the original tax code, while the current tax rate only keeps the latest previousTaxCode. With only one alias, the frontend can’t reliably resolve the full rename chain.

The only complete fix I found is to preserve/return the tax-code alias history from the backend, then have the frontend resolve old transaction tax codes against that history. So this needs a backend change as well.

@Krishna2323 Can you please check and confirm?

@Krishna2323

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thanks for the v2 @marufsharifi. The submit/action paths look good now.

I found a few remaining places in the duplicate transaction flow that still seem to use taxCode directly without resolving renamed tax codes:

  • TransactionDuplicate/Confirmation.tsx
  • TransactionDuplicate/ReviewTaxCode.tsx
  • TransactionUtils/index.ts (compareDuplicateTransactionFields)

Could you please take a look at those as well?

@marufsharifi

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

While testing I also found this bug: When change the category of an expense the tax rate changes to default ( 0%)

REC-20260609115449.mp4

Which is also reproducible in staging.

@Krishna2323 Should I also consider this or is out of scope for this PR ?

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants