Fix/72129c - No checkmark displayed for selected recipient in choose recipient page

[dmkt9]

Explanation of Change

The follow-up PR #78354

Fixes the issue where the checkmark does not appear for the selected recipient on the "Choose Recipient" page during expense request creation.

• Self DM is marked as selected in recipient list when submitting track distance from self DM #82515: Because when creating a transaction draft using createDraftTransaction, we don’t reset the participants property here.

• Invoice - "Hidden" is selected on recipient list instead of invoice chat #82459: We are missing information for the invoice room when restarting the invoice creation flow here.

• Invoice - After changing invoice chat from confirm page, the previous invoice chat disappears #82468: Because selectedOptions holds stale data from the previously selected option, the invoice room option gets excluded here.
  To fix this issue: since selectedOptions is not used in CONST.SEARCH_SELECTOR.SELECTION_MODE_SINGLE mode (specifically outside IOU split), we will remove the setSelectedOptions logic in MoneyRequestParticipantsSelector that was added in PR Fix/72129b - No checkmark displayed for selected recipient in choose recipient page #78354, and pass initialSelected as undefined in this case.

Fixed Issues

$ #72129
PROPOSAL: #72129 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

Test 1:

1. Click the global plus > Create expense
2. Choose "Manual", Click Next after entering an amount
3. In Confirm details page, click "To" field
4. Choose any recipient
5. Click "To" field
6. Observe the "Choose recipient" page
7. Note that the checkmark displayed for the recipient selected

Test 2:

Precondition:

• Invoice is enabled.
• User has sent an invoice.

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Open FAB > Send invoice.
3. Enter amount > Next.
4. Select invoice chat.
5. On confirm page, click To field.
6. Click RHP back button until you reach amount input page.
7. Click Next.
8. On confirm page, click To field.
9. Note that the Invoice chat will be selected.

Test 3:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to self DM.
3. Track a distance expense in self DM.
4. Click Submit it to someone.
5. Note that the Self DM will not be marked as selected in recipient list.

Test 4:
Precondition:

• Invoice is enabled.
• Send invoice to two different users to create two invoice chats.

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Open FAB > Send invoice.
3. Enter amount > Next.
4. Select an invoice chat.
5. On confirm page, click To field.
6. Select another invoice chat.
7. Click RHP back button.
8. Note that the previous invoice chat in Step 4 will appear in recipient list.

Test 5:
Precondition: Log in with new account and do not create workspace.

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Open FAB > Create expense > Manual.
3. Enter amount > Next.
4. Select Manager McTest.
5. On confirm page, click RHP back button.
6. Click RHP back button again.
7. On amount page, click Next.
8. Enter email of any user and select it.
9. On confirm page, click RHP back button.
10. Clear the search field.
11. Verify that the Manager McTest will appear in the recipient list.

• 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 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

Test 1:

Android: Native

android.native.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android.mweb.mp4

iOS: Native

ios.native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.mweb.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

mac.safari.mp4

Test 2:

mac.test1.mp4

Test 3:

mac.test2.mp4

Test 4:

mac.test3.mp4

Test 5:

Test-6.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@truph01 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]

[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/libs/ReportUtils.ts	75.15% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts	71.35% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
...rc/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepAmount.tsx	4.08% <66.66%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
...s/iou/request/MoneyRequestParticipantsSelector.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...es/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepParticipants.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/libs/OptionsListUtils/index.ts	81.40% <43.47%> (+0.44%)	⬆️
... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 18115d04bf

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]

Do not flag cleared participants as test transaction

Passing true as the third argument to setMoneyRequestParticipants here marks the draft as a test/global-create transaction (setMoneyRequestParticipants treats that parameter as isTestTransaction and sets isFromGlobalCreate in src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts:1503-1508). In this negative-amount P2P recovery path, that mutates normal drafts (including flows started inside an existing report) into global-create semantics, which can change downstream submit/navigation behavior after the user reselects a participant.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[dmkt9]

I used the condition iouType === CONST.IOU.TYPE.CREATE to apply only to expenses created using the global create button