Skip duplicate rule warning when editing the priority rule by MelvinBot · Pull Request #84224 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-03-05T00:56:08Z

Explanation of Change

When editing a merchant rule that was created before another rule with the same merchant name, the checkForDuplicateRule function in MerchantRulePageBase.tsx would incorrectly trigger the "Similar merchant rule already exists" warning. The warning says "Your existing rule will take priority over this one", but when editing the original/first rule, that rule IS the one with priority — making the message confusing and incorrect.

This PR makes checkForDuplicateRule priority-aware by comparing the created timestamps. If the rule being edited was created before (or at the same time as) the duplicate, the warning is skipped since the edited rule already has priority. The warning still correctly appears when editing or creating a newer/lower-priority rule.

Fixed Issues

$ #84210
PROPOSAL: #84210 (comment)

Tests

Go to a workspace with Rules enabled
Click "Add merchant rule"
Create a rule: merchant = "Apple", match type = contains, category = any category (e.g., "Car")
Save the rule
Create a second rule: merchant = "Apple", match type = contains, category = a different category (e.g., "Advertising")
Verify the "Similar merchant rule already exists" warning appears (expected for the second/newer rule)
Click "Save anyway"
Now edit the FIRST rule (the one created in step 3)
Change its category to something else (e.g., "Fees") and click "Save rule"
Verify that the "Similar merchant rule already exists" warning does NOT appear (this is the fix)
Also verify creating a brand new duplicate rule still shows the warning

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

This change is in the duplicate-detection logic which runs client-side before any API call. No network dependency.

QA Steps

Same as tests above.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

N/A — logic-only change, no UI modifications

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/A — logic-only change, no UI modifications

iOS: Native

N/A — logic-only change, no UI modifications

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/A — logic-only change, no UI modifications

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Tested via Playwright browser automation on Chrome. Verified:

Creating a second rule with the same merchant still shows the duplicate warning
Editing the first/original rule no longer shows the misleading warning
The edited rule saves correctly without interruption

When editing a merchant rule that was created before another rule with the same merchant, the duplicate warning is no longer shown since the rule being edited already has priority. Co-authored-by: Carlos Martins <luacmartins@users.noreply.github.com>

melvin-bot · 2026-03-05T00:58:06Z

@linhvovan29546 @luacmartins One of you needs to 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]

linhvovan29546 · 2026-03-05T01:05:22Z

@luacmartins This PR already has C+ review, could you please unassign me?

codecov · 2026-03-05T01:06:28Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...space/rules/MerchantRules/MerchantRulePageBase.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 15 files with indirect coverage changes

situchan · 2026-03-05T05:25:06Z

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

Screen.Recording.2026-03-05.at.11.31.41.AM.mov

offline:

Screen.Recording.2026-03-05.at.11.30.19.AM.mov

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-03-05T05:33:27Z

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🎉

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".

github-actions · 2026-03-05T15:03:56Z

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

github-actions · 2026-03-05T15:08:51Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #84224.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-ddf9e7a-18d2287-e648523f04e5106217dae3b5cf5c74d08a223e9e/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-ddf9e7a-18d2287-5eaa4bf14ee6d54997288fd2457eb78c4d7ba3bb/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://84224.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-03-05T15:11:32Z

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

OSBotify · 2026-03-06T04:17:04Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/JS00001 in version: 9.3.32-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

OSBotify · 2026-03-06T22:46:16Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.3.32-3 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

MelvinBot assigned luacmartins Mar 5, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team March 5, 2026 00:56

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Mar 5, 2026

Rules - "Similar merchant rule already exists" is shown when editing the original rule #84210

Closed

7 tasks

luacmartins requested a review from situchan March 5, 2026 00:56

luacmartins marked this pull request as ready for review March 5, 2026 00:57

luacmartins requested a review from a team as a code owner March 5, 2026 00:58

melvin-bot bot requested review from joekaufmanexpensify, linhvovan29546 and luacmartins and removed request for a team March 5, 2026 00:58

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team March 5, 2026 00:58

situchan approved these changes Mar 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

JS00001 approved these changes Mar 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

JS00001 merged commit ddf9e7a into main Mar 5, 2026
36 checks passed

JS00001 deleted the claude-fixDuplicateRuleWarningForOriginalRule branch March 5, 2026 15:03

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-03-06 #84352

Closed

92 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Skip duplicate rule warning when editing the priority rule#84224

Skip duplicate rule warning when editing the priority rule#84224
JS00001 merged 1 commit intomainfrom
claude-fixDuplicateRuleWarningForOriginalRule

MelvinBot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 5, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

Uh oh!

situchan commented Mar 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 6, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

Conversation

MelvinBot commented Mar 5, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

linhvovan29546 commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 5, 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 Mar 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 6, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

codecov bot commented Mar 5, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

situchan commented Mar 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading