[Internal QA] Add Vendor column to expense Search and report tables

[c3024]

Explanation of Change

Adds a Vendor column to the Search expense table and the single-report table.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/681919

Tests

1. As an admin of a workspace connected to QBO with company card expenses exporting as Credit card or Debit card, create two non-reimbursable expenses on one report, one with a vendor and one without.
2. Open Reports, Expenses and verify there is no Vendor column.
3. Pick Vendor in Display, Columns and save. Verify the vendor name on one row and a blank on the other.
4. Reload and verify the column stays.
5. Open the report and verify the Vendor column shows the same values.
6. Open the report's Columns setting, verify Vendor is pre-selected, deselect it, save, and verify it disappears.
7. With Vendor still picked, open a report on a workspace without an accounting connection and verify Vendor is absent from both the table and the report Columns setting.
8. As a member of the QBO workspace, verify Vendor is listed in the Search Columns picker, and absent for an account with no such workspace.
9. As an admin whose only eligible workspace is Xero (vendorMatching beta), verify the header and picker read "Supplier".

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Go offline with the Vendor column picked and verify names still render in Search and in the report table.

QA Steps

Internal QA on staging, same as Tests. Needs a QBO sandbox workspace with company card export set to Credit card or Debit card. The Xero step needs the vendorMatching beta.

• 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 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 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)
• 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.
• 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: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[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	91.52% <ø> (ø)
...ents/TransactionItemRow/TransactionItemRowWide.tsx	98.44% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/libs/PolicyUtils.ts	81.88% <100.00%> (+0.17%)	⬆️
src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts	71.06% <100.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
...pages/settings/Report/ReportDetailsColumnsPage.tsx	84.21% <100.00%> (+2.96%)	⬆️
src/styles/utils/index.ts	61.47% <100.00%> (-0.19%)	⬇️
...estReportView/MoneyRequestReportTableHeaderRow.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/components/Search/SearchTableHeader.tsx	51.06% <80.00%> (+1.62%)	⬆️
...equestReportView/MoneyRequestReportTableHeader.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/libs/getSearchColumnContentToMeasure.ts	3.81% <0.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
... and 3 more
... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@ChavdaSachin 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]

[heyjennahay]

As an admin whose only eligible workspace is Xero (vendorMatching beta), verify the header and picker read "Supplier".

To clarify, we should use Vendor across all integrations types including Xero

[Beamanator]

@c3024 conflicts, sorry - and can you also check to make sure that we still use the term "Vendor" for Xero? 🙏

[c3024]

@Beamanator @heyjennahay

Just want to confirm before replacing it:

The Design doc R4 says to set the rule the issue points to: “All UI copy uses ‘Supplier’ (Xero's term for vendors) rather than ‘Vendor’”, with “Expense field label: ‘Supplier’” and “Workspace tab label: ‘Suppliers’.” Xero calls vendors Contacts marked as Supplier, so the doc keeps Xero-facing copy aligned with Xero's terminology.

The linked issue says to resolve values “using the same integration-aware naming and data sources as the existing vendor field (including Xero's ‘Supplier’ terminology where applicable).”

The main branch already implements this rule for the expense field. MoneyRequestView.tsx on main uses common.supplier when isXeroActiveMatchingSource(policy) is true, which was added by @Beamanator's R4 PR #94093 and merged on 2026-07-20. The PR also applies the same check to the column header and picker, keeping the Search table consistent with the expense view rather than introducing different copy.

Should we replace the column name in the Money Request report view and remove the special Xero check (isXeroActiveMatchingSource) that was added in PR #94093, so the column is always named Supplier as well?