[Payment due @Pujan92] Prevent repeated bank account unlock requests from being sent by akinwale · Pull Request #99792 · Expensify/App

akinwale · 2026-08-28T21:07:52Z

Explanation of Change

For locked bank accounts, prevent multiple repeated unlock account requests being sent when the user clicks on the button to Fix or Unlock the bank account.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/673219
PROPOSAL: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/673219#issue-5195034188

Tests

Prerequisites

Account with a personal or business bank account in a locked state

Test Steps

Launch Expensify.
Log in with an account that has a personal or business locked account.
Under the "Time sensitive" section on the Home screen, click the "Fix" button beside the locked business bank account.
Verify that navigation occurs to the Concierge DM, with a new message is created stating that the request was sent.
Navigate back to the Home page.
Click the "Fix" button for the same bank account again.
Verify that a modal is shown stating that the request has already been sent.
Repeat steps 6 and 7 for the same bank account on the Wallet page and Workspace settings > Workflows > Payments > Payment account.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Launch Expensify.
Log in with an account that has a personal or business locked account.
Under the "Time sensitive" section on the Home screen, click the "Fix" button beside the locked business bank account.
Verify that navigation occurs to the Concierge DM, with a new message is created stating that the request was sent.
Navigate back to the Home page.
Click the "Fix" button for the same bank account again.
Verify that a modal is shown stating that the request has already been sent.
Repeat steps 6 and 7 for the same bank account on the Wallet page and Workspace settings > Workflows > Payments > Payment account.

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

Screen.Recording.2026-08-28.at.14.37.20.mp4

Screen.Recording.2026-08-28.at.14.38.04.mp4

Screen.Recording.2026-08-28.at.14.40.22.mp4

melvin-bot · 2026-08-28T21:07:57Z

Hey, I noticed you changed src/languages/en.ts in a PR from a fork. For security reasons, translations are not generated automatically for PRs from forks.

If you want to automatically generate translations for other locales, an Expensify employee will have to:

Look at the code and make sure there are no malicious changes.
Run the Generate static translations GitHub workflow. If you have write access and the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

Alternatively, if you are an external contributor, you can run the translation script locally with your own OpenAI API key. To learn more, try running:

npx bun ./scripts/generateTranslations.ts --help

Typically, you'd want to translate only what you changed by running npx bun ./scripts/generateTranslations.ts --compare-ref main

melvin-bot · 2026-08-28T21:07:59Z

@Pujan92 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]

github-actions · 2026-08-28T21:08:07Z

This PR adds a new Onyx.connectWithoutView call, so I've requested a review from the Onyx performance reviewers (@tgolen, @mountiny, @luacmartins) — a review from any one of them is enough. Please add a link in your PR description to the Slack discussion where the @frontend-performance team approved using connectWithoutView here.

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 5c3a1c99a7

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 · 2026-08-28T21:13:12Z

+    if (initiatingBankAccountUnlock?.isLoading && initiatingBankAccountUnlock?.bankAccountIDToUnlock === bankAccountID) {
+        return;
+    }


Track each in-flight bank account independently

When multiple locked accounts are acted on before their requests finish, this singleton guard remembers only the latest ID. For example, pressing A, then B, then A while responses are slow makes the third call see B as bankAccountIDToUnlock, bypass the guard, and enqueue a second unlock request for A. Track in-flight state per bank-account ID so alternating between accounts cannot evade deduplication.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

This is based on the existing implementation. Implementing per bank account ID would require a major refactor and is not in scope for this PR.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-08-28T21:13:12Z

+Onyx.connectWithoutView({
+    key: ONYXKEYS.INITIATING_BANK_ACCOUNT_UNLOCK,
+    callback: (value) => (initiatingBankAccountUnlock = value),
+});


Explain the direct Onyx connection

This new Onyx.connectWithoutView read has no comment justifying why the action layer needs a direct subscription. The repository's delegated Onyx guidance explicitly requires each such read to be justified rather than copied as a pattern, so add the rationale next to this connection.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L1-L3

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Removed the call in favour of passing the Onyx value to the method calls.

Perfect, thanks!

codecov · 2026-08-28T21:21:06Z

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/ONYXKEYS.ts	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
src/libs/BankAccountUtils.ts	`94.23% <100.00%> (+0.11%)`	⬆️
src/libs/ExportOnyxState/common.ts	`80.95% <ø> (ø)`
...e/TimeSensitiveSection/items/UnlockBankAccount.tsx	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
.../workspace/workflows/tabs/WorkflowsPaymentsTab.tsx	`74.82% <40.00%> (-0.72%)`	⬇️
src/pages/settings/Wallet/WalletPage/index.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
src/components/SettlementButton/index.tsx	`74.40% <25.00%> (-0.12%)`	⬇️
src/libs/actions/BankAccounts.ts	`27.85% <0.00%> (-0.38%)`	⬇️
... and 19 files with indirect coverage changes

…meter instead

akinwale · 2026-08-28T21:41:02Z

This PR adds a new Onyx.connectWithoutView call, so I've requested a review from the Onyx performance reviewers (@tgolen, @mountiny, @luacmartins) — a review from any one of them is enough. Please add a link in your PR description to the Slack discussion where the @frontend-performance team approved using connectWithoutView here.

Sorry about the noise. I removed the Onyx.connectWithoutView call.

Pujan92 · 2026-09-10T05:38:28Z

@akinwale can you plz merge main and fix conflicts

Pujan92 · 2026-09-10T06:00:51Z

    const [introSelected] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.NVP_INTRO_SELECTED);
    const [isSelfTourViewed] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.NVP_ONBOARDING, {selector: hasSeenTourSelector});
    const [betas] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.BETAS);
+    const lockedBankAccountID = Object.values(bankAccountList).find((account) => account?.accountData?.state === CONST.BANK_ACCOUNT.STATE.LOCKED)?.accountData?.bankAccountID;


What if multiple are locked?

find returns the first match, and we only need one locked bank account even if the user has multiple in this scenario to determine that the user is in the locked state.

I was concerned that what if the second one is locked and this returns the first one. In that case, we may not receive the request of unlock for the second locked account.

melvin-bot · 2026-09-10T07:05:02Z

I could not review this diff, so I did not approve the workflow runs. An Expensify employee will review it and approve them manually.

Pujan92 · 2026-09-10T10:37:21Z

@akinwale to test correctly, can you plz make bankAccountId 6119227 as locked in the backend?

akinwale · 2026-09-10T16:46:01Z

@akinwale to test correctly, can you plz make bankAccountId 6119227 as locked in the backend?

@Pujan92 I don't have the permissions to do this on the backend. Also, please post the email address associated with the bank account.

@clarajones-expensify Could you help with this by locking the bank account with ID 6119227?

Pujan92 · 2026-09-10T16:47:27Z

@Pujan92 I don't have the permissions to do this on the backend. Also, please post the email address associated with the bank account.

Email - pujan0707+2@gmail.com

clarajones-expensify · 2026-09-10T16:47:30Z

@akinwale @Pujan92 yes, happy to help! let me know the email that the bank account is under and i should be able to lock it for you

clarajones-expensify · 2026-09-10T16:48:02Z

@Pujan92 you're too quick!! looking into this now haha

clarajones-expensify · 2026-09-10T16:48:38Z

@Pujan92 it is locked!

Pujan92 · 2026-09-10T16:50:44Z

@clarajones-expensify Thanks!

@akinwale type check is failing

Pujan92 · 2026-09-11T05:24:56Z

@akinwale don't we need to set nvp_expensify_vbaUnlockRequested_ optimistically to prevent for offline network too?

tgolen · 2026-09-17T14:42:53Z

@akinwale Let's get this PR wrapped up soon, please.

akinwale · 2026-09-17T14:46:53Z

This fell off my radar. I'll prioritise today.

Pujan92

LGTM!

I have a doubt #99792 (comment) but it looks rare case at the moment, still would like to know the thought of @tgolen

melvin-bot · 2026-09-17T16:48:37Z

🎯 @Pujan92, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

A payment issue will be created for your review once this PR is deployed to production.
E/E issue linked to the PR - https://www.github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/673219.

If payment is not needed (e.g., regression PR review fix etc), react with 👎 to this comment to prevent the payment issue from being created.

akinwale · 2026-09-17T16:56:15Z

@Pujan92 I'm almost done with a fix for the offline scenarios since it's valid.

akinwale · 2026-09-17T17:00:49Z

@Pujan92 I've pushed the latest updates. Here are videos showing the offline tests for all three paths (note that the entire bank account row is disabled for the Workflows > Payments payment account list while offline, so the Unlock button can't be clicked there).

Screen.Recording.2026-09-17.at.10.22.32.mp4

Screen.Recording.2026-09-17.at.10.24.19.mp4

Screen.Recording.2026-09-17.at.10.56.44.mp4

Pujan92 · 2026-09-17T17:08:02Z

note that the entire bank account row is disabled for the Workflows > Payments payment account list while offline, so the Unlock button can't be clicked there

@akinwale can you make a change for Workflows -> Payments if required, as we are going to allow clicking while offline here too with PR #101450

akinwale · 2026-09-17T17:48:50Z

note that the entire bank account row is disabled for the Workflows > Payments payment account list while offline, so the Unlock button can't be clicked there

@akinwale can you make a change for Workflows -> Payments if required, as we are going to allow clicking while offline here too with PR #101450

No change required as it is already handled through the pressLockedBankAccount path. You can remove the isOffline flag on the bank account row while testing to verify this.

Screen.Recording.2026-09-17.at.11.46.10.mp4

prevent repeated bank account unlock requests from being sent

5c3a1c9

akinwale requested review from a team as code owners August 28, 2026 21:07

melvin-bot Bot assigned akinwale Aug 28, 2026

melvin-bot Bot requested review from Pujan92 and removed request for a team August 28, 2026 21:07

melvin-bot Bot requested review from garrettmknight and removed request for a team August 28, 2026 21:07

github-actions Bot requested review from luacmartins, mountiny and tgolen August 28, 2026 21:08