fix: Extra hold expense comment appears after splitting held expense [#86798]

[dmkt9]

Explanation of Change

$ $ #86798, a regression of #84551

Fixed Issues

$ #86798
$ #73390
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Same as QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat.
3. Create an expense.
4. Open the expense.
5. Hold the expense.
6. Click More > Split > Save.
7. Open any held split expense.
8. Verify that only one hold expense comment will appear in the transaction thread.

• 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

Android: Native

android.native.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android.chrome.mp4

iOS: Native

ios.native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.safari.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

mac.safari.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@dukenv0307 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

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/actions/IOU/Split.ts	81.76% <82.60%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

[dmkt9]

Hi @dukenv0307,

We have a bug that is also reproducible in production:
Steps:

1. Navigate to staging.new.expensify.com.
2. Go to a workspace chat.
3. Create two expenses.
4. Open the report and then open any transaction.
5. Place the transaction on hold.
6. Post several comments.
7. Delete the hold comment.
8. Navigate to Account > Troubleshoot > Clear cache and restart.
9. Return to the workspace chat.
10. Open the report.
11. Use the checkbox to select the held transaction without opening it.
12. Tap "Selected" and choose "Split."
13. Open any of the split transactions.
14. Note that there is a duplicate comment.

known-bug.mp4

[dmkt9]

Hi @luacmartins, I found that the Transaction_Split API is not functioning correctly for copied comments that have text identical to the hold comment. On the FE, we could avoid copying these comments as a workaround. However, if you feel it needs to be fixed on the BE instead of using a workaround, I think reverting the original PR #84551 would be a better solution.

2026-04-02.11-40-53.mp4

[luacmartins]

@dmkt9 is that reproducible in production too?

[dmkt9]

@dmkt9 is that reproducible in production too?

@luacmartins Bug 1 can be reproduced in production.

However, bug 2 cannot, because we have not yet deployed the copy comments feature in production.

[dukenv0307]

@dmkt9 Hmmm, #84551 is quite large and we can consider your issue above as the edge case, so I think we shouldn't revert

[dukenv0307]

can we move it to the top of this block?

[dmkt9]

We should place it after finding the "hold comment" action, as the "hold comment" action can be deleted.

[dukenv0307]

1. Hold the expense
2. Wait for a while to make sure BE calls are successful
3. Go offline
4. Observe that the comments are greyed out

Screen.Recording.2026-04-02.at.22.31.50.mov

[dukenv0307]

@dmkt9 Is it our regression?

[dmkt9]

@dmkt9 Is it our regression?

No. I saw it while creating this PR. It can also be reproduced in production. The root cause is that the pendingAction is not being cleared, similar to the issue we fixed in our previous PR.