[$250] Attendees field not showing on expenses for one user but it shows for another

[melvin-bot]

Summary

The Attendees field is not displaying on expenses in production, even when attendees have been added to an expense (confirmed by the expense comment reflecting the attendees).

Steps to Reproduce

1. Add attendees to an expense in the app.
2. Observe that the expense comment reflects the attendees correctly.
3. View the expense — the Attendees field does not appear as a field on the expense.

Expected Behavior

The Attendees field should be visible on the expense when attendees have been added.

Actual Behavior

The Attendees field is absent from the expense view, despite attendees being attached to the expense.

Additional Context

• Attendee tracking is confirmed to be enabled on the workspace.
• The issue appears to be consistent across multiple expenses for the affected user.
• Reported by saracouto.

Notes

Opened from Slack thread discussion involving saracouto, mountiny, and others. Originally tracked in Expensify/Expensify#642056.

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~022060009628855986964
• Upwork Job ID: 2060009628855986964
• Last Price Increase: 2026-05-28

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @rojiphil (External)

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~022060009628855986964

[yusufdeveloper2903]

🚨 Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2026-05-28 16:26:41 UTC.

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

When attendees have been added to an expense (the data is present and shown in the expense comment), the Attendees field is absent from the expense details for one viewer while it appears for another, on the same attendee-tracking-enabled workspace.

What is the root cause of that problem?

In MoneyRequestView, the Attendees field is rendered behind a single gate that looks only at shouldShowAttendees, never at whether the expense actually has attendees:

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Line 1199 in 64fe168

{shouldShowAttendees && (

shouldShowAttendees returns false unless the resolved policy is a loaded Corporate policy:

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Lines 483 to 489 in 64fe168

	function shouldShowAttendees(iouType: IOUType, policy: OnyxEntry<Policy>): boolean {
	if ((iouType !== CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT && iouType !== CONST.IOU.TYPE.CREATE && iouType !== CONST.IOU.TYPE.TRACK) || !policy?.id || policy?.type !== CONST.POLICY.TYPE.CORPORATE) {
	return false;
	}
	return isAttendeeTrackingEnabledForPolicy(policy);
	}

The catch is that the policy fed into this gate is viewer-dependent, not expense-dependent. For an unreported expense, MoneyRequestView resolves policy to policyForMovingExpenses — the current viewer's own default/active policy (from usePolicyForMovingExpenses), not the policy the expense lives on:

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Lines 222 to 235 in 64fe168

	let policy;
	let policyID;
	// If the expense is unreported the policy should be the user's default policy, if the expense is a per diem request and is unreported
	// the policy should be the one where the per diem rates are enabled, otherwise it should be the expense's report policy
	if (isExpenseUnreported && !isPerDiemRequest) {
	policy = policyForMovingExpenses;
	policyID = policyForMovingExpensesID;
	} else if (isExpenseUnreported && isPerDiemRequest) {
	policy = perDiemOriginalPolicy;
	policyID = perDiemOriginalPolicy?.id;
	} else {
	policy = expensePolicy;
	policyID = parentReport?.policyID;
	}

So whether the field appears depends on the viewer's default workspace. A viewer whose default policy isn't a Control workspace with attendee tracking gets policy?.type !== CORPORATE → shouldShowAttendees === false, hiding attendees that are present on the expense. (For reported expenses the policy is the report's policy, but a viewer who isn't a full member can hold only a partial policy object with no type, producing the same false gate.)

Meanwhile the attendee data is already in hand: actualAttendees is derived unconditionally from transaction.comment.attendees, independent of the policy gate —

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Lines 302 to 303 in 64fe168

	const rawActualAttendees = isFromMergeTransaction && updatedTransaction ? updatedTransaction.comment?.attendees : transactionAttendees;
	const actualAttendees = enrichAndSortAttendees(rawActualAttendees, personalDetailsList, localeCompare);

— but it is never consulted when deciding visibility, so real attendee data gets discarded for that viewer.

This is a regression from PR #91056-era refactor [PR that defaulted attendee tracking to On, 2025-06-04], which rewrote the gate to key purely off policy.type === CORPORATE instead of off the expense having attendees.

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

Never hide attendee data that exists. Show the field when the policy gate passes or the expense already has attendees, in MoneyRequestView.tsx:

-                {shouldShowAttendees && (
+                {(shouldShowAttendees || (Array.isArray(actualAttendees) && actualAttendees.length > 0)) && (

To keep editing tied to the feature (so a viewer whose policy doesn't enable attendee tracking sees the existing attendees read-only rather than editing them on an unsupported policy), gate interactivity on the policy check:

-                            interactive={canEdit}
-                            shouldShowRightIcon={canEdit}
+                            interactive={canEdit && shouldShowAttendees}
+                            shouldShowRightIcon={canEdit && shouldShowAttendees}

No other changes needed: getAttendeesTitle, attendeesCopyValue, and the UserPills rendering all already derive from actualAttendees and work without the policy gate.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

• Fix the policy resolution to always use the expense's own policy instead of the viewer's policyForMovingExpenses. Rejected: the expense's policy still may not be loaded for a non-member viewer, and the reported-expense partial-policy case remains; gating on data presence fixes every variant with one line.
• Drop the policy?.type !== CORPORATE restriction inside shouldShowAttendees. Rejected: that changes the create/edit affordance globally (an empty selector would surface on non-Control policies) and still doesn't address the per-viewer policy-loading difference.
• Server-side: always sync isAttendeeTrackingEnabled and policy type to every viewer. Rejected: the App already holds the authoritative signal — the expense's own comment.attendees — and shouldn't hide data it already has while waiting on policy sync.

[github-actions]

⚠️ @yusufdeveloper2903 Thanks for your proposal. Please update it to follow the proposal template, as proposals are only reviewed if they follow that format (note the mandatory sections).

[ReaperOAK]

🚫 Duplicated proposal withdrawn by 🤖 ProposalPolice.

[ReaperOAK]

🚫 Duplicated proposal withdrawn by 🤖 ProposalPolice.