Show rate out-of-policy violation for disabled Track distance rates

[neerajbachani]

Track distance expenses should surface the same custom unit rate violation as submit expenses on expense details, inbox previews, and Spend when a workspace rate is disabled.

Explanation of Change

When a workspace distance rate is disabled, submit expenses already show a Rate not valid violation on expense details, Inbox, and Spend. Track distance expenses did not, because:

1. MoneyRequestView suppressed customUnitOutOfPolicy for Track expenses.
2. Disabling a distance rate did not push optimistic violations to Onyx (unlike category/tag toggles).
3. Inbox/Spend previews had no render-time sync for disabled rates (unlike the existing date-range rate sync).

This PR mirrors the existing category/tag/tax violation path:

• Show the violation on expense details for Track when the selected rate is disabled (while keeping the self-DM no-rate case exempt).
• Push customUnitOutOfPolicy to Onyx when disabling/re-enabling rates via setPolicyDistanceRatesEnabled.
• Add syncCustomUnitOutOfPolicyViolation for Inbox previews and Spend rows.

Fixed Issues

$ #93414
PROPOSAL: #93414 (comment)

Tests

1. Create a workspace with multiple distance rates and submit a Track distance expense using Rate A.
2. Disable Rate A in workspace settings > Distance rates.
3. Open the expense details and confirm Rate not valid appears under the Rate field.
4. Open the expense from Inbox and confirm the preview shows the rate violation.
5. Open the expense from Spend/Search and confirm the row shows the rate violation.
6. Re-enable Rate A and confirm the violation clears on expense details, Inbox, and Spend.
7. Create a self-DM Track distance expense with no workspace rate and confirm Rate not valid does not appear.
8. Confirm a per-diem expense with an invalid rate still shows its existing violation.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Go offline after disabling a workspace distance rate.
2. Open affected Track distance expenses and confirm Rate not valid still appears on expense details, Inbox, and Spend.

QA Steps

1. Create a workspace with multiple distance rates and submit a Track distance expense using Rate A.
2. Disable Rate A in workspace settings > Distance rates.
3. Open the expense details and confirm Rate not valid appears under the Rate field.
4. Open the expense from Inbox and confirm the preview shows the rate violation.
5. Open the expense from Spend/Search and confirm the row shows the rate violation.
6. Re-enable Rate A and confirm the violation clears on expense details, Inbox, and Spend.
7. Create a self-DM Track distance expense with no workspace rate and confirm Rate not valid does not appear.
8. Confirm a per-diem expense with an invalid rate still shows its existing violation.

• 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

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...c/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx	79.41% <100.00%> (+0.45%)	⬆️
src/hooks/useTransactionViolations.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/libs/actions/Policy/DistanceRate.ts	60.22% <100.00%> (+15.33%)	⬆️
src/libs/Violations/ViolationsUtils.ts	81.32% <95.83%> (+1.07%)	⬆️
...orkspace/distanceRates/PolicyDistanceRatesPage.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ce/distanceRates/PolicyDistanceRateDetailsPage.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
.../SearchList/ListItem/TransactionListItem/index.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 1264 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@situchan 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]

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 54d018e913

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".

[neerajbachani]

Addressed review feedback in a9b3359

[neerajbachani]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: a9b3359642

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]

Preserve violations for rates owned by another workspace

When an expense belongs to workspace B but retains a rate ID owned by workspace A, the new callers resolve distanceOriginalPolicy; this branch then removes customUnitOutOfPolicy merely because that source-workspace rate is enabled. This hides the existing invalid-rate warning even though the rate is still absent from the expense report’s policy—for example, after moving an expense when the destination has no eligible replacement rate. Only clear the violation when the rate belongs to the report policy or the expense is confirmed to be a personal/self-DM expense.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.