Show inline Explain link on integration sync failure messages

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Export/sync failure system messages (e.g. failed to export this report to NetSuite ("NS0196 Sync Error: …")) exposed the right-click "Explain" option but not the inline "Explain" link on hover. The right-click entry is gated on hasReasoning(reportAction), while the inline link only renders when the action's render component wraps its message in ReportActionItemMessageWithExplain. The INTEGRATION_SYNC_FAILED failure path routed through IntegrationSyncFailedMessage.tsx, which rendered plain muted text via ReportActionItemBasicMessage + RenderHTML and was never wired up for the inline affordance (only the success path ExportIntegration was, in commit 281da4f7).

This change makes IntegrationSyncFailedMessage mirror ExportIntegration: when hasReasoning(action) is true it wraps the message in ReportActionItemMessageWithExplain (which appends the inline "Explain" link and wires up the explain handler), and otherwise falls back to the existing ReportActionItemBasicMessage / RenderHTML rendering. ActionContentRouter now passes originalReport through so the explain handler has the report context it needs. Net effect: NetSuite/QBO sync-failure messages that carry a reasoning payload now show the inline "Explain" link on hover as a first-class action, matching the export success path.

Fixed Issues

$ #96422
PROPOSAL:

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

• 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
...nbox/report/actionContents/ActionContentRouter.tsx	93.63% <ø> (ø)
...rt/actionContents/IntegrationSyncFailedMessage.tsx	83.33% <71.42%> (-16.67%)	⬇️
... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

[MelvinBot]

All of the code checks are now green — no code fix was needed, so I didn't push anything.

When you filed this request, the JS checks (ESLint, typecheck, tests, perf) were still queued/pending rather than failed. They've since all completed and passed:

• ✅ ESLint check, typecheck, Oxfmt, React Compiler Compliance
• ✅ test (jobs 1–8), Bun tests, Storybook tests
• ✅ baseline/branch/validate perf-tests
• ✅ all builds, spellcheck, knip, unused styles, codecov

The only remaining ❌ is checklist — the PR Author Checklist (You completed 0 out of 38 checklist items). That's not a code failure and I can't fix it by pushing: it just needs the author checklist boxes in the PR description ticked. Once you fill those out it'll go green.

[melvin-bot]

@mkhutornyi 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]

[mkhutornyi]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: HybridApp
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: HybridApp
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (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 verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• 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 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.
• For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[MelvinBot]

Review

Looks good. The change faithfully mirrors the export-success path (ExportIntegration.tsx:38-48) onto the sync-failure path: gate on hasReasoning(action), wrap in ReportActionItemMessageWithExplain when true, else fall back to the existing ReportActionItemBasicMessage / RenderHTML rendering. The premise checks out — the right-click "Explain" entry is gated on the same generic hasReasoning(reportAction), so any sync-failure action carrying a reasoning payload previously got the right-click option but not the inline link.

Details I verified

• originalReport is in scope in ActionContentRouter — it's already threaded into ExportIntegration a few lines above the INTEGRATION_SYNC_FAILED branch, so passing it through is safe.
• message wrapping is consistent. getIntegrationSyncFailedMessage returns the inner content (unwrapped); ReportActionItemMessageWithExplain wraps it in <comment><muted-text>…</muted-text></comment> itself (ReportActionItemMessageWithExplain.tsx:59-88), matching the original fallback wrapping. No double-wrapping.
• Hoisting message to a single const removes the duplicated getIntegrationSyncFailedMessage(...) call — good cleanup.
• hasReasoning typechecks fine — it's a runtime 'reasoning' in originalMessage check, so it works even though OriginalMessageIntegrationSyncFailed doesn't declare a reasoning field.

Two small things worth confirming before merge:

1. Runtime reasoning payload. OriginalMessageIntegrationSyncFailed (OriginalMessage.ts:1461) has no reasoning field, so the new branch only ever executes if the backend actually sets reasoning on these actions. Since right-click "Explain" already relies on the same condition, this should hold — but the inline link is a no-op unless a real sync-failure action with reasoning is used to test it. Please capture a screenshot of the inline "Explain" link on hover for such a message rather than only the JS-console check.

2. Tests. No unit test was added and the Tests/QA sections are still the placeholder TODO. Since the behavior branches on hasReasoning, a small test asserting the ReportActionItemMessageWithExplain path renders when the action carries reasoning (and the basic path otherwise) would lock in the fix and match the checklist item on adding regression tests.

No blocking concerns on the code itself.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 972b02d80c

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]

Strip the sync failure period before appending Explain

When an INTEGRATION_SYNC_FAILED action includes reasoning, this passes the sync-failure HTML directly into ReportActionItemMessageWithExplain. That translation already ends with a period (...workspace settings</a>., and recurrence adds another sentence), while iou.AskToExplain begins with . , so the rendered message becomes settings.. Explain or (Repeated 2 times.). Explain; strip the trailing period in this branch before appending the Explain link, as the receipt-scan-failed path does.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[MelvinBot]

The only failing checks are PR Author Checklist and PR Reviewer Checklist — there's no code fix to push here. Every real CI check (tests, typecheck, ESLint, Oxfmt, build, perf, storybook, etc.) is passing.

Both checklist checks fail simply because their checkboxes aren't completed yet:

• PR Author Checklist → the author checklist boxes in the PR description are unchecked. Complete them (and fill in the Tests/QA Steps sections, or add [No QA] to the title) to make it pass.
• PR Reviewer Checklist → this only turns green once a reviewer runs through and completes the reviewer checklist.

Nothing to commit — these clear once the checklists are filled out.