feat: remove isNewManualExpenseFlowEnabled beta flag

[thelullabyy]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #93854
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Login to ND
2. Verify that new manual expense flow works as default
3. Try to create expense
4. Verify create expense flow works correctly

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

1. Login to ND
2. Verify that new manual expense flow works as default
3. Try to create expense
4. Verify create expense flow works correctly

• 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 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 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 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.
• 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

Screen.Recording.2026-06-21.at.15.43.27.mov

[melvin-bot]

@ZhenjaHorbach 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]

[thelullabyy]

Hey @ZhenjaHorbach, sorry but I think @ikevin127 will be reviewer of this PR. We worked on this but got reverted here #94134

[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
src/CONST/index.ts	94.81% <ø> (ø)
...onents/MoneyRequestConfirmationFields/Provider.tsx	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...mponents/MoneyRequestConfirmationFields/context.ts	80.00% <ø> (ø)
src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationList.tsx	96.85% <100.00%> (+2.15%)	⬆️
...stConfirmationList/hooks/useConfirmationCtaText.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (+3.44%)	⬆️
...onfirmationList/hooks/useConfirmationValidation.ts	83.33% <100.00%> (ø)
...stConfirmationList/hooks/useFormErrorManagement.ts	90.38% <100.00%> (ø)
...eyRequestConfirmationList/sections/AmountField.tsx	42.98% <100.00%> (-0.99%)	⬇️
...oneyRequestConfirmationList/sections/DateField.tsx	58.69% <100.00%> (-19.57%)	⬇️
...uestConfirmationList/sections/DescriptionField.tsx	70.00% <100.00%> (-6.67%)	⬇️
... and 11 more
... and 16 files with indirect coverage changes

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 09e08eaa33

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]

Don't require isAmountSet on existing manual transactions

When this confirmation is used for existing manual/split expenses that predate isAmountSet (or are built without it, e.g. split transactions from createSplitsAndOnyxData), the transaction can still have a valid non-zero amount but no isAmountSet flag. With the beta guard removed, this branch now treats those persisted amounts as missing and returns fieldRequired, so users can be blocked from saving/editing until they re-enter the amount; distinguish an explicitly cleared new draft from older data that simply lacks the flag.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.