Fix duplicate Expensify Card transactions on draft reports

[KioCoan]

Explanation of Change

When an Expensify Card authorization settles, the backend creates a separate posted/clearing transaction (carrying parentTransactionID = the root pending auth's transactionID), moves the original pending auth to the hidden report (reportID = -4), and sends a real-time Onyx MERGE_COLLECTION null to clear the pending from clients.

The problem is on a fresh load: the report-transaction query only returns reportID > 0, so a hidden pending is simply absent from the OpenReport response (never sent as a null), and OpenReport writes transactions additively via MERGE_COLLECTION and never reconciles stale rows. So a client that was offline or closed when the card settled (the common case, since cards settle 1-3 days later) misses the real-time null and keeps the stale pending in local Onyx with its old draft reportID, rendering it as a duplicate beside the posted row. Expensify Classic has no persistent client store, so it always reflects the current DB state, which is why it is unaffected.

This PR adds a value-based deduplication at the single report-scoped aggregation chokepoint (getAllNonDeletedTransactions). When a posted Expensify Card transaction is present, any pending card auth on the same chain (matched by parentTransactionID / transactionID) is filtered out before render. The guard is conservative: it only ever hides a pending row when a posted sibling from the same chain exists. Genuinely pending rows with no posted counterpart, non-card transactions, and splits are all left untouched. Totals are unaffected because the header reads the server-authoritative report.total, not a client sum of the list.

A backend follow-up (Auth) will purge the stale pending at the source on OpenReport; this client-side fix is what closes the deploy blocker because it also covers offline/stale clients that never re-fetch.

Fixed Issues

#93321

Tests

1. Open a report that contains an Expensify Card expense that has a pending auth and its posted/clearing transaction on the same chain (or inject the pair via Onyx: a Pending card row with the draft reportID, plus a Posted card row whose parentTransactionID is the pending's transactionID).
2. Verify only the single posted transaction renders in the report transaction list (no duplicate row).
3. Verify the report header total is unchanged from before the fix.
4. Open a report with a genuinely pending Expensify Card expense that has NOT settled (no posted sibling). Verify the pending row still shows.
5. Open a report with two unrelated pending card expenses. Verify both still show.
6. Open a report with a split expense and a cash/manual expense. Verify nothing is hidden or altered.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. While online, load a report with an Expensify Card pending + posted pair on the same chain. Verify only the posted row shows.
2. Go offline and reload/navigate back to the report. Verify the list is still duplicated (the duplication is a data condition, not gated on connectivity) and no duplicate reappears.

QA Steps

1. On an account with an Expensify Card, incur an authorization and wait for it to settle (or use a card account that already has a settled transaction whose pending was created on a draft report while the client was offline).
2. Open the draft/expense report in New Expensify.
3. Verify only one row appears for that card expense (the posted one), not two.
4. Verify the report header total matches the expected amount.

• 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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  • 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: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Before (duplicate pending + posted rows):

After (single posted row):

[melvin-bot]

@tylerkaraszewski 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]