Preserve distance rate for unreported expenses from non-default policies

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

When a distance request is unreported from a report tied to a non-default policy, the distance rate was being lost because the unreported expense was associated with the user's default policy (policyForMovingExpenses), which doesn't contain the original customUnitRateID.

This PR applies the same pattern already used for perDiem requests: resolve the policy that owns the customUnitRateID and use it instead of the default policy. Specifically:

1. PolicyUtils.ts: Added getPolicyByCustomUnitRateID() — searches all policies for one whose distance custom unit contains the transaction's customUnitRateID (mirrors getPolicyByCustomUnitID for perDiem).
2. MoneyRequestView.tsx: For unreported distance requests, resolve the policy via the new function so the correct rate and policy are passed to the backend.
3. usePolicyForTransaction.ts: Extended the self-DM expense policy resolution to also handle distance requests by looking up the policy that owns the customUnitRateID.

Fixed Issues

$ #87204
PROPOSAL: #87204 (comment)

Tests

1. Create a workspace with distance rates enabled (including a rate with tax, e.g. 5%)
2. Go to self DM
3. Create a manual distance expense, selecting a rate from the workspace policy
4. Open the expense
5. Unreport the expense from a report tied to the workspace
6. Verify the distance rate is preserved and does not change to the personal default rate
7. Edit the distance and save
8. Verify the distance rate remains the one originally selected from the workspace

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Create a distance expense with a workspace rate while online
2. Go offline
3. Unreport the expense
4. Verify the rate is preserved in the optimistic update
5. Go back online and verify the rate is still correct after sync

QA Steps

1. Create a workspace with distance rates enabled and at least one custom rate (e.g. with a tax rate)
2. Go to self DM and create a manual distance expense using the custom workspace rate
3. Unreport the expense from a report tied to that workspace
4. Verify the distance rate is preserved (not changed to personal default)
5. Edit the distance value and save
6. Verify the rate remains correct

• 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
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • 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

N/A - Logic-only change, no UI modifications

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/A - Logic-only change, no UI modifications

iOS: Native

N/A - Logic-only change, no UI modifications

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/A - Logic-only change, no UI modifications

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

N/A - Logic-only change, no UI modifications

---

Checks run:

• prettier — pass (no formatting changes)
• eslint — pass (pre-existing warning in PolicyUtils.ts line 76 unrelated to this PR)
• typecheck — pass
• jest (PolicyUtils, MoneyRequestView tests) — pass (151 tests)

Co-authored-by: cristipaval cristipaval@users.noreply.github.com

[MelvinBot]

The failing check is unrelated to this PR.

Failing test: tests/ui/ProfilePageTest.tsx — "shows info when there is an unvalidated secondary login" (expects none-brickRoadIndicator, gets info-brickRoadIndicator)

Analysis: This PR only modifies MoneyRequestView.tsx, usePolicyForTransaction.ts, and PolicyUtils.ts (distance rate preservation logic). The failing test is about the Profile page's contact method brick road indicator — completely unrelated.

Evidence: This appears to be a pre-existing/flaky test failure. The PR's changes have no connection to profile page contact methods or brick road indicators.