Add DualEntry support for vendor matching

[lakchote]

Explanation of Change

DualEntry now supports the expense vendor picker, Vendors page, merchant rules, and vendor-name lookup. These features use the same eligible vendors as export. DualEntry follows Rillet in the source order and requires the vendorMatching beta and a configured connection.

The default vendor picker for company cards uses the same eligibility check. The helpers distinguish a list that has not loaded from an empty list. Empty lists use the existing DualEntry translations.

This PR builds on Rillet PR #100542, which is open in a contributor fork. It targets main, so the diff includes Rillet commit f1718295909d and four DualEntry commits. Review the DualEntry changes against f1718295909d. Rebase onto main after the Rillet PR merges.

Coordinated PRs: Auth, Web-Expensify, Integration-Server, App.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/679020
PROPOSAL:

Tests

All 420 tests in PolicyUtilsTest.ts passed. lint-changed, typecheck, react-compiler-compliance-check -- check-changed, spell-changed, and git diff --check passed. Live browser and device QA have not been run.

These manual steps have not been run.

Prerequisite: Use a workspace with the vendorMatching beta enabled, DualEntry connected and configured, and at least one active vendor available to the selected company.

More Features page

1. Go to Workspace Settings > More Features.
2. Verify the "Vendors" row is displayed and enabled.

Manual vendor selection and search

1. Open a non-reimbursable expense in workspace chat.
2. Verify the "Vendor" row is displayed below Category.
3. Tap "Vendor". Verify the DualEntry vendor list appears.
4. Search for a vendor. Verify the list filters by name.
5. Select a vendor. Verify the picker closes and the expense Vendor row is updated.
6. Make the expense reimbursable. Verify the Vendor row is hidden.

Automatic vendor matching

1. Import or create a non-reimbursable card expense whose merchant name matches an active DualEntry vendor.
2. Open the transaction thread in chat.
3. Verify Concierge adds the automatic match comment and sets the Vendor field on the transaction.

Inactive-vendor error

1. On an expense with a selected DualEntry vendor, deactivate that vendor in DualEntry and sync the connection.
2. Reopen the expense. Verify the Vendor row displays the brick-road indicator and an inactive-vendor error.
3. Tap the Vendor row and select an active vendor or "None". Verify the error clears.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Not run.

QA Steps

Same as tests. For Credit Card Misc, run the two export checks in the Integration-Server PR.

• 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