Show workspace members with missing personal details instead of dropping them

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

The Workspace Members page (NewDot) was rendering only a subset of members — the reporter saw about half the list that Classic/OldDot shows in full.

The page renders policy.employeeList joined against the global personal-details list, and silently dropped any member whose personal details weren't present in Onyx: in filteredMembers, each employeeList entry was skipped with continue when personalDetails?.[accountID] was falsy. So the rendered count was effectively employeeList ∩ loaded-personalDetails, which is why it was intermittent ("unable to reproduce") — it depended on which members' details happened to be loaded.

This change makes the list robust to missing personal details (matching OldDot's behavior of showing everyone) rather than dropping members:

• Instead of continue when details are missing, the member is rendered with a fallback identity (email as display name), so the rendered count always matches employeeList.
• When the email → accountID join is empty (details not loaded), a generated accountID is used so the row can still be built, mirroring the existing optimistic-accountID pattern used elsewhere in the app.

Note: if the underlying cause is the OpenWorkspaceMembersPage backend command returning personal details for only a subset of employeeList, a complementary backend fix (in Web-Expensify/Auth) would be needed and is out of scope for this repo. This App-side change ensures the full list renders regardless.

Fixed Issues

$ #97591
PROPOSAL: #97591 (comment)

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what tests you performed that validate your change worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas they need to test for regressions.

• 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
src/pages/workspace/WorkspaceMembersPage.tsx	61.53% <66.66%> (-0.12%)	⬇️
... and 12 files with indirect coverage changes

[MelvinBot]

The two failing checks aren't code failures — they both need human action, so there's no fix I can push.

• checklist (PR Author Checklist): Fails with "0 out of 38 checklist items" completed. The PR body still has the placeholder // TODO: The human co-author must fill out... in the Tests and QA Steps sections and every author-checklist box is unchecked. This passes once the human co-author fills out the test/QA steps and checks the boxes.
• Check independent approval: Fails because the PR hasn't yet received an independent reviewer's approval. This clears once a reviewer approves.

Every actual CI check passes — typecheck, all 8 test jobs, Bun tests, ESLint, Oxfmt, Storybook, spellcheck, Compare knip issues, and the builds. The perf-test jobs were still queued at the time of writing but aren't failing.

So nothing to fix on the code side — the red checks just need the author checklist filled in and a reviewer approval.