Decode HTML entities in report names for search rows and report preview

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Report names are stored HTML-entity-encoded (e.g. Bob & Co), and the app's convention is to decode them for plain-text display with Parser.htmlToText. Three surfaces skipped that step and rendered the raw encoded string:

• The Search expense-report rows (ExpenseReportListItemRowWide / ExpenseReportListItemRowNarrow), because getReportSections in SearchUIUtils.ts spread the raw report (...reportItem) and never decoded reportName — unlike the sibling task path, which already does.
• The money-request report preview title, rendered by ReportPreviewHeader, whose name comes from the derived report attribute (raw for expense reports) with a raw action.childReportName fallback.

This PR mirrors the established pattern (accepted proposal):

1. Data layer — in getReportSections, decode reportName with StringUtils.lineBreaksToSpaces(Parser.htmlToText(...)) right after the existing IOU-name override, matching the task path. One line fixes the wide row, the narrow row's visible title, its screen-reader accessibilityLabel, and TITLE-column sorting, since all read the same item.reportName. Placing it after the IOU override is a no-op for the already-plain IOU string.
2. Render layer — in ReportPreviewHeader, decode the resolved name (reportName || action.childReportName) with Parser.htmlToText, memoized to match the component's existing useMemo pattern for its other derived values.

A central decode inside computeReportName/getReportName was intentionally avoided: getMovedTransactionMessage/getUnreportedTransactionMessage already wrap that value in Parser.htmlToText, so decoding upstream would double-decode them.

Automated checks run by the author (not manual QA): npm run typecheck-tsgo, npm run lint-changed, npm run react-compiler-compliance-check check on the modified component, and the relevant Jest suites (tests/unit/Search/SearchUIUtilsTest.ts, tests/ui/MoneyRequestReportPreview.test.tsx) — all passing. A unit test asserting the decode was added to SearchUIUtilsTest.ts. The full npm test suite and Storybook smoke test were not run in this environment and should be validated by CI.

Fixed Issues

$ #95808
PROPOSAL: #95808 (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

[MelvinBot]

I looked into the failing checks — there's no code fix needed.

The only failing check is PR Author Checklist / checklist. It fails because the PR Author Checklist boxes aren't ticked yet, not because of anything wrong with the code:

⚠️ PR Author Checklist is not completely filled out. Please check every box to verify you've thought about the item.

That check clears once the human co-author (daledah) fills out the Tests/QA sections and checks the boxes — it's intentionally left for a person to complete, so I don't touch it.

Every other check passes: typecheck, ESLint, Bun tests, all 8 test jobs, Storybook tests, React Compiler Compliance, Oxfmt, Check for unused styles, Compare knip issues, spellcheck, and all builds. (branch-perf-tests / baseline-perf-tests are non-blocking benchmarks and were still running.)

Next step: complete the PR Author Checklist and fill in the Tests/QA steps, and the checklist check will pass.