[No QA] Update articles for Allow approvers to edit expenses on draft open reports

[stephanieelliott]

Product change issue: #75318

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://89b72b9e.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Attach-and-edit-receipts-on-expenses
• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR updates two documentation files to reflect a new product feature that allows current approvers to edit expenses on draft open reports. The changes are minimal but strategically placed to accurately reflect the expanded permissions. The updates are clear, consistent, and maintain the existing documentation structure well.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The additions are clear and grammatically correct. The use of commas to list multiple roles ("The member who created the report, the current approver, and Workspace Admins") follows proper grammar conventions. However, there's a minor inconsistency in punctuation (missing period in one instance).
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The heading update in Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md ("Managing Expenses in a Report in New Expensify") improves AI context by including the full platform name. The keyword addition ("expense actions") enhances searchability. Clear role-based permissions are easy for AI to parse and understand.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - Terminology is consistent with Expensify standards ("Workspace Admin," "member," "current approver"). However, there's a minor punctuation inconsistency: one bullet ends with a period while others in the same list do not.

Key Findings

Strengths:

• Precise targeting: Only the permission statements that needed updating were changed
• Consistent terminology: "current approver" is used consistently across both files
• Maintains existing structure: No unnecessary reformatting or restructuring
• Clear context: The changes make it immediately clear who has what permissions
• Improved heading: Adding "in New Expensify" to the main heading enhances discoverability

Issues Identified:

1. Punctuation inconsistency in Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md (line 12): The first bullet ends with no period, but the updated version should match the pattern of the other bullets in the list
2. Minor style note in Attach-and-edit-receipts-on-expenses.md (line 14): The original file uses "or" between roles, but after the update, the pattern changes slightly - this is acceptable but worth noting for consistency

Recommendations

Priority 1 - Must Fix:

• Ensure consistent punctuation in the "Who can edit or modify expenses in a report" section in Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md. The first bullet should either have a period at the end (to match formal style) or none should have periods (current mixed state).

Priority 2 - Nice to Have:

• Consider updating the FAQ section in Attach-and-edit-receipts-on-expenses.md (line 102-103) to reflect that current approvers can also attach receipts, not just "the expense creator or a Workspace Admin"

Files Reviewed

1. docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Attach-and-edit-receipts-on-expenses.md - Successfully updated to include current approver permissions for attaching/replacing receipts
2. docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md - Successfully updated to include current approver permissions for editing expenses, plus improved heading and keywords

Overall Recommendation

Approve with minor revisions. The documentation changes accurately reflect the product update and maintain good quality. The one punctuation inconsistency should be corrected, and the FAQ update would improve completeness. Otherwise, the changes are well-executed and ready for publication.

[trjExpensify]

👍

[trjExpensify]

@stephanieelliott I've been shouted at before for approving without a checklist or something, but I can't find it?

[stephanieelliott]

Oh @trjExpensify you shouldn't need it, not sure why its asking for it. But I think anyone can post it, I will try:

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: HybridApp
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: HybridApp
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (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 verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• 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
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• 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 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.
• For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[trjExpensify]

Nice, that worked!

Oh @trjExpensify you shouldn't need it, not sure why its asking for it.

Yeah, there's a PR Reviewer Checklist failure in the checks without it. If I merged without it, Emergency would be added.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/trjExpensify in version: 9.3.5-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 9.3.5-7 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅