[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help site updates for the invoice field behavior changed in #100850.

That PR made two things visible to users that the help site does not document, and the help site had no article covering invoice fields at all:

1. Invoice field names now collide with report field names. The uniqueness check no longer scopes by target, so a report field can't reuse an existing invoice field name (and the reverse). Users hit a "name already exists" error with no field of that name visible on the page they're on, which is confusing without documentation.
2. Invoice fields are counted and copied on the Copy settings flow. The Invoices row on the Select settings page now shows the invoice field count, and the Invoices row appears even when the workspace has no invoicing details.

The third fix in that PR (hiding the Fix badge on paid invoices in the LHN) restores intended behavior and needs no help site change.

Changes in this PR:

• New article docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Add-Invoice-Fields.md — covers who can add invoice fields, enabling Invoices and Invoice fields, adding a field, the shared name rule between invoice fields and report fields, editing and deleting a field, and how invoice fields carry over when settings are copied.
• Enable-Report-Fields.md — adds a note that report field names must be unique across the workspace and share the same set of names as invoice fields.
• Copy-Workspace-Settings.md — adds an FAQ confirming invoice fields are copied when Invoices is selected, and that the row shows the count.
• Duplicate-Workspace.md — clarifies that invoice fields do carry over, alongside the existing FAQ stating invoicing details do not.

On the error copy: deploy blocker #100876 reports that the duplicate-name error names the field type of the page you're on rather than the field that actually holds the name. These articles therefore describe the error generically ("an error telling you a field with that name already exists") and tell users to check both their invoice fields and their report fields. That stays accurate whichever way the copy lands, so the articles won't need a follow-up edit when that blocker is fixed.

All other UI labels were verified against a live Control workspace on web before writing: More features > Earn > Invoices; the workspace Invoices page and its Invoice fields toggle; the Add field button with Name and Type; and the 1 invoice fields text on the Select settings page. The articles follow docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, and docs/TEMPLATE.md.

Fixed Issues

$ #100850
PROPOSAL:

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 validates your changed worked.

Documentation-only change — no product code is touched. Reviewing means confirming the articles match current behavior:

1. Read docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Add-Invoice-Fields.md against a Control workspace with Invoices enabled and confirm every label and navigation path matches the live UI.
2. Confirm the shared name rule described in the article and in Enable-Report-Fields.md matches the behavior shipped in [CP Staging] Fix invoice field visibility, count, and name collision issues #100850.
3. Confirm the invoice field count described in Copy-Workspace-Settings.md and Duplicate-Workspace.md matches what the Invoices row shows.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — documentation only.

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 do they need to test for regressions.

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

---

@mollfpr, please review the files changed and confirm they reflect the current behavior. Then post a new comment saying @MelvinBot mark this PR as ready for review.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://3ea8ae28.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Add-Invoice-Fields
• articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Copy-Workspace-Settings
• articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Duplicate-Workspace
• articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Enable-Report-Fields

[stephanieelliott]

No update needed on this, per tightened Melvinbot criteria (see https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/685679). Please comment or reopen if you disagree!