[No QA] Update help docs for Release 1: Violations by submitter by MelvinBot · Pull Request #99296 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-08-24T07:07:28Z

Explanation of Change

Help site documentation for Release 1 of the Insights: Violations project, which adds the Violations by submitter suggested search (formerly named "Top Offenders") to NewDot. Feature/UI details are verified against the implementation PR #98391.

New article: docs/articles/new-expensify/insights/View-the-Violations-by-submitter-report.md — explains the report (audience, where to find it, the From / Expenses / Total columns, the expandable Violations column, sorting by expense count, and the Control-plan + Rules-enabled requirement).
Update: docs/articles/new-expensify/insights/How-to-Use-Insights-in-Expensify.md — adds "Violations by submitter" to the Available Insights list.
Update: docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md — documents the has:submitted-violation value, the violation: operator, and adds an example query.
Update: docs/articles/new-expensify/concierge-ai/How-Concierge-Analyzes-Spend.md — notes that Concierge surfaces policy violation patterns.

This is a docs-only change (no application code). Opened as a draft — the assignee should review the drafted content for accuracy and mark it "Ready for review" to submit it, per the tracking issue below.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/673886
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Co-authored-by: Stephanie Elliott <stephanieelliott@users.noreply.github.com>

melvin-bot · 2026-08-24T07:26:03Z

melvin-bot · 2026-08-24T07:26:06Z

@kadiealexander Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

github-actions · 2026-08-24T07:30:06Z

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment
This PR documents the new "Violations by submitter" Release 1 feature across four files: a well-structured new article, an Insights hub addition, a Concierge spend-analysis bullet, and two new search operators. The changes are cohesive, accurate to a single workflow, and largely aligned with the governance specs. The new standalone article is the centerpiece and is strong; the supporting edits are small and mostly compliant, with a few style/formatting fixes needed.

Scores Summary

Readability: 9/10 - Clear, benefit-focused intro paragraphs, scannable bullet lists, and clean sequential steps. One bold-formatting typo (Violation**s) briefly disrupts flow.
AI Readiness: 9/10 - New article has complete YAML including internalScope, exactly one H1 plus a FAQ heading, only H2 sections, and task-based headings ("How to view...", "What information...displays"). Includes a full "How to..." heading with the feature name and realistic keywords. Hub/operator edits inherit existing structure and stay in scope.
Style Compliance: 8/10 - Navigation follows the Web/Mobile split and hamburger-menu rule correctly; tabs and suggested searches are bolded. Deductions: one full URL used instead of a relative link, "Export to CSV" referenced as a UI action but not bolded, and the bold spillover on the Violations column.

Key Findings

Strong new article: correct single-workspace scope, explicit role/plan gating (Workspace Admins, Auditors, Control + Rules), and a compliant FAQ with task/question headings.
Navigation conventions handled well: separate Web/Mobile instructions and the exact hamburger-menu phrasing ("top-left corner", bolded tab name).
Cross-linking is disciplined and uses descriptive anchor text ("learn how to use search operators...", "learn how to set up Workspace Rules").
Must fix: the bold markup on "Violation**s column" in View-the-Violations-by-submitter-report.md spills mid-word and should render "Violations" fully bolded.
Style nit: In How-to-Use-Insights-in-Expensify.md the "Learn more" cross-link uses a full help.expensify.com URL; guidelines require relative links only.
Style nit: "use Export to CSV" refers to a UI action/label but is not bolded per the Button Naming Standards.
New operators in Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md (has:submitted-violation and violation:) are clearly explained with helpful inline context and a matching worked example.

Recommendations

Fix the Violations bold typo so the whole word is bolded.
Convert the full URL in the Insights hub "Learn more" link to a relative link to match the pattern used in the new article.
Bold Export to CSV where it is presented as a UI action in the FAQ.
Optional: the new article intro references "last month" while metadata/FAQ say "previous calendar month" — align phrasing for consistency.

Files Reviewed

concierge-ai/How-Concierge-Analyzes-Spend.md - One in-scope bullet added; clean and consistent with surrounding list.
insights/How-to-Use-Insights-in-Expensify.md - New task-based section added correctly; fix full URL to relative link.
insights/View-the-Violations-by-submitter-report.md - New article, well-structured and compliant; fix bold typo and bold the Export label.
reports-and-expenses/Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md - Two operators plus a worked example added; clear and in scope.

Note: Detailed line-by-line feedback has been provided as inline comments.

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: ce641c843f

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

kadiealexander · 2026-08-25T06:54:42Z

@stephanieelliott am I right that "policy violations" here are referring to the company's expense policy, and not our policies? Just double checking that Melv's surfacing some false positives.

Updated the description and keywords for clarity and added a note about member count requirement.

melvin-bot · 2026-09-02T22:55:23Z

@DylanDylann Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

stephanieelliott · 2026-09-02T22:56:53Z

Feature is on staging so I am taking this off hold! @kadiealexander mind giving this a review when you get a sec?

Also note -- the article image was added in this PR, so it will not render in the dev preview!

trjExpensify

LGTM. Thanks, Steph! ❤️ 👍

MelvinBot · 2026-09-05T02:41:36Z

No code fix is needed — the build failure is a transient Ubuntu mirror outage, not anything in this PR. It just needs a re-run.

What failed: the Install pcregrep step of Deploy ExpensifyHelp, the very first step after checkout:

Err:2 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu noble/universe amd64 libpcre3 amd64 2:8.39-15build1
  Connection failed [IP: 185.125.190.83 80]
E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with --fix-missing?
##[error]Process completed with exit code 100.

The job died before it ever reached checkout of the docs, route generation, or the Jekyll build — so none of your content was even evaluated.

How to clear it: open the failed run and click Re-run failed jobs. I don't have Actions write permission on this repo, so I can't trigger it myself (rerun-failed-jobs returns 403 Resource not accessible by personal access token).

The other two red checks are the standard review gates, not build problems — checklist is the PR Reviewer Checklist and Check independent approval needs a reviewer. Both clear during review, and this PR is still a draft.

Why I'm confident it's infrastructure, not the docs

Every other recent run of this workflow passed. This is the only failure in the last 15 runs:

2026-09-05T02:29:57Z  failure  pull_request  melvin-r1-violations-by-submitter-helpdocs
2026-09-04T21:04:02Z  success  push          main
2026-09-04T20:56:27Z  success  pull_request  claude-docsBulkEditAttendees
2026-09-04T17:13:21Z  success  pull_request  melvin-docs-authorized-payer-bank-account
2026-09-04T09:27:56Z  success  pull_request  docs-home-concierge-prompt-box

I also checked the docs content statically against what the later steps enforce, and found nothing that would fail:

Route generation — View-the-Violations-by-submitter-report.md sits in the already-registered insights hub alongside the sibling View-the-Top-*.md articles, so createDocsRoutes.sh picks it up automatically. Front matter has the required title, description, and keywords.
Redirects — this PR adds one article and edits three; nothing is moved or deleted, so enforceRedirect.sh has nothing to require.
Internal links — all eight resolve. The one that looked suspect, /articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Using-search-operators, is pre-existing and covered by redirects.csv:977.
Image — docs/assets/images/violations_by_submitter.png exists on the branch and is referenced correctly at line 54.
Video formats — no videos added, so enforceVideoFormats.sh is a no-op.

One optional editorial nit (not a check failure)

Lines 38 and 44 say almost the same thing:

The report groups last month's expenses that had a violation when submitted by the member who submitted them.

The Violations by submitter report groups expenses that had a violation when submitted by the member who submitted them.

Dropping one would tighten the article. I left it alone since you asked for a check fix, not a copy edit — say the word and I'll make the change.

Next Steps: Click Re-run failed jobs on the failed run. If it fails again with something other than the apt error, reply with @MelvinBot and I'll dig in.

view run · view recording

OSBotify · 2026-09-08T02:53:45Z

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://8bcedfb5.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

kadiealexander · 2026-09-08T03:02:15Z

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
- MacOS: Desktop
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

MacOS: Desktop

OSBotify · 2026-09-08T19:22:10Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/kadiealexander in version: 9.4.74-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-09-09T20:13:53Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.74-2 🚀

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

Update help docs for Release 1: Violations by submitter insight

1f95d7c

Co-authored-by: Stephanie Elliott <stephanieelliott@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot assigned stephanieelliott Aug 24, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team August 24, 2026 07:07

github-actions Bot changed the title ~~Update help docs for Release 1: Violations by submitter~~ [No QA] Update help docs for Release 1: Violations by submitter Aug 24, 2026

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Update View-the-Violations-by-submitter-report.md

ce641c8

stephanieelliott changed the title ~~[No QA] Update help docs for Release 1: Violations by submitter~~ [HOLD for feature] [No QA] Update help docs for Release 1: Violations by submitter Aug 24, 2026

stephanieelliott marked this pull request as ready for review August 24, 2026 07:25

stephanieelliott self-requested a review as a code owner August 24, 2026 07:25

melvin-bot Bot requested review from kadiealexander and removed request for a team August 24, 2026 07:26