[No QA] Update help docs for Admin Create Reports feature by stephanieelliott · Pull Request #81923 · Expensify/App

stephanieelliott · 2026-02-10T01:49:14Z

Summary

Updates help site documentation to reflect the new feature that allows Workspace Admins to create reports on behalf of employees by moving expenses to a new report.

Related Issues

$ #75607 - Allow Admin to create report on employees' behalf

Changes

Updated Documentation Files

docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Create-and-Submit-Reports.md
- Added new section "How Admins can create reports on behalf of employees" with step-by-step instructions for both single and multiple expense workflows
- Updated intro note to reference the new admin capability
- Updated FAQ "How can an Admin take these actions for another employee?" to clarify what admins can do (create reports) vs what requires Copilot (submit/retract)
- Added keywords: "admin create report", "create report on behalf", "move expenses to new report"
docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md
- Updated "Who can edit or modify expenses in a report" section to include admin ability to move expenses to new reports
- Updated "How to Move or Remove Expenses from a Report" to include "Create report" option in both workflows
- Added note with link to detailed instructions and use cases
- Added keywords: "create report", "admin create report"
docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Edit-Expense-Reports.md
- Updated intro note about admin capabilities
- Updated "When to Retract a Report" section to include creating new reports as a use case

What Admins Can Now Do

This documentation update covers the new ability for Workspace Admins to:

Create new reports in an employee's account by moving expenses to a new report
Move single or multiple expenses (company card or reimbursable) to a newly created report
Process unreported company card expenses so accounting can be completed
Split expenses from multiple accounting periods into separate reports
Move expenses from an existing Draft report to a new report

Important clarification: Admins still cannot submit or retract reports for others (that requires Copilot access).

Common Use Cases Documented

Processing unreported company card expenses for accounting
Splitting expenses across different accounting periods
Moving expenses from existing Draft reports to new reports

… of employees This updates the documentation for issue #75607, which allows Workspace Admins to create new reports in an employee's account by moving expenses to a new report. Changes include: - Added new section "How Admins can create reports on behalf of employees" with instructions for single and bulk expense moves - Updated permission descriptions to clarify Admins can create reports but not submit/retract them - Added use cases: processing company card expenses, splitting accounting periods - Updated FAQs to reflect the new capability - Added relevant keywords for discoverability Files modified: - Create-and-Submit-Reports.md - Edit-Expense-Reports.md - Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>

docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Create-and-Submit-Reports.md

github-actions · 2026-02-10T01:50:57Z

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR provides a well-structured and comprehensive documentation update for the new Admin Create Reports feature. The changes are consistently applied across three related documentation files, creating a cohesive narrative that helps users understand both what admins can do (create reports by moving expenses) and what they cannot do (submit or retract reports without Copilot access). The documentation is clear, actionable, and appropriately scoped to the feature being documented.

Scores Summary

Readability: 9/10 - Clear, concise instructions with excellent step-by-step guidance. Language is accessible and well-organized with appropriate use of headings, bullet points, and notes. Minor deduction for one slightly complex sentence structure.
AI Readiness: 8/10 - Good use of descriptive headings and YAML keywords. Strong contextual information with cross-references. Could benefit from more explicit breadcrumb context in the main content and slightly more structured metadata.
Style Compliance: 9/10 - Strong adherence to Expensify's documentation standards with appropriate use of "Workspace Admin" terminology, proper button labels, and consistent formatting. Excellent use of notes and practical examples.

Key Findings

Strengths:

Comprehensive coverage: The new "How Admins can create reports on behalf of employees" section provides both single and multiple expense workflows, making it easy for users to find relevant instructions
Practical use cases: Includes real-world scenarios (processing company card expenses, splitting expenses across accounting periods, moving from draft reports) that help users understand when to use this feature
Consistent messaging: The distinction between what admins can do (create reports) vs. what requires Copilot access (submit/retract) is clearly communicated across all three files
Strategic keyword additions: Added relevant search terms ("admin create report", "create report on behalf", "move expenses to new report") that will improve discoverability
Proper cross-referencing: Files link to each other appropriately, creating a connected documentation ecosystem
Clear constraints: Explicitly states when the feature can be used (Draft or Outstanding status) and what workspace requirements exist

Areas for improvement:

Sentence complexity: The introductory note in Create-and-Submit-Reports.md (line 9 of updated version) is slightly long and could be split for better readability: "Workspace Admins can create reports on behalf of employees by moving expenses to a new report (see 'How Admins can create reports on behalf of employees' below). Report actions like submitting or retracting can only be done in your own account."
Breadcrumb context: While the YAML metadata is present, the main content could benefit from explicit statements about where this documentation fits in the overall help structure
Terminology consistency: Minor point - consider whether "member" vs. "employee" usage is fully consistent throughout (both terms are used, which may be intentional but worth reviewing)

Critical items:

No critical issues identified. The documentation is ready for publication as-is.

Recommendations

Priority actions:

Optional refinement: Consider splitting the long note in Create-and-Submit-Reports.md (line 9) into two sentences for improved scannability
Consistency check: Review whether "member" vs. "employee" terminology is intentionally varied or should be standardized

Suggestions for improvement:

Enhanced AI discoverability: Consider adding a brief summary sentence at the start of the new "How Admins can create reports on behalf of employees" section that explicitly states "This guide explains how Workspace Admins can create expense reports on behalf of employees" to provide better context for AI parsing
Visual aids: If possible in future iterations, consider adding screenshots or GIFs for the admin workflows, as these involve multiple steps that could benefit from visual guidance
Permission matrix: Could potentially add a summary table showing what different roles can do (Member, Admin, Copilot) for quick reference

Files Reviewed

✅ docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Create-and-Submit-Reports.md - Major update with new section, updated notes, FAQ refinement, and keywords. Well-executed.
✅ docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Edit-Expense-Reports.md - Minimal but effective updates to notes and use case list. Maintains consistency.
✅ docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md - Appropriate additions to permissions section and workflow steps. Good cross-reference to main article.

Verdict

Approved - This documentation update is well-crafted, comprehensive, and ready for publication. The minor suggestions above are optional refinements that could enhance an already strong set of changes. The documentation successfully communicates the new feature's capabilities and limitations while maintaining consistency with Expensify's documentation standards.

Review completed by Claude Code Documentation Specialist

docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Create-and-Submit-Reports.md

docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Edit-Expense-Reports.md

docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md

OSBotify · 2026-02-10T01:54:44Z

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://8a8dea03.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 4a2c0c032a

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".

docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Create-and-Submit-Reports.md

stephanieelliott · 2026-02-18T21:02:16Z

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

changes applied.

melvin-bot · 2026-02-21T02:39:09Z

melvin-bot · 2026-02-21T02:39:11Z

@jliexpensify 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]

jliexpensify

LGTM

OSBotify · 2026-03-06T04:13:57Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/VictoriaExpensify in version: 9.3.32-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-03-06T22:43:10Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.3.32-3 🚀

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

melvin-bot bot assigned stephanieelliott Feb 10, 2026