Skip to content

[No QA] Update Pay-Expenses.md#82337

Merged
stephanieelliott merged 4 commits intomainfrom
kadiealexander-patch-4
Feb 18, 2026
Merged

[No QA] Update Pay-Expenses.md#82337
stephanieelliott merged 4 commits intomainfrom
kadiealexander-patch-4

Conversation

@kadiealexander
Copy link
Contributor

Explanation of Change

Clarifies the rapid reimbursement criteria

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/599907

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

  • 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 / Chrome
    • iOS / native
    • iOS / Safari
    • MacOS / Chrome / Safari
    • MacOS / Desktop
  • 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 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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
    • 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
      • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
    • 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
    • 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 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)
  • 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.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
  • I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
  • 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
    • If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
    • 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(themeColors.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 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.
  • 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

@kadiealexander kadiealexander requested a review from a team February 12, 2026 23:32
@kadiealexander kadiealexander self-assigned this Feb 12, 2026
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 12, 2026

Concierge reviewer checklist:

  • I have verified the accuracy of the article
    • The article is within a hub that makes sense, and the navigation is correct
    • All processes, screenshots, and examples align with current product behavior.
    • All links within the doc have been verified for correct destination and functionality.
  • I have verified the readability of the article
    • The article's language is clear, concise, and free of jargon.
    • The grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct.
    • The article contains at least one image, or that an image is not necessary
  • I have verified the formatting of the article
    • The article has consistent formatting (headings, bullet points, etc.) with other HelpDot articles and that aligns with the HelpDot formatting standards.
    • The article has proper text spacing and breaks for readability.
  • I have verified the article has the appropriate tone and style
    • The article's tone is professional, friendly, and suitable for the target audience.
    • The article's tone, terminology, and voice are consistent throughout.
  • I have verified the overall quality of the article
    • The article is not missing any information, nor does it contain redundant information.
    • The article fully addresses user needs.
  • I have verified that all requested improvements have been addressed

For more detailed instructions on completing this checklist, see How do I review a HelpDot PR as a Concierge Team member?

cc @muttmuure

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from muttmuure February 12, 2026 23:32
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 12, 2026

@muttmuure 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]

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team February 12, 2026 23:32

- If you're paying from a **personal bank account** and the payment is **under $100**, it will process in **one business day**.
- If you're paying from a **business bank account**, and your total withdrawals in the past 24 hours are **under $10,000**, the payment will also process in **one business day**.
If the payment is **under $100**, and your total withdrawals in the past 24 hours are **under $10,000**, the payment will process in **one business day**. Please note, this only applies to ACH payments within the US.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Formatting violation: Missing period at the end of the sentence. The sentence should end with proper punctuation.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is a period at the end of the sentence.


- If you're paying from a **personal bank account** and the payment is **under $100**, it will process in **one business day**.
- If you're paying from a **business bank account**, and your total withdrawals in the past 24 hours are **under $10,000**, the payment will also process in **one business day**.
If the payment is **under $100**, and your total withdrawals in the past 24 hours are **under $10,000**, the payment will process in **one business day**. Please note, this only applies to ACH payments within the US.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Clarity violation: The combined conditions create ambiguity. Using "and" between "under $100" and "under $10,000" suggests BOTH conditions must be met, but based on the original text, these appear to be separate criteria (one for personal accounts, one for business accounts). Consider restructuring to clearly indicate when each condition applies, or clarify if both must be met simultaneously.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The original text is wrong, it's correct that both conditions must be met.


- If you're paying from a **personal bank account** and the payment is **under $100**, it will process in **one business day**.
- If you're paying from a **business bank account**, and your total withdrawals in the past 24 hours are **under $10,000**, the payment will also process in **one business day**.
If the payment is **under $100**, and your total withdrawals in the past 24 hours are **under $10,000**, the payment will process in **one business day**. Please note, this only applies to ACH payments within the US.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Style violation: "Please note," is unnecessarily formal. For Expensify's casual yet professional tone, consider rephrasing to something like "This only applies to US-based payments" or integrate this information more naturally into the sentence.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Tweaked this!

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR simplifies the explanation of rapid reimbursement criteria by consolidating two bullet points into a single statement and adding geographic scope clarification. The change is well-intentioned but introduces some clarity and accuracy issues that need to be addressed.

Scores Summary

  • Readability: 6/10 - The consolidated sentence is harder to parse than the original two-part structure. The logic connecting payment amount and withdrawal limits is unclear, and the geographic restriction feels tacked on as an afterthought.
  • AI Readiness: 7/10 - The FAQ structure and heading remain clear, but the removal of specific account type context (personal vs. business) reduces the precision of information retrieval for AI systems.
  • Style Compliance: 7/10 - Follows basic Expensify documentation patterns, but the sentence structure could be cleaner and the note formatting is inconsistent with standard practices.

Key Findings

Issues Requiring Attention:

  • Logic Confusion: The new sentence implies both conditions must be met simultaneously (payment under $100 AND withdrawals under $10,000), but the original text suggested these were separate scenarios for different account types
  • Missing Context: Removing the distinction between personal and business bank accounts eliminates important contextual information that helps users understand which criteria apply to them
  • Awkward Phrasing: "payments based within the US" is unclear - does this mean the payer, payee, or bank account must be US-based?
  • Punctuation: Missing space after the period before "Please note"
  • Note Formatting: The geographic restriction would be better placed as a standalone note block or integrated more naturally into the sentence

Positive Aspects:

  • Good intent to add geographic scope clarification
  • Maintains FAQ structure
  • Preserves the fallback timing information (4-5 business days)

Recommendations

Priority 1 (Must Address):

  1. Clarify the logic: Rewrite to make it clear whether these are combined conditions or separate scenarios
  2. Fix spacing: Add proper spacing after the period
  3. Improve geographic phrasing: Change "payments based within the US" to clearer language like "US-based bank accounts" or "payments to/from US accounts"

Suggested Revision:

If you're paying from a **US-based bank account**, rapid processing (one business day) applies when:
- The payment is **under $100** (for personal bank accounts), OR
- Your total withdrawals in the past 24 hours are **under $10,000** (for business bank accounts)

Otherwise, standard bank transfer times apply, and the recipient will receive their funds within **4–5 business days**.

Alternative Minimal Fix:
If combining is preferred, at least add clarity:

For **US-based payments**, if the payment is **under $100** or your total withdrawals in the past 24 hours are **under $10,000**, the payment will process in **one business day**. 

Otherwise, standard bank transfer times apply, and the recipient will receive their funds within **4–5 business days**.

Final Verdict

Request Changes - While the geographic clarification is valuable, the current implementation reduces clarity and may confuse users about which criteria apply to their situation. The sentence structure needs revision to maintain the precision of the original documentation.


Note: This is a summary assessment. The specific issues noted above should be addressed before merging.

@github-actions github-actions bot changed the title Update Pay-Expenses.md [No QA] Update Pay-Expenses.md Feb 12, 2026
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Feb 12, 2026

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://0dd09af0.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

@stephanieelliott
Copy link
Contributor

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

@stephanieelliott stephanieelliott removed the request for review from muttmuure February 18, 2026 01:33
@stephanieelliott stephanieelliott merged commit efcdf52 into main Feb 18, 2026
14 of 15 checks passed
@stephanieelliott stephanieelliott deleted the kadiealexander-patch-4 branch February 18, 2026 01:34
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stephanieelliott in version: 9.3.22-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.3.22-4 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.3.22-4 🚀

platform result
🕸 web 🕸 failure ❌
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 cancelled 🔪

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants