Issue 86223 update cta and workspace chat copy for track intent users by jayeshmangwani · Pull Request #92254 · Expensify/App

jayeshmangwani · 2026-06-01T15:55:23Z

Explanation of Change

For users who onboarded with the Organize my personal spending / Track expenses for my business intent (PERSONAL_SPEND / TRACK_WORKSPACE), the product copy still uses generic expense management language. This PR updates three areas to reflect the track-intent workflow:

Workspace chat welcome text — changed from "This is where X will submit expenses to Y" to "This is where you'll track expenses."
CTA buttons — Submit buttons now display "Mark as done" instead of "Submit" (and "Done" in search list items). The Approve button also shows "Mark as done" for these users.
System messages — "submitted" and "approved" messages now display "marked as done"
Submit animation — The post-submit status text shows "Marked as done" instead of "Submitted"
LHN action badges — The Submit action badge shows "Mark as done" instead of "Submit"
Search bulk actions — The bulk Submit option shows "Mark as done" for track-intent users

These changes only apply when both conditions are met:

The user selected "Organize my personal spending" / "Track expenses for my business" during onboarding (TRACK_WORKSPACE or PERSONAL_SPEND)
The workspace policy has submit-and-close approval mode (no approvals)

Fixed Issues

$ #86223
PROPOSAL: #86223 (comment)

Tests

Test 1:

Create a new account and select "Organize my personal spending" / "Track expenses for my business" during onboarding
Navigate to the workspace chat and verify the welcome text says "This is where you'll track expenses."
Create an expense in the workspace
Verify the Submit CTA says "Mark as done"
Click "Mark as done" and verify the animation status shows "Marked as done" and the system message says "marked as done"
Open Search, find a submittable expense, and verify the action button shows "Done"
Select multiple submittable expenses in Search and verify the bulk Submit action says "Mark as done"
Check the LHN and verify the action badge for a submittable report says "Mark as done"
Log in with a different account that selected "Manage team expenses" during onboarding
Verify all standard copy appears: "Submit", "submitted", and the normal workspace chat welcome message

Test 2:

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Log in with new Gmail account.
Skip work email step.
Select "Organize my personal spending" / "Track expenses for my business".
Complete the onboarding.
Go to workspace chat.
Create an expense.
Open the report.
Click Mark as done.
Right click on "marked as done" system message > Copy to clipboard.
Paste the content.
Verify that "marked as done" will be pasted.

Test 3:

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Log in with new Gmail account.
Skip work email step.
Select "Organize my personal spending" / "Track expenses for my business".
Complete the onboarding.
Go to workspace settings > Members.
Invite a member to the workspace.
Go to Inbox.
Open search router.
Open member's workspace chat.
Verify that Member's workspace chat should display "This is where X will track expenses to Workspace. Just use the + button.".

Test 4:

Prerequisites:

"Organize my personal spending" / "Track expenses for my business" selected during onboarding.
Account has at least one workspace.
Approvals and payments disabled.

Steps:

Open the Expensify app.
Navigate to "Reports" > "Expenses"
Turn off internet connection.
Create a manual expense and submit it to workspace.
Verify that expense is created while on "Expenses" section while offline, action button on preview, should display "Done", if workspace has approvals and payments disabled.

Test 5:

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Log in with new Gmail account.
Skip work email step.
Select Organize my personal spending / Track expenses for my business
Complete the onboarding.
Go to workspace chat.
Create an expense.
Open the report.
Click Mark as done.
Verify that Mark as done button will change to Marked as done in the expense report.

Test 6:

Prerequisite:

Login new gmail account via track & budget expense

Steps:

Launch app
Open workspace chat
Create track distance manual expense
Long press preview and select hold
Hold the expense entering a reason
Open the expense - header and pin the report
Navigate back to LHN and open the chat
Tap more - mark as done
Note header shows hold message after mark as done.
Note system message below shows mark as done as last message
Verify that: After marking the held expense as done, the header must not show the hold message and the LHN would reflect the correct latest status ('marked as done')

Test 7:

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Log in with new Gmail account.
Skip work email step.
Select Organize my personal spending / Track expenses for my business
Complete the onboarding.
Create another workspace and enable approvals.
Create an expense in both workspace chats.
Go to Reports > Reports.
Bulk select both reports.
Click dropdown button.
Verify that Dropdown button will not show Submit since one of the reports can only be marked as done instead of submitting.

Test 8:

Prerequisite:

Log in with a Track Expense-enabled user.

Steps:

Go to the Workspace Chat.
Create an expense.
Open the expense.
Verify that the Mark as Done button is displayed.
Click More > Hold.
Enter a reason and save it.
Click the More menu.
Verify that the Mark as Done option is displayed in the More menu.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests

QA Steps

Same as Tests

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

…py-For-Track-intent-users

melvin-bot · 2026-06-01T15:55:30Z

Hey, I noticed you changed src/languages/en.ts in a PR from a fork. For security reasons, translations are not generated automatically for PRs from forks.

If you want to automatically generate translations for other locales, an Expensify employee will have to:

Look at the code and make sure there are no malicious changes.
Run the Generate static translations GitHub workflow. If you have write access and the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

Alternatively, if you are an external contributor, you can run the translation script locally with your own OpenAI API key. To learn more, try running:

npx ts-node ./scripts/generateTranslations.ts --help

Typically, you'd want to translate only what you changed by running npx ts-node ./scripts/generateTranslations.ts --compare-ref main

…223-update-CTA-and-Workspace-Chat-Copy-For-Track-intent-users

…py-For-Track-intent-users

…e' when replying in a thread

… are eligible; hide action button for mixed selections

… the 'Mark as done' text where applicable

jayeshmangwani · 2026-06-03T07:19:52Z

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 958b6c0981

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".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-06-03T07:25:56Z

            options.push({
                icon: expensifyIcons.Send,
-                text: translate('common.submit'),
+                text: selectedReports.length > 0 && allReportsShouldMarkAsDone ? translate('common.markAsDone') : translate('common.submit'),


Use Mark as done for transaction bulk submits

When a track-intent user selects submit-able transaction rows rather than report rows, selectedReports.length is 0, so this always labels the bulk action as Submit even when every selected transaction belongs to a report where the per-row CTA is now Done/Mark as done. This leaves the search bulk CTA out of the new copy for transaction-search selections; derive the mark-as-done state from the selected transactions' report IDs as well, and apply the same mixed-selection guard there.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

jayeshmangwani · 2026-06-03T10:28:52Z

@MelvinBot, why is the tests/unit/NextStepUtilsTest.ts test failing? Which changes in this PR are affecting that test?

MelvinBot · 2026-06-03T10:33:12Z

Root cause: The change to the "Self review" branch in buildNextStepNew (src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts:650) is what breaks the test. That branch previously read:

text: hasTransactions ? 'submit' : 'add',

and this PR replaced it with:

text: shouldShowMarkAsDoneCopy ? 'mark this as done' : 'submit',

This dropped the 'add' fallback for reports with no transactions. The non‑track‑intent path now always returns 'submit'.

The failing test Correct next steps message (NextStepUtilsTest.ts:94) builds an empty report with no transactions (buildOptimisticEmptyReport), so hasTransactions is false and it expects the word 'add'. With the ternary removed, the code now returns 'submit':

   Object {
-    "text": "add",       <- expected by the test
+    "text": "submit",    <- produced by the new code
   },

The test file itself wasn't touched in this PR — only NextStepUtils.ts — so this is a behavior regression, not a stale assertion.

Recommended fix: restore the hasTransactions fallback inside the non‑mark‑as‑done branch:

text: shouldShowMarkAsDoneCopy ? 'mark this as done' : hasTransactions ? 'submit' : 'add',

Why only this block (and not the isReopen / Manual submission blocks)

The other two blocks you changed in the same file only ever emitted 'submit' (they never had the hasTransactions ? 'submit' : 'add' distinction), so swapping 'submit' → shouldShowMarkAsDoneCopy ? 'mark this as done' : 'submit' there is behavior‑preserving for non‑track users. The Self review block is the only one that carried the empty‑report 'add' copy, which is exactly the scenario this test exercises.

Next Steps: Reply with @MelvinBot implement this to push the one-line fix to this PR, or @MelvinBot <feedback> to refine.

…py-For-Track-intent-users

codecov · 2026-06-03T13:26:04Z

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/CONST/index.ts	`93.79% <ø> (ø)`
...NOptionsList/OptionRowLHN/OptionRow/ErrorBadge.tsx	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
...HNOptionsList/OptionRowLHN/OptionRow/InfoBadge.tsx	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
...HNOptionsList/OptionRowLHN/OptionRow/Pressable.tsx	`92.68% <100.00%> (ø)`
...nents/LHNOptionsList/OptionRowLHN/OptionRowLHN.tsx	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
...s/LHNOptionsList/OptionRowLHN/OptionRowLHNData.tsx	`87.83% <100.00%> (+0.33%)`	⬆️
src/components/ReportWelcomeText.tsx	`96.72% <100.00%> (+0.11%)`	⬆️
src/components/utils/getActionBadgeText.ts	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
src/hooks/useSearchTypeMenuSections.ts	`87.03% <ø> (-0.24%)`	⬇️
src/hooks/useSelectionModeReportActions.ts	`85.96% <100.00%> (+0.08%)`	⬆️
... and 20 more
... and 40 files with indirect coverage changes

melvin-bot · 2026-06-03T13:39:27Z

@ZhenjaHorbach 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]

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: e7db15ea83

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".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-06-03T13:43:23Z

            options.push({
                icon: expensifyIcons.Send,
-                text: translate('common.submit'),
+                text: allReportsShouldMarkAsDone ? translate('common.markAsDone') : translate('common.submit'),


Avoid marking transaction-only submits as done

For transaction-only selections selectedReports is empty, so allReportsShouldMarkAsDone comes from selectedReports.every(...) and is true by vacuous truth. That makes every transaction search bulk-submit CTA render as “Mark as done”, even for non-track users or reports that should still say “Submit”; derive this label from the selected transactions' reports or guard the report-only boolean with selectedReports.length > 0.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@MelvinBot any suggestion for this comment, If we add the selectedReports.length > 0 length check here, we got this comment #92254 (comment), and do you think this change is needed here ?

The two bot comments aren't actually contradictory — they're two symptoms of the same root cause, and the selectedReports.length > 0 guard does fix a real bug.

Root cause: allReportsShouldMarkAsDone is selectedReports.every(...), which is true by vacuous truth when selectedReports is empty (i.e. transaction-row selections). So at line 1473 a transaction-only selection always renders "Mark as done" — even for non-track users. That's the regression r3348950734 is flagging, and it's worth fixing.

So yes, add the guard:

text: selectedReports.length > 0 && allReportsShouldMarkAsDone ? translate('common.markAsDone') : translate('common.submit'),

This restores "Submit" for every transaction-only selection. Report-row selections are unaffected (length is truthy, and that branch is already guarded inside shouldShowSubmitOption).

About the opposite comment (r3346664959): it only matters if you intend track-intent transaction-row selections to also show "Mark as done". That's beyond this PR's scope — the feature is built around report-row selection (see Test 7), so treating transaction-row selections as plain "Submit" is a reasonable, intentional limitation, and that bot nit can be dismissed. This is the same scoping call you already made for the approve case in useSelectionModeReportActions.ts.

If you do want to support it later, the clean way is to derive the state from selectedTransactionReportIDs (already computed) when selectedReports is empty, rather than hardcoding "Submit" — but that's optional and not needed to ship this PR.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-06-03T13:43:23Z

        if (hasSubmitAction && !shouldBlockSubmit) {
            actions[idx++] = {
-                text: translate('common.submit'),
+                text: shouldShowMarkAsDone({policy, report, isTrackIntentUser}) ? translate('common.markAsDone') : translate('common.submit'),


Apply Mark as done copy to approve selection actions

This only updates the submit entry in the report selection toolbar, but the approve entry in the same selectionModeReportLevelActions still uses translate('iou.approve'). For a track-intent submit-and-close report where the user is also the next approver, selecting all expenses exposes the APPROVE action via MoneyRequestReportView/SelectionToolbar, so this path still shows “Approve” while the header/dropdown primary actions now show “Mark as done”.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

It's fine not to use it for the approve case, since we won't have a scenario where the policy is set to "submit and close" and the "Approve" button is displayed at the same time.

jayeshmangwani · 2026-06-03T13:44:43Z

Sorry for the ping, @ZhenjaHorbach . @mananjadhav will review this PR, as previous PR was reverted and had already been reviewed by Manan.

jayeshmangwani · 2026-06-03T15:25:58Z

@mananjadhav, I was thinking that we should temporarily add a feature flag to control the "Mark as done" functionality.

Since it's currently enabled, having a flag would allow us to quickly disable it if this PR ends up causing multiple regressions. That way, we wouldn't need to revert the PR or raise another large PR with extensive changes. Instead, we could simply disable the feature and focus on fixing the regressions.

WDYT ?

…rts is empty

jayeshmangwani · 2026-06-05T12:19:15Z

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: ceaf2366ae

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".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-06-05T12:24:18Z

            (selectedReports.length
-                ? selectedReports.every((report) => report.canSubmit)
+                ? selectedReports.every((report) => report.canSubmit) &&
+                  // Disable for mixed selections: all must be the same submit type
+                  (isTrackIntentUser ? allReportsShouldMarkAsDone || noReportsShouldMarkAsDone : true)
                : selectedTransactionsKeys.every((id) => selectedTransactions[id].action === CONST.SEARCH.ACTION_TYPES.SUBMIT));


Disable mixed submit/done transaction selections

When the selection comes from transaction rows, selectedReports.length is zero, so this branch only checks that every row has the SUBMIT action and ignores the new allReportsShouldMarkAsDone || noReportsShouldMarkAsDone guard. A track-intent user can therefore select transactions from both a submit-and-close/self report and a regular submit report and still get one bulk Submit option, even though the report-selection path explicitly disables mixed submit types; apply the same mark-as-done consistency check to the transaction branch.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

jayeshmangwani · 2026-06-05T13:11:01Z

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 35eb6ffcf3

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".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-06-05T13:16:29Z

+        if (
+            shouldShowMarkAsDone({
+                isTrackIntentUser,
+                policy,
+                report: originalReport,
+            })
+        ) {
+            return <ReportActionItemBasicMessage message={translate('iou.markedAsDone', getOriginalMessage(action)?.message)} />;


Preserve automatic-submit/DEW messages before mark-done copy

For track-intent submit-and-close reports, this new early return runs before the existing wasSubmittedViaHarvesting and pending DEW checks, so an auto-submitted or queued-DEW submit action is rendered as “marked as done” instead of “automatically submitted” / “queued to submit via DEW”. The LHN/copy-message paths still check harvesting/DEW first, so the main report action content becomes inconsistent and hides the explanation for those environments.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-06-05T13:16:29Z

+                            text: actionText,
+                        },
+                        {
+                            text: shouldShowMarkAsDoneCopy ? '.' : ' %expenses.',


Keep the expense noun when the report is empty

When a track-intent submit-and-close report has no transactions, shouldShowMarkAsDoneCopy can still be true because shouldShowMarkAsDone does not check hasTransactions, while actionText remains add. This line then drops the %expenses. suffix and renders the deprecated next step as “Waiting for … to add.” instead of “Waiting for … to add expenses.”

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

jayeshmangwani added 4 commits May 29, 2026 01:52

added a different CTA for track intent users — “Mark as done”

e586701

Merge branch 'main' into issue-86223-update-CTA-and-Workspace-Chat-Co…

1765808

…py-For-Track-intent-users

merged and resolved conflicts

b1f5f50

added mark as done button when expense on hold

cbafec9

melvin-bot Bot assigned jayeshmangwani Jun 1, 2026

jayeshmangwani mentioned this pull request Jun 1, 2026

Update CTA and Workspace Chat Copy for track-intent users #86223

Open

3 tasks

jayeshmangwani added 5 commits June 1, 2026 21:27

Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/Expensify/App into issue-86…

af95196

…223-update-CTA-and-Workspace-Chat-Copy-For-Track-intent-users

Merge branch 'main' into issue-86223-update-CTA-and-Workspace-Chat-Co…

64a6996

…py-For-Track-intent-users

Merge branch 'main' into issue-86223-update-CTA-and-Workspace-Chat-Co…

7af8377

…py-For-Track-intent-users

fixed inconsistent report name between 'Submitted' and 'Marked as don…

367558d

…e' when replying in a thread

Bulk selection: show "Mark as done" only if all selected transactions…

773ce9f

… are eligible; hide action button for mixed selections

s77rt mentioned this pull request Jun 2, 2026

Report - Different next step message before submitting expense and after retracting it. #88501

Open

7 tasks

changed the optimisticNextStep strings for track-intent users to show…

958b6c0

… the 'Mark as done' text where applicable

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jun 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

jayeshmangwani added 4 commits June 3, 2026 17:13

fixed lint and tests

2d05e4d

fixed lint

36df897

Merge branch 'main' into issue-86223-update-CTA-and-Workspace-Chat-Co…

2f08e56

…py-For-Track-intent-users

Merge branch 'main' into issue-86223-update-CTA-and-Workspace-Chat-Co…

e7db15e

…py-For-Track-intent-users

jayeshmangwani marked this pull request as ready for review June 3, 2026 13:39

jayeshmangwani requested review from a team as code owners June 3, 2026 13:39

melvin-bot Bot requested review from ZhenjaHorbach and heyjennahay and removed request for a team June 3, 2026 13:39

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jun 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

dylanexpensify requested review from mananjadhav and removed request for ZhenjaHorbach June 3, 2026 18:23

jayeshmangwani added 3 commits June 5, 2026 17:04

resolved conflicts

7ce9b17

revert Mobile-Expensify changes

f94bc11

Derive allReportsShouldMarkAsDone from transactions when selectedRepo…

ceaf236

…rts is empty

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

fixed lint: removed consoles

35eb6ff

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

changed shouldShowMarkAsDone return after wasSubmittedViaHarvesting

d426a9b

Conversation

jayeshmangwani commented Jun 1, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Test 1:

Test 2:

Test 3:

Test 4:

Test 5:

Test 6:

Test 7:

Test 8:

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 1, 2026

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Jun 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Jun 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani Jun 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot Jun 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Jun 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani Jun 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Jun 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Jun 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading