[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#97951 Bulk editing one tag level preserves other levels

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help site follow-up for #97951, which changed how Edit multiple applies a tag edit. Before that fix, bulk editing one tag level overwrote the whole tag string on every selected expense and wiped the levels the user never touched. The fix applies the edit per transaction, so only the edited level changes.

docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Edit-Expenses.md documented the old behavior with the blanket line "Existing values are overwritten with the new values you enter." This PR updates that article to describe the current behavior:

• Adds ## How multi-level Tags are updated when you edit multiple expenses, covering independent Tags (untouched levels keep each expense's own value) and dependent Tags (levels above the edited one are kept, levels below are cleared because their options depend on the level that changed).
• Adds a bullet to ## What happens after you edit expenses noting that only the tag levels you edit are changed.
• Adds an FAQ entry: "Does editing one tag level clear the other tag levels on my expenses?"
• Updates keywords and internalScope to cover multi-level tag bulk editing.
• Cross-links the existing dependent and independent multi-level Tags article for the underlying concept, per the cross-linking standards.

Written against docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, and docs/TEMPLATE.md: one workflow per article, task-based ## headings only, UI-exact bolded labels (Edit multiple), a single # title plus # FAQ, and relative links placed outside numbered steps.

No other article documents bulk tag editing, so this is the only file that needed a change.

Fixed Issues

$ #97356
PROPOSAL:

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// This is a documentation-only change, so verification means confirming the article text matches current app behavior.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — documentation-only change.

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".

• 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: 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

---

@sobitneupane, 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.

[sobitneupane]

@MelvinBot mark this PR as ready for review

[melvin-bot]

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 @RachCHopkins

[melvin-bot]

@sobitneupane @RachCHopkins One of you needs to 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]

[MelvinBot]

Done — this PR is now marked Ready for review.

One thing to fix before a reviewer picks it up: the Tests and QA Steps sections still contain the // TODO: **The human co-author** must fill out... placeholders. I left them for you to fill in rather than writing test steps on your behalf. Since this is a [No QA] docs-only change to docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Edit-Expenses.md, "N/A — documentation-only change" plus a note that you confirmed the article text against current app behavior would cover it.

All checks pass except Check independent approval, which is expected on a fresh PR and clears once a reviewer approves.

---

view run · view recording

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR is a focused, well-executed help-site follow-up to a behavior change in bulk tag editing (E/A#97951). It updates the Edit-Expenses.md article to replace outdated "values are overwritten" language with accurate documentation of how multi-level Tags behave when using Edit multiple. Changes are limited to one article and cover the metadata, a new explanatory section, a supporting bullet, an FAQ entry, and a cross-link.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Clear, scannable prose. The independent/dependent Tags distinction is explained with concrete examples and bolded lead-ins. Sentences are concise and benefit-oriented.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - New ## heading is task-based and feature-specific ("How multi-level Tags are updated when you edit multiple expenses"). Heading hierarchy stays at #/##. The internalScope and keywords were both updated to reflect the new multi-level tag search intent and explicit exclusions (workspace tag configuration).
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - UI label Edit multiple is bolded and matches the product. Cross-link is relative, uses a descriptive anchor, and is placed in an explanatory sentence outside numbered steps. The new FAQ question follows the naming conventions and sits under the existing FAQ heading.

Key Findings

• Strong alignment with governance: single-workflow scope preserved, task-based headings, UI-exact bolded labels, and compliant cross-linking (prerequisite/deep-dive concept linked once with a descriptive anchor).
• The new content directly corrects previously inaccurate guidance, which is a meaningful quality improvement.
• Minor: the internalScope and H1 lines carry trailing whitespace (pre-existing pattern in the file, not a blocker).
• Minor: "Tags" is capitalized mid-sentence throughout the additions; confirm this matches the exact product casing of the Tags feature label for full terminology consistency.

Recommendations

• Verify the capitalization of "Tags" against the live UI label to ensure exact terminology compliance.
• No structural or blocking issues. Safe to merge once the human co-author confirms the described behavior matches the current app.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Edit-Expenses.md - Approved. Additions are accurate, well-structured, and governance-compliant.

Note: This is a documentation-only change with a single modified file; feedback is captured in this summary.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: f5dbf3aea0

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".

[RachCHopkins]

@stephanieelliott do you want to make the changes so that I can merge?

[stephanieelliott]

Yep, thanks @RachCHopkins! All set

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://097c70ef.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Edit-Expenses

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/RachCHopkins in version: 9.4.82-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/RachCHopkins in version: 9.4.86-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/RachCHopkins in version: 9.4.89-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.4.89-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android