[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#100872 document Upcoming travel section on Home

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Documentation-only follow-up to #100872, which changed where the Upcoming travel section on Home gets its data and, more importantly, changed which reservations it shows.

Before that PR, Upcoming travel only listed trips where the signed-in member was the owner of the trip chat. After it, the section lists reservations where the signed-in member is a traveler on the booking. That is a user-visible behavior change, and the help site had no coverage of the section at all — Expensify-Home-Overview.md enumerated every other Home section but omitted Upcoming travel.

This PR updates docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Expensify-Home-Overview.md to:

• Add Upcoming travel to the list of sections under What Home shows.
• Add a ## How the Upcoming travel section works on Home section describing the 7-day window, the traveler-based filter, the row format, canceled reservations, and what selecting a row does.
• Add a ## Why don’t I see the Upcoming travel section? FAQ entry covering the two reasons the section is hidden.
• Extend the keywords and internalScope metadata so the new content is retrievable.

No other article needed a change. articles/travel/managing-trips/View-Upcoming-and-Past-Trips.md documents the Trips view inside the travel tool, which this PR did not touch; the new section cross-links to it rather than duplicating it. The rest of #100872 is an internal data-source refactor (reading tripData from report name-value-pairs instead of report data) with no user-facing surface.

Behavior documented here was read from the code on the PR branch: the 7-day window comes from CONST.UPCOMING_TRAVEL_WINDOW_DAYS, the traveler filter and row copy from src/pages/home/UpcomingTravelSection/, and the section title from homePage.upcomingTravel in src/languages/en.ts. The Home tab label was confirmed against the live web UI; the Upcoming travel section itself could not be observed live because the test account has no booked trips, so please confirm the described behavior.

Fixed Issues

$ #100872
PROPOSAL:

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your changed worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Not applicable — this PR only changes a help site Markdown article and ships no app code.

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas do they need to test for regressions.

• 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

---

@rlinoz, 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.

[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]

@RachCHopkins 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 Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-14T14:07:49.258156Z	2698c4a	Draft marked ready

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment
This is a focused, documentation-only PR that adds coverage of the Upcoming travel section to Expensify-Home-Overview.md. It adds one new "How the Upcoming travel section works on Home" section, one new "Why do not I see the Upcoming travel section?" FAQ entry, a bullet in the What Home shows list, and extends the keywords and internalScope metadata. The additions integrate cleanly with the existing structure and voice.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Clear, concise prose. The example row list (Flight to Lisbon, Hotel in Lisbon, etc.) is highly scannable, and the traveler-vs-arranger distinction is explained plainly.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - Task-based headings, full feature name (Upcoming travel section) used consistently, correct heading hierarchy (only level-2 added), and metadata (keywords and internalScope) meaningfully extended so the new content is retrievable.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - Section name Upcoming travel and label Canceled are bolded per section/UI-referencing rules, the Home tab is referenced correctly, and the cross-link uses a descriptive relative-link anchor.

Key Findings

• Both new headings are properly task/question-based and include the feature name, satisfying Section 2 heading rules and the FAQ conventions.
• Metadata was updated in lockstep with the content: internalScope now lists Upcoming travel among covered sections and explicitly excludes booking/managing travel, matching the single-workflow principle.
• The cross-link to View-Upcoming-and-Past-Trips is a legitimate deep-dive reference (review every trip vs. the 7-day window), uses a relative link, sits in an explanatory sentence (not inside steps), and uses descriptive anchor text - fully compliant with Section 7.
• The new Upcoming travel FAQ entry is placed alongside the other "Why do not I see the ... section?" entries and mirrors their format exactly.
• Minor: the PR description notes the section could not be verified live (no booked trips on the test account), so a human reviewer should confirm exact row copy and the relative-time wording against the live UI.

Recommendations

• Confirm the live UI copy for reservation rows and the relative-time labels (In 3 days, In 1 week, Today, Canceled) match exactly, since exact-UI-text is a hard rule and this could not be observed live.
• Optionally verify that next 7 days phrasing aligns with CONST.UPCOMING_TRAVEL_WINDOW_DAYS if that value is ever configurable.
• No structural or style changes required.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Expensify-Home-Overview.md - Approve. Additions are well-structured, compliant, and consistent with the existing article; only a live-UI copy verification is outstanding.

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

[RachCHopkins]

the PR description notes the section could not be verified live (no booked trips on the test account), so a human reviewer should confirm exact row copy and the relative-time wording against the live UI.

I can't see this on staging, for a customer I know has a trip coming up

[rlinoz]

This is from a customer, I think we had a window where there was bug on this, but it is fixed with the latest auth deploy, can you check again please @RachCHopkins

[RachCHopkins]

I see it!!

[RachCHopkins]

LGTM!

[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