Update CTA and workspace chat copy for track-intent users

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

For users who onboarded with the "Track and budget expenses" 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:

1. Workspace chat welcome text — changed from "This is where X will submit expenses to Y" to "This is where you'll track expenses."
2. 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.
3. System messages — "submitted" and "approved" messages now display "marked as done"
4. Submit animation — The post-submit status text shows "Marked as done" instead of "Submitted"
5. LHN action badges — The Submit action badge shows "Mark as done" instead of "Submit"
6. 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 "Track and budget expenses" during onboarding (TRACK_WORKSPACE or PERSONAL_SPEND)
• The workspace policy has submit-and-close approval mode (no approvals)

Detection uses NVP_INTRO_SELECTED at the user level per jayeshmangwani's direction. A isTrackIntentUserSelector in src/selectors/Onboarding.ts centralizes this check.

Fixed Issues

$ #86223

Tests

Prerequisites: You need two accounts — one that selected "Track and budget expenses" during onboarding (track-intent user) and one that selected a different intent (e.g., "Manage team expenses"). The track-intent user's workspace should have submit-and-close approval mode (no approvals configured).

Track-intent user tests:

1. Log in as the track-intent user
2. Navigate to the workspace chat
3. Verify the welcome message reads "This is where you'll track expenses." (not the standard "This is where X will submit expenses to Y")
4. Create an expense in the workspace
5. Navigate to the expense report
6. Verify the Submit CTA button says "Mark as done" (not "Submit")
7. Click "Mark as done" to submit the expense
8. Verify the submit animation status shows "Marked as done" (not "Submitted")
9. Verify the system message says "marked as done" (not "submitted")
10. Open the Search tab and find the expense in the search list
11. Verify the action cell button for a submittable expense shows "Done" (not "Submit")
12. Select multiple submittable expenses in Search, and verify the bulk action dropdown shows "Mark as done" (not "Submit")
13. In the LHN (left-hand navigation), verify that any action badge for a submittable report shows "Mark as done" (not "Submit")

Non-track-intent user tests:

14. Log in as a user who selected a different onboarding intent (e.g., "Manage team expenses")
15. Navigate to a workspace chat and verify the welcome message uses the standard copy ("This is where X will submit expenses to Y")
16. Create an expense and verify the CTA button says "Submit" (not "Mark as done")
17. Submit the expense and verify the system message says "submitted"
18. Verify Search action cells and bulk actions also show standard "Submit" text

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Go offline while viewing an expense report as a track-intent user
2. Verify CTA buttons still show "Mark as done"
3. Click "Mark as done" while offline
4. Go back online and verify the action completes with the "marked as done" system message

QA Steps

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

• 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 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
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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 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 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.ts 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 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 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.
• 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.
• 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

Verified on web that app builds correctly, workspace chat welcome text renders, and Submit/Approve CTA buttons display without errors. The track-intent copy ("Mark as done") requires a user who selected "Track and budget expenses" during onboarding.

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing Prettier check: ran Prettier to fix import ordering in 4 files (ApproveActionButton.tsx, SubmitActionButton.tsx, ReportWelcomeText.tsx, PureReportActionItem.tsx). The @selectors/Onboarding import was placed after other imports but Prettier's sort order expects it before react and other module imports.

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing typecheck: added the three missing translation keys (markAsDone, beginningOfChatHistoryPolicyExpenseChatTrack, markedAsDone) to all 8 non-English language files (de, fr, it, ja, nl, pl, pt-BR, zh-hans) with English fallback values.

[codecov]

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/components/LHNOptionsList/OptionRowLHNData.tsx	83.82% <ø> (ø)
src/components/ReportWelcomeText.tsx	94.59% <100.00%> (+0.15%)	⬆️
src/components/TestDrive/TestDriveDemo.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/selectors/Onboarding.ts	86.36% <100.00%> (+1.36%)	⬆️
src/components/LHNOptionsList/OptionRowLHN.tsx	80.34% <80.00%> (+1.05%)	⬆️
...m/MoneyRequestReportPreview/SubmitActionButton.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ts/Search/SearchList/ListItem/ActionCell/index.tsx	66.66% <33.33%> (-1.76%)	⬇️
src/libs/SidebarUtils.ts	80.40% <50.00%> (-0.21%)	⬇️
src/pages/inbox/report/PureReportActionItem.tsx	57.66% <71.42%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
...ReportHeaderPrimaryAction/ApprovePrimaryAction.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 4 more
... and 15 files with indirect coverage changes

[MelvinBot]

I ran out of time before I could finish helping you. This usually means the task was too complex or I got stuck exploring. Please try again with a more specific request or post in the #melvinbot-ai.

Run details: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/actions/runs/23605388227

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing checks (Prettier, typecheck, Storybook). The fr.ts file had Unicode smart/curly quotes (U+2018 ' and U+2019 ') used as JavaScript string delimiters instead of straight quotes (U+0027 ') on three lines: beginningOfChatHistoryPolicyExpenseChatTrack, markedAsDone, and queuedToSubmitViaDEW. JavaScript doesn't recognize smart quotes as valid string delimiters, causing parse failures across all three checks. Restored the file from main and re-applied all changes with correct straight quote delimiters.

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing Prettier and TypeScript checks.

Root cause: The previous commit introduced Unicode smart quotes (U+2018 ' / U+2019 ') as string delimiters in fr.ts instead of ASCII single quotes ('). These look identical visually but are invalid JavaScript/TypeScript syntax when used as string delimiters, causing both Prettier (SyntaxError: Unexpected character) and TypeScript (TS1127: Invalid character) to fail.

Fix: Restored fr.ts from main and cleanly reapplied the intended changes (markAsDone, beginningOfChatHistoryPolicyExpenseChatTrack, markedAsDone, removal of increasedDistance). New simple string values use backtick template literals instead of single quotes to avoid the encoding issue.

[MelvinBot]

The previously failing checks (Prettier and TypeScript errors from smart quote corruption in fr.ts) were already fixed by the latest commit (177b9ada). All linting, type checking, and build checks are now passing. The remaining test jobs are still running but no failures so far.

[jayeshmangwani]

@dylanexpensify When creating an expense in the workspace, we currently see a Submit button on staging and production after creating it. In this PR, we are changing the CTA to Mark as done. Is this expected?

Adding screenshots below to show the difference between staging and our PR changes.

staging

PR changes

---

If yes:

1. Should we also update the sidebar badge text?

2. Do we need to change the CTA in the Reports tab and Reports section as well?

[jayeshmangwani]

When we press the Mark as done button, we briefly see the text Submitted after the action completes. Should this text also be updated?

mark-as-done.mov

[dylanexpensify]

@jayeshmangwani great catches, yes to all:

Should we also update the sidebar badge text?

Yes

When we press the Mark as done button, we briefly see the text Submitted after the action completes. Should this text also be updated?

Yes

Do we need to change the CTA in the Reports tab and Reports section as well?

Yes

[dylanexpensify]

Essentially, wherever there is submit for this group, we change it to the mark as done verbiage (or for system messages, marked as done)

[jayeshmangwani]

@dylanexpensify When we use Submit as the CTA, we display Submitted as the status label, indicating that the item has been sent.

For the track intent flow, we are updating the CTA to Mark as done. After this action is completed, what should the corresponding status label be? Should we use Marked as done or something else?

I’ve used Marked as done below as an example, please take a look and let me know how it feels.

button-confirmation.mov

[jayeshmangwani]

@MelvinBot The sidebar badge still shows Submit instead of Mark as done.

and the Reports tab/Reports also still has the Submit CTA.

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the sidebar badge and Reports tab CTA to show "Mark as done" for track-intent users. Updated three locations:

1. Sidebar LHN badge (OptionRowLHN.tsx): The actionBadgeText now checks if the user is a track-intent user and the badge is submit or approve, and displays "Mark as done" instead.

2. Search/Reports list action buttons (ActionCell/index.tsx): Individual report/transaction action buttons in the Reports tab now display "Mark as done" for track-intent users when the action is submit or approve.

3. Bulk action buttons (useSearchBulkActions.ts): The bulk "Submit" and "Approve" options also display "Mark as done" for track-intent users.

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing Prettier check: ran Prettier on OptionRowLHN.tsx to collapse a line break in the shouldUseMarkAsDone assignment.

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing ESLint check:

1. OptionRowLHN.tsx:168 — Replaced nested ternary with an if-block to satisfy no-nested-ternary rule (this was the error blocking CI)
2. MoneyReportHeader.tsx:1643 — Added missing approveButtonText and submitButtonText to useMemo dependency array
3. useSearchBulkActions.ts:1139 — Added missing isTrackIntentUser and shouldShowBusinessBankAccountOptions to useMemo dependency array

The test (job 8) failure is unrelated — all tests passed but the process hit a segmentation fault (exit code 139) during cleanup, which is a pre-existing infrastructure issue.

[MelvinBot]

All checks are now passing (ESLint, Prettier, typecheck, all 8 test shards, builds, etc.). The only remaining check is perf-tests which is still pending/running.

The previous failures were:

• ESLint/Prettier — already fixed by a subsequent commit on this branch
• Jest test (job 8) — failed with a segmentation fault (Node.js infrastructure crash), unrelated to PR code

No code fix is needed at this time.

[dylanexpensify]

@jayeshmangwani

I’ve used Marked as done below as an example

Marked as done is correct! Thanks!

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing Prettier check: ran prettier on ApprovePrimaryAction.tsx and SubmitPrimaryAction.tsx to fix import ordering.

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing ESLint check (@typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-assignment errors in MoneyReportHeader.tsx).

Root cause: The track-intent copy changes replaced inline translate() calls with submitButtonText and approveButtonText variables at lines 1343, 1351, 1477, and 1502, but these variables were never defined in the component — causing TypeScript to type them as error.

Fix: Added the missing variable definitions using the same pattern as SubmitPrimaryAction.tsx and ApprovePrimaryAction.tsx:

• Imported isTrackIntentUserSelector from @selectors/Onboarding and isSubmitAndClose from @libs/PolicyUtils
• Added useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.NVP_INTRO_SELECTED, {selector: isTrackIntentUserSelector}) to get the track-intent flag
• Computed shouldUseMarkAsDoneCopy and derived submitButtonText / approveButtonText with the appropriate ternary logic

[MelvinBot]

The previous ESLint and TypeScript failures in MoneyReportHeader.tsx (missing submitButtonText / approveButtonText variables) have been fixed in the latest commit — Changed files ESLint check and ESLint check now both pass.

The only remaining failing check is typecheck, caused by a pre-existing issue on main, not by this PR's changes:

src/components/TestDrive/TestDriveDemo.tsx(59,28): error TS2345:
Argument of type '{ reportID: string; introSelected: IntroSelected | undefined; }'
is not assignable to parameter of type 'OpenReportActionParams'.
Property 'betas' is missing in type ... but required in type 'OpenReportActionParams'.

Evidence this is unrelated:

• TestDriveDemo.tsx is not modified by this PR
• src/libs/actions/Report/index.ts (where OpenReportActionParams is defined) is not modified by this PR
• Both files have zero diff vs main — the content is identical

This was likely introduced by the interaction between PR #86432 (which made betas required in OpenReportActionParams) and PR #86717 (which modified TestDriveDemo.tsx without adding the betas parameter).

To unblock this PR, someone needs to merge a fix for TestDriveDemo.tsx on main (adding betas to the openReport call at line 59), then merge main into this branch.

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing typecheck: TestDriveDemo.tsx was calling openReport() without the required betas parameter. Added const [betas] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.BETAS) and passed it to the openReport call, matching how all other callers in the codebase do it.

Note: This is a pre-existing issue (the file wasn't modified by this PR), but it was blocking CI.

[jayeshmangwani]

@Valforte Conflicts are resolved, and all checks are passing now.

[OSBotify]

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[github-actions]

🚧 @Valforte has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #86460.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-b29fc4c-f008b41-412b9229de6b573e651138759dff3ac2d4ff8cda/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-b29fc4c-f008b41-97936218245bc37c11414b1be85f4d5ddbfa54e2/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://86460.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Valforte in version: 9.3.52-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[MelvinBot]

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site articles under App/docs/articles/. Three New Expensify articles reference the Submit button and need notes about the new Mark as done copy for track-intent users:

1. Create-and-Submit-Reports.md — References "Select Submit" and the "submitted" activity entry
2. Understanding-Report-Statuses-and-Actions.md — Lists Submit as a context-specific primary action button
3. Expense-and-Report-Actions.md — Lists Submit and Approve in the primary actions table

I've created a PR with the required help site updates: #86997

Each article now includes a note explaining that users who selected "Track and budget expenses" during onboarding and whose workspace does not use an approval workflow will see Mark as done instead of Submit/Approve, and "marked as done" instead of "submitted" in activity messages.

[lanitochka17]

Deploy Blocker ##86990 was identified to be related to this PR.

[jponikarchuk]

Deploy Blocker #87001 was identified to be related to this PR.

[mitarachim]

Deploy Blocker #87004 was identified to be related to this PR.

[vincdargento]

Deploy Blocker #87031 was identified to be related to this PR.

[lanitochka17]

Deploy Blocker ##87037 was identified to be related to this PR.

[jponikarchuk]

Deploy Blocker #87049 was identified to be related to this PR.