[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#93907 inline table cell edit icon behavior

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

#93907 changed how inline editing works on the Spend table (desktop only): instead of clicking anywhere in an editable cell to edit it, you now hover over the cell to reveal an edit icon (pencil) and click that icon to edit the value inline. Clicking anywhere else in the row now opens the expense.

The help site still described the old "click the cell to edit" behavior, so this PR updates the affected articles to match the current UI.

Files changed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Getting-Started-with-the-Spend-Page.md — updated the "Edit a cell directly" table action.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md — updated the "How to edit expenses inline on desktop" steps.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Edit-Expenses.md — updated the desktop inline-editing tip.

Related

• Source PR: fix: show edit icon for inline table cell editing #93907
• Source issue: [CFI] [$250] Tweak inline table editing #93242

---

@x-dev90, please review the files changed and confirm they reflect the current behavior. Then mark this PR Ready for review.

[x-dev90]

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 @bfitzexpensify

[melvin-bot]

@bfitzexpensify 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]

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes small, targeted updates to reflect a UI behavior change (E/A 93907): inline table-cell editing on the Spend table now uses a hover-to-reveal pencil icon instead of clicking anywhere in the cell. Three articles are touched. Two update the inline-editing instructions in place; one removes its inline-editing section entirely. The changes are accurate to the new behavior and improve on the old "click the cell" wording, but there is a platform-scoping inconsistency across the three files and a deletion that removes coverage rather than updating it.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - The revised sentences are clear, action-oriented, and easy to scan. Minor trailing whitespace on the edited lines.
• AI Readiness: 6/10 - Wording is UI-exact and searchable, but Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md deletes a task-based ## How to edit expenses inline on desktop heading, removing a strong retrieval anchor instead of updating it. The other two files retain good phrasing.
• Style Compliance: 6/10 - UI labels are correctly bolded and lowercase to match the table. However, the platform scoping is now inconsistent with the governance Cross-Platform Clarity rule: Getting-Started drops the platform qualifier entirely, Edit-Expenses says "On the web," and the source PR describes the feature as desktop-only. These should agree and state the limitation explicitly.

Key Findings

• Positive: The new "hover ... and click the pencil icon" phrasing accurately matches the current UI and is a clear improvement over the old "click the cell to edit" instructions. Removing the vague "Tip (desktop only)" framing in Edit-Expenses is a good call.
• Inconsistency: The three articles now describe the same feature with different platform scoping. Edit-Expenses uses "On the web," Getting-Started removes any platform note, and the deleted section in Managing-Expenses had said "desktop only." Per the Cross-Platform Clarity rule, all three should state the same, explicit limitation.
• Coverage gap: Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md deletes the entire inline-editing section rather than updating it, so that article no longer documents the feature at all. If the intent was to consolidate coverage into the other two articles, that is defensible, but it leaves a task-based heading and its steps gone with no replacement or cross-link.
• Nit: Trailing whitespace at the end of the edited lines in Edit-Expenses and Getting-Started.

Recommendations

• Align platform scoping across all three articles. Pick one exact term (web/desktop) and state the limitation explicitly, per the Cross-Platform Clarity and "If a Feature Is Not Available on Mobile" rules.
• Reconsider the full-section deletion in Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md: either update the steps in place (as the other two files do) or add a cross-link so inline-editing coverage is not lost.
• Remove trailing whitespace on the edited lines.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Edit-Expenses.md - Updated inline-editing tip; accurate, but verify "On the web" vs. desktop-only scope.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Getting-Started-with-the-Spend-Page.md - Updated table action; accurate, but dropped the platform qualifier.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report.md - Deleted the entire inline-editing section rather than updating it; leaves a coverage gap.

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

[stephanieelliott]

Little bump @bfitzexpensify

[bfitzexpensify]

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 proper code patterns were followed (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 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)
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately
  • 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
  • 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 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.
• 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

[bfitzexpensify]

Conflicts @stephanieelliott

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://dac119f9.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Edit-Expenses
• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Getting-Started-with-the-Spend-Page
• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Managing-Expenses-in-a-Report

[stephanieelliott]

Resolved conflicts, can you approve again @bfitzexpensify