Show drafts and insights for submit workspaces

[iwiznia]

Explanation of Change

This ensures drafts and insights are shown for submit workspaces

Fixed Issues

$#92000
PROPOSAL:

Tests

• Sign up for an account
• Add it to the Submit2026 beta
• Switch to Classic
• Navigate to expensify.com/pricing
• Create a Submit workspace
• Got to Spend
• Check drafts and insights are shown:

Offline tests

No

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

Same as tests

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
  • 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

[melvin-bot]

@madmax330 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]

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...nents/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestReceiptView.tsx	69.70% <100.00%> (+0.12%)	⬆️
...c/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx	75.88% <ø> (ø)
...m/TransactionPreview/TransactionPreviewContent.tsx	80.15% <ø> (ø)
.../components/Search/FilterComponents/InSelector.tsx	1.61% <ø> (ø)
src/components/Search/SearchAutocompleteList.tsx	89.01% <ø> (ø)
...c/components/Search/SearchFiltersChatsSelector.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...nents/TransactionItemRow/TransactionItemRowRBR.tsx	94.59% <100.00%> (+0.15%)	⬆️
src/hooks/useAutocompleteSuggestions.ts	75.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/libs/DebugUtils.ts	68.37% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/PersonalDetailOptionsListUtils/index.ts	70.55% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 16 more
... and 14 files with indirect coverage changes

[abzokhattab]

@MelvinBot review the PR

[abzokhattab]

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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (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
  • 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 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)
• 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
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • 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
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • 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 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 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.
• 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

[MelvinBot]

PR Review

Verdict: LGTM — minimal and correct. The change swaps isPaidGroupPolicy (Team/Corporate) → isGroupPolicy (Team/Corporate or Submit) for exactly the submitter/insights surfaces, while leaving Pay/Approve/Export/Statements/Unapproved/Reconciliation gated to paid policies. That matches the issue: Submit workspaces should get Drafts + Insights but not payment/approval features.

One thing worth confirming (not a blocker): beta gating. useSearchTypeMenuSections and getSuggestedSearchesVisibility never receive the SUBMIT_2026 beta flag, so a Submit-type policy will surface these searches purely because its type === SUBMIT exists in Onyx. There's a canAccessSubmitWorkspaceFeatures(policy, isSubmit2026BetaEnabled) helper precisely because Submit features are supposed to require the beta. If a Submit policy can ever be present for a user not (or no longer) in the beta, they'd see these suggestions. Likely fine since Submit workspaces are only created behind the beta — just flagging it.

Detailed verification

Eligibility matrix is consistent with the issue (SearchUIUtils.ts:1089-1101):

• Broadened to all group policies (isGroupPolicyEligible): Submit/Drafts, Top Spenders, Top Categories, Top Merchants, Spend over time, hasGroupPoliciesWithExpenseChat.
• Still isPaidPolicy only: Pay, Approve, Export, Statements, Unapproved Cash/Card, Expensify Card, Reimbursements. Submit correctly excluded.

isPolicyEligibleForSpendOverTime: still requires ADMIN/AUDITOR/approver role. Submit workspaces have no admin/auditor role, so this only fires for approvers on a Submit workspace — consistent and intentional.

Test (SearchUIUtilsTest.ts:6851): solid coverage. The setup correctly exercises each path — approver: adminEmail with currentUserEmail: adminEmail makes isPolicyApprover true (drives Top Spenders + Spend over time), areCategoriesEnabled: true drives Top Categories, and 2 employees satisfies memberCount >= 2. It also asserts Pay/Approve/Export/Statements stay hidden. No pre-existing test asserts the old behavior, so nothing regresses.

---

Next Steps: Reply with @MelvinBot <feedback> to refine this review.

[trjExpensify]

I take it insights is going to be limited to your own reports or any you're added to, to approve by the virtue of this new Editor role thing?

[abzokhattab]

Good question. The insights tiles don't filter by the current user on the front end .. they're generic policy-wide queries, and the backend scopes the results to what the requester is allowed to see. So for an Editor, that should only be their own reports + any submitted to them to approve, not everyone's. Let me confirm that backend scoping holds for the Editor role before we merge.

[abzokhattab]

the changes lgtm

[iwiznia]

@madmax330 all yours

[iwiznia]

I take it insights is going to be limited to your own reports or any you're added to, to approve by the virtue of this new Editor role thing?

Correct.

[github-actions]

🚧 @madmax330 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 #92252.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-39dc5fafe92-f63b6dc-73f51fa74d38f48d09f4696187e49c50eb8646ac/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-39dc5fa-f63b6dc-61d68e96c8b797137377b69bbdda4f5d2e1a4d13/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://92252.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[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.

[m-natarajan]

@iwiznia @trjExpensify @madmax330 We have existing accounts with the Submit2026 beta enabled. Can we use those for testing, or does this require brand-new accounts?

[iwiznia]

You can reuse

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/madmax330 in version: 9.3.98-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[MelvinBot]

Help site review — no docs changes required

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site files under App/docs/articles and no updates are needed.

What the PR changes: It swaps the eligibility gate in getSuggestedSearchesVisibility from isPaidGroupPolicy to isGroupPolicy, so the Drafts (Submit) shortcut and the Insights searches (Spend over time, Top spenders, Top categories, Top merchants) now also surface for Submit workspaces (the Submit2026 beta type), not just paid group workspaces.

Why no docs change is needed:

• The existing Insights and Search-shortcut articles gate these features by role, never by workspace plan/type, so none of them become inaccurate. See:
  • How-to-Use-Insights-in-Expensify.md — "Anyone can use Insights. What you can see depends on your role…"
  • View-the-Top-Merchants-report.md, View-the-Top-Categories-report.md, View-the-Top-Spenders-report.md — availability is described by role (Admin / Approver / Auditor / member).
  • Use-Search-Shortcuts.md — Drafts is described as "Reports you need to submit" for submitters, also role-based.
• The Submit workspace type is behind the Submit2026 beta (per the test steps), and beta-gated workspace types aren't documented on the help site until GA.

Because nothing in the published articles claims these features are restricted to paid workspaces, there's no statement to correct and no new GA-level user-facing behavior to document. I did not open a draft help site PR.

@iwiznia, if you'd prefer the Insights/Drafts articles to call out Submit-workspace availability explicitly (e.g., once Submit2026 is closer to GA), let me know and I'll draft that PR.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.3.98-3 🚀

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