[NO QA] Update Insights.md

[johncschuster]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/465266
PROPOSAL:

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

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

• 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 / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • MacOS / Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS / Desktop
• 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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • 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 verified the translation was requested/reviewed 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • 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.js 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 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
  • If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
    • 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(themeColors.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 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.
• 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://44bb220b.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

[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 @flaviadefaria

[melvin-bot]

@ikevin127 @flaviadefaria 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]

[johncschuster]

NB: I need a screenshot to be updated on the article. Specifically, we need to have the View pill removed from the current screenshot. I have updated the verbiage of the article as I don't think it's dependent on the screenshot being updated first.

[johncschuster]

Ok! I have replaced the outdated image with the new image, and have made sure it follows the exact file name convention and path so it replaces the outdated image completely.

[maddylewis]

@johncschuster - sorry ive been OOO and now a bit sick. will get to this review tomorrow <3

[maddylewis]

@johncschuster - looks good! approved these changes. i think internal eng still needs to merge tho!

[melvin-bot]

@ikevin127 @ @CortneyOfstad 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]

[johncschuster]

Sorry for all the additional assignees, everyone! I tried reapplying PullerBear a few times, and while it did find assignees, I needed an internal engineer for this one.

@dangrous can you be my huckleberry?

[dangrous]

haha sure - will take a look shortly!

[dangrous]

Some formatting notes. Image swap seems good too, though you won't see it until it's live since it uses the live link.

[dangrous]

These look a little wonky (screenshot below). Might be fine, we use them in a couple other articles, but wanted to call it out in case it wasn't what you were expecting.

[johncschuster]

Oh, interesting! I'm not sure why the original author included those in this article. I don't feel strongly one way or another about those, personally.

When I review the article, I wonder if those are supposed to indicate a break in the different actions listed in the article. Like, "Export Your Insights Data" is a standalone action, separate from "Create a Custom Export Report for Expenses". I wonder if those lines are meant to distinguish that.

Personally, I don't feel blocked on this. What are your thoughts, @maddylewis?

[maddylewis]

i would:

1. change the wording from "Your Insights Data" - that is weird
2. the formatting overall is totally fine!

[dangrous]

Suggested change

# FAQ

if we put back the {% include faq-begin.md %} line, it will automatically title it FAQ and use the dropdown, so we can remove this line

[johncschuster]

I think the outcome of this comment will be dependent on what we find about the collapsible FAQ section. I'll wait on that.

[dangrous]

Note - this matches the hierarchy we have on all other docs pages, BUT technically for accessibility it really shouldn't be an h1.... but we can leave it here to match. At some point we really need to work on accessibility across the app though.

[dangrous]

Suggested change

---

Don't need this one at the end if we use the FAQ tag

[johncschuster]

I think the outcome of this comment will be dependent on what we find about the collapsible FAQ section. I'll wait on that.

[dangrous]

I think even without the FAQ block we don't need this line

[dangrous]

okay cool! Didn't know we were dropping the FAQ thing. Let me take one more look at this with that in mind, i think we might want to update the headers for the FAQ in that case

[dangrous]

Looks good assuming we want to keep (all of) the lines. I'd at least remove the last one, since it's unnecessary, but everything else is just up to your preference.

[dangrous]

I think even without the FAQ block we don't need this line

[dangrous]

Note - this matches the hierarchy we have on all other docs pages, BUT technically for accessibility it really shouldn't be an h1.... but we can leave it here to match. At some point we really need to work on accessibility across the app though.