[No QA] Update Duplicate-Workspace.md

[stephanieelliott]

See: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C03U7DCU4/p1771016714549299?thread_ts=1771013641.981009&cid=C03U7DCU4

[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 @kadiealexander

[melvin-bot]

@kadiealexander 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 substantially improves the Duplicate Workspace article by restructuring it from a minimal, loosely formatted page into a well-organized document that follows current HelpDot conventions. The changes add proper YAML metadata (keywords, internalScope), introduce clear section headings, provide a role-based access note, explain post-duplication behavior, and add a full FAQ section. The overall quality is strong, with a few issues that should be addressed before merging.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - Clear, concise language at an appropriate reading level. Steps are well-structured and easy to follow. Minor deduction for the placeholder screenshot text and one slightly ambiguous instruction (step 5 vs. step 4 relationship).
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - Excellent YAML metadata with properly formatted internalScope, descriptive keywords, and clear heading hierarchy. Headings are descriptive and use full task phrasing. One minor inconsistency in heading hierarchy (see below).
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - Follows Expensify voice and tone well. Uses correct terminology (Workspace Admins, members, workspace). A few items need attention regarding button label accuracy and FAQ include format.

Key Findings

Positive aspects:

• The addition of internalScope and expanded keywords in the YAML frontmatter is well done and follows the pattern established by other recently updated workspace docs (e.g., Create-expense-categories.md, Workspace-Rules.md).
• The new "Who can duplicate a workspace in Expensify" section is a valuable addition that clarifies permissions upfront, matching the pattern used in Enable-Time-Tracking-and-Set-a-Default-Hourly-Rate.md.
• The FAQ section with four relevant questions is a strong addition. Each answer is concise and directly addresses the question.
• The "What happens after duplicating a workspace" section sets clear expectations for the user.
• The item list in step 4 now includes "Travel" which was missing from the original version.

Issues that should be addressed:

1. Placeholder screenshot text should be removed or replaced. The line **ADD A SCREENSHOT HERE.** followed by a suggestion comment is draft-quality content that should not be merged. Either add the actual screenshot or remove this placeholder entirely.

2. Heading hierarchy inconsistency. The article uses # Duplicate Workspace as the H1, then ## Who can duplicate..., ## How to duplicate..., and ## What happens after... as H2s -- this is correct. However, # FAQ then appears as another H1. While this matches the convention used by other recently updated workspace docs (Create-expense-categories.md, Workspace-Rules.md, etc.), the presence of two H1 headings is worth noting. Since other workspace articles follow this same pattern, this is acceptable.

3. Button label accuracy. Step 6 says Click **Continue** to create your new workspace, but the old version referenced clicking Proceed. The author should verify which label the UI actually uses. Similarly, step 2 says Click the three dots **(ellipsis)** next to your workspace name and choose **Duplicate Workspace** -- confirm the exact menu item label in the product.

4. Step 5 phrasing. The instruction "If you choose to copy Members, review and confirm your selections before proceeding" is slightly vague. It could be improved to explicitly state what UI action to take, e.g., "If you selected Members in the previous step, a Review and Confirm screen will appear. Review your member selections and click Confirm." This would be more consistent with the step-by-step pattern.

5. Minor inconsistency with "Click" vs "Go to" language. Step 1 uses "go to Workspaces" while step 2 uses "Click the three dots." Other workspace docs (Create-expense-categories.md) consistently use "click" throughout. Consider using "click Workspaces" in step 1 for consistency.

6. Trailing whitespace. There is a trailing space after # Duplicate Workspace in the H1. This is cosmetic but should be cleaned up.

Recommendations

1. Priority: Remove the placeholder screenshot text. This is the most critical item. Either source the actual screenshot or remove the placeholder lines before merging. Draft annotations should not appear in published documentation.

2. Verify UI button labels. Confirm whether the button in the product says "Continue" or "Proceed" and whether the menu option is exactly "Duplicate Workspace." Use the exact label from the product.

3. Refine step 5 to be more specific about the UI action the user should take on the Review and Confirm screen.

4. Clean up trailing whitespace on the H1 heading.

5. Consider aligning the verb "go to" in step 1 with the "click" pattern used in other workspace articles.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Duplicate-Workspace.md - Significantly improved. The restructuring, metadata additions, and FAQ section bring this article in line with current HelpDot standards. Needs the placeholder screenshot text removed and minor refinements before merging.

---

This review covers only the proposed changes in the diff. Detailed findings are provided above.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://8c7add21.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Duplicate-Workspace

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: b80b76c9e0

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically 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".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[stephanieelliott]

Addressed all comments!

[melvin-bot]

@jasperhuangg 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]

[kadiealexander]

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
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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

MacOS: Desktop

[kadiealexander]

LGTM

[kadiealexander]

LGTM again!