Update README.md to add information about auditors

[mountiny]

Explanation of Change

Updating the readme to add information about the Auditors access to the admins room and other workspace-related reports

Fixed Issues

$ N/A Just updating this readme
PROPOSAL:

Tests

N/A

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

N/A
// 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: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb 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 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 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

MacOS: Desktop

[mountiny]

@trjExpensify tagging you to help with the expected behaviour. We have the admins room, workspace chats and workspace rooms to decide.

Should the auditors be members of the workspace rooms and workspace chats? Can admins remove them from any of the chats, including the admins room?

[trjExpensify]

@dylanexpensify is ultimately your guy for this.

My quick take below:

#admins

• Automatically added on being made an Auditor
• Can comment only
• Not allowed to leave the room freely
• Automatically removed when demoted as an Auditor or left/removed from the workspace.

#announce

• Automatically added when added to the workspace
• Can comment only
• Not allowed to leave the room freely
• Automatically removed when left/removed from the workspace.

Workspace chats

• Automatically added to the workspace chats on being made an Auditor to be able to access the financial data on the workspace
• Can comment only
• Not allowed to leave the room freely
• Automatically removed when demoted as an Auditor or left/removed from the workspace.

Workspace rooms
Not 100% sure on this one. Probably:

• Has the ability to discover the non-private rooms like any other workspace member
• Can comment only
• Can freely leave user-created workspace rooms
• Automatically removed when left/removed from the workspace.

[github-actions]

🚧 @mountiny has triggered a test hybrid app build. You can view the workflow run here.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/android//index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios//index.html
Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
N/A	N/A
N/A	N/A

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[mountiny]

(Vit's agent)

Closing this in favour of #101433, which does the same thing against the current file.

These member-management rules moved out of README.md into contributingGuides/philosophies/SECURITY.md since this PR was opened, so this branch is conflicting and can't be rebased into anything useful.

Correcting my earlier version of this comment: it said auditors have no #admins access. That was wrong — it was based on the App's optimistic Onyx code, which is not authoritative here. The backend is. buildRolePermissions in Auth/auth/lib/Policy.cpp grants ROLE_AUDITOR write on FEATURE_ADMINS_ROOM, and Web-Expensify has a ShareDefaultRoomsWithAuditors migration that backfills #admins and #announce for auditors who were added before that access existed. Auditors can also comment in #admins: unlike #announce, the room is created with no writeCapability, and Report::canWriteInChat allows anyone holding the auditor share permission to write.

So @trjExpensify's spec above mostly shipped, with one difference: auditors can post in #admins, not comment-only in the restricted sense, and they can be removed from the room.

The new PR documents all of that. One open question there: auditors are auto-added to #admins, which by the doc's own MUST rule should mean they can't be removed, yet RemoveFromRoom doesn't protect them there the way it does in policy expense chats.

@trjExpensify @dylanexpensify that question is on the new PR if you want to weigh in.