[No QA] Update help docs for NetSuite REST + OAuth 2.0 (Releases 2-4)

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Release 4 of Move NetSuite to the REST API makes REST + OAuth 2.0 the default for new NetSuite connections. This updates the Connect to NetSuite help article so it documents that flow instead of the SOAP + token-based authentication flow.

What changed and why:

• Replaced the token-based authentication setup steps with the OAuth 2.0 steps. The NetSuite-side prep is now install the Expensify bundle → enable OAuth 2.0 → enable REST Web Services, matching the four-step in-product flow in NetSuiteTokenInputPage when the netSuiteOAuth beta is on.
• Removed the "Assign the Expensify Integration Role" and "Create access tokens" steps. New connections no longer use a Token ID / Token Secret — the connect step only asks for the NetSuite Account ID, then hands off to the NetSuite consent screen.
• Documented the two-factor authentication requirement. The OAuth flow blocks with a 2FA prompt if 2FA isn't enabled on the Expensify account.
• Added a section confirming existing connections are unchanged, since Release 4 only affects new connections and migration doesn't start until Release 5.
• Noted that the bundle must be up to date, because Release 4 ships a bundle update adding the OAuth 2.0 access token and REST Web Services permissions.
• Restructured the article to comply with docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md (one # title plus # FAQ, task-based ## headings, no Step N headings) and docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md. All non-auth NetSuite prep (expense reports, expense categories, transaction forms, tax groups) is preserved — it's unaffected by the transport change.

UI labels and NetSuite menu paths were taken from src/languages/en.ts (workspace.netsuite.tokenInput.formSteps) and the connect flow components rather than written from memory. One thing worth a human check before merge: the Account ID lookup path is still documented as Setup > Integration > Web Services Preferences, carried over from the previous version of the article — please confirm that's still the right path for a REST-based connection.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/657177
PROPOSAL:

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your changed worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — documentation-only change.

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas do they need to test for regressions.

• 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
• 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 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 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)
• 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.
• 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

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://ea14d353.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/connections/netsuite/Connect-To-NetSuite