Facelift: inset illustration in card section headers

[shawnborton]

Explanation of Change

Facelift pass on the big illustrated card headers rendered by the Section component.

• Inset illustration: added a cardSectionIllustrationInset style (12px top + horizontal margin, componentBorderRadiusNormal, overflow: hidden) applied as a default on the Section illustration container. Every <Section illustration={...}> card header now shows the illustration as an inset, rounded panel instead of full-bleed.
• Company card empty state: getEmptyStateCompanyCardsIllustration now returns {width: '100%', height: '100%'} on wide layouts so the illustration fills the inset panel edge-to-edge.
• Travel card height: the Travel feature card (GetStartedTravel and ReviewingRequest) omitted the fixed illustration-header height, so its band was shorter than other pages with the same pattern. Added styles.cardSectionIllustrationContainer (matching the reference used elsewhere, e.g. DomainSamlPage) so the header renders at the standard sectionIllustrationHeight (220) with the illustration centered.

Styling-only change; no logic or copy changes.

Fixed Issues

$
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Open a page with a big illustrated card header rendered by Section (e.g. Settings → Security → Copilot, or a workspace Company Cards / Expensify Card empty state).
2. Verify the illustration renders as an inset, rounded panel (12px margin from the card edges, rounded corners) rather than full-bleed.
3. Open Workspace → More Features → Travel (Get Started state).
4. Verify the Travel illustrated header is the same height as the illustrated headers on the other pages above (220px band, illustration centered).
5. Verify that no errors appear in the JS console.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Styling-only change; no offline-specific behavior.

QA Steps

Same as tests.

• 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

[shawnborton]

@dannymcclain @dubielzyk-expensify can you give this one a spin once the builds finish? Do we still want to do this? I think it is a nice little improvement!

[github-actions]

🚧 shawnborton has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/components/Section/index.tsx	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/pages/workspace/travel/GetStartedTravel.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/pages/workspace/travel/ReviewingRequest.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/styles/index.ts	63.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #98517.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-1157562-332de7c-102c841d74268c43cb9e52defeb5ef18ffba798e/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-1157562-332de7c-c553af62f30dfc0ce9c0bba7d22c303e9cf3ac01/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://98517.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[dubielzyk-expensify]

I like it. I don't feel super strongly about this one as to me it's not the slam dunk improvement. It's nice though, but I don't hate how it was either.