Skip to content

[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#104076 Add held: search operator to search operators article - #104641

Open
MelvinBot wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
claude-docsHeldSearchFilter
Open

[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#104076 Add held: search operator to search operators article#104641
MelvinBot wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
claude-docsHeldSearchFilter

Conversation

@MelvinBot

@MelvinBot MelvinBot commented Oct 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

[Payment due @situchan] Add Held search filter for expenses added a new Held filter for expenses. It is available in Spend > Expenses > Filters and as the held: search operator (held:yes / held:no). It isn't behind a beta.

New feature: the held: search operator.

This PR adds one row for held: to the expense operators table in Use Search Operators to Filter and Analyze, next to the matching billable: and reimbursable: rows. It also adds held filter and held expenses to the article keywords. No other content changed.

UI verification (dev NewDot web)
  • The Held filter appears immediately after Rejected in Spend > Expenses > Filters.
  • The Held filter options are Yes and No.
  • Typing held: in the search field suggests held:no and held:yes.
Filters list showing Held after Rejected Held filter with Yes and No options Search autocomplete showing held:no and held:yes

@c3024, please review the files changed and confirm they reflect the current behavior. Then post a new comment saying @MelvinBot mark this PR as ready for review.

Fixed Issues

$ #104076
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

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 verified any copy / text that was added to the app 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 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 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.
  • If the PR adds or modifies the UI:
    • I asked an AI agent to review the changes for accessibility issues and addressed its findings.
    • I tested with a screen reader (VoiceOver on macOS) and verified all new/changed elements are reachable with a logical focus order.
    • I verified all new/changed elements have meaningful accessible names and roles.
    • I verified state changes are announced (e.g. checked/unchecked, expanded/collapsed, selected).
  • 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

@MelvinBot
MelvinBot requested a review from a team October 21, 2026 20:23
@MelvinBot MelvinBot added the HelpDot Apply this label if the issue relates to ExpensifyHelp label Oct 21, 2026
@MelvinBot MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Oct 21, 2026
Merged
38 tasks done
@github-actions github-actions Bot changed the title Docs updates for E/A#104076 Add held: search operator to search operators article [No QA] Docs updates for E/A#104076 Add held: search operator to search operators article Oct 21, 2026
@OSBotify

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
c3024
c3024 approved these changes Oct 22, 2026
View reviewed changes

@c3024 c3024 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@c3024

c3024 commented Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@MelvinBot merge main branch into the PR and mark it as ready for review.

@MelvinBot
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into claude-docsHeldSearch…
0852562 
…Filter

Co-authored-by: Krishna Chaitanya <[email protected]>

# Conflicts:
#	docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md
@MelvinBot
MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review October 22, 2026 10:16
@MelvinBot

MelvinBot commented Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I merged main into this PR and marked it as ready for review.

The merge conflicted in the search operators article, and I kept both sides:

  • Keywords: the keyword list keeps main's rejected filter, declined and this PR's held filter, held expenses.
  • Expense operators table: the new held: row sits just above main's declined: row.

view run

@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Product 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?

cc @dylanexpensify

@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested a review from dylanexpensify October 22, 2026 10:16
@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 22, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-10-22T10:20:02.149132Z 0852562 Draft marked ready
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@dylanexpensify 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]

@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team October 22, 2026 10:16
@OSBotify

OSBotify commented Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://838e66bc.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment
This PR makes a small, surgical addition to Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md: one new row for the held: search operator in the expense operators table, plus two new keywords (held filter, held expenses). The change documents a real, non-beta feature and mirrors the existing boolean-operator rows (reimbursable:, billable:) exactly. No structural, heading, or navigation content was touched.

Scores Summary

  • Readability: 10/10 - The new row follows the established table pattern precisely: operator, a clear "Filter by whether an expense is on hold (yes or no)" description, and a concrete held:yes example. Phrasing is parallel to sibling rows.
  • AI Readiness: 9/10 - Keywords were expanded with realistic search phrases (held filter, held expenses), and internalScope already covers search operator syntax, so it remains accurate. The new operator value is UI-exact. No heading or metadata regressions.
  • Style Compliance: 10/10 - Operator and values use backticks consistent with the rest of the table, yes/no casing matches the sibling boolean operators, and "on hold" is lowercase generic wording. No prohibited navigation phrasing or UI-label violations introduced.

Key Findings

  • The new held: row is correctly positioned among the other boolean expense operators and is formatted identically to reimbursable: and billable:.
  • Keyword additions align with real user search intent and reinforce retrieval for the new filter.
  • The PR description confirms the feature is not behind a beta and documents UI verification, so the documentation matches current behavior.
  • Minor consistency note: the adjacent declined: row references the matching UI filter ("Matches the Rejected filter"). Since the PR description states this operator corresponds to a Held filter in Spend > Expenses > Filters, you could optionally mirror that pattern by noting it matches the Held filter. This is a nice-to-have, not a blocker.

Recommendations

  • Optional: add ". Matches the Held filter" to the description for parity with the declined: row and tighter UI alignment.
  • No required changes. The addition is accurate, consistent, and compliant.

Files Reviewed

  • docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md - One operator row and two keywords added. Clean and compliant.

Note: This is a focused summary review; the change set is a single table row and keyword addition.

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@dylanexpensify dylanexpensify dylanexpensify approved these changes
@stephanieelliott stephanieelliott Awaiting requested review from stephanieelliott stephanieelliott is a code owner
+1 more reviewer
@c3024 c3024 c3024 approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@c3024 c3024

Labels

HelpDot Apply this label if the issue relates to ExpensifyHelp

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@MelvinBot @OSBotify @c3024 @dylanexpensify