[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Updates the help site for Deprecate Year to date in favor of This year.

That PR removed Year to date from the date picker and replaced it with This year. Searches that still use date:year-to-date are now rewritten to date:this-year and cover the whole year.

Article updated: Use Search Operators to Filter and Analyze

Sentence that was incorrect (in the "How to build reports using search operators" examples):

Spend over time (line chart)
type:expense group-by:month date:year-to-date view:line

What changed: The example now uses date:this-year, the value that replaced the deprecated year-to-date preset.

@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

$ #104074
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

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://f2e481d8.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze

[c3024]

@MelvinBot mark this PR as ready for review

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Done. This PR is now marked as ready for review.

---

view run

[melvin-bot]

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 @joekaufmanexpensify

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

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

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-03T09:00:50.870878Z	d8278e4	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.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment
This PR makes a single, surgical change to the "Spend over time (line chart)" example in the "How to build reports using search operators" section, swapping the date operator value from date:year-to-date to date:this-year. This aligns the documented example with a valid or preferred search operator value. The change is confined to a code snippet and introduces no prose, heading, metadata, or navigation changes.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 10/10 - The change is inside an inline code snippet in a well-formatted bulleted example list. Clarity, flow, and scannability are unaffected and remain strong.
• AI Readiness: 10/10 - No impact on headings, metadata, or hierarchy. Using an accurate, canonical operator value (this-year) improves the example correctness for retrieval. The surrounding task-based heading remains intact.
• Style Compliance: 10/10 - The edited value is a literal search operator string, matching the deterministic, exact-value approach the governance files require. No UI terminology, button, tab, or navigation conventions are touched.

Key Findings

• The diff is a one-token change within a code example; it correctly updates only the proposed line and leaves all governance-compliant structure intact.
• The example list is consistently formatted and the change preserves that consistency.
• No issues found. The change is low-risk and improves example accuracy.

Recommendations

• No changes required. Confirm date:this-year is the intended canonical operator value per the underlying feature (E/A 104074), which the PR title indicates it is.

Files Reviewed

• Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md - Approved. Single code-example value update; fully compliant with HelpDot governance.

Note: No inline comments were necessary given the minimal, compliant scope of this change.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

good for product