[Payment due @suneox] Treat invalid search status filter as if there is no filter at all

[jjcoffee]

Explanation of Change

Currently the backend can generate Search with queries that include an invalid status, specifically status:all which AgentZero/Concierge generates as part of it's Insight link (seen in the wild when it calls AnalyzeExpenses). This results in no expenses showing up at all, as App currently treats an invalid status filter as a rejection on every expense.

There is an active issue for changing the Concierge behaviour (since status:all doesn't exist as a filter), but for now and just as a general good practise it makes sense that App shouldn't treat an invalid status filter as a rejection for all expenses, but should rather mirror what we do in the backend which is to just ignore invalid filters and apply only valid ones.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/677859
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Same as QA steps.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA steps.

QA Steps

• Have a workspace with a few expenses from the past month

1. Open a Concierge chat and ask any question that will generate an Insight link, e.g. Show my top expenses from last month
2. There should be a table of transactions in Concierge's response.
3. Click the link (usually labelled Insight)
4. Verify that the same transactions show in the Search page that opens.

• 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

Screen.Recording.2026-09-02.at.14.42.45.mov

[jjcoffee]

The failing Jest test is not related to this PR and is already tracked in #100134.

[melvin-bot]

@suneox 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]

[jjcoffee]

Jest test is passing now!

[garrettmknight]

Looks good from a product perspective

[suneox]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: HybridApp
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: HybridApp
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (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 verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• 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.
• For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

CleanShot.2026-09-04.at.08.51.31.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

CleanShot.2026-09-04.at.08.51.31.1.mp4

iOS: HybridApp

CleanShot.2026-09-04.at.08.44.47.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

CleanShot.2026-09-04.at.08.44.47.1.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

CleanShot.2026-09-04.at.08.41.51.1.mp4

[suneox]

LGTM

[melvin-bot]

🎯 @suneox, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

A payment issue will be created for your review once this PR is deployed to production.
E/E issue linked to the PR - https://www.github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/677859.

If payment is not needed (e.g., regression PR review fix etc), react with 👎 to this comment to prevent the payment issue from being created.

[melvin-bot]

@TaduJR 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]

@marufsharifi 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]

[jjcoffee]

Oops sorry, ignore the pings @TaduJR and @marufsharifi!

[OSBotify]

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[github-actions]

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

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #100162.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-7908b72-1c13481-ede698d26d774d5b43680dac00667730b94e8279/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-7908b72-1c13481-ca9834eb2028ad74772a17a64f9edbcb8cea0f0f/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://100162.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/MariaHCD in version: 9.4.73-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	failure ❌

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Yes — help site changes are required. Draft PR: #100491

Why: Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md documents that an unrecognized operator is ignored, but says nothing about an unrecognized value. Your change makes that distinction matter: type:expense status:all used to return nothing and now returns everything.

What the docs PR changes:

1. New FAQ entry covering unsupported status: values — including the mixed case status:all,outstanding, where only the supported value applies.
2. Corrects the documented status value from draft to drafts in both the expense and report filter lists. drafts is the real value (CONST.SEARCH.STATUS.EXPENSE / EXPENSE_REPORT), and the article's own OR example already used status:drafts,outstanding. This matters more after your change: status:draft used to return zero results, and now silently returns all results.

Verification details

Code evidence: SearchUIUtils.ts:2209-2218 — isEligibleForStatus filters to valid statuses, returns true when none are valid, otherwise matches on the valid ones only. Valid expense statuses per CONST/index.ts:7441-7449: unreported, drafts, outstanding, approved, done, paid, deleted.

UI verified on web: the Spend tab and the Search icon in the top-right both match what the article already says, so the navigation steps needed no changes.

Two things I could not confirm on the live web session, so I did not write anything about them:

• The status: autocomplete list never rendered for me, so I sourced the valid values from CONST rather than from the UI suggestions.
• The test account has no expense data, so status:all and status:outstanding both returned the "No expenses yet" empty state. The behavior claim in the new FAQ rests on your unit tests in SearchUIUtilsTest.ts, not on a live run.

Not changed: deleted is a valid status in CONST but is undocumented in the article. That is pre-existing and unrelated to this PR, so I left it alone — flagging it in case it should be documented separately.

---

@jjcoffee, please review the linked help site PR and confirm it reflects the current behavior. Then mark the linked help site PR Ready for review

[melvin-bot]

🤖 Payment issue created: #100626

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.73-3 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android