Docs updates for E/A#101554 Search error states and invalid operator FAQ

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help-site follow-up to [CP Staging] Search error state, distinguish stale search results from a real request failure, which splits the Search error view into three distinct states.

The FAQ answer for What happens if I enter an invalid operator? in Use Search Operators to Filter and Analyze said the system ignores an unrecognized operator and returns results from the valid parts of the query. That is not what happens: an unrecognized operator or value is rejected outright and the results are replaced by an error page. That answer was already wrong before PR #101554 and would have stayed wrong after it, so it is corrected here.

This PR also adds a ## How to troubleshoot search operator errors in Expensify section covering all three states a search can end in, because after PR #101554 they are no longer interchangeable and a member needs to know which one requires fixing the query and which one requires running the search again:

• Oops... Something went wrong / That search isn't valid. Try adjusting your search criteria. — the query was rejected, no retry button is offered.
• Oops... Something went wrong / Your request could not be completed. Please try again later. — the search failed, Try again reruns it.
• Refresh needed / This page is out of date, refresh to see the latest — the server was unreachable, Refresh reloads the results.

Every message, button, and toggle label above was read off the running app on the PR #101554 branch rather than from the source, per the naming conventions in docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md. The article follows docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md: one # title plus # FAQ, all content under ##, and the new heading starts with "How to". npm run spell-changed passes.

A screenshot placeholder is included as an HTML comment for the first state, since members most often mistake it for an empty result set.

Verified UI states

Fixed Issues

$
PROPOSAL:

No issue was filed for this docs update. It was requested on [CP Staging] Search error state, distinguish stale search results from a real request failure.

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 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

---

@LukasMod, 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.