[sosek108]

Explanation of Change

This is PR 1 of a 10-PR stack decomposing the MoneyRequestReport list components (MoneyRequestReportActionsList / MoneyRequestReportTransactionList) into focused hooks and presentational sub-components.

Before any refactoring lands, this PR adds a Reassure performance test for MoneyRequestReportActionsList so every subsequent slice in the stack can be measured against a baseline:

Fixed Issues

$ #99919
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Run NODE_OPTIONS=--experimental-vm-modules npm run perf-test measure -- --testMatch '<rootDir>/tests/perf-test/MoneyRequestReportActionsList.perf-test.tsx'
2. Verify all 5 scenarios pass:
   • mount with 500 reportActions / 10 transactions
   • re-renders when an unrelated report receives new actions
   • re-render when a new report action arrives
   • re-renders when a transaction under the report changes
   • mount with 500 reportActions / 100 transactions

Note: CI does not run Reassure on this PR (reassurePerformanceTests.yml ignores tests/** and the regular Jest jobs exclude tests/perf-test/**), so here is the local run (10 runs each) this stack will baseline against:

Scenario	Mean renders	Mean duration
mount, 500 actions / 10 transactions	6	22.0 ms
unrelated report receives 5 new actions	20	86.2 ms
new report action arrives	12.1	70.9 ms
one transaction changes	12	72.1 ms
mount, 500 actions / 100 transactions	6	23.1 ms

Offline tests

N/A — test-only change, no production code touched.

QA Steps

None — automated perf test only, no production code touched.

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

[sosek108]

@MelvinBot review

[melvin-bot]

@Eskalifer1 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]

[Eskalifer1]

Hi @sosek108 let me know if you need my help here!

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: c3593a5e52

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically 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".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[MelvinBot]

Review

One blocking issue: ESLint fails — two unused eslint-disable-next-line no-await-in-loop directives. no-await-in-loop isn't enabled for tests, so the directives are dead and the "unused directive" rule errors on them. Reproduced locally and confirmed in the failing CI job:

189:13  error  Unused eslint-disable directive (no problems were reported from 'no-await-in-loop')
232:13  error  Unused eslint-disable directive (no problems were reported from 'no-await-in-loop')

Fix: delete both comments (:189, :232) or run npx eslint --fix on the file.

Worth fixing before merge

Nothing in CI runs this test on this PR. jest.config.js:13-19 excludes tests/perf-test/** from the normal test jobs, and reassurePerformanceTests.yml:6 has paths-ignore: [… tests/** …] — so a PR that touches only tests/ never triggers Reassure (there's no Reassure check on this PR). Since the whole point is to land a baseline the next 9 PRs measure against, please paste the local run output into the PR body. Otherwise a broken baseline first surfaces as a confusing Reassure failure on PR 2.

Test steps are stale. They say "Verify all 3 scenarios pass"; the file has 5 tests.

Nits

• The names should not re-render … and should scope re-renders … (:181, :213) promise assertions the file doesn't make — measureRenders only records counts, so nothing fails if the invariant regresses. Given these are the invariants the decomposition must preserve, consider a real render-count expect alongside the measurement, or rename to measure ….
• :100 total: 10000 * TRANSACTIONS_COUNT goes stale in the 100-transaction scenario (:230) — the report total still claims 10 transactions.
• :230-234: 90 sequential Onyx.set calls each trigger a full REPORT_TRANSACTIONS_AND_VIOLATIONS recompute. Onyx.multiSet would be one write and also removes the need for the loop-await.
• :116 as Transaction — tests/utils/collections/transaction.ts already has a factory that returns a fully-typed transaction.
• :44 hardcodes reportID: '1' while :34 defines REPORT_ID. jest.mock hoisting forces the literal, but the two can silently diverge — worth a comment.

What I verified as correct

• testID resolves. money-request-report-actions-list is rendered by MoneyRequestReportUnifiedList.tsx:339, so findByTestId isn't measuring a never-resolving promise.
• The seeded transactions actually render. They reach the component through the derived REPORT_TRANSACTIONS_AND_VIOLATIONS value, which groups purely on transaction.reportID (reportTransactionsAndViolations.ts:59) — no IOU report action needed, because the component passes includeOrphanedTransactions = true (MoneyRequestReportActionsList.tsx:148). This is also why the added initOnyxDerivedValues() call is load-bearing, and the comment explaining it is accurate.
• The Onyx.clear() in afterEach is safe despite initOnyxDerivedValues() running once in beforeAll — the derived config defines onReset to drop cross-compute state on cache clear.
• The unrelated-report scenario has a real premise. visibleReportActions rebuilds as {...currentValue} on every REPORT_ACTIONS delta (visibleReportActions.ts:63), so writing to report 999 genuinely changes the derived object identity app-wide. That's exactly the propagation the scenario is meant to catch.
• Conventions match the existing ReportActionsList.perf-test.tsx — same providers, same seeding, same comment style. The 4-minute timeout from tests/perf-test/setupAfterEnv.ts covers the heavier 100-transaction scenario.

I could not execute the perf test in this environment, so the findings above are static plus the ESLint run. The Check independent approval failure is just the standard new-PR gate, unrelated to the code.

---

view run

[mountiny]

Can you update/ add the test comments explaining the tests with Given, When, Then structure?

[sosek108]

Done, I've created Given, When, Then structure in each test

[sosek108]

Test failing is not ours

[sosek108]

@mountiny Kind bump on this simple PR

[mountiny]

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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[OSBotify]

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

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

[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