Avoid unnecessary expensive call to getTransactionDetails by neil-marcellini · Pull Request #45529 · Expensify/App

neil-marcellini · 2024-07-16T21:35:25Z

Details

From this profile trace we can see that 36% of the time for getOrderedReportIDs is spent on getting these transaction details, specifically TransactionUtils.getFormattedCreated. However, that field not used within the getTransactionReportName function so it's a complete waste. Now we'll only extract the specific transaction fields that are needed, when they are needed. It should speed up ordering the LHN by about 36%.

Related Issues

#45528
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

N/A

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

No QA

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
- MacOS: Desktop
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 any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
- I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- 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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  - If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- 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)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
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)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
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.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
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

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2024-07-16T21:35:53Z

@grgia 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]

mkhutornyi · 2024-07-17T08:13:06Z

Shall I review this as C+?

adhorodyski · 2024-07-17T15:45:10Z

On this part:

...It should speed up ordering the LHN by about 36%.

I'd argue because we're making an assumption here that is not backed by any numbers yet.

Do you think you can provide some? Maybe we can ask Jason to record the very same workflow on an ad hoc build so we can benchmark few of these runs (as we don't yet have performance tests for this in place).

At the same time I'd love to have someone try benchmark this with Reassure as even local measurements should be enough to help us decide here. Do you think that'd be helpful?

adhorodyski · 2024-07-17T16:30:05Z

FYI In the meantime I'm working on a fix & explanation for this underlying problem.
We construct a huge amount of new instances of formatters, Intl.NumberFormat under the hood.
This is done in the @formatjs dependency (but on our end too just in other places).

If you know that calculating these in the first place doesn't make sense though, it's still valuable to pursue this update to the logic itself.

neil-marcellini · 2024-07-17T20:56:41Z

I'd argue because we're making an assumption here that is not backed by any numbers yet.

Yeah it's a bit of an assumption, but I'm not sure that really matters. In the provided screenshot we can see that getTransactionDetails took 36% of the time, of which getFormattedCreated was most of it, so if we remove the call to it then we should see about a 36% speed up.

Maybe we can ask Jason to record the very same workflow on an ad hoc build so we can benchmark few of these runs (as we don't yet have performance tests for this in place).

At the same time I'd love to have someone try benchmark this with Reassure as even local measurements should be enough to help us decide here. Do you think that'd be helpful?

Yeah we could do that, but what problem does it solve? What are we trying to decide?

If you know that calculating these in the first place doesn't make sense though, it's still valuable to pursue this update to the logic itself.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking with this PR. Removing unnecessary computation seems like a no brainer and I don't think we need to measure it carefully right now.

neil-marcellini · 2024-07-17T20:58:05Z

Shall I review this as C+?

Thanks for offering, but I don't think we really need a C+ review / testing for this particular PR.

adhorodyski · 2024-07-18T09:28:26Z

Maybe we can ask Jason to record the very same workflow on an ad hoc build so we can benchmark few of these runs (as we don't yet have performance tests for this in place).

Yeah we could do that, but what problem does it solve? What are we trying to decide?

Oh just wanted to get a basic confirmation before we roll this to everyone.
Such a change not only improves this case, but also alters the general call stack and we might discover something else, maybe weird that we didn't intend to push out (there might be another bottleneck behind the swapped if checks that are being called).

grgia

Changes LGTM, minor comments

grgia · 2024-07-18T13:25:55Z

    return Localize.translateLocal(translationKey, {
        formattedAmount,
-        comment: transactionDetails?.comment ?? '',
+        comment: TransactionUtils.getDescription(transaction) ?? '',


NAB, should this be called TransactionUtils.getComment?

I guess description works for now since we are calling it like this in App

grgia · 2024-07-18T13:33:48Z

+    const comment = (!TransactionUtils.isMerchantMissing(transaction) ? TransactionUtils.getMerchant(transaction) : TransactionUtils.getDescription(transaction)) ?? '';
    if (ReportActionsUtils.isTrackExpenseAction(reportAction)) {
        return Localize.translateLocal('iou.threadTrackReportName', {formattedAmount, comment});
    }


should we also move this block up?

can we? it relies on the formattedAmount and comment being defined 🤔

Lets explore this later if its possible?

kacper-mikolajczak · 2024-07-19T12:23:23Z

Awesome tweak, thanks @neil-marcellini!

As @adhorodyski mentioned, we will target underlying issue in further perspective and this is a great starting point to mitigate negative impact entirely 🙇

Q: Apart from mentioned getTransactionReportName, the modifications seem to be related to ReportUtils only. How would you like the scope of this PR to be?

adhorodyski · 2024-07-19T13:57:46Z

@neil-marcellini a little update from my end, nothing new though:

your solution is exactly what needs to be done here, simply avoiding TransactionUtils.getFormattedCreated will solve it for us
trying to solve why https://github.com/marnusw/date-fns-tz/blob/00b48b2cd4505a69203aac5734773114bce13204/src/_lib/tzTokenizeDate/index.ts#L59 does not fallback to cached values might be our another option, but only after (if) we can confirm this PR is not enough, otherwise I don't think there's value in spending time even debugging this

100% for merging this PR asap ✅

mountiny · 2024-07-19T19:14:04Z

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 tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
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 any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
- I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- 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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- 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)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
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)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- 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
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- 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 any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
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.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
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: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

mountiny

Moving this ahead given this should be a noticeable improvement in the App

mountiny · 2024-07-19T19:15:31Z

+    const comment = (!TransactionUtils.isMerchantMissing(transaction) ? TransactionUtils.getMerchant(transaction) : TransactionUtils.getDescription(transaction)) ?? '';
    if (ReportActionsUtils.isTrackExpenseAction(reportAction)) {
        return Localize.translateLocal('iou.threadTrackReportName', {formattedAmount, comment});
    }


Lets explore this later if its possible?

mountiny · 2024-07-19T19:16:25Z

    return Localize.translateLocal(translationKey, {
        formattedAmount,
-        comment: transactionDetails?.comment ?? '',
+        comment: TransactionUtils.getDescription(transaction) ?? '',


I guess description works for now since we are calling it like this in App

OSBotify · 2024-07-19T20:14:06Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.10-2 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-07-22T13:36:22Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.10-3 🚀

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

@Expensify/applauseleads please QA this PR and check it off on the deploy checklist if it passes.

OSBotify · 2024-07-23T08:04:22Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.10-7 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-07-25T03:15:36Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.0.11-5 🚀

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

Avoid unnecessary expensive call to getTransactionDetails

2d012da

neil-marcellini self-assigned this Jul 16, 2024

neil-marcellini requested a review from a team as a code owner July 16, 2024 21:35

melvin-bot Bot requested review from grgia and removed request for a team July 16, 2024 21:35

neil-marcellini added 3 commits July 16, 2024 14:52

Remove more inefficient calls to getTransactionDetails

f2a450d

Fix ghToken arg name in prompt

e99e114

Update other ghToken arg prompt

59c7221

hannojg reviewed Jul 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread scripts/symbolicate-profile.ts Resolved

neil-marcellini requested a review from hannojg July 17, 2024 20:57

grgia approved these changes Jul 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

mountiny approved these changes Jul 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit 3951e36 into main Jul 19, 2024

mountiny deleted the neil-getTransactionReportName-optimize branch July 19, 2024 19:17

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Jul 19, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-07-19 #45794

Closed

Conversation

neil-marcellini commented Jul 16, 2024

Details

Related Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 16, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mkhutornyi commented Jul 17, 2024

Uh oh!

adhorodyski commented Jul 17, 2024

Uh oh!

adhorodyski commented Jul 17, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

neil-marcellini commented Jul 17, 2024

Uh oh!

neil-marcellini commented Jul 17, 2024

Uh oh!

adhorodyski commented Jul 18, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

grgia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

grgia Jul 18, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny Jul 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

grgia Jul 18, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

adhorodyski Jul 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny Jul 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kacper-mikolajczak commented Jul 19, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

adhorodyski commented Jul 19, 2024

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Jul 19, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny Jul 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny Jul 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 19, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 22, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 23, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 25, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

adhorodyski commented Jul 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

adhorodyski commented Jul 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

kacper-mikolajczak commented Jul 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mountiny commented Jul 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading