perf: improve perf of isActionOfType by limiting calls to includes by adhorodyski · Pull Request #46497 · Expensify/App

adhorodyski · 2024-07-30T12:54:53Z

Details

This PR limits the amount of calls to includes() as most of the time we're calling isActionOfType with a single actionName parameter to compare the input against.

In general (eg. on V8) there shouldn't be much of a difference between O(n) and O(1) here as the datasets are really small - it likely all boils down to Hermes' current implementation that runs slower (we can confirm this in real life by merging this atomic improvement).

In case of the latest Jason's trace, this function took ~400-600ms to execute as part of the taken workflow.
This PR aims to cut this combined computation time down to ~100ms providing a ~400-500ms gain for a larger account with lots of transactions.

Fixed Issues

$ #45528
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2024-07-30T15:51:02Z

@aldo-expensify 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]

allgandalf · 2024-07-30T16:05:23Z

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

Screen.Recording.2024-07-30.at.10.23.09.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-07-30.at.10.24.28.PM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-07-30.at.10.34.02.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-07-30.at.10.27.58.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-07-30.at.10.17.37.PM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-07-30.at.10.20.33.PM.mov

allgandalf

I approve off this PR, The functionality tests well on all platforms.

For testing the function where the current changes are made isActionOfType is used to check the action type when room description is updated:

App/src/libs/SidebarUtils.ts

Lines 426 to 427 in d2fdb27

    
           } else if (ReportActionsUtils.isActionOfType(lastAction, CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.ROOM_CHANGE_LOG.UPDATE_ROOM_DESCRIPTION)) { 
        
               result.alternateText = `${lastActorDisplayName} ${ReportActionsUtils.getUpdateRoomDescriptionMessage(lastAction)}`;

So for testing i used that action to check, this looks good to be shipped 🚀

melvin-bot · 2024-07-30T17:07:36Z

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

An E/App issue has been created to issue payment here: #46519.

aldo-expensify · 2024-07-30T17:32:34Z

src/libs/ReportActionsUtils.ts

+    // This is purely a performance optimization to limit the 'includes()' calls on Hermes
+    if (actionNames.length === 1) {
+        return actionNames[0] === actionName;
+    }
+
+    return actionNames.includes(actionName);


I'm unfamiliar with the includes performance issue on Hermes, but what about having done this instead:

Suggested change

// This is purely a performance optimization to limit the 'includes()' calls on Hermes

if (actionNames.length === 1) {

return actionNames[0] === actionName;

}

return actionNames.includes(actionName);

// This is purely a performance optimization to limit the 'includes()' calls on Hermes

for (let i = 0; i < actionNames.length; i++) {

if (actionNames[i] === actionName) {

return true;

}

}

return false;

if the objective is to avoid includes wouldn't this help for the case length === 1 but also for bigger arrays?
Also, should we add some linter rules to avoid includes?

@adhorodyski , can you please have a look at the suggestion, thanks :)

I'm checking in to benchmark all these on Hermes once again, also trying to reproduce the exact workload of ~50 calls to this function with different payloads that Jason has to hit in order to get the initial results.

Not sure if starting an iterator for all these will be for better or for worse, will come back here with numbers so we avoid the guess work.

My bottom line i that we should default to basic equality checks as ~60% of function calls to isActionOfType are eventually just x === y and this should be instant, though it now takes 6-15ms per call.
Just stripping down these 60% should save ~300ms of compute time for these 50 calls.

@aldo-expensify I think I have to step back with this 'includes is slow' statement, my bad! Diving deeper into this to test all the scenarios, please see the above ⬆️ comment.

Not sure if starting an iterator for all these will be for better or for worse, will come back here with numbers so we avoid the guess work.
My bottom line i that we should default to basic equality checks as ~60% of function calls to isActionOfType are eventually just x === y and this should be instant, though it now takes 6-15ms per call.
Just stripping down these 60% should save ~300ms of compute time for these 50 calls.

I'm not sure what you mean by "starting an iterator" here... are you referring to for (let i = 0; as an iterator? or some iterator created within includes.

I wouldn't expect the for loop with an index to be any slower that what you proposed in the PR, except that it should help for bigger arrays too instead of only the ones with length. Of course this is assuming that includes is really slower than using an index to check actionNames[0] === actionName (or any other index).

@allgandalf I'm currently involved in other initiatives, as this is purely a perf improvement are you ok with holding off for a few days? There's no rush with this change.

yeah no worries @adhorodyski , let me know when you come up with an update

@aldo-expensify you mentioned a liner rule to avoid includes - I don't think that'd be necessary, it really depends on the use case and I only see this being a bottleneck when called repeatedly over and over again.

Tested this out, and my take is:

go with a for () loop implementation, it's no slower & indeed can also help with 2+ items passed down

deploy this atomic improvement and double-check on Jason's account to see how it impacts the execution time for an account of this size on a production environment

expect a ~50-60% improvement as provided before

Just pushed an updated version.

@aldo-expensify for 👀

…r loop

OSBotify · 2024-08-07T16:59:21Z

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

OSBotify · 2024-08-07T22:12:15Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/aldo-expensify in version: 9.0.18-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-08-12T10:03:29Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.18-10 🚀

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

adhorodyski changed the title ~~fix: improve perf of isActionOfType by limiting calls to the includes~~ fix: improve perf of isActionOfType by limiting calls to includes Jul 30, 2024

adhorodyski marked this pull request as ready for review July 30, 2024 15:50

adhorodyski requested a review from a team as a code owner July 30, 2024 15:50

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team July 30, 2024 15:51

melvin-bot bot requested a review from aldo-expensify July 30, 2024 15:51

adhorodyski changed the title ~~fix: improve perf of isActionOfType by limiting calls to includes~~ perf: improve perf of isActionOfType by limiting calls to includes Jul 30, 2024

muttmuure added the External Added to denote the issue can be worked on by a contributor label Jul 30, 2024

muttmuure requested review from allgandalf and mkhutornyi and removed request for mkhutornyi July 30, 2024 15:58

allgandalf approved these changes Jul 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Jul 30, 2024

[$250] [HOLD for payment 2024-08-19] Payment issue for E/App PR#46497 #46519

Closed

aldo-expensify reviewed Jul 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

adhorodyski added 2 commits August 5, 2024 17:00

fix: improve perf of isActionOfType by limiting calls to the includes

de372e1

chore: rework the body of isActionOfType to always rely on a basic fo…

de7aec3

…r loop

adhorodyski force-pushed the fix/perf-is-action-of-type branch from f1d2200 to de7aec3 Compare August 5, 2024 15:20

aldo-expensify approved these changes Aug 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

aldo-expensify merged commit c73b1f8 into Expensify:main Aug 7, 2024

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Aug 7, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-08-07 #47006

Closed

88 tasks

adhorodyski deleted the fix/perf-is-action-of-type branch August 8, 2024 13:50

allgandalf mentioned this pull request Aug 16, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-08-14] [HOLD for payment 2024-08-09] Optimize frontend performance in most recent mode #45528

Closed

	} else if (ReportActionsUtils.isActionOfType(lastAction, CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.ROOM_CHANGE_LOG.UPDATE_ROOM_DESCRIPTION)) {
	result.alternateText = `${lastActorDisplayName} ${ReportActionsUtils.getUpdateRoomDescriptionMessage(lastAction)}`;

Conversation

adhorodyski commented Jul 30, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 30, 2024

Uh oh!

allgandalf commented Jul 30, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

allgandalf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 30, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 7, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 7, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 12, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

adhorodyski commented Jul 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

allgandalf commented Jul 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading