perf: transactions and violations by reports derived value

[TMisiukiewicz]

Explanation of Change

Creating a derived value which holds all transactions and transaction violations related to given reports.

Tested on iOS, navigating from Create expense -> Report screen:
Before: 7.5s
After: 5.9s

=== 📁 Trace File Analysis ===

📄 File: profiling-before.json
  • Commit count: 26
  • Total render duration: 5393.584 ms
  • p50 / p95 / p99 (ms):
    • p50: 45.585 ms
    • p95: 763.715 ms
    • p99: 2012.796 ms

📄 File: profiling-after.json
  • Commit count: 25
  • Total render duration: 4896.938 ms
  • p50 / p95 / p99 (ms):
    • p50: 47.897 ms
    • p95: 740.201 ms
    • p99: 1627.603 ms

=== 📊 Trace Comparison ===

🔁 Comparing: profiling-before.json ↔️ profiling-after.json
  🟢 Duration Diff: -496.646 ms
  🟢 Commit Count Diff: -1

Fixed Issues

$ #64163
$ #63436
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Create new account
2. Go to Workspaces and new workspace
3. Go back to LHN
4. Open FAB and select Create Expense
5. Create manual expense
6. Verify you are navigated to the Expenses report and the transaction is visible in the chat
7. Press + and select Create expense
8. Go to Scan and select Image from gallery that won't pass the scan
9. Create expense
10. Verify you are navigated to the Expenses report and the transaction is visible in the chat
11. Wait until the scan is resolved
12. Verify the transaction violation for this report is displayed

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

n/a

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."
Same as tests

• 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.
• 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.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

ios.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-web.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

[adhorodyski]

let's not default to a new object on each render

[adhorodyski]

same here, default of {}

[roryabraham]

@TMisiukiewicz you've got conflicts

[TMisiukiewicz]

conflicts resolved ✅

[roryabraham]

sorry @TMisiukiewicz, you've got conflicts again

[TMisiukiewicz]

resolved 😭

[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.

[Pujan92]

@TMisiukiewicz I see the expense(create, delete) isn't reflected in real-time for the other user. Can you plz test that once?

It seems to be bcoz PureReportActionItem won't rerender on transactionsAndViolationsByReport change as that comparison(specific report transactionsAndViolationsByReport) may be required in the memo function.

Screen.Recording.2025-06-26.at.13.36.49.mov

[Pujan92]

As we make it optional and we aren't passing it for the Reports Tab -> Chats(SearchList -> ChatListItem -> ReportActionItem), the money request report view will be incorrect.

[luacmartins]

FYI we're reverting this PR because it broke reactivity on the MoneyRequestView page. Whenever we split a transaction, we kept the original transaction in the view, even though the reportID is updated to -2

Steps to reproduce:

1. Scan a receipt
2. Wait for smartscan to finish
3. Select More > Split
4. Split expenses
5. Verify that the original transaction is gone

[TMisiukiewicz]

@Pujan92 @luacmartins thanks for your findings, I'll work on the improved solution

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.1.72-0 🚀

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

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.1.72-0 🚀

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

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.1.72-10 🚀

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