use derived values for report-specific transaction violations by zirgulis · Pull Request #67154 · Expensify/App

zirgulis · 2025-07-25T11:02:50Z

Explanation of Change

This PR optimizes performance by replacing direct Onyx collection queries for transaction violations with the existing useTransactionsAndViolationsForReport derived value hook in two components:

MoneyReportHeader: Previously fetched all transaction violations and manually filtered them for the specific report. Now uses the hook's violations directly, eliminating unnecessary data fetching and filtering logic.
DebugReportPage: Previously fetched all transaction violations for debugging purposes. Now uses report-specific violations since it has access to a specific reportID.

The changes maintain identical user-facing behavior while improving performance by leveraging the existing derived value system that was introduced in PR #65247.

Fixed Issues

$ #67166

Tests

Navigate to various money request reports and verify they load correctly
Open the MoneyReportHeader and verify all transaction data displays properly (amounts, violations, status indicators)
Navigate to a money request report with transaction violations and verify the violations are displayed correctly
Open the Debug > Report page for various reports and verify transaction violations are shown accurately
Test report actions like approving, submitting, and exporting to ensure no regressions
Navigate through the LHN and verify all reports display correctly with proper violation indicators
Create new expense reports and verify they appear correctly in both the report view and LHN
Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Go offline and navigate to previously loaded money request reports - verify cached transaction data displays correctly
While offline, navigate between different reports and verify transactions and violations show properly from cached data
Go back online and verify data syncs correctly without duplications or missing information

QA Steps

Same as above

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-07-25.at.16.28.11.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-07-25.at.16.23.16.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-07-25.at.16.34.55.mov

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2025-07-25T13:42:39Z

@truph01 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]

truph01 · 2025-07-28T03:00:07Z

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
- 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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
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 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.ts 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.
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

Screen.Recording.2025-08-12.at.03.52.30.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-08-12.at.03.44.40.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-08-12.at.03.47.44.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-08-12.at.03.45.33.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-08-12.at.03.38.30.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-08-12.at.03.47.00.mov

truph01 · 2025-07-28T10:19:45Z

src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx

+    const {transactions: reportTransactions, violations} = useTransactionsAndViolationsForReport(moneyRequestReport?.reportID);
+
+    const transactions = useMemo(() => {
+        return reportTransactionsSelector(reportTransactions, moneyRequestReport?.reportID);


Why do we need to use the reportTransactionsSelector here? It seems redundant, since reportTransactions from useTransactionsAndViolationsForReport is already filtered to include only the transactions relevant to the report.

@truph01 yeah in this case we don't need additional filtering, we already have the correct values. However we need to get the array version of it, I added the necessary changes, please have another look

truph01 · 2025-07-28T10:55:45Z

src/pages/Debug/Report/DebugReportPage.tsx

    const [reportActions] = useOnyx(`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_ACTIONS}${reportID}`, {canBeMissing: true});
    const [transactions] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION, {canBeMissing: true});
-    const [transactionViolations] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS, {canBeMissing: true});
+    const {violations: transactionViolations} = useTransactionsAndViolationsForReport(reportID);


Let's consider the case where the report is a policy expense chat that contains a few transactions with violations:

The transactionViolations object is used here:

App/src/pages/Debug/Report/DebugReportPage.tsx

Line 71 in 8039748

const shouldDisplayViolations = shouldDisplayViolationsRBRInLHN(report, transactionViolations);

Before our change: shouldDisplayViolations returns true because transactionViolations includes data for all transactions, regardless of report ID.

After our change: shouldDisplayViolations returns false because transactionViolations is now scoped and becomes an empty object for this report.

We should ensure that the value of shouldDisplayViolations remains unchanged before and after the change. If it does change, it may indicate a regression.

I agree, reverted this change

truph01 · 2025-07-28T11:36:13Z

@zirgulis could you merge main and check my two comments above?

zirgulis · 2025-07-30T18:06:31Z

@truph01 yes will do that on Friday since I'm currently OOO. Will ping you.

…to perf/report-transactions-derived-value-all-instances

mountiny · 2025-08-02T09:54:40Z

@zirgulis is this ready for another review and testing?

zirgulis · 2025-08-02T09:56:26Z

@zirgulis is this ready for another review and testing?

@mountiny yes it's ready to be reviewed again cc @truph01

truph01 · 2025-08-04T17:00:15Z

src/pages/home/report/ReportActionsList.tsx

    const [allReports] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT, {canBeMissing: false});
    const [policies] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY, {canBeMissing: true});
-    const [transactions] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION, {canBeMissing: true});
+    const {transactions} = useTransactionsAndViolationsForReport(report.reportID);


@zirgulis If the report is a self DM, the transactions object will be {}. As a result, the transaction at this line:

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionsList.tsx

Line 643 in bcf8dbb

const transaction = transactionID ? transactions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${transactionID}`] : undefined;

will be undefined when the action is a track expense. This is a regression, because on the latest main branch, the transaction data is not undefined in the same scenario.

@truph01 fixed here a6e8698

…to perf/report-transactions-derived-value-all-instances

mountiny · 2025-08-06T22:02:13Z

@truph01 ready again

truph01 · 2025-08-07T08:17:52Z

@zirgulis The selfDM case mentioned here is just an example illustrating a potential regression we might encounter. Could you help double-check for any other similar cases besides selfDM to ensure there’s no missing transaction data?

zirgulis · 2025-08-07T09:49:57Z

for any other similar cases besides selfDM to ensure there’s no missing transaction data?

@truph01 can you specify which cases?

mountiny · 2025-08-07T12:38:12Z

@truph01 for your interest, please leave full testing and reviews on PRs https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C02NK2DQWUX/p1752590021746689

truph01 · 2025-08-07T17:55:45Z

@truph01 can you specify which cases?

@zirgulis Here are the reproduction steps to demonstrate the issue:

Create a group chat with multiple members.
Open that group chat and create a split expense.
Compare the transaction data at the following line:

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionsList.tsx

Line 644 in daeff95

const transaction = transactionID ? transactions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${transactionID}`] : undefined;

Behavior differences:

In the latest main branch, the transaction data is correctly associated with the IOU action.
In this PR, the transaction data is undefined for the same action.

What I’m pointing out is that there may be additional edge cases—similar to the selfDM example—that we're not accounting for yet. We should only apply:

const {transactions} = useTransactionsAndViolationsForReport(report.reportID);

if we're confident that it correctly handles all possible cases. Otherwise, I recommend sticking with the current approach of subscribing to all transaction data. The key priority is ensuring the logic is reliable before we focus on performance improvements.

…to perf/report-transactions-derived-value-all-instances

zirgulis · 2025-08-11T09:42:22Z

@truph01 I had chat with @TMisiukiewicz regarding the derived values and we agreed that covering all the edge cases for ReportActionsList.tsx will increase the complexity of reportTransactionsAndViolations.ts by a lot but will not guarantee if we won't have any regressions. I reverted the change here 7cb8973

…to perf/report-transactions-derived-value-all-instances

truph01 · 2025-08-11T09:45:06Z

Thanks @zirgulis! Could you address the failed just unit tests?

zirgulis · 2025-08-11T10:12:41Z

@truph01 CI checks are 🟢

truph01 · 2025-08-11T10:43:44Z

I will finish checklist soon

mountiny

Thanks

OSBotify · 2025-08-12T18:04:08Z

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

github-actions · 2025-08-13T21:59:11Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.1.94-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-08-15T03:41:28Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.1.94-4 🚀

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

zirgulis force-pushed the perf/report-transactions-derived-value-all-instances branch 4 times, most recently from 992fb13 to 64c6b33 Compare July 25, 2025 12:43

use derived values for report-specific transaction violations

558409d

zirgulis force-pushed the perf/report-transactions-derived-value-all-instances branch from 64c6b33 to 558409d Compare July 25, 2025 12:46

mountiny mentioned this pull request Jul 25, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-08-22] [$250] Use derived values for report-specific transaction violations #67166

Closed

mountiny assigned zirgulis Jul 25, 2025

zirgulis marked this pull request as ready for review July 25, 2025 13:42

zirgulis requested a review from a team as a code owner July 25, 2025 13:42

melvin-bot bot requested review from truph01 and removed request for a team July 25, 2025 13:42

truph01 reviewed Jul 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

zirgulis added 3 commits August 1, 2025 11:46

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:callstack-internal/Expensify-App in…

8a6cc8f

…to perf/report-transactions-derived-value-all-instances

remove redundant selector

09ae42a

revert useTransactionsAndViolationsForReport

d696f36

zirgulis requested a review from truph01 August 2, 2025 10:08

truph01 reviewed Aug 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

zirgulis added 3 commits August 4, 2025 20:54

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:callstack-internal/Expensify-App in…

5bf772b

…to perf/report-transactions-derived-value-all-instances

fix derived values to include self-dm expenses

a6e8698

fix prettier

d01bb0b

zirgulis requested a review from truph01 August 6, 2025 10:28

zirgulis added 2 commits August 11, 2025 12:30

use entire transaction collection instead derived value

7cb8973

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:callstack-internal/Expensify-App in…

f4ab62d

…to perf/report-transactions-derived-value-all-instances

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:callstack-internal/Expensify-App in…

a0ef291

…to perf/report-transactions-derived-value-all-instances

truph01 approved these changes Aug 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from mountiny August 11, 2025 20:53

mountiny approved these changes Aug 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit e5bd70e into Expensify:main Aug 12, 2025
21 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Aug 13, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-08-13 #68475

Closed

64 tasks

mitarachim mentioned this pull request Aug 14, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-08-22] Expense - Expense row does not show any violation in Inbox #68490

Closed

8 tasks

Conversation

zirgulis commented Jul 25, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 25, 2025

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Jul 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

truph01 Jul 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zirgulis Aug 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

truph01 Jul 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Let's consider the case where the report is a policy expense chat that contains a few transactions with violations:

Uh oh!

zirgulis Aug 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Jul 28, 2025

Uh oh!

zirgulis commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Aug 2, 2025

Uh oh!

zirgulis commented Aug 2, 2025

Uh oh!

truph01 Aug 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zirgulis Aug 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Aug 6, 2025

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Aug 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

zirgulis commented Aug 7, 2025

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Aug 7, 2025

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Aug 7, 2025

Uh oh!

zirgulis commented Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

zirgulis commented Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 12, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Aug 13, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Aug 15, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

zirgulis commented Jul 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

truph01 commented Jul 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Let's consider the case where the `report` is a policy expense chat that contains a few transactions with violations:

truph01 commented Aug 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading