Remove runAfterInteractions on handlePreexistingReport

[s77rt]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #74364
PROPOSAL:

Tests

• Have default workspace with disabled auto reporting (disabled submission frequency)

1. Click on FAB > Create Expense
2. Verify the target report is set to None
3. Create expense
4. Verify the expense have been created in your selfDM
5. Note the selfDM report ID
6. Overwrite chatReport with null

   App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

   Line 3965 in 74c3c35

   chatReport = allReports?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${findSelfDMReportID()}`] ?? null;

7. Repeat steps 1-3
8. Verify the expense has been created in a new optimistic selfDM
9. Verify you are redirected to your original selfDM once request is completed

Screen.Recording.2025-11-05.at.7.43.29.PM.mov

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

n/a

QA Steps

• Have default workspace with disabled auto reporting (disabled submission frequency)

1. Click on FAB > Create Expense
2. Verify the target report is set to None
3. Create expense
4. Verify the expense have been created in your selfDM

• 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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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 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 used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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.ts 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 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.
• 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: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[melvin-bot]

@suneox 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]

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts	75.08% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
src/libs/Navigation/Navigation.ts	57.57% <0.00%> (+0.21%)	⬆️
... and 8 files with indirect coverage changes

[mountiny]

Thanks for that, @TMisiukiewicz Is there a way we could try to measure a diff in the performance here maybe using the applause tester account compared to main/ staging?

[github-actions]

🚧 @mountiny has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #74370.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/android/74370/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/74370/index.html

Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/74370/NewExpensify.dmg	https://74370.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[mountiny]

@s77rt Can you please fix conflicts?

[s77rt]

Resolved

[mountiny]

@suneox can you please do the checklist here?

[trjExpensify]

PR doesn’t need product input as a code clean-up PR. Unassigning and unsubscribing myself.

[TMisiukiewicz]

Thank you for handling this!

[war-in]

[nitpick] We already have this check in handlePreexistingReport so I'm not sure if we should do that here

[s77rt]

True, just because this is done in a loop I thought it may be better to do this early check here to avoid the function call? Not sure how effective in terms of performance this is

[war-in]

probably doesn't matter, but you're right we can leave that 👌

[mountiny]

Could you add a comment to make it clear why we do it here too?

[war-in]

I think this change is too much for us at the scope of this PR 🤔 dismissModalWithReport is used in many places so this removal should be tested much better on slower devices too (or with CPU throotling on)

[war-in]

@s77rt is this change necessary to fix the issue?

cc @TMisiukiewicz

[s77rt]

Yes it's necessary, see #74364 (comment) and other comments.

TL:DR: This code was used to fix a bug that's no longer reproducible. It's necessary to remove it because that added delay is what had us add this delay in the first place (chain effect)

[war-in]

Ok, I can confirm the removal of that InteractionManager doesn't break the current functionality, it works faster but looks a bit differently

4x CPU throttling

• with InteractionManager

Screen.Recording.2025-11-06.at.13.14.46.mov

• without InteractionManager

Screen.Recording.2025-11-06.at.13.12.20.mov

[war-in]

It looks much better without throttling though

• with InteractionManager

Screen.Recording.2025-11-06.at.13.21.29.mov

• withoutInteractionManager

Screen.Recording.2025-11-06.at.13.20.07.mov

[war-in]

@mountiny I think we need your (or maybe design team) blessing on this change

[mountiny]

How does it look on narrow/ mobile view? cc @Expensify/design

[war-in]

The flow is web-only. We have this condition for narrow layout few lines above

[mountiny]

I do think it is better and more in-line with out style that it first animates to close the RHP before we navigate away. How can we keep that without introducing the perf regression

[mountiny]

Discussed with @war-in That this is not that simple to get around to make sure the navigation events happen in the proper order. So I tend to accept the state without waiting for the animation now given the performance gains are really noticeable and work on ways to achieve the nice ux animations in a fast follow up.

So that would mean we will have this experiencing when dismissing the modal and navigating in wide web or desktop
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/569714f5-ea55-4658-a4e3-6d4a99ef2c5d

[mountiny]

Discussing here https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C08CZDJFJ77/p1762354238469329

[s77rt]

Closing in favor #74567