[No QA] Refactor TransactionDraft selectors into dedicated hooks by TMisiukiewicz · Pull Request #82790 · Expensify/App

TMisiukiewicz · 2026-02-18T12:49:14Z

Explanation of Change

Removed the TransactionDraft.ts selector file and replaced its three selector functions with two dedicated hooks: useTransactionDraftValues and useTransactionDraftReceipts. The receipts hook uses a single-pass reduce instead of the previous map + filter chain for better efficiency. All consumers (useOptimisticDraftTransactions, MoneyRequestParticipantsSelector, ReceiptPreviews, ReceiptView) now call these hooks directly, eliminating the need to wire up useOnyx with a selector at every call site. Unit tests were added for both new hooks.

Fixed Issues

$ #82645
PROPOSAL:

Tests

No tests needed - just a refactor

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Same as tests

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

melvin-bot · 2026-02-18T17:10:25Z

Hey, I noticed you changed src/languages/en.ts in a PR from a fork. For security reasons, translations are not generated automatically for PRs from forks.

If you want to automatically generate translations for other locales, an Expensify employee will have to:

Look at the code and make sure there are no malicious changes.
Run the Generate static translations GitHub workflow. If you have write access and the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

Alternatively, if you are an external contributor, you can run the translation script locally with your own OpenAI API key. To learn more, try running:

npx ts-node ./scripts/generateTranslations.ts --help

Typically, you'd want to translate only what you changed by running npx ts-node ./scripts/generateTranslations.ts --compare-ref main

codecov · 2026-02-18T17:20:28Z

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/hooks/useOptimisticDraftTransactions.ts	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
src/hooks/useTransactionDraftReceipts.ts	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
src/hooks/useTransactionDraftValues.ts	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
.../step/IOURequestStepScan/ReceiptPreviews/index.tsx	`93.54% <100.00%> (-0.57%)`	⬇️
...uest/step/IOURequestStepScan/ReceiptView/index.tsx	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
...s/iou/request/MoneyRequestParticipantsSelector.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 22 files with indirect coverage changes

melvin-bot · 2026-02-19T13:58:23Z

@brunovjk 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]

github-actions · 2026-02-19T14:34:50Z

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

joekaufmanexpensify · 2026-02-19T14:46:55Z

No product review needed

brunovjk · 2026-02-19T15:09:25Z

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
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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

brunovjk · 2026-02-19T15:33:32Z

Everything is looking good, but I have a question @TMisiukiewicz: are we not violating the PERF-11 rule by not using selectors inside these hooks? Or am I missing something? Thank you.

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 71ca6ab3a9

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

src/hooks/useTransactionDraftReceipts.ts

TMisiukiewicz · 2026-02-20T14:14:07Z

@brunovjk both selectors subscribe to a collection without a selector and transform inline, which is the exact correct pattern per PERF-11. If it was a selector, it would make things worse - Onyx would use deepEqual on the entire output on every update, which is expensive with no re-render benefit.

brunovjk · 2026-02-20T14:33:48Z

@brunovjk both selectors subscribe to a collection without a selector and transform inline, which is the exact correct pattern per PERF-11. If it was a selector, it would make things worse - Onyx would use deepEqual on the entire output on every update, which is expensive with no re-render benefit.

Great! Thank you for clarifying

mountiny · 2026-02-20T14:47:09Z

src/hooks/useTransactionDraftValues.ts

+function useTransactionDraftValues(): Array<Transaction | null | undefined> {
+    const [drafts] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_DRAFT, {canBeMissing: true});
+
+    return Object.values(drafts ?? {});
+}


I think this muddies not quite a lot the sort of guidance for when and where to use the selectors or not. do you have some clear guidance shaping up now based on your measurements?

github-actions · 2026-02-20T14:54:11Z

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

github-actions · 2026-02-20T14:58:07Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #82790.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-1b89a79-ff072f6-cf3d76cc65b828b994325f02aa8f9b4e3de5f620/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-1b89a79-ff072f6-af0ca75e0b7636dd5fbf79b4a39dbafa02cc374a/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://82790.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-02-20T15:01:05Z

✋ 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 · 2026-02-20T16:43:52Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.3.24-1 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-02-23T21:45:34Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.3.24-3 🚀

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

melvin-bot bot assigned TMisiukiewicz Feb 18, 2026

TMisiukiewicz added 5 commits February 19, 2026 13:57

Refactor TransactionDraft selectors into dedicated hooks

2143c0b

fix lint: use .at() for array access in tests

9facda2

fix TS: cast receipts to Attachment[] for AttachmentCarouselView

6958450

prettier

725362d

fix flaky split test in useSelectedTransactionsActions

79cf84c

TMisiukiewicz force-pushed the refactor/transaction-draft-hooks branch from 203fbd7 to 79cf84c Compare February 19, 2026 12:59

TMisiukiewicz added 2 commits February 19, 2026 14:02

fix: use relative import in useOptimisticDraftTransactions

54b2713

fix: correct import order in useOptimisticDraftTransactions

71ca6ab

TMisiukiewicz marked this pull request as ready for review February 19, 2026 13:58

TMisiukiewicz requested review from a team as code owners February 19, 2026 13:58

melvin-bot bot requested review from brunovjk and joekaufmanexpensify and removed request for a team February 19, 2026 13:58

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team February 19, 2026 13:58

mountiny self-requested a review February 19, 2026 14:32

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

joekaufmanexpensify removed their request for review February 19, 2026 14:47

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Feb 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/hooks/useTransactionDraftReceipts.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

brunovjk approved these changes Feb 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

mountiny approved these changes Feb 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit 1b89a79 into Expensify:main Feb 20, 2026
33 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Feb 20, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-02-20 #83077

Closed

67 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Feb 23, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-03-02] [Due for payment 2026-02-27] [Due for payment 2026-02-26] Audit violations of PERF-11 rule #82645

Closed

Conversation

TMisiukiewicz commented Feb 18, 2026 • 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 Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Feb 18, 2026 • edited by github-actions bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 19, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 19, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

joekaufmanexpensify commented Feb 19, 2026

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Feb 19, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Feb 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

TMisiukiewicz commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

mountiny Feb 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

TMisiukiewicz commented Feb 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Feb 18, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

brunovjk commented Feb 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading