Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Fix #21022] Improve performance by reducing re-renders SidebarLinks #21406

Merged
merged 62 commits into from
Jul 19, 2023

Conversation

hannojg
Copy link
Contributor

@hannojg hannojg commented Jun 23, 2023

Details

Improve the performance by reducing unnecessary re-renders of the SidebarLinks component.

Fixed Issues

$ #21022
PROPOSAL: #21022 (comment)

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
  • Open a report, verify that the highlight of the items still work
  • Send a message from user A to user B and verify that the reports are resorting accordingly

Offline tests

n/a

QA Steps

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
  • Open a report, verify that the highlight of the items still work
  • Send a message from user A to user B and verify that the reports are resorting accordingly

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 / Chrome
    • iOS / native
    • iOS / 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
    • 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 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(themeColors.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 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web browser
Mobile Web - Chrome

mWeb-Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

ios_safari

Desktop desktop
iOS

ios

Android

android

@hannojg hannojg requested a review from a team as a code owner June 23, 2023 13:56
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team June 23, 2023 13:56
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jun 23, 2023

@fedirjh 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]

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from fedirjh June 23, 2023 13:56
@fedirjh
Copy link
Contributor

fedirjh commented Jun 23, 2023

cc @0xmiroslav It should have been assigned to you.

@0xmiros
Copy link
Contributor

0xmiros commented Jun 23, 2023

Sure, thanks for the reminder @fedirjh
@hannojg can you make sure that issue linked correctly?

This is common mistake which breaks github automation:

Bad:

$ #21022

Good:

$ https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/21022

src/components/LHNOptionsList/OptionRowLHN.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/libs/SidebarUtils.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/pages/home/sidebar/SidebarLinks.js Show resolved Hide resolved
src/pages/home/sidebar/SidebarLinks.js Show resolved Hide resolved
@0xmiros
Copy link
Contributor

0xmiros commented Jun 23, 2023

Please also update unit tests

@hannojg
Copy link
Contributor Author

hannojg commented Jun 26, 2023

How about css optimization?

Sorry, what do you mean by that @venture1981

@hannojg
Copy link
Contributor Author

hannojg commented Jun 26, 2023

@0xmiroslav I think I did it correctly, no?

Screenshot 2023-06-26 at 10 31 28

Also thx for the review, I wasn't pushing the latest changes 😅 now everything looks correct to me

@mountiny mountiny self-requested a review July 4, 2023 13:41
src/libs/ReportUtils.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

mountiny commented Jul 6, 2023

@hannojg could we get back to this one soon? thanks 🙇

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

mountiny commented Jul 7, 2023

@hannojg is this ready for review?

@hannojg
Copy link
Contributor Author

hannojg commented Jul 7, 2023

No not yet, sorry, the tests are still failing. Working on it right now

@hannojg
Copy link
Contributor Author

hannojg commented Jul 19, 2023

@mountiny is it possible that something broke during merge?

@0xmiroslav are you on the latest version of the perf branch?

@0xmiros
Copy link
Contributor

0xmiros commented Jul 19, 2023

Above video is from

  • latest main which merged this branch

vs

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.43-0 🚀

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

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

@hannojg it is possible

@jasperhuangg
Copy link
Contributor

jasperhuangg commented Jul 19, 2023

This PR has caused a regression:

#23189

@hannojg @fedirjh Lets be on a look out for deploy blockers tomorrow or after the next deploy. I know you have tested well but with such PRs its always tricky and high chance of something breaking would be great to have you around to follow up with a fix as reverting would be messy

@hannojg @fedirjh are you around to help fix this deploy blocker?

* @returns {Object}
*/
function getParentReportAction(report) {
function getParentReportAction(report, allReportActionsParam = {}) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This default is causing the deploy blocker here: #23202

If allReportActionsParam is not passed, it has value {} which is truthy, so we never use allReportActions. The allReportActionsParam || allReportActions doesn't work as intended.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thanks you for quickly fixing this!!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the fix

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.43-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.44-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 1.3.43-7 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 1.3.44-2 🚀

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

withOnyx({
chatReports: {
key: ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT,
selector: chatReportSelector,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This caused a "regression"? Without the use of the selector we used to pass the reports objects as is in Onyx. Then we mutated those objects here

// eslint-disable-next-line no-param-reassign
report.displayName = ReportUtils.getReportName(report);
by adding a displayName to each report. If you try to access report.displayName from anywhere in the App you'd be able to (because we modified the onyx data).

Now, we are using a selector and we are returning a copy of Onyx data, we are mutating a clone and not the onyx data. If we try to access report.displayName from anywhere outside the Sidebar we won't get a result which in turn caused this issue #23348.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wow great catch! But at the same time I have to say that how it was working before is very dirty and we should find a different solution for it 😅

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see that the proposal proposes a clean way, good job 💪

@Santhosh-Sellavel
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR Causes this regression more details here

@@ -253,6 +258,7 @@ describe('Sidebar', () => {
);
});

// NOTE: This is also for #focus mode, should we move this test block?
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not sure what the original intention here was. Maybe @tgolen can remember. This comment stuck out to me as pretty confusing and something we should fix.

context: Working on a PR and encountered a failing test with this title:

Sidebar › in default (most recent) mode › all combinations of isArchived, isUserCreatedPolicyRoom, hasAddWorkspaceError, isUnread, isPinned, hasDraft › the booleans true,false,false,true,false,false

But when I look at the lines of code it's referencing I see that we are not testing "most recent" but "focus" mode.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This test also confuses me if the intention is that we should be testing "Most recent" mode.

If we are trying to see that a report is in the "Most recent" list then most all reports will be in the list.

Or at least doesn't seem dependent on the arguments we are passing.

isArchived, isUserCreatedPolicyRoom, hasAddWorkspaceError, isUnread, isPinned, hasDraft

All of those will would show in "Most recent" (all other things about the report being "normal")

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok after reviewing the two blocks - I have determined they are identical and we should be able to remove this...

I don't think this was intended to be put here and it's not logical to test.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.