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

[Audit][Implementation] - Memoize SidebarLinksData #37205

Conversation

rinej
Copy link
Contributor

@rinej rinej commented Feb 26, 2024

Details

Part of Callstack Performance Audit

The PR memoizes the SidebarLinksData, with that we can reduce calls getOrderedReportIDs.

TTI of App startup:
Baseline -> 24703ms

After memo -> 22899ms

Gain -> 1804ms

Here are the hermes traces, as you can see after memoizing the component function getOrderedReportID is called 3 times instead of 5

Baseline:
baseline

With memo:
with-memo

Fixed Issues

$ #38055
PROPOSAL: #35234 (comment)

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

  • Open app
  • Open report
  • Switch to another report
  • Verify that chats are displaying correctly

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 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 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 form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label 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.
  • 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.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
And-web.mp4
iOS: Native
iOS.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
iOS-web.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Web.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
Desk.mp4

activeWorkspaceID,
policyMemberAccountIDs,
);
const reportIDs = optionItemsMemoized;

if (deepEqual(reportIDsRef.current, reportIDs)) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this additional layer still valid?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We have a comment just below which explains about updating the reportIDsRef. But I think it's not adding any value 🤔 We might try to remove this layer altogether and see if it's not producing any weird output.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here is the comment for this layer:

// 1. We need to update existing reports only once while loading because they are updated several times during loading and causes this regression: https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/24596#issuecomment-1681679531
// 2. If the user is offline, we need to update the reports unconditionally, since the loading of report data might be stuck in this case.
// 3. Changing priority mode to Most Recent will call OpenApp. If there is an existing reports and the priority mode is updated, we want to immediately update the list instead of waiting the OpenApp request to complete

It is fixing some regression or bug form the past, I didn't want to mess with it and kept it as it was

@@ -334,4 +330,22 @@ export default compose(
initialValue: {},
},
}),
)(SidebarLinksData);
)(
memo(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Based on how this looks like it'd be worth to comment it well in code - what these checks represent, why we need them so that it's easier to remove this once we solve the root cause later on.

@rinej
Copy link
Contributor Author

rinej commented Mar 12, 2024

We are holding this off until we complete the remaining audit implementations because as of now, we have the following results from this PR and we are not yet sure whether we prefer the extra render without memo or increased rendering time with memo. We will evaluate this after all the audit action items are completed.

Here are the renders times:

with memo:

  • 126ms
  • 4ms

without memo:

  • 61ms
  • 37ms
  • 5ms

@mountiny mountiny changed the title [Audit][Implementation] - Memoize SidebarLinksData [HOLD other Audit] [Audit][Implementation] - Memoize SidebarLinksData Mar 12, 2024
@rinej
Copy link
Contributor Author

rinej commented Mar 22, 2024

After finishing the remaining part of audit implementation we did the measures again.
TTI of App startup:
Baseline -> 24703ms

After memo -> 22899ms

Gain -> 1804ms

with memoizing that component we can get around ~2s on app startup on heavy account. Please see for details and hermes traces on the PR description.

@rinej rinej marked this pull request as ready for review March 25, 2024 11:45
@rinej rinej requested a review from a team as a code owner March 25, 2024 11:45
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team March 25, 2024 11:45
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 25, 2024

@Santhosh-Sellavel 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]

Comment on lines +341 to +355
(prevProps, nextProps) =>
_.isEqual(prevProps.chatReports, nextProps.chatReports) &&
_.isEqual(prevProps.allReportActions, nextProps.allReportActions) &&
prevProps.isLoadingApp === nextProps.isLoadingApp &&
prevProps.priorityMode === nextProps.priorityMode &&
_.isEqual(prevProps.betas, nextProps.betas) &&
_.isEqual(prevProps.policies, nextProps.policies) &&
prevProps.network.isOffline === nextProps.network.isOffline &&
_.isEqual(prevProps.insets, nextProps.insets) &&
prevProps.onLinkClick === nextProps.onLinkClick &&
_.isEqual(prevProps.policyMembers, nextProps.policyMembers) &&
_.isEqual(prevProps.transactionViolations, nextProps.transactionViolations) &&
_.isEqual(prevProps.currentUserPersonalDetails, nextProps.currentUserPersonalDetails) &&
prevProps.currentReportID === nextProps.currentReportID,
),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How can we make sure there is no condition missing in the memo for the SidebarLinksData? Last time we added memo like this with @hurali97 there was bunch of props cases we missed and they caused regressions.

Did we add all the props here?

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 added all the props that are coming to this component, also I noticed that when I missed some of them e.g. currentReportId or currentUserPersonalDetails the jest tests failed - it might be the indicator if we miss some props

@mountiny mountiny changed the title [HOLD other Audit] [Audit][Implementation] - Memoize SidebarLinksData [Audit][Implementation] - Memoize SidebarLinksData Mar 25, 2024
@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

@Santhosh-Sellavel are you able to test this one today?

@Santhosh-Sellavel
Copy link
Collaborator

@mountiny I guess not please reassign.

@mountiny mountiny requested review from c3024 and removed request for Santhosh-Sellavel March 25, 2024 22:42
@c3024
Copy link
Contributor

c3024 commented Mar 25, 2024

App crashing with following steps

  1. Click on Avatar -> Workspaces > Create a workspace
  2. Go back with clicking on back chevron
  3. Click on the bottom left chat icon to switch to LHN
  4. App crashes
crashSideBar.mp4

Edit: Merging main fixed this.

@c3024
Copy link
Contributor

c3024 commented Mar 26, 2024

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 tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • 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 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 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
    • 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.js 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.
  • 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: Native
sideBarPerfAndroid.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
sideBarPerfAndroidmWeb.mp4
iOS: Native
sideBarPerfiOS.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
sideBarPerfiOSmWeb.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
sideBarPerfChrome.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
sideBarPerfDesktop.mp4

Copy link
Contributor

@c3024 c3024 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from mountiny March 26, 2024 02:12
Copy link
Contributor

@mountiny mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changes look straight forward, thank you @rinej and @c3024 for testing

@mountiny mountiny merged commit 78e8d27 into Expensify:main Mar 26, 2024
21 of 27 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

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

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.

7 participants