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

perf: Filter options in Request Money and Send Money #40235

Conversation

TMisiukiewicz
Copy link
Contributor

@TMisiukiewicz TMisiukiewicz commented Apr 15, 2024

Details

This is the continuation of moving from getSearchText to filtering the lists. Here we are migrating the logic in Request Money and Send Money pages

Fixed Issues

$ #37619
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Request money:

  1. Open "Request Money"
  2. Use Manual, Scan or Distance
  3. Type something that matches any of the options existing on your list
  4. Verify option is displayed after finished typing
  5. Verify the list has the same options in the same order as the same search text applied on main branch
  6. Clear the input and write an random, non-existing email
  7. Verify the option appears on the list
  8. Clear the input and type one of the restricted emails, e.g. admin@expensify.com
  9. Verify "No results found" message is displayed

Send money:

  1. Open "Send money"
  2. Fill the amount and go to the next screen
  3. Type something that matches any of the options existing on your list
  4. Verify option is displayed after finished typing
  5. Verify the list has the same options in the same order as the same search text applied on main branch
  6. Clear the input and write an random, non-existing email
  7. Verify the option appears on the list
  8. Clear the input and type one of the restricted emails, e.g. admin@expensify.com
  9. Verify "No results found" message is displayed
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

n/a

QA Steps

  1. Open "Request Money"
  2. Use Manual, Scan or Distance
  3. Type something that matches any of the options existing on your list
  4. Verify option is displayed after finished typing
  5. Clear the input and write an random, non-existing email
  6. Verify the option appears on the list
  7. Clear the input and type one of the restricted emails, e.g. admin@expensify.com
  8. Verify "No results found" message is displayed

Send money:

  1. Open "Send money"
  2. Fill the amount and go to the next screen
  3. Type something that matches any of the options existing on your list
  4. Verify option is displayed after finished typing
  5. Clear the input and write an random, non-existing email
  6. Verify the option appears on the list
  7. Clear the input and type one of the restricted emails, e.g. admin@expensify.com
  8. Verify "No results found" message is displayed
  • 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 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 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.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 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
ANDROID.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
ANDROID.WEB.mov
iOS: Native
IOS.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
IOS.WEB.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
WEB.mov
MacOS: Desktop
DESKTOP.mov

@TMisiukiewicz TMisiukiewicz marked this pull request as ready for review April 16, 2024 06:44
@TMisiukiewicz TMisiukiewicz requested a review from a team as a code owner April 16, 2024 06:44
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from Pujan92 and removed request for a team April 16, 2024 06:44
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 16, 2024

@Pujan92 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]

} else if (!!item.isChatRoom || !!item.isPolicyExpenseChat) {
if (item.subtitle) {
values.push(item.subtitle);
}
} else {
values = values.concat(getParticipantsLoginsArray(item));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why do we move this to the last else block, with that for the policy expense chat it does not consider the participants but only subtitle for the filter values. Due to that policy expense chats are missing in the Recent section while filtering.

Screen.Recording.2024-04-17.at.23.16.23.mov

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Recently this PR caused a big performance regression: #38887 and it was reverted in #40019. Since the filtering was merged somewhere close before reverting, I adjusted function to match the correct behavior. Seems like it works the same way on production

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, Ok. On prod I am not seeing those policy expense chat for the global search but it is shown for the request/send money participants filtration. I think that reverted PR tried manipulating the getSearchText but here for request money participants search I don't think we are making a call to getSearchText.

Screen.Recording.2024-04-18.at.23.40.09.mov

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah the reverted PR was adding all the participants of the chat to the searchText, so it became super inefficient, as some of the chats had thousands of participants.
getSearchText is called when options are created (first opening of any search page - then they are cached), then, when searching, we are not calling it anymore because we are not recreating the options. Once getSearchText is removed, the initial load of the list will speed up as well.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That reverted PR is in production, doubt why it still shows the policy expense chats in the search filter for request/send money flow.

Screenshot 2024-04-22 at 01 00 19

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 re-reviewed the isSearchStringMatch function, responsible for searching a match in a string generated by getSearchText and found that for non-chatrooms, it also looks for matches in a participants list. Updated the filterOptions to match this behavior so now it should also display e.g. workspaces when you search by user name. Thanks for spotting this! 👍

@Pujan92
Copy link
Contributor

Pujan92 commented Apr 18, 2024

@TMisiukiewicz If I understand correctly in this PR we are saving calls of OptionsListUtils.getFilteredOptions by only executing it once for the empty search to get all options. For any other search terms, we do call the OptionsListUtils.filterOptions which is defined in this PR for the perf optimization.
I tried to log the time with the Performance API(performance.now()) where earlier it used to take around 40ms and with this PR it takes 0.5ms. Definitely, there is a difference but as both the numbers are very small I am not facing the lag while searching. The concern is if this flow doesn't call getSearchText then do we need changes for these flows or did I miss something?

Log with main branch
Screen.Recording.2024-04-17.at.22.54.25.mov
Log with this PR changes
Screen.Recording.2024-04-17.at.23.01.59.mov
Prod recording where doesn't feel lag
Screen.Recording.2024-04-19.at.00.04.48.mov

@TMisiukiewicz
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Pujan92 the problem is more visible on accounts with a lot of reports and personal details, especially on Android devices. We have an access to account with ~15k reports and on Android it took around 3 seconds to get results based on getSearchText. With this change, it's less than a second. Additionally, once it's implemented in all the searchable lists, the getSearchText param can be removed, so the initial render of the list will speed up as well.

The concern is if this flow doesn't call getSearchText then do we need changes for these flows or did I miss something?

It still calls getSearchText when loading options for the first time (then they are cached), but it is not used in these flows anymore when searching. Unfortunately we cannot remove it until we migrate all the searchable lists

@Pujan92
Copy link
Contributor

Pujan92 commented Apr 21, 2024

Thanks @TMisiukiewicz for the explantion!

@Pujan92
Copy link
Contributor

Pujan92 commented Apr 21, 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
anh1.webm
Android: mWeb Chrome
anh2.webm
iOS: Native
Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.-.2024-04-23.at.14.40.12.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.-.2024-04-23.at.14.28.15.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-04-22.at.22.38.51.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2024-04-23.at.15.01.38.mov

function filterOptions(options: Options, searchInputValue: string, config?: FilterOptionsConfig): Options {
const {sortByReportTypeInSearch = false, canInviteUser = true, betas = [], selectedOptions = [], excludeUnknownUsers = false, excludeLogins = []} = config ?? {};
const parsedPhoneNumber = PhoneNumber.parsePhoneNumber(LoginUtils.appendCountryCode(Str.removeSMSDomain(searchInputValue)));
const searchValue = parsedPhoneNumber.possible ? parsedPhoneNumber.number?.e164 ?? '' : searchInputValue.toLowerCase();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
const searchValue = parsedPhoneNumber.possible ? parsedPhoneNumber.number?.e164 ?? '' : searchInputValue.toLowerCase();
const searchValue = (parsedPhoneNumber.possible && parsedPhoneNumber.number?.e164) ? parsedPhoneNumber.number.e164 : searchInputValue.toLowerCase();

Don't we need to use searchInputValue when e164 is not available?

let {recentReports, personalDetails} = matchResults;

if (sortByReportTypeInSearch) {
recentReports = recentReports.concat(matchResults.personalDetails);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
recentReports = recentReports.concat(matchResults.personalDetails);
recentReports = recentReports.concat(personalDetails);

Let's use the destructured prop

} else if (!!item.isChatRoom || !!item.isPolicyExpenseChat) {
if (item.subtitle) {
values.push(item.subtitle);
}
} else {
values = values.concat(getParticipantsLoginsArray(item));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That reverted PR is in production, doubt why it still shows the policy expense chats in the search filter for request/send money flow.

Screenshot 2024-04-22 at 01 00 19

Comment on lines 2351 to 2359
searchValue &&
(noOptions || noOptionsMatchExactly) &&
!isCurrentUser({login: searchValue} as PersonalDetails) &&
selectedOptions.every((option) => 'login' in option && option.login !== searchValue) &&
((Str.isValidEmail(searchValue) && !Str.isDomainEmail(searchValue) && !Str.endsWith(searchValue, CONST.SMS.DOMAIN)) ||
(parsedPhoneNumber.possible && Str.isValidE164Phone(LoginUtils.getPhoneNumberWithoutSpecialChars(parsedPhoneNumber.number?.input ?? '')))) &&
!excludeLogins.find((optionToExclude) => optionToExclude === PhoneNumber.addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber(searchValue).toLowerCase()) &&
(searchValue !== CONST.EMAIL.CHRONOS || Permissions.canUseChronos(betas)) &&
!excludeUnknownUsers
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How about creating a function for these if conditions part as the same set of conditions is used twice in the file

@TMisiukiewicz TMisiukiewicz force-pushed the perf/filter-money-request-participants branch from 385947d to 4aaef6c Compare April 22, 2024 10:19
@rinej
Copy link
Contributor

rinej commented Jun 11, 2024

Hello @Pujan92, @TMisiukiewicz is out today, I just resolved the conflicts

@Pujan92
Copy link
Contributor

Pujan92 commented Jun 13, 2024

Thanks @rinej, I am seeing an issue of missed entries while searching for the Workspace.

Screen.Recording.2024-06-13.at.11.16.44.mov

@rinej
Copy link
Contributor

rinej commented Jun 14, 2024

Hello @Pujan92

Could you check if this behavior is similar on the main branch? I tested it on the main branch, and it also missed the workspace:

search-main.mp4

If this is unexpected (which it seems to be), we might have an issue on the main branch.

@Pujan92
Copy link
Contributor

Pujan92 commented Jun 15, 2024

@rinej For me the behavior is different on the main branch. It is kind of similar to I raised earlier here

The difference is the generating entries for the recent reports. In our branch, while generating the data we are restricting the recent reports to a max 5, so on searching for any term it will just filter out from those 5 entries instead of considering all recent reports list.

@TMisiukiewicz I believe it raised while resolving the conflict here, I think it needs to be 0 only.

@rinej
Copy link
Contributor

rinej commented Jun 17, 2024

Thanks Pujan92 for noticing it! I added the suggested fix which reverts the change that was introduced after resolving the conflicts. Please let me know if that helps. If not I will dig deeper into the logic of that PR :)

@Pujan92
Copy link
Contributor

Pujan92 commented Jun 17, 2024

Thanks @rinej, Now it looks good to me.
Needs to resolve conflicts and after that @roryabraham may re-review it.

@rinej
Copy link
Contributor

rinej commented Jun 18, 2024

Thanks! Conflicts resolved 💪

@Pujan92
Copy link
Contributor

Pujan92 commented Jun 21, 2024

@roryabraham Can you plz review again?

@roryabraham roryabraham merged commit e0d9b9d into Expensify:main Jun 21, 2024
15 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.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.0.1-0 🚀

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


let userToInvite = null;
if (canInviteUser) {
if (recentReports.length === 0) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@TMisiukiewicz @rinej This causes a regression #44200 where due to the default sortByReportTypeInSearch is false which won't concat recentReports & personalDetails. With that even though we have entries in personalDetails it will add that entry to userToInvite as well because of this truthy condition.

I think we also need to check the personalDetails.length 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.

opened a PR #44253 with a fix

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! I will check it.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 9.0.1-19 🚀

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

options.reports,
options.personalDetails,
betas,
debouncedSearchTerm,
'',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This change caused a regression #48114, see the explanations #48114 (comment)

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.

6 participants