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

Avoid unnecessary expensive call to getTransactionDetails #45529

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 19, 2024

Conversation

neil-marcellini
Copy link
Contributor

Details

image

From this profile trace we can see that 36% of the time for getOrderedReportIDs is spent on getting these transaction details, specifically TransactionUtils.getFormattedCreated. However, that field not used within the getTransactionReportName function so it's a complete waste. Now we'll only extract the specific transaction fields that are needed, when they are needed. It should speed up ordering the LHN by about 36%.

Related Issues

#45528
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

N/A

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

No QA

  • 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: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
MacOS: Desktop

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini self-assigned this Jul 16, 2024
@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini requested a review from a team as a code owner July 16, 2024 21:35
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from grgia and removed request for a team July 16, 2024 21:35
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 16, 2024

@grgia 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]

@mkhutornyi
Copy link
Contributor

Shall I review this as C+?

@adhorodyski
Copy link
Contributor

On this part:

...It should speed up ordering the LHN by about 36%.

I'd argue because we're making an assumption here that is not backed by any numbers yet.

Do you think you can provide some? Maybe we can ask Jason to record the very same workflow on an ad hoc build so we can benchmark few of these runs (as we don't yet have performance tests for this in place).

At the same time I'd love to have someone try benchmark this with Reassure as even local measurements should be enough to help us decide here. Do you think that'd be helpful?

@adhorodyski
Copy link
Contributor

adhorodyski commented Jul 17, 2024

Screenshot 2024-07-17 at 18 27 31

FYI In the meantime I'm working on a fix & explanation for this underlying problem.
We construct a huge amount of new instances of formatters, Intl.NumberFormat under the hood.
This is done in the @formatjs dependency (but on our end too just in other places).

If you know that calculating these in the first place doesn't make sense though, it's still valuable to pursue this update to the logic itself.

@neil-marcellini
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'd argue because we're making an assumption here that is not backed by any numbers yet.

Yeah it's a bit of an assumption, but I'm not sure that really matters. In the provided screenshot we can see that getTransactionDetails took 36% of the time, of which getFormattedCreated was most of it, so if we remove the call to it then we should see about a 36% speed up.

Maybe we can ask Jason to record the very same workflow on an ad hoc build so we can benchmark few of these runs (as we don't yet have performance tests for this in place).

At the same time I'd love to have someone try benchmark this with Reassure as even local measurements should be enough to help us decide here. Do you think that'd be helpful?

Yeah we could do that, but what problem does it solve? What are we trying to decide?

If you know that calculating these in the first place doesn't make sense though, it's still valuable to pursue this update to the logic itself.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking with this PR. Removing unnecessary computation seems like a no brainer and I don't think we need to measure it carefully right now.

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini requested a review from hannojg July 17, 2024 20:57
@neil-marcellini
Copy link
Contributor Author

Shall I review this as C+?

Thanks for offering, but I don't think we really need a C+ review / testing for this particular PR.

@adhorodyski
Copy link
Contributor

adhorodyski commented Jul 18, 2024

Maybe we can ask Jason to record the very same workflow on an ad hoc build so we can benchmark few of these runs (as we don't yet have performance tests for this in place).

Yeah we could do that, but what problem does it solve? What are we trying to decide?

Oh just wanted to get a basic confirmation before we roll this to everyone.
Such a change not only improves this case, but also alters the general call stack and we might discover something else, maybe weird that we didn't intend to push out (there might be another bottleneck behind the swapped if checks that are being called).

Copy link
Contributor

@grgia grgia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changes LGTM, minor comments

@@ -6426,7 +6427,7 @@ function getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage(reportAction: OnyxEntry<ReportAction>,
}
return Localize.translateLocal(translationKey, {
formattedAmount,
comment: transactionDetails?.comment ?? '',
comment: TransactionUtils.getDescription(transaction) ?? '',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NAB, should this be called TransactionUtils.getComment?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess description works for now since we are calling it like this in App

const report = getReportOrDraftReport(transaction?.reportID);
const amount = TransactionUtils.getAmount(transaction, !isEmptyObject(report) && isExpenseReport(report)) ?? 0;
const formattedAmount = CurrencyUtils.convertToDisplayString(amount, TransactionUtils.getCurrency(transaction)) ?? '';
const comment = (!TransactionUtils.isMerchantMissing(transaction) ? TransactionUtils.getMerchant(transaction) : TransactionUtils.getDescription(transaction)) ?? '';
if (ReportActionsUtils.isTrackExpenseAction(reportAction)) {
return Localize.translateLocal('iou.threadTrackReportName', {formattedAmount, comment});
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should we also move this block up?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can we? it relies on the formattedAmount and comment being defined 🤔

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Lets explore this later if its possible?

@kacper-mikolajczak
Copy link
Contributor

kacper-mikolajczak commented Jul 19, 2024

Awesome tweak, thanks @neil-marcellini!

As @adhorodyski mentioned, we will target underlying issue in further perspective and this is a great starting point to mitigate negative impact entirely 🙇

Q: Apart from mentioned getTransactionReportName, the modifications seem to be related to ReportUtils only. How would you like the scope of this PR to be?

@adhorodyski
Copy link
Contributor

@neil-marcellini a little update from my end, nothing new though:

100% for merging this PR asap ✅

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

mountiny commented Jul 19, 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
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
MacOS: Desktop

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.

Moving this ahead given this should be a noticeable improvement in the App

const report = getReportOrDraftReport(transaction?.reportID);
const amount = TransactionUtils.getAmount(transaction, !isEmptyObject(report) && isExpenseReport(report)) ?? 0;
const formattedAmount = CurrencyUtils.convertToDisplayString(amount, TransactionUtils.getCurrency(transaction)) ?? '';
const comment = (!TransactionUtils.isMerchantMissing(transaction) ? TransactionUtils.getMerchant(transaction) : TransactionUtils.getDescription(transaction)) ?? '';
if (ReportActionsUtils.isTrackExpenseAction(reportAction)) {
return Localize.translateLocal('iou.threadTrackReportName', {formattedAmount, comment});
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Lets explore this later if its possible?

@@ -6426,7 +6427,7 @@ function getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage(reportAction: OnyxEntry<ReportAction>,
}
return Localize.translateLocal(translationKey, {
formattedAmount,
comment: transactionDetails?.comment ?? '',
comment: TransactionUtils.getDescription(transaction) ?? '',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess description works for now since we are calling it like this in App

@mountiny mountiny merged commit 3951e36 into main Jul 19, 2024
15 of 19 checks passed
@mountiny mountiny deleted the neil-getTransactionReportName-optimize branch July 19, 2024 19:17
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.10-2 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.10-3 🚀

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

@Expensify/applauseleads please QA this PR and check it off on the deploy checklist if it passes.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.10-7 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.0.11-5 🚀

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

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.

8 participants