Skip to content

perf: remove redundant O(employees) member scans#96080

Draft
adhorodyski wants to merge 3 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
callstack-internal:slow-large-account-hello
Draft

perf: remove redundant O(employees) member scans#96080
adhorodyski wants to merge 3 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
callstack-internal:slow-large-account-hello

Conversation

@adhorodyski

@adhorodyski adhorodyski commented Jul 14, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

Every rendered SettlementButton (report header, each report preview, each Pay row on the Reports page) called getPolicyEmployeeAccountIDs, which walks the whole policy employee list. On a ~21k-member policy that is a 21k-entry array built per button, per render — and the result was thrown away unused.

The array fed one function: doesReportBelongToWorkspace. It was built for the workspace switcher (its call site was removed in #79940) and only reads the array for DMs — a case that cannot occur at any of its remaining call sites, because every caller derives policyID from the report chain itself. The payment code only uses the boolean to pick the NVP_LAST_PAYMENT_METHOD key, and that NVP is only ever written keyed by iouReport.policyID.

This PR deletes doesReportBelongToWorkspace and getPolicyEmployeeAccountIDs and replaces them with two field comparisons (isConciergeChatReport || isPolicyRelatedReport). Composer mention weighting now checks policy.employeeList[login] directly (O(1)) instead of scanning the array per suggestion. usePaymentOptions also drops a now-unused whole-policy subscription.

This does not break userspace. Two places differ on purpose:

  • isPolicyRelatedReport now returns false for an undefined or _FAKE_ policyID. Before, an undefined ID matched every report that also had no policyID, so useTransactionViolationOfWorkspace computed archive data before any delete was started. The delete flow itself is unchanged.
  • Composer mention weighting looks up employeeList[login] by exact key. The old path went through a lowercased email cache. If a key's casing ever differs from the login, that person sorts one tier lower in suggestions — nothing else changes.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/591294
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  1. As a workspace admin, open a report with expenses. Verify the Pay button shows the same payment options as before and the previously used payment method is preselected.
  2. Pay an expense report choosing a specific payment method (e.g. Pay elsewhere). Reopen the report from the Reports page and from the chat preview. Verify the same method is preselected in both places.
  3. In a workspace chat composer, type @ followed by a few letters. Verify report participants rank first, workspace members second, others last.
  4. In a 1:1 DM composer, type @. Verify suggestions are plain alphabetical (no member weighting).
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A (no network-dependent logic changed).

QA Steps

Same as tests.

  1. As a workspace admin, open a report with expenses. Verify the Pay button shows the same payment options as before and the previously used payment method is preselected.
  2. Pay an expense report choosing a specific payment method (e.g. Pay elsewhere). Reopen the report from the Reports page and from the chat preview. Verify the same method is preselected in both places.
  3. In a workspace chat composer, type @ followed by a few letters. Verify report participants rank first, workspace members second, others last.
  4. In a 1:1 DM composer, type @. Verify suggestions are plain alphabetical (no member weighting).
  • 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
  • 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 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 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
    • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
    • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
  • 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.
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

@adhorodyski
Remove dead doesReportBelongToWorkspace and its O(employees) member scan
c8d7f88 
getPolicyEmployeeAccountIDs enumerated the full policy employeeList
(~21k entries on large accounts) on every SettlementButton and
usePaymentOptions render, feeding doesReportBelongToWorkspace — a
helper built for the removed workspace switcher whose expensive DM
branch is unreachable at every remaining call site. Replace both with
field comparisons (isConciergeChatReport || isPolicyRelatedReport),
harden isPolicyRelatedReport against undefined/_FAKE_ policyIDs, and
switch composer mention weighting to an O(1) employeeList lookup.
@adhorodyski
Merge remote-tracking branch 'exfy/main' into slow-large-account-hello
99b0e7a 
# Conflicts:
#	src/hooks/usePaymentOptions.ts
#	src/pages/inbox/report/ReportActionCompose/SuggestionMention.tsx
#	tests/unit/PolicyUtilsTest.ts
#	tests/unit/SuggestionMentionTest.tsx
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jul 14, 2026 •
edited by github-actions Bot
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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/components/SettlementButton/index.tsx 85.13% <100.00%> (-0.06%) ⬇️
src/hooks/usePaymentOptions.ts 55.91% <100.00%> (-1.38%) ⬇️
src/libs/PolicyUtils.ts 77.51% <ø> (-0.06%) ⬇️
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts 86.99% <50.00%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
...x/report/ReportActionCompose/SuggestionMention.tsx 80.41% <85.71%> (-0.10%) ⬇️
... and 33 files with indirect coverage changes

@adhorodyski @claude
Revert oxfmt churn from stale local formatter on merge-untouched files
6a65d95 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@adhorodyski adhorodyski changed the title Remove dead doesReportBelongToWorkspace and its O(employees) member scan from SettlementButton perf: remove redundant O(employees) member scans Jul 14, 2026
@adhorodyski

adhorodyski commented Jul 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Jul 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Delightful!

Reviewed commit: 6a65d950b6

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".

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

@adhorodyski adhorodyski

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@adhorodyski