[No QA] Perf: lazily compute B2B invoice report lookup on payment instead of every render by TMisiukiewicz · Pull Request #85813 · Expensify/App

TMisiukiewicz · 2026-03-19T14:17:37Z

Explanation of Change

useParticipantsInvoiceReport hook was subscribing to ALL reports on every render of every money request preview item, but the result was only used when clicking Pay on an invoice. This caused unnecessary re-renders and Onyx subscriptions across all visible invoice preview items.

Moved the B2B invoice report lookup into getPayMoneyRequestParams in IOU actions so it only runs at payment time, not on every render. Removed the hook from MoneyRequestReportPreviewContent and MoneyReportHeader entirely.

Results on iOS when opening expenses report using Jason's state:
ManualOpenReport 2400ms -> 2100ms
MoneyRequestReportPreviewContent render time 412ms -> 195ms

Fixed Issues

$ #77173
PROPOSAL:

Tests

No tests needed, pure refactor

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

No tests needed, pure refactor

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

…ce-report-lookup

melvin-bot · 2026-03-19T14:20:37Z

@ChavdaSachin 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]

codecov · 2026-03-19T14:27:19Z

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/MoneyReportHeader.tsx	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
...ReportPreview/MoneyRequestReportPreviewContent.tsx	`61.76% <ø> (-0.12%)`	⬇️
src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts	`72.55% <6.25%> (-0.33%)`	⬇️
... and 14 files with indirect coverage changes

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 88a54242ac

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".

src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts

ChavdaSachin · 2026-03-19T15:18:28Z

Would review within an hour, @TMisiukiewicz could you take a look at the codex review in the mean time.

TMisiukiewicz · 2026-03-19T16:26:42Z

@ChavdaSachin IMO codex concern is not valid - The old code passed activePolicyID (from useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.NVP_ACTIVE_POLICY_ID)) as the receiverID to the hook. The new code passes activePolicy?.id, where activePolicy comes from usePolicy(activePolicyID) which resolves from the same Onyx key

ChavdaSachin · 2026-03-19T21:15:12Z

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 that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: HybridApp
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: HybridApp
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
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 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.ts 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.
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this 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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

N/A

ChavdaSachin

LGTM ✅

rlinoz · 2026-03-20T13:45:12Z

src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts

+        if (!report || !isInvoiceRoom(report)) {
+            return false;
+        }
+        const rnvp = allReportNameValuePairs?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_NAME_VALUE_PAIRS}${report.reportID}`];


I am afraid that refactors like this goes in the opposite direction of removing Onyx.connect.

Do we have some other alternative?

cc: @tgolen

An alternative is a solution that I just opened a draft PR for: #85949. It isolates logic and Onyx calls, giving similar results (unless user has tens of rendered Pay buttons). Should we move forward with decomposition PR only or ship both just in case to avoid the perf edge cases?

Oh that is a nice PR!

Do you mean the changes here are temporary or do you plan to use this in the decomposition PR as well?

Yeah If we decide to ship this PR as-is, I'll also include this change in #85949. This PR removes the optimistic computation of a value that is only needed when Pay button is pressed - without it, we'd still compute it for every Pay button even if user does not plan to press it

Yeah, I will wait for Tim's thoughts, but I think once we get to allReportNameValuePairs and allReports in the Onyx.connect issues we will end up reverting back to the previous way without realizing it.

I'd prefer to avoid shipping this PR as-is since it will just create more work that needs to be refactored later.

TMisiukiewicz added 2 commits March 19, 2026 15:14

lazy B2B invoice report lookup in getPayMoneyRequestParams

0985122

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into tomasz/lazy-b2b-invoi…

88a5424

…ce-report-lookup

melvin-bot bot assigned TMisiukiewicz Mar 19, 2026

TMisiukiewicz marked this pull request as ready for review March 19, 2026 14:20

TMisiukiewicz requested review from a team as code owners March 19, 2026 14:20

melvin-bot bot requested review from ChavdaSachin and JmillsExpensify and removed request for a team and JmillsExpensify March 19, 2026 14:20

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team March 19, 2026 14:20

adhorodyski approved these changes Mar 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Mar 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

ChavdaSachin approved these changes Mar 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from rlinoz March 19, 2026 21:17

rlinoz reviewed Mar 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

TMisiukiewicz commented Mar 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 19, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 19, 2026 • edited by github-actions bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ChavdaSachin commented Mar 19, 2026

Uh oh!

TMisiukiewicz commented Mar 19, 2026

Uh oh!

ChavdaSachin commented Mar 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

ChavdaSachin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rlinoz Mar 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TMisiukiewicz Mar 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rlinoz Mar 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TMisiukiewicz Mar 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rlinoz Mar 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tgolen Mar 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

TMisiukiewicz commented Mar 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Mar 19, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

ChavdaSachin commented Mar 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading