perf: memo SidebarLinks

[hannojg]

Details

When clicking the + FAB on the start screen I felt that it took too long until the popup opens. I want the popup to open instantly. After some performance profiling, I've seen that when opening the popup the SidebarLinks unnecessarily rerender. I assume that fix also maybe helps in other places where it would rerender although it doesn't need to.

See a video before and after the change:

Before	After
before.mp4	after.mp4

Note: with this change I was able to witness that the FAB actually has an animation when pressing it 👀 😄 (before the frames were skipped)

(A performance comparison from debug mode):

Fixed Issues

$ #12119
PROPOSAL: GH_LINK_ISSUE(COMMENT)

Tests

1. Click the + FAB on the HomeScreen
2. Press the emoji picker in a chat
3. Press the "attachment" icon in the chat composer
4. Verify that its possible to open and close all these modals flawlessly without any jank (You should e.g. see the animation on the FAB button)

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Review Checklist

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 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 included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • iOS / native
  • Android / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • Android / Chrome
  • MacOS / Chrome
  • 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 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 was added in all src/languages/* files
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and 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
• 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 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(themeColors.componentBG)
• 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

PR Reviewer Checklist

The reviewer will copy/paste it into a new comment and complete it after the author checklist is completed

• 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:
  • iOS / native
  • Android / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • Android / Chrome
  • MacOS / Chrome
  • 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 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 was added in all src/languages/* files
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team 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 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 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(themeColors.componentBG)
• 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Screenshots

Web

web.mov

Mobile Web - Chrome

chrome.mov

Mobile Web - Safari

Couldn't test due to this bug appearing: #11677

Desktop

desktop.mov

iOS

ios.mov

Android

android.mp4

[mountiny]

@hannojg Thank you very much for this change, looks like great improvement.

Could you please write down a set of Tests and QA steps for the Applause QA team which they could use to make sure this does not have any unintentional sideeffects?

[hannojg]

@mountiny Hey, I was thinking about steps, but having a bit of a hard time coming up with some (I think it shouldn't cause any strange side effects, but totally agree its good to test that as much as possible!). I am not too familiar yet with the app functionality and looking more at the app through the lens of performance profiling tools. Maybe there is someone who is more familiar with the SidebarLinks component and could come up with some suggestions?

[mountiny]

Maybe there is someone who is more familiar with the SidebarLinks component and could come up with some suggestions?

Yeah I think general regression tests would be good, but in term of SidebarLinks specifically, @tgolen is the best at the moment I think.

[tgolen]

Is there a GH issue for this PR? It looks like this section is not fully filled out:

As for tests, I think just saying to open and close the floating action button a few times and verify that it happens quickly is a good test.

[mountiny]

Thanks for the context Tim

[hannojg]

No, there isn't an issue yet. I can create one if you want to?

I come up with these PRs as an effort of Margelo to help Expensify improve the overall app performance.
Do you recommend first creating issues, and then opening PRs (like, do you want us to have for every PR an issue)? 😊

[hannojg]

Okay, I have refactored the code so that it isn't using memo anymore but put the rendering of the PopoverMenu and the accompanying FAB into their own component, where the isVisible state can be managed.

For the changes to be really noticeable I had to change the base of this PR to this PR:

• perf: don't rerender whole screen just because a modal opened/closed #11886

Otherwise, the parent BaseScreenWrapper would cause a rerender for all children, making the changes here irrelevant.

The performance seems even a little tick better than with memo:

[mountiny]

Reassign @rushatgabhane for C+ review and testing as it seems like there was some Github blip which unassigned people from the PR.

Do you recommend first creating issues, and then opening PRs (like, do you want us to have for every PR an issue)?

Yes, let's always create an issue before you address it in a PR. You can use the standard or Performance issue template but please try to follow the template for the issues so it is easier for us to have the issues standardized. It is good to write down what metric is slow and we aim to improve with notes on why it is slow and plan in which we can improve this.

In the issue other people can also discuss what could be done. Some engineer can then assign you the issue so you can track it a bit easier.

[hannojg]

Resolved!

[rushatgabhane]

@mountiny LGTM! ✨

Web

Screen.Recording.2022-10-31.at.8.38.50.AM.mov

mWeb

Screen.Recording.2022-10-31.at.8.41.59.AM.mov

Screen.Recording.2022-10-31.at.8.40.37.AM.mov

iOS

Screen.Recording.2022-10-31.at.8.43.39.AM.mov

Android

screen-20221031-090455_2.mp4

Desktop

Screen.Recording.2022-10-31.at.8.46.12.AM.mov

PR 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:
  • iOS / native
  • Android / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • Android / Chrome
  • MacOS / Chrome
  • 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 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 was added in all src/languages/* files
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and 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 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 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(themeColors.componentBG)
• 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

[mountiny]

Thank you very much @rushatgabhane and @hannojg, lets get this one out! Code looks good to me, excited for these performance improvements coming in

[mountiny]

Gonna merge since Andrew and Tim both expressed they like the code above.

Changes addressed

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🚀 Deployed to staging by @mountiny in version: 1.2.22-0 🚀

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

[Julesssss]

Hey @hannojg. I'm not 100% sure about this, but it's possible this refactor introduced this regression where the FAB button is not being shown on Android. Would you mind taking a look?

[hannojg]

Sure, will have a look tomorrow! (Today is national holiday in AT)

[Julesssss]

FYI as this regression blocks users from almost all features and blocks further deploys, I'm going to revert it.

@hannojg would you mind resubmitting a PR once this issue s resolved? Thanks!

[hannojg]

Yes, please revert, will put out a new PR. Will make sure such a major regression won't happen again (also a bit confused as I thought I'd tested it also extensively on Android).

Will be first thing tmr morning

[Julesssss]

No worries @hannojg, I assume that this is only occuring on certain Android devices/versions 👍

[rushatgabhane]

I tested it on Pixel 6 (physical device) running Android 13. Interested to see where/why this regressed

[Julesssss]

FYI, here's the follow-up PR.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by @Julesssss in version: 1.2.22-3 🚀

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