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: improve native apps startup #44068

Merged

Conversation

hurali97
Copy link
Contributor

@hurali97 hurali97 commented Jun 20, 2024

Details

The changes in the PR are part of improving the app startup which was profiled for the native Apps.


The main change is related to Report connections scattered through the util files. Each connection does heavy operations under the hood which are visible on a large data. One such example is `fastMerge` which calls `mergeObject` recursively. Now, 15k reports against 14 connections doesn’t scale. In the observations, this as a whole took around 18 seconds.

The solution can be to use only ONE report connection in a new util file say, ReportConnection and export a function from it called getAllReports . Then wherever we want to access updated reports, we can just use this function. Also, in some cases where we want to invoke a function in connection callback we can export it and invoke it from within the ReportConnection .


The other important change is for useReportID hook, which is called 3 times during the startup. This hook calls SidebarUtils.getOrderedReportID from within which is a heavy function and is not supposed to be called unless required.

We can fix the two additional calls by memoizing policyMemberAccountIDs, which reduces the call by 1. Then we can add a condition to verify if currentReportID===-1 don't call getOrderedReportID because we use -1 as default ID if nothing is passed and we do it in the initial iteration, so there seems no point in calling it again with the same ID. This as a whole saves us around 3 seconds.


Some other changes are:

  • getLastVisibleAction calls fastMerge each time even if there are no actionsToMerge.
  • isActionableJoinRequestPending can be simplified to avoid sorting and directly call Array.find

Before
android-before.mov
After
android-after.mov

Fixed Issues

$ #43746
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

  • 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.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
ios-web.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web.mov
MacOS: Desktop
desktop.mov

@hurali97 hurali97 changed the title Hur/improve native app startup perf: improve native apps startup Jun 20, 2024
@hurali97 hurali97 marked this pull request as ready for review June 21, 2024 12:06
@hurali97 hurali97 requested a review from a team as a code owner June 21, 2024 12:06
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from abdulrahuman5196 and removed request for a team June 21, 2024 12:07
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jun 21, 2024

@abdulrahuman5196 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]

@kirillzyusko
Copy link
Contributor

Would be good to fix e2e tests (to make a new release of the app) and then run e2e against this PR. I'm just curious whether we'll see decreased CPU/RAM usage and higher FPS and whether some of our metrics will go down.

And if not, then we will need to investigate why e2e tests are not reporting huge improvements (maybe we will need to use a heavier account for them or generate more data for account that we currently use).

@hannojg @mountiny what do you think about it?

@hannojg
Copy link
Contributor

hannojg commented Jun 21, 2024

I think that's a very good idea ☺️

@kirillzyusko
Copy link
Contributor

Tests are fixed 😎

But would be good to merge #43482 to capture even more metrics 😊

Copy link
Contributor

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.

Great job so far, I would like to test this out a bit more myself

src/hooks/useReportIDs.tsx Show resolved Hide resolved
src/hooks/useReportIDs.tsx Show resolved Hide resolved
@hurali97
Copy link
Contributor Author

hurali97 commented Jul 1, 2024

@mountiny can we get going with this PR? 👀

@hungvu193
Copy link
Contributor

We have conflicts here @hurali97
also little bump @mountiny for your final review!

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.

@hurali97 I think there are couple changes that we need to do unless I have missed something

Can you also please merge main and ping me when its done?

src/libs/actions/Report.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/libs/actions/Report.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/libs/actions/Report.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/libs/actions/Report.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/libs/actions/Report.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/libs/actions/Report.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
hurali97 and others added 3 commits July 5, 2024 19:12
Co-authored-by: Vit Horacek <36083550+mountiny@users.noreply.github.com>
@hurali97
Copy link
Contributor Author

hurali97 commented Jul 5, 2024

@hurali97 I think there are couple changes that we need to do unless I have missed something

Can you also please merge main and ping me when its done?

@mountiny Thanks for spotting those 👍 Applied your suggestions and synced with main.

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

mountiny commented Jul 5, 2024

@hurali97 conflicts again 🙈

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.

I think I found another place where we accessed the individual report data from the ReportConnection.getAllReports() incorrectly, could you please do an audit to verify we have not missed any?

src/libs/actions/Report.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Vit Horacek <36083550+mountiny@users.noreply.github.com>
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.

Thanks

@mountiny mountiny merged commit aae4922 into Expensify:main Jul 8, 2024
16 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Jul 8, 2024

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.5-2 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Jul 8, 2024

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.5-3 🚀

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

.filter((accountID) => accountID !== currentUserAccountID);
return participantAccountIDs.length === 1 && participantAccountIDs[0] === CONST.ACCOUNT_ID.CONCIERGE && !isChatThread(report);
const participantAccountIDs = Object.keys(report?.participants ?? {});
return participantAccountIDs.length === 1 && Number(participantAccountIDs[0]) === CONST.ACCOUNT_ID.CONCIERGE && !isChatThread(report);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi 👋 @hurali97 @hungvu193 , regarding this issue #45036, in this PR we have removed the accountID !== currentUserAccountID filter for participants, which caused the regression where isConciergeChatReport returns a wrong value. A contributor suggested a fix that restores the old code. Before moving forward with the PR, can you please explain why we removed the filter and if adding back the old code will cause any issues?"

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey @jayeshmangwani 👋

Oh snap, I removed this filter option as I thought it wasn't adding any value because later we are checking for conciergeID in return.

I tested the linked issue and I see that with these changes isConciergeReport return false, so it's better to bring back the filter only, we can ditch the map. Below is how the change will look like:

const participantAccountIDs = Object.keys(report?.participants ?? {}).filter((accountID) => Number(accountID) !== currentUserAccountID);

With this, we get true from isConciergeReport BUT I still don't see any "Book A Call" option. This also happened on Prod where I can't see this option.

Prod:

Screen.Recording.2024-07-10.at.12.02.08.PM.mov

I spent some time and this happens because guideCalendarLink is always undefined in ProfilePage for Concierge chat. So the filter change is not relevant to this bug BUT we should make this change either way.

Code to show the option is below, where we need both isConcierge and guideCalendarLink to be true, but even after the filter change, we get guideCalendarLink as undefined:

        {isConcierge && guideCalendarLink && (
              <MenuItem
                     title={translate('videoChatButtonAndMenu.tooltip')}
                      icon={Expensicons.Phone}
                      isAnonymousAction={false}
                      onPress={SessionActions.checkIfActionIsAllowed(() => {
                       LinkActions.openExternalLink(guideCalendarLink);
                       })}
                    />
           )}

Screenshot 2024-07-10 at 12 10 45 PM

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the insight, and yea even though we revert the isConciergeChatReport logic we still cannot see the Book a call option because of the guideCalendarLink undefined value

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I spent some time and this happens because guideCalendarLink is always undefined in ProfilePage for Concierge chat

@hurali97 The guideCalendarLink value may be undefined because we might be using an email that contains a '+'. With a normal email, we are able to get the guide link.
Context: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1720464122617119?thread_ts=1720457309.992509&cid=C01GTK53T8Q

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.0.5-13 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 9.0.6-8 🚀

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
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants