perf: limit updated reports on transaction update in LHN

[TMisiukiewicz]

Explanation of Change

PR #77579 added logic in getUpdatedReports so that on each transaction update we resolved either the expense report or the transaction thread report (isOneTransactionReport + getTransactionThreadReportID). That ran for every entry in transactionsUpdates, which is costly when many transactions change at once (e.g. hydration / bulk merges) and contributed to high JS thread usage.

This change restores the simpler mapping: invalidate only the report keyed by transaction.reportID. Receipt-upload RBR and LHN inclusion are still handled in hasReportErrorsOtherThanFailedReceipt / getReceiptUploadErrorReason inside SidebarUtils — this hook only decides which cached LHN rows to recompute incrementally.

This highly reduces the CPU usage when user opens a money request report with a lot of transactions - having a report with 100+ transactions often means updating 100+ irrelevant reports.

Tested with the test plan from the PR that introduced it and looks like works well.

Fixed Issues

$ #92078
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Login with any account
2. Send two manual expenses to another user
3. Create a scan expense to another user
4. Turn on 'Simulate failing network requests'
5. Replace and upload a new image for the receipt
6. Verify that the report with receipt upload failure is displayed in LHN with RBR.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."
Same as tests

• 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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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 is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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.ts 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 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.
• 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.
• 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

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.17.Pro.-.2026-05-29.at.14.02.14.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-05-29.at.14.12.50.mov

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/hooks/useSidebarOrderedReports.tsx	96.47% <100.00%> (+0.61%)	⬆️
... and 34 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@aimane-chnaif 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]

[aimane-chnaif]

Can we have unit test?

[aimane-chnaif]

I've been doing regression test for various cases. No issue found

[aimane-chnaif]

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
  • 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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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

Android: HybridApp

android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

77579.mov

production.mov

[MelvinBot]

Regression review

Likely regression of #73742 (fixed by #77579) in the multi-transaction expense report case. Confidence: medium.

Root cause: The removed branch was the only mechanism in getUpdatedReports that added the transaction thread report key to reportsToUpdate. After this PR, only the expense report key (transaction.reportID) is added. But getReceiptUploadErrorReason cannot detect a receipt-upload failure when called on a multi-transaction expense report — it only returns an error when called on (a) a one-transaction expense report or (b) the transaction thread itself.

So when a receipt upload fails on a transaction whose parent expense report has 2+ transactions:

• The thread report's key is never added to updatedReportsKeys (useSidebarOrderedReports.tsx:125-128).
• updateReportsToDisplayInLHN only re-evaluates reports in that set, so the thread row never gets re-derived.
• hasReportErrorsOtherThanFailedReceipt(expenseReport, ...) → getReceiptUploadErrorReason(expenseReport, ...): getOneTransactionThreadReportAction returns undefined (transactionCount > 1) and isTransactionThread(parentReportAction) is false for the expense report → returns null. No RBR surfaces.

This is the exact scenario #73742 was filed for.

Evidence

• Diff: src/hooks/useSidebarOrderedReports.tsx:125-128 — only transaction.reportID keyed now. The deleted comment itself explained the prior intent: "the expense report if it is isOneTransactionReport or the transaction thread report if it is otherwise."
• getReceiptUploadErrorReason — needs either the one-tx expense report or the thread report. Both branches return null for a multi-tx expense report.
• hasReportErrorsOtherThanFailedReceipt — calls the above with whatever report was passed in by the caller (the key in updatedReportsKeys).
• The receipt-failure write path mutates the transaction Onyx entry (errors/errorFields), not the thread report. So reportUpdates won't independently invalidate the thread row either.
• Existing tests for this scenario live in tests/unit/SidebarUtilsTest.ts but exercise shouldDisplayReportInLHN directly on the thread — they don't go through the hook's keying logic, so they would not catch this regression.

Recommended fix

Keep the perf intent but don't drop the thread invalidation. A few options, lightest first:

1. Restore the conditional, but stop the Object.values(...).map(...) allocation per call — iterate once, look up chatReports[transaction.reportID] and choose the key inline. The cost the PR is trying to remove is mostly the isOneTransactionReport call multiplied by N transactions; if that's the hot path, cache isOneTransactionReport results per reportID for the duration of this getUpdatedReports call.
2. Always add transaction.reportID, and additionally add the thread key only when getTransactionThreadReportID(transaction) resolves to something different from transaction.reportID. Cheaper than calling isOneTransactionReport and still correct.
3. Move the thread-key resolution into updateReportsToDisplayInLHN so the hook doesn't need to know about transaction threads at all (cleaner long-term).

Also worth adding a hook-level test covering the multi-transaction receipt-upload failure path so this can't silently regress again.

What I couldn't rule out

You report the test plan passes locally. Two paths that could be incidentally rescuing the flow:

• The thread row was already in currentReportsToDisplay before the failure, and a reportAttributes re-derivation hits the updatedReports.length === 0 && hasCachedReports branch (line 188-191) which re-checks already-displayed rows. This only helps if the thread row was already visible.
• Some other write in the failure path also touches the thread report's Onyx entry, putting its key into reportUpdates. I didn't find that in the failing-upload code, but didn't exhaustively trace IOU.ts.

A targeted re-test would be: fresh app start, open a multi-transaction expense report that contains the receipt-failing transaction, then trigger the failure — the LHN should still show RBR on the thread row even when that row was not previously visible.

---

Next Steps: Reply with @MelvinBot <your feedback> to refine this analysis.