fix: reduce INP latency for receipt image interactions

[nabi-ebrahimi]

Explanation of Change

This PR improves the slow Receipt-Image INP interaction on web.

The Receipt-Image interaction happens when a user taps a receipt image in ReportActionItemImage to open the receipt preview modal. Previously, the press handler navigated to the receipt modal immediately, so heavier modal navigation work could begin before the browser had a chance to paint the receipt click feedback.

This PR moves the receipt modal navigation into a stable callback and, on web, defers the Navigation.navigate() call until after a double requestAnimationFrame() paint boundary. This gives the browser an opportunity to paint after the receipt click before starting the heavier modal navigation work. Native platforms keep the existing immediate navigation behavior.

Fixed Issues

$ #85595
PROPOSAL: #85595 (comment)

Tests

1. First, build the app for the web.

2. Open the app in Chrome with the Web Vitals extension enabled.

3. Navigate to a report that has an expense with a receipt image.

4. Refresh the page to reset the current page INP measurement.

5. Click the receipt image to open the receipt preview modal.

6. After the receipt modal opens, check the Web Vitals extension and record the INP value for the receipt image interaction.

7. Do not measure the Back/Close interaction as part of this test. Record the receipt image result before clicking Back.

8. Repeat the same steps before and after the change for comparison.

9. Verify that the receipt preview modal opens successfully and the Receipt-Image interaction on the web shows improved INP (or no regression compared to the baseline). The Back/Close interaction should be excluded from this measurement.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests.

QA Steps

Same as Tests.

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

• 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

Screen.Recording.2026-07-15.at.10.57.03.AM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen_Recording_20260715_115043_Chrome.mp4

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-07-15.at.11.52.29.AM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-07-15.at.11.56.41.AM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screencast.From.2026-07-15.10-05-10.mp4

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ponents/ReportActionItem/ReportActionItemImage.tsx	72.13% <50.00%> (+72.13%)	⬆️
...ponents/ReportActionItem/deferReceiptNavigation.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...nts/ReportActionItem/deferReceiptNavigation.web.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 1617 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@marufsharifi 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]

[marufsharifi]

@nabi-ebrahimi, could you please address the AI comments?

[trjExpensify]

PR doesn’t need product input as a perf refactor PR. Unassigning and unsubscribing myself.

[nabi-ebrahimi]

Hi @marufsharifi, thank you for taking the time to review.

I’ve addressed both AI comments by removing the manual useCallback and moving the web/native navigation scheduling into platform-specific deferReceiptNavigation helpers.

Could you please review again when you have a chance?

[marufsharifi]

@MelvinBot review

[MelvinBot]

Review

The approach is sound and the change is minimal. Deferring Navigation.navigate() past a paint boundary on web is a legitimate way to improve the Receipt-Image INP, and the platform split (immediate on native via deferReceiptNavigation.ts, double-rAF on web via deferReceiptNavigation.web.ts) is clean. Using a double requestAnimationFrame is the correct idiom here — a single rAF callback runs before the next paint, so the second one is what guarantees the click-feedback paint actually happened before the heavier navigation work starts.

A few non-blocking points worth a look:

Details

1. "Stable callback" in the description is slightly inaccurate. navigateToReceipt is a plain function recreated on every render; it's only stable because React Compiler memoizes it (same as the previous inline arrow). The real win is the rAF deferral, not callback stability. Just worth aligning the wording so reviewers aren't looking for a useCallback that intentionally isn't there.

2. What this actually improves. The double rAF lets the browser paint the click feedback first, which lowers the INP attributed to the tap — but the modal navigation still costs the same and appears at roughly the same wall-clock time. This is a perceived-responsiveness win, not a reduction in total work. That's the right goal for INP, just good to be explicit about in the issue.

3. No test coverage on the new helpers (codecov shows both deferReceiptNavigation files at 0%), while the author checklist claims unit tests were added. The helpers are trivial so the risk is low, but a small unit test asserting the web variant defers and the native variant calls through synchronously would lock in the platform contract cheaply.

4. Naming/reuse (optional). deferReceiptNavigation is a receipt-specific name for what is really a generic "defer to next paint" utility that doesn't reference receipts at all. Since the parent issue is about INP interactions broadly, if this pattern is likely to be reused elsewhere, a generic helper (e.g. deferToNextPaint) in src/libs might be a better home. Fine to keep it local and scoped for now.

5. Minor edge case. With the 2-frame delay, a rapid double-tap could queue two navigations before the first fires. In practice Navigation should dedupe this, but worth a quick manual check that double-tapping the receipt doesn't stack modals.

Nothing here blocks merge from a code-correctness standpoint — items 1–2 are wording, 3–5 are polish. The perf claim itself (INP improvement) can't be verified from the diff; it relies on the before/after Web Vitals measurements in the test steps.