Improve ShouldReportBeInOptionList function #81551

elirangoshen · 2026-02-05T15:16:02Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$#81900
PROPOSAL: ShouldReportBeInOptionList improve

This pr improve ShouldReportBeInOptionList performance by reordering the actions to create more cheap early exists and use caching for repeatable expensive operations

Tests

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]."

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Basic LHN Visibility (Default / Most Recent Mode)

Open the app in Default mode (not Focus/GSD mode).
Verify that all expected chats appear: DMs, group chats, workspace rooms, policy expense chats, task reports, expense requests.
Verify the currently viewed report is always highlighted/visible in the LHN.
Navigate between different reports and confirm the LHN selection follows correctly.

Focus Mode
Switch to Focus mode
Verify that only unread chats appear (and muted chats do NOT).
Send a message in a chat from another account, then check that it appears as unread in Focus mode.
Read the chat, and confirm it disappears from Focus mode.
Verify that a brand new report that has never been read (no lastReadTime) appears as unread in Focus mode. (This is the isUnread change.)
Currently Focused Report
In Focus mode, navigate to a report that is read (not unread).
Confirm it still appears in the LHN because it's the currently focused report.
Navigate away from it, and confirm it disappears from the LHN (since it's read and no longer focused).
Chat Threads
Open a chat thread that has replies — it should appear in the LHN.
Find an empty chat thread (no replies, just the parent message) — it should not appear in the LHN.
Delete the parent message of a thread with no replies — the thread should not appear.
Open a thread where the parent message is pending deletion — it should not appear.
Pinned Reports
Pin a report — confirm it appears in LHN in both Default and Focus modes.
Unpin it — confirm normal visibility rules apply again.
Reports with Drafts
Start typing a message in a chat (create a draft) but don't send it.
Confirm the report appears in the LHN (both modes) with the draft indicator.
Self DM
Verify the Self DM (chat with yourself) appears correctly in the LHN.
System Chat
If you have a system chat (notifications account), verify it appears correctly.
Archived Reports
Archive a report.
In Default mode, confirm it still appears in the LHN.
In Focus mode, confirm it only appears if unread.
Empty Chats
Create a new DM with someone but don't send any message.
In Default mode with excludeEmptyChats, confirm the empty chat is hidden.
Send a message — confirm it now appears.

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

codecov · 2026-02-05T15:26:54Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts	`74.94% <83.33%> (+1.94%)`	⬆️
... and 462 files with indirect coverage changes

fabioh8010 · 2026-02-06T11:07:59Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+    if (report?.reportID === currentReportId) {
+        return CONST.REPORT_IN_LHN_REASONS.IS_FOCUSED;
+    }


Suggested change

if (report?.reportID === currentReportId) {

return CONST.REPORT_IN_LHN_REASONS.IS_FOCUSED;

}

// Include the currently viewed report. If we excluded the currently viewed report, then there

// would be no way to highlight it in the options list and it would be confusing to users because they lose

// a sense of context.

if (report.reportID === currentReportId) {

return CONST.REPORT_IN_LHN_REASONS.IS_FOCUSED;

}

can we restore the comment you moved?

fabioh8010 · 2026-02-06T11:11:24Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+    let parentReportActionComputed = false;
+    let parentReportActionCache: OnyxEntry<ReportAction>;
+    const getParentReportAction = (): OnyxEntry<ReportAction> => {
+        if (!parentReportActionComputed) {
+            parentReportActionComputed = true;
+            parentReportActionCache = isThreadReport ? allReportActions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_ACTIONS}${report.parentReportID}`]?.[report.parentReportActionID] : undefined;
+        }
+        return parentReportActionCache;
+    };


I see you are doing some kind of caching here, but I don't think how this would make significant difference as we are basically just performing a lookup in allReportActions, right?

yes you right so I reverted this one

VickyStash · 2026-02-06T11:17:11Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+    if (!report.lastReadTime) {
+        return !isEmptyReport(report, isReportArchived);
+    }
+
    if (isEmptyReport(report, isReportArchived)) {
        return false;
    }


In both ifs we check for isEmptyReport(report, isReportArchived), it looks like it can be even more simplified

Suggested change

if (!report.lastReadTime) {

return !isEmptyReport(report, isReportArchived);

}

if (isEmptyReport(report, isReportArchived)) {

return false;

}

if (isEmptyReport(report, isReportArchived)) {

return false;

}

if (!report.lastReadTime) {

return true;

}

narefyev91 · 2026-02-06T12:11:35Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+    const isThreadReport = isThread(report);
+    let parentReportActionComputed = false;
+    let parentReportActionCache: OnyxEntry<ReportAction>;
+    const getParentReportAction = (): OnyxEntry<ReportAction> => {


i do not see that we use such kind on patter define function inside function.
I think it makes sense to move it out from here, pass need params and just use
const parentReportAction = getParentReportAction(parentReportActionComputed, isThreadReport, allReportActions)

I revert this function in my commit

pasyukevich · 2026-02-06T13:08:35Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+    let parentReportActionCache: OnyxEntry<ReportAction>;
+    const getParentReportAction = (): OnyxEntry<ReportAction> => {
+        if (!parentReportActionComputed) {
+            parentReportActionComputed = true;


I think it is better to change it to true after the actual operation

At this case if smth will go wrong - we do not update the flag

Im not using it in my new commit

JKobrynski

Left one comment, other than that LGTM

JKobrynski · 2026-02-09T07:54:09Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+    const reportActionKeys = Object.keys(currentReportActions);
+
+    const isThreadReport = isThread(report);
+    const parentReportAction = isThreadReport ? allReportActions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_ACTIONS}${report.parentReportID}`]?.[report.parentReportActionID] : undefined;


Suggested change

const parentReportAction = isThreadReport ? allReportActions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_ACTIONS}${report.parentReportID}`]?.[report.parentReportActionID] : undefined;

const parentReportActions = allReportActions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_ACTIONS}${report.parentReportID}`];

const parentReportAction = isThreadReport

? parentReportActions?.[report.parentReportActionID]

: undefined;

I would consider something like this, I think it makes it more readable

adhorodyski · 2026-02-09T11:14:55Z

src/libs/UnreadIndicatorUpdater/index.ts

 const triggerUnreadUpdate = debounce(() => {
    const currentReportID = navigationRef?.isReady?.() ? Navigation.getTopmostReportId() : undefined;
    const draftComment = allDraftComments?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_DRAFT_COMMENT}${currentReportID}`];
+    Timing.start(CONST.TIMING.GET_UNREAD_REPORTS_FOR_UNREAD_INDICATOR);


FYI the Timing module is getting deprecated here #81691

let's either not track this at all, or record regular Sentry spans

Ill modify my code. . btw there will be other local alternative or mostly with sentry ?

adhorodyski · 2026-02-09T11:16:49Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

    }

-    if (isSelfDM(report)) {
+    if (isSelfDMReport) {


what does Opus say about these changes, is there still some room for more improvement from a static analysis of hot paths?

Opus you mean the ai model right ? I used it to get the initial recommendations and while there was also more options It didn't make difference in performance and was more complex and risky than this minor changes.

melvin-bot · 2026-02-10T10:22:42Z

@thesahindia 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]

melvin-bot · 2026-02-10T10:22:48Z

@abdulrahuman5196 @mountiny One of you needs to 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]

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 8805b63ab1

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/ReportUtils.ts

mountiny · 2026-02-10T12:44:41Z

@elirangoshen Each PR should have description, test/ qa section and screenshots/ videos provided before marked as ready for a review unless otherwise stated by someone internal

joekaufmanexpensify · 2026-02-10T13:37:21Z

No product review required

elirangoshen · 2026-02-10T13:47:46Z

otherwise

Sure Ill add asap

elirangoshen · 2026-02-10T14:07:24Z

@elirangoshen Each PR should have description, test/ qa section and screenshots/ videos provided before marked as ready for a review unless otherwise stated by someone internal

Done, let me know if its ok now

mountiny · 2026-02-10T14:09:03Z

Thanks!

Check that reports in LHN flow is working as expected

Can you be more specific with this one please? ideally a numbered list of steps and verifying hte behaviour based on the changes you are making here

mountiny · 2026-02-10T14:11:48Z

@elirangoshen Can you please also work with Opus to analyze if there is a room to make the unit tests more robust? this method is very complex so I wonder if we actually do cover all the cases for it?

elirangoshen · 2026-02-11T10:48:27Z

Thanks!

Check that reports in LHN flow is working as expected

Can you be more specific with this one please? ideally a numbered list of steps and verifying hte behaviour based on the changes you are making here

I added through steps.

elirangoshen · 2026-02-11T11:47:04Z

@elirangoshen Can you please also work with Opus to analyze if there is a room to make the unit tests more robust? this method is very complex so I wonder if we actually do cover all the cases for it?

Done I added more unit tests @mountiny

minor refactors

e7fc4e8

melvin-bot bot assigned elirangoshen Feb 5, 2026

fabioh8010 reviewed Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

VickyStash reviewed Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

narefyev91 reviewed Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

pasyukevich reviewed Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

pr comments

6d1e133

JKobrynski reviewed Feb 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

pr fixes

db9d88d

adhorodyski reviewed Feb 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

pr fixes

8805b63

elirangoshen marked this pull request as ready for review February 10, 2026 10:22

elirangoshen requested review from a team as code owners February 10, 2026 10:22

melvin-bot bot requested review from thesahindia and removed request for a team February 10, 2026 10:22

melvin-bot bot requested review from a team, abdulrahuman5196, joekaufmanexpensify and mountiny and removed request for a team February 10, 2026 10:22

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

elirangoshen requested review from VickyStash, fabioh8010 and pasyukevich February 10, 2026 10:43

elirangoshen requested review from JKobrynski, adhorodyski and narefyev91 February 10, 2026 10:44

restoring draft and isPinned

ff6103d

joekaufmanexpensify removed their request for review February 10, 2026 13:37

add unit tests

dce2481

-    if (report?.reportID === currentReportId) {
-        return CONST.REPORT_IN_LHN_REASONS.IS_FOCUSED;
-    }
+    // Include the currently viewed report. If we excluded the currently viewed report, then there
+    // would be no way to highlight it in the options list and it would be confusing to users because they lose
+    // a sense of context.
+    if (report.reportID === currentReportId) {
+        return CONST.REPORT_IN_LHN_REASONS.IS_FOCUSED;
+    }

Improve ShouldReportBeInOptionList function #81551

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Improve ShouldReportBeInOptionList function #81551

Conversation

elirangoshen commented Feb 5, 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!

codecov bot commented Feb 5, 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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JKobrynski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

joekaufmanexpensify commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

elirangoshen commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

elirangoshen commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Feb 10, 2026

elirangoshen commented Feb 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Feb 5, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

elirangoshen commented Feb 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading