Skip to content

Remove batching mechanism #689

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
VickyStash wants to merge 15 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Remove batching mechanism #689

VickyStash wants to merge 15 commits into from
+77 −151

Conversation

@VickyStash
Copy link
Contributor

@VickyStash VickyStash commented Oct 16, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Details

This PR removes outdated custom batching mechanism.

Related Issues

$ Expensify/App#79338

Automated Tests

N/A

Manual Tests

  1. Login with a account.
  2. Navigate to a chat, send a message. React to that message.
  3. Reply to that message in a new thread.
  4. Create a new task, navigate to its details and mark it as completed.
  5. Create a new expense to someone else, navigate to its details.
  6. Go to Reports tab, Expenses, make sure you can find your expense and see its details.
  7. Create a new workspace, make sure the rooms were created.

Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Related 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 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 / Chrome
    • iOS / native
    • iOS / 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 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 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
    • If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
    • 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 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 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
android.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
android_web.mp4
iOS: Native
ios.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
ios_web.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web.mp4

@VickyStash VickyStash mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2025
Open
@VickyStash VickyStash changed the title [AUDIT] Remove batching Remove batching mechanism Jan 7, 2026
@mountiny mountiny mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2026
Open
@mountiny mountiny self-requested a review January 12, 2026 11:34
@VickyStash
Copy link
Contributor Author

VickyStash commented Jan 12, 2026

About Reassure check: I've run the reassure test locally several times, and it doesn't fail for me with the mentioned metric.
I see other PRs were also failing with the same problem randomly, so maybe it's an existing flickering test.

@VickyStash VickyStash marked this pull request as ready for review January 12, 2026 13:53
@VickyStash VickyStash requested a review from a team as a code owner January 12, 2026 13:53
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from stitesExpensify and removed request for a team January 12, 2026 13:53
stitesExpensify
stitesExpensify previously approved these changes Jan 12, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@stitesExpensify stitesExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@mountiny mountiny requested a review from mkhutornyi January 12, 2026 16:46
mountiny
mountiny previously approved these changes Jan 12, 2026
View reviewed changes
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.

Changes look good to me @mkhutornyi will do C+ review and testing for the checklist 🙌

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

mountiny commented Jan 12, 2026

@VickyStash are there no markdown/ docs to update?

@VickyStash VickyStash dismissed stale reviews from mountiny and stitesExpensify via 19fa645 January 12, 2026 17:06
@VickyStash
Copy link
Contributor Author

VickyStash commented Jan 12, 2026

@VickyStash are there no markdown/ docs to update?

Good point! I've re-generated the API docs

@mkhutornyi
Copy link

mkhutornyi commented Jan 12, 2026

perf tests failing

perf tests

@VickyStash
Copy link
Contributor Author

VickyStash commented Jan 13, 2026

Updates:

Today I've experimented a lot with why the reassure check is failing. I've experimented in a separate PR not to pollute this one with investigations, cause the issue isn't reproduced when I run the reassure tests locally.

I've truly found the consistency in some of my updates and the failing test. I've narrowed down what part of my updates is causing the failing test, but I haven't figured out why (debugging is a little tricky, cause the test locally doesn't hit the threshold)

@mkhutornyi I'll ping you as soon as I deal with this!

@VickyStash
Copy link
Contributor Author

VickyStash commented Jan 14, 2026

Update:
I've experimented a lot with trying to debug this reassurance test, and it feels weird to me (experimented here).

So locally, failing test duration is always fine for me! Here are the local results:

baseline - main:

{"name":"OnyxUtils keyChanged one call with one heavy object to update 10k subscribers","type":"function","runs":10,"meanDuration":15.122525000001042,"stdevDuration":2.7841316391877857,"durations":[13.439666999998735,17.37116700000479,11.31141700000444,14.066292000003159,17.033582999996725,12.765707999998995,18.486917000001995,12.93262500000128,14.213582999997016,19.604291000003286],"warmupDurations":[46.69937499999651],"outlierDurations":[],"meanCount":1,"stdevCount":0,"counts":[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1]}

current - this PR branch (befor updating the reassure test, over the commit 35e880f)

{"name":"OnyxUtils keyChanged one call with one heavy object to update 10k subscribers","type":"function","runs":10,"meanDuration":14.326350100000855,"stdevDuration":2.640866395798517,"durations":[11.79383300000336,11.508249999998952,15.632625000005646,12.85516700000153,16.526874999995925,11.725915999995777,11.91133400000399,16.922417000001587,15.792916999998852,18.594167000002926],"warmupDurations":[15.156792000001587],"outlierDurations":[],"meanCount":1,"stdevCount":0,"counts":[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1]}

@mkhutornyi Can you please try to run Reassure tests locally on your end? Main branch vs 35e880f commit.

By experimenting with Reassure CI, I've narrowed down, that the test is still passing without unstable_batchedUpdates if I have some logic inside extra batchUpdates call in the scheduleSubscriberUpdate function.
Here is an example of passing test commit: example
But if I remove part of the code, that actually has no effect on the functionality, it fails: next commit, just remove part of the code and it fails.

I've updated the test to handle before/after processes out of the measurements, but that's not our intention I beleive.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@mountiny mountiny mountiny left review comments

@stitesExpensify stitesExpensify stitesExpensify left review comments

@mkhutornyi mkhutornyi Awaiting requested review from mkhutornyi

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@VickyStash VickyStash

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@VickyStash @mountiny @mkhutornyi @stitesExpensify