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: remove getSearchText function #46409

Merged

Conversation

TMisiukiewicz
Copy link
Contributor

@TMisiukiewicz TMisiukiewicz commented Jul 29, 2024

Details

Since all search pages are migrated to filterOptions now, we are able to remove usage of getSearchText from createOption to speed up the time of building option list.

Additionally, all tests for search were migrated to filterOptions.

Removing getSearchText speeds up creating option list by around 40%. In the context of a trace provided for a linked issue, it reduces accumulated createOption time from 5.7s to 4s (~42% improvement)

Fixed Issues

$ #45528
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  1. Go to Chat Finder
  2. Type something matching the list and verify it appears in the results
  3. Go back
  4. Open FAB and go to Start Chat
  5. Type something matching the list and verify it appears in the results
  6. Add one of the results to the group and verify it appears in the list of selected items
  7. Go back
  8. Open FAB and go to Submit expense
  9. Fill in an amount manually and go to next screen
  10. Type something matching the list and verify it appears in the results
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

  1. Go to Chat Finder
  2. Type something matching the list and verify it appears in the results
  3. Go back
  4. Open FAB and go to Start Chat
  5. Type something matching the list and verify it appears in the results
  6. Add one of the results to the group and verify it appears in the list of selected items
  7. Go back
  8. Open FAB and go to Submit expense
  9. Fill in an amount manually and go to next screen
  10. Type something matching the list and verify it appears in the results
  • 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

@adhorodyski
Copy link
Contributor

Backlinking to #45528

@TMisiukiewicz TMisiukiewicz marked this pull request as ready for review July 30, 2024 09:41
@TMisiukiewicz TMisiukiewicz requested a review from a team as a code owner July 30, 2024 09:41
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from mkhutornyi and removed request for a team July 30, 2024 09:41
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 30, 2024

@mkhutornyi 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]

if (personalDetail.login) {
// The regex below is used to remove dots only from the local part of the user email (local-part@domain)
// so that we can match emails that have dots without explicitly writing the dots (e.g: fistlast@domain will match first.last@domain)
// More info https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/8007
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

no need to link this old issue anymore?

Comment on lines -543 to -553
if (isThread) {
const title = ReportUtils.getReportName(report);
const chatRoomSubtitle = ReportUtils.getChatRoomSubtitle(report);

Array.prototype.push.apply(searchTerms, title.split(/[,\s]/));
Array.prototype.push.apply(searchTerms, chatRoomSubtitle?.split(/[,\s]/) ?? ['']);
} else if (isChatRoomOrPolicyExpenseChat) {
const chatRoomSubtitle = ReportUtils.getChatRoomSubtitle(report);

Array.prototype.push.apply(searchTerms, chatRoomSubtitle?.split(/[,\s]/) ?? ['']);
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We had made threads searchable in #19117.
Please make sure that this removal doesn't cause regression.

Copy link
Contributor

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall it looks pretty good, but I'm having trouble tracking all the changes. Could you please explain a bit more about why it's ok to remove this function, how we can be sure it's not used anywhere, and provide an overview of how and why the tests were changed?

// Then we expect to have the personal detail with period filtered
expect(results.recentReports.length).toBe(1);
expect(results.recentReports[0].text).toBe('The Flash');
});
});
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The getSearchOptions function is still in use, could you please explain why it's ok to remove these tests?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see you added some tests at the bottom which look similar, but again I'm having trouble determining what has changed. Maybe with more context it will be clear to me.

@TMisiukiewicz
Copy link
Contributor Author

hi @neil-marcellini, let me give you some background here. For the last couple of months I was working on optimizing search lists. The main bottlenecks here were:

  1. re-generating search options each time user types in the input
  2. each time search options were re-generated, a searchText was generated from scratch for each option using getSearchText

For heavy loaded accounts, with thousands of reports and personal details, the total execution time for getSearchText could be measured in seconds.

The actions we took were:

Since recently we migrated all the lists to the filtering, we should be safe to get rid of generating search text for options. Lists like Category, Tags, or Tag are still using searchText property, because the search in here is pretty straightforward and does not require any heavy calculations.

Since removing getSearchText allowed to remove part of a search logic from getOptions, the unit tests that were responsible for validating search results started to fail. To make sure the new implementation works properly, I re-wrote all of these tests into filterOptions

Copy link
Contributor

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok thanks for explaining. The code looks good. Hopefully we didn't miss anything and there are no regressions.

@neil-marcellini
Copy link
Contributor

@mkhutornyi please DM me on Slack when you finish your review and it's ready to merge.

@TMisiukiewicz
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mkhutornyi could you please take a look on this PR when you have a moment? Thanks!

@adhorodyski
Copy link
Contributor

Just to put this PR into more context, the estimated gain for this is a major speedup in how the Chat Finder page operates on bigger accounts.

Generally each interaction should be much snappier as we're stripping down ~40% of the existing compute time for generating the list of results.

@neil-marcellini
Copy link
Contributor

Bumped the C+ in Slack here. If he's too busy we can get someone else.

@mkhutornyi
Copy link
Contributor

mkhutornyi commented Aug 5, 2024

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 tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • 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 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 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
    • 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.js 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.
  • 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: Native
android.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
mchrome.mp4
iOS: Native
ios.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
msafari.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web.mov
MacOS: Desktop
desktop.mov

@mkhutornyi
Copy link
Contributor

Looking good so far. Still testing with some more accounts

@adhorodyski
Copy link
Contributor

@mkhutornyi thanks for diving into this, I'm hoping we can get this one merged today 🤞

@@ -2440,7 +2368,7 @@ function formatSectionsFromSearchTerm(
// This will add them to the list of options, deduping them if they already exist in the other lists
const selectedParticipantsWithoutDetails = selectedOptions.filter((participant) => {
const accountID = participant.accountID ?? null;
const isPartOfSearchTerm = participant.searchText?.toLowerCase().includes(searchTerm.trim().toLowerCase());
const isPartOfSearchTerm = getPersonalDetailSearchTerms(participant).join(' ').toLowerCase().includes(searchTerm.trim().toLowerCase());
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we move searchTerm.trim().toLowerCase() to outside of the filter ? It seems redundant and we can potentially save some ms here.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yep nice catch! No need to transform it each time

@TMisiukiewicz
Copy link
Contributor Author

resolved comment & updated with main

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini merged commit eb16bd6 into Expensify:main Aug 5, 2024
16 checks passed
@adhorodyski adhorodyski deleted the perf/getsearchtext branch August 5, 2024 20:42
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Aug 6, 2024

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/neil-marcellini in version: 9.0.17-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Aug 7, 2024

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.0.17-2 🚀

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

2 similar comments
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Aug 8, 2024

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.0.17-2 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Aug 8, 2024

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.0.17-2 🚀

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants