cleanup: split filtering & ordering in OptionsListUtils #53371

hannojg · 2024-12-02T10:35:01Z

Explanation of Change

This PR is a refactoring that clearly splits the responsibilities into:

filtering options
ordering options

Before ordering and filtering was happening inter-connectedly, which makes it hard to change anything about that code.

Over at this PR i am working on improving the performance of the filtering:

Search suffix tree implementation #51954

and i need the filtering and ordering to be two clearly separate operations (so we can easily just swap out the filtering for a faster implementation).

Notes about the changes:

I found that the excludeUnknownUsers was a option that had no code path that was ever used, so I was able to remove it
Likewise sortPersonalDetailsByAlphaAsc was default true and there was no code path that was setting this to false so I removed that as well
For ordering the options we need to sort by the lastVisibleActionCreated. It was currently not present on the option and so i added it to createOption
I renamed getOptions to getValidOptions to emphasis the functions responsibility to return us only the options that are valid for showing in the UI
I created separate functions for filtering and ordering. The new function to get a filtered and ordered options object is now called filterAndOrderOptions (before it was filterOptions). The new separate functions are:
- orderReportOptions
- orderPersonalDetailsOptions
- orderOptions, combines the two above functions
- filterReports
- filterPersonalDetails
- filterCurrentUserOption
- filterUserToInvite
- filterOptions combines the four above

There is also a performance advantage to this I want to point out:

Before we were applying some ordering to all options before filtering them. Now, we filter the options first and then apply the ordering to the remaining search result, which can be way more efficient.

Fixed Issues

$ #51954
PROPOSAL: #51954 (comment)

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
Open the search:
- Confirm that search results between this branch and production are very much the same (it might be that on dev / production you've different items loaded which can slightly influence the search results, but largely they should match)

Offline tests

QA Steps

Same as testing

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

The current problem is with the max reports number. I currently only splice in the order function. but in the filter function we filter the personal details based on the recent reports. if the recent reports aren't limited in the filter function then then we will have fewer personal details (as more reports have been loaded). however i can't limit the recent reports in filter yet as they aren't ordered yet… we might need to split up getOptions for reports and pD actually

…g in the right moment

…ltering-ordering

hannojg · 2024-12-02T11:32:09Z

cc @ahmedGaber93 since you reviewed all PRs of this cleanup so far 🫶
This is ready for review (will mark it as such once i've filled all the details)

melvin-bot · 2024-12-02T13:50:59Z

@neil-marcellini 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]

neil-marcellini

Nice work! It mostly looks good to me. I recognize that it's pretty hard to test such a large refactor like this, but I will add a C+ to stick to our process and have another set of eyes.

I have some questions about the unit tests.

src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts

tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsTest.ts

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-12-03T09:58:03Z

Reviewing and testing today.

ahmedGaber93

Great refactoring, just small notes

src/components/Search/SearchFiltersChatsSelector.tsx

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-12-03T20:28:37Z

src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts

+                if (option.private_isArchived) {
+                    return CONST.DATE.UNIX_EPOCH;
+                }
+                return option?.lastVisibleActionCreated ?? '';


The fallback ?? '' didn't exist before the refactoring, I think this may affect on the ordering because orderBy() places undefined values at the end of the sorted array, and empty value '' at the top, you can try it here

fixed this one! also realized i was missing one other parameter to the ordering which i added now

actually i probably have to rewrite this a bit. I think in the original implementation there was kind of a bug. Will explain in detail once fixed …

Okay, so we don't need the additional private_isArchived, we don't need the additional isSelfDM check.

The code i have written makes sure to check all of these properties only once (before we were using those options in the multiple order functions, which makes it harder to understand whats happening).

The ?? '' is actually correct, i added a code comment to better explain it

src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts

tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsTest.ts

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-12-03T21:12:36Z

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 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: Native

aa.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

wwaa.mp4

iOS: Native

iiiii.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

wwiii.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

phone.number.user.to.invite.mp4

phone.number.mp4

start.chat.mp4

number.mp4

user.to.join.mp4

you.mp4

multi.search.text.mp4

search.tab.mp4

20241205210114123.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

20241210161849467.mp4

…back)

hannojg · 2024-12-04T18:47:00Z

Okay, prod and dev looked the same now in my test cases:

neil-marcellini

Thanks for the updates, all my requested changes from last time were addressed. It all looks good to me except for one test. Let's also please add more test steps with more detail, trying to cover most of the areas that were changed. If we do that it's less likely we'll have to revert this due to regressions on staging.

tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsTest.ts

neil-marcellini · 2024-12-05T18:28:36Z

Another option is to ask Applause to run the regression tests on this branch, I think we do that sometimes for large changes. I'm not sure it's appropriate for this one, but we can ask if you want to try that.

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-12-05T20:15:40Z

I tested it as much as I could. Search result look the same on dev and staging except the last case

✅ search tab

search.tab.mp4

✅ search from header icon

20241205210114123.mp4

✅ multi search terms

multi.search.text.mp4

✅ self DM

you.mp4

✅ user to join - email

user.to.join.mp4

✅ user to join - phone

phone.number.user.to.invite.mp4

✅ start chat

start.chat.mp4

❌ create expense

Fresh login with a high traffic account that have a lot of workspaces on DEV and staging
Click Fab icon > Create expense > choose participant

The recent reports are not in the same order, especially "Big chat" workspace.

…ltering-ordering

hannojg · 2024-12-06T11:59:11Z

@ahmedGaber93 Thanks for the thorough testing! Can you please test this case again?

hannojg · 2024-12-06T12:00:51Z

@neil-marcellini yeah i would sleep better if this PR would get a Applause regression test 😅 maybe we can ask them to only test search features / features that are related to where we show result lists?

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-12-06T12:36:43Z

Can you please test this case again?

Hmm! Ordering still not the same.

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-12-06T12:48:35Z

src/pages/iou/request/MoneyRequestParticipantsSelector.tsx

+        const orderedOptions = OptionsListUtils.orderOptions(optionList, undefined, {
+            sortByReportTypeInSearch: isPaidGroupPolicy,
+        });


I think config will be ignored when we're passing searchValue as undefined because orderReportOptions(options: ReportUtils.OptionData[]) doesn't have a config parameter

The ordering looks the same with me in this case only when remove sortComparatorReportOptionByDate here, but I don't know if we should remove it or no and also don't test this change effect on the other cases

Update: I test it on other places, and it causes a lot of mismatching ordering, so it is not the correct way. But it may help to investigate this.

Hm, okay, will double check with multiple accounts - good observation with the config not being used, thanks!

I added a function overloading for orderOptions to make sure you can only call it with options when you've provided a search value

…ltering-ordering

hannojg · 2024-12-09T13:24:53Z

@ahmedGaber93 Okay I think I fixed the ordering now. I did this by separating the order statements, this is how it was working before (ie. the first order function was called in getOptions the second in filterOptions - both functions are now called in the orderReportOptions functions). Would appreciate if you could test this one more time 🙏

I will revisit the ordering function after the cleanup PR is merged. I think sorting twice is quite inefficient and especially lodash orderBy is known to be slow (but will profile soon and provide before and after values!)

ahmedGaber93

Tested well! All yours @neil-marcellini.

melvin-bot · 2024-12-10T14:35:12Z

🎯 @ahmedGaber93, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

An E/App issue has been created to issue payment here: #53857.

neil-marcellini

Ok, looks like it's time to merge. Hopefully QA will catch any issues we missed and if they create a blocker issue we'll revert this and fix the specific problem.

OSBotify · 2024-12-11T01:46:32Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

hannojg added 6 commits November 25, 2024 20:56

split out filtering and ordering very cleanly so we can apply splicin…

48d4fa1

…g in the right moment

fix sorting not working

65c770e

fix usage

8bb573f

rename getOptions -> getValidOptions

717d750

remove any todos

8ff8248

hannojg mentioned this pull request Dec 2, 2024

Search suffix tree implementation #51954

Open

50 tasks

hannojg added 4 commits December 2, 2024 11:52

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:Expensify/App into cleanup/split-fi…

0636ee7

…ltering-ordering

add missing userToInvite back to filterOptions

8bd35e3

refactor: move userToInvite to its own function

2e2448c

fix getOptions -> getValidOptions

e46e6ec

hannojg added 2 commits December 2, 2024 12:43

clean: order functions

77e2224

cleanup configs

08d1187

hannojg changed the title ~~Cleanup/split filtering ordering~~ cleanup: split filtering ordering Dec 2, 2024

hannojg changed the title ~~cleanup: split filtering ordering~~ cleanup: split filtering & ordering in OptionsListUtils Dec 2, 2024

fix ordering

a75bf95

hannojg marked this pull request as ready for review December 2, 2024 13:50

hannojg requested a review from a team as a code owner December 2, 2024 13:50

melvin-bot bot requested review from neil-marcellini and removed request for a team December 2, 2024 13:50

neil-marcellini requested changes Dec 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

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

tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsTest.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsTest.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

ahmedGaber93 reviewed Dec 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

hannojg added 4 commits December 4, 2024 10:57

fix ordering when maxRecentReportsToShow option is set (added test …

2eaeaf4

…back)

remove maxRecentOptionsToShow

8c98f84

add test to verify behaviour of maxRecentReportsToShow: 0

9e37f36

simplify into one var

1e7a3b4

fix broken screens

c60f18d

hannojg force-pushed the cleanup/split-filtering-ordering branch from 00e284f to c60f18d Compare December 4, 2024 17:24

remove slightly redundant code

ec8df5e

hannojg marked this pull request as ready for review December 4, 2024 18:45

hannojg requested review from ahmedGaber93 and neil-marcellini December 4, 2024 18:47

neil-marcellini requested changes Dec 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsTest.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

hannojg added 4 commits December 6, 2024 10:06

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:Expensify/App into cleanup/split-fi…

59b5f3f

…ltering-ordering

use filterAndOrderOptions

e369474

potentially fix search

3285c33

maxRecentReportsToShow: 0 should return zero reports

dfa6fd6

hannojg requested a review from neil-marcellini December 6, 2024 11:59

ahmedGaber93 reviewed Dec 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

hannojg added 2 commits December 9, 2024 11:19

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:Expensify/App into cleanup/split-fi…

b174805

…ltering-ordering

fix ordering by making it two separate order function calls as before

ee50f31

hannojg force-pushed the cleanup/split-filtering-ordering branch from c16d172 to ee50f31 Compare December 9, 2024 13:22

call orderOptions

25a1352

ahmedGaber93 approved these changes Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Dec 10, 2024

Payment issue for E/App PR#53371 #53857

Open

neil-marcellini approved these changes Dec 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

neil-marcellini merged commit 1a95147 into Expensify:main Dec 11, 2024
18 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

cleanup: split filtering & ordering in OptionsListUtils #53371

cleanup: split filtering & ordering in OptionsListUtils #53371

hannojg commented Dec 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

hannojg commented Dec 2, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 2, 2024

neil-marcellini left a comment

ahmedGaber93 commented Dec 3, 2024

ahmedGaber93 left a comment

ahmedGaber93 Dec 3, 2024

hannojg Dec 4, 2024

hannojg Dec 4, 2024

hannojg Dec 4, 2024

ahmedGaber93 commented Dec 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

hannojg commented Dec 4, 2024

neil-marcellini left a comment

neil-marcellini commented Dec 5, 2024

ahmedGaber93 commented Dec 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

hannojg commented Dec 6, 2024

hannojg commented Dec 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ahmedGaber93 commented Dec 6, 2024

ahmedGaber93 Dec 6, 2024

ahmedGaber93 Dec 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

hannojg Dec 9, 2024

hannojg Dec 9, 2024

hannojg commented Dec 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ahmedGaber93 left a comment

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 10, 2024

neil-marcellini left a comment

OSBotify commented Dec 11, 2024

cleanup: split filtering & ordering in OptionsListUtils #53371

cleanup: split filtering & ordering in OptionsListUtils #53371

Conversation

hannojg commented Dec 2, 2024 • edited Loading

Explanation of Change

Notes about the changes:

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

hannojg commented Dec 2, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 2, 2024

neil-marcellini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ahmedGaber93 commented Dec 3, 2024

ahmedGaber93 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ahmedGaber93 Dec 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hannojg Dec 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hannojg Dec 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hannojg Dec 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ahmedGaber93 commented Dec 3, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

hannojg commented Dec 4, 2024

neil-marcellini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

neil-marcellini commented Dec 5, 2024

ahmedGaber93 commented Dec 5, 2024 • edited Loading

hannojg commented Dec 6, 2024

hannojg commented Dec 6, 2024 • edited Loading

ahmedGaber93 commented Dec 6, 2024

ahmedGaber93 Dec 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ahmedGaber93 Dec 6, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hannojg Dec 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hannojg Dec 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hannojg commented Dec 9, 2024 • edited Loading

ahmedGaber93 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 10, 2024

neil-marcellini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Dec 11, 2024

hannojg commented Dec 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ahmedGaber93 commented Dec 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ahmedGaber93 commented Dec 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

hannojg commented Dec 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ahmedGaber93 Dec 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

hannojg commented Dec 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading