Optimize hasEnabledTags used by MoneyRequestView by TMisiukiewicz · Pull Request #101862 · Expensify/App

TMisiukiewicz · 2026-09-22T08:24:30Z

Explanation of Change

Opening a report could spend ~100ms just checking whether a policy has any enabled tags. Two problems caused this:

hasEnabledTags built three throwaway arrays of every tag in the policy (filter + map(Object.values) + flat), plus another inside hasEnabledOptions, before answering a yes/no question. Now it walks the tag lists with plain loops and stops at the first enabled, non-deleted tag, with no allocations. The answer is the same as before.
MoneyRequestView ran this check twice per render (once to decide whether to show the tag row, once for the "tags disabled" alert). It now computes the result once per render and reuses it.

Fixed Issues

$ #101863
PROPOSAL:

Tests

On a policy with tags enabled and at least one enabled tag, open an expense report and open an expense preview. Verify the Tag row is shown in the request view.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests, but with the network connection turned off. Verify the app behaves the same and no errors appear.

QA Steps

Same as tests.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

codecov · 2026-09-22T08:27:11Z

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...c/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx	`82.15% <100.00%> (+0.04%)`	⬆️
src/libs/OptionsListUtils/index.ts	`91.34% <100.00%> (+0.01%)`	⬆️
src/libs/TagsOptionsListUtils.ts	`78.16% <81.81%> (-0.35%)`	⬇️
... and 11 files with indirect coverage changes

mountiny

Looks like good refactoring

mountiny · 2026-09-22T08:43:01Z

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 that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: HybridApp
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: HybridApp
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
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 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 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)
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately
- 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
- 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 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.
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: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

melvin-bot · 2026-09-22T09:06:27Z

@aimane-chnaif 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]

aimane-chnaif · 2026-09-22T09:36:10Z

-        .filter((tag) => tag?.tags)
-        .map(({tags}) => Object.values(tags))
-        .flat();
+    for (const tagList of policyTagList) {


function hasEnabledTags(policyTagList: Array<PolicyTagLists[keyof PolicyTagLists]>) { return policyTagList.some((tagList) => Object.values(tagList?.tags ?? {}).some(isOptionEnabled)); }

Can we simplify code like this? Or doesn't help with performance optimization?

Object.values() creates the full tag array for a list. So on a policy with a few thousand tags we allocate the whole array even when the very first tag answers the question. The loop allocates nothing and bails on the first hit, so the performance is better here

aimane-chnaif · 2026-09-22T10:28:30Z

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 that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: HybridApp
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: HybridApp
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
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 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 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)
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.
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: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

OSBotify · 2026-09-22T18:00:38Z

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

github-actions · 2026-09-22T18:14:44Z

🚧 mountiny has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

github-actions · 2026-09-22T18:19:07Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #101862.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-11fe79f-31938d7-72c3fdc37ec0e380cf8ba83389c0ba82f5c651b7/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-11fe79f-31938d7-122c8f8358393e69ec066608d12c3cb940fc21e4/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://101862.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-09-23T06:19:21Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.92-0 🚀

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

MelvinBot · 2026-09-23T06:21:41Z

🤖 No help site changes required. I did not create a docs PR.

This PR is a pure performance refactor with no user-facing behavior change, so nothing under App/docs/articles needs updating.

Why

All four changed files are internal:

src/libs/TagsOptionsListUtils.ts:210 — hasEnabledTags now short-circuits with plain loops instead of building three throwaway arrays. Same boolean result.
src/libs/OptionsListUtils/index.ts:891 — extracts the existing per-option predicate into isOptionEnabled and reuses it in hasEnabledOptions. Same logic.
src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx:513 — computes hasEnabledTags once per render instead of twice, and reuses it for shouldShowTag and shouldShowTagDisabledAlert. Same rendered output.
tests/unit/TagsOptionsListUtilsTest.ts — new unit tests only.

There is no new feature, no renamed or relocated setting, no changed label or button, and no change to when the Tag row or the "tags disabled" alert appears. The help site documents what users see and do, and none of that moved.

Note: I could not verify this in a browser — browser control was unavailable for this run — so this assessment is from the diff and code alone. That's sufficient here, since the change is a behavior-preserving refactor rather than a UI change.

@TMisiukiewicz — since no docs PR was needed, there's nothing to review or mark Ready for review. If you believe this PR does change something a help article describes, reply with the specific behavior and I'll open the draft PR.

view run

OSBotify · 2026-09-24T12:33:34Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.4.92-8 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android

Optimize hasEnabledTags used by MoneyRequestView

3e55df2

melvin-bot Bot assigned TMisiukiewicz Sep 22, 2026

mountiny mentioned this pull request Sep 22, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-09-25] Optimize hasEnabledTags used by MoneyRequestView #101863

Closed

mountiny previously approved these changes Sep 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Add unit tests for hasEnabledTags

a99f93c

TMisiukiewicz dismissed mountiny’s stale review via a99f93c September 22, 2026 08:54

TMisiukiewicz marked this pull request as ready for review September 22, 2026 09:06

TMisiukiewicz requested review from a team as code owners September 22, 2026 09:06

melvin-bot Bot requested review from aimane-chnaif and garrettmknight and removed request for a team September 22, 2026 09:06

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team September 22, 2026 09:06

github-actions Bot reviewed Sep 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/TagsOptionsListUtils.ts

Extract shared isOptionEnabled predicate

32a2951

aimane-chnaif reviewed Sep 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Address review: narrow isOptionEnabled type, document tests

0afe8ae

aimane-chnaif approved these changes Sep 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from mountiny September 22, 2026 10:28

garrettmknight removed their request for review September 22, 2026 16:50

mountiny approved these changes Sep 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit 11fe79f into Expensify:main Sep 22, 2026
36 of 39 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-09-23 #101971

Closed

TMisiukiewicz mentioned this pull request Sep 25, 2026

[Tracker] Performance benchmarking — slow load for workspaces with a very large number of tags #101698

Closed

Conversation

TMisiukiewicz commented Sep 22, 2026 • edited by mountiny 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 Sep 22, 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!

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Sep 22, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Sep 22, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aimane-chnaif Sep 22, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TMisiukiewicz Sep 22, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aimane-chnaif commented Sep 22, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Sep 22, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 22, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 22, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Sep 23, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Sep 23, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Sep 24, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

TMisiukiewicz commented Sep 22, 2026 •

edited by mountiny

Loading

codecov Bot commented Sep 22, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

aimane-chnaif Sep 22, 2026 •

edited

Loading

aimane-chnaif commented Sep 22, 2026 •

edited

Loading