Skip to content

perf: defer central report list on Inbox tab navigation - #96374

Merged
JS00001 merged 15 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
callstack-internal:perf/inbox-tab-defer-central-report
Jul 27, 2026
Merged

JS00001 merged 15 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
callstack-internal:perf/inbox-tab-defer-central-report

Conversation

@BartekObudzinski

@BartekObudzinski BartekObudzinski commented Jul 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

On wide layout, tapping the Inbox tab navigates to the last opened report. The current URL-based navigation rebuilds the nested report route, so React remounts the central ReportScreen and its heavy report actions list in the same commit as the LHN. The ManualNavigateToInboxTab span ends when the LHN lays out, but that layout cannot paint until the report list commit finishes.

This PR follows the cached navigation architecture used by the Search and Spend tab:

  1. When a valid Reports tab state already exists, the Inbox tab focuses it with a targeted TabActions.jumpTo action. Omitting nested params preserves the mounted ReportScreen, report list, route key, report params, and URL.
  2. The first warm Inbox mount still defers ReportActions behind NavigationDeferredMount, allowing the LHN to paint before the heavy list hydrates.
  3. The deferred mount now lives in the stable ReportScreen slot. After the first hydration, react-freeze preserves that state. Subsequent Home to Inbox navigations reuse the same report list and do not show the skeleton again.
  4. Cold navigation, deleted reports, deleted report actions, and uninitialized Reports navigators keep the existing URL-based fallback.

The deferral remains scoped to an in-flight ManualNavigateToInboxTab span. Opening a report from the LHN, a deep link, or Search does not start that span and renders the report immediately.

Benchmark results

Wide web with warm cached data.

First warm Inbox mount, 8 measured runs:

Metric Before After Improvement
P90 793 ms 518 ms 34.7%
Average 703 ms 494 ms 29.7%

Subsequent cached Inbox visits, 12 measured runs:

Metric Before After Improvement
P90 344 ms 72 ms 79.1%
Average 315 ms 67 ms 78.7%

The skeleton appears only during the first mount. Subsequent Home to Inbox navigations preserve the same ReportScreen and report list with no skeleton.

Fixed Issues

$ #96398
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  1. Open the app on a wide screen and navigate to Home.
  2. Refresh the page, then tap Inbox.
  3. Verify the central report shows a loading skeleton once and then the full cached report content.
  4. Navigate to Home and tap Inbox again.
  5. Verify the same report appears immediately without another skeleton.
  6. Repeat the Home to Inbox navigation and verify the report URL remains /r/:reportID.
  7. Use browser back and forward and verify Home and the same Inbox report are restored.
  8. Open another report from the LHN and through a deep link. Verify both render without the Inbox tab defer skeleton.
  9. Verify that no errors appear in the JS console.
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

  1. Go offline after visiting an Inbox report once.
  2. Navigate to Home and then back to Inbox on a wide screen.
  3. Verify the cached report is restored immediately without another skeleton.
  4. Refresh on Home while offline, then open Inbox.
  5. Verify the expected offline report state renders without errors.

QA Steps

  1. On a wide screen, open Inbox once and wait for the report content.
  2. Switch between Home and Inbox several times.
  3. Verify the first Inbox mount may show a short skeleton, while subsequent visits show the cached report immediately without a skeleton.
  4. Verify the last report, report URL, browser back, and browser forward behavior remain correct.
  5. Verify opening reports from the LHN and deep links behaves normally.
  6. Verify there are no console errors or visual regressions.
  • 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
  • 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 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 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)
  • 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 new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
    • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
    • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
  • 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.
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
Screen.Recording.2026-07-21.at.11.42.58.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2026-07-21.at.11.35.17.mov

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jul 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/CONST/index.ts 94.81% <ø> (ø)
...nts/Navigation/NavigationTabBar/InboxTabButton.tsx 93.18% <100.00%> (ø)
.../NavigationTabBar/getReusableReportsTabStateKey.ts 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ents/Navigation/NavigationTabBar/getStringParam.ts 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../AppNavigator/Navigators/ReportsSplitNavigator.tsx 94.73% <100.00%> (ø)
src/pages/inbox/ReportActions.tsx 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/pages/inbox/ReportScreen.tsx 95.45% <100.00%> (ø)
src/libs/Navigation/Navigation.ts 47.73% <94.11%> (ø)

@BartekObudzinski
BartekObudzinski force-pushed the perf/inbox-tab-defer-central-report branch 2 times, most recently from 3948493 to 2e7566c Compare July 17, 2026 13:20
@BartekObudzinski
BartekObudzinski force-pushed the perf/inbox-tab-defer-central-report branch from 2e7566c to 727d764 Compare July 17, 2026 13:27
Comment thread src/pages/inbox/ReportScreen.tsx Outdated
}

return (
<NavigationDeferredMount

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@BartekObudzinski Let's put ReportActionsWithInboxTabDeferredMount into src/pages/inbox/ReportActions.tsx

@DylanDylann

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@BartekObudzinski I love the idea. The transition is now smoother since we no longer perform the navigate function. I also noticed that the change fixes some flickers during the transition that happen when using the navigate function

Screen.Recording.2026-07-18.at.17.37.25.mov

// Deep links and REPORT_WITH_ID navigation pass the reportID in nested params,
// which lets us skip the O(n) findLastAccessedReport scan over all reports.
if (route.params?.screen === SCREENS.REPORT && route.params.params?.reportID) {
if (route.params && 'screen' in route.params && route.params.screen === SCREENS.REPORT && route.params.params?.reportID) {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure we need to change this if condition. It felt a little easier to read before

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

route.params can now be either NavigatorScreenParams or the marker-only {shouldDeferInitialReportActions} object. The marker branch has no screen property, so the in check is needed to narrow the union before reading nested params.


type RootNavigationState = NavigationState | PartialState<NavigationState> | undefined;

function isRecord(value: unknown): value is Record<string, unknown> {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks like we already have an isRecord utility in @libs/ObjectUtils.ts:41. That version is actually a bit more robust since it also checks for !Array.isArray. Could we just import that one here instead of creating a new copy?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

return getTabNavigatorRoute(rootState)?.state?.key;
}

function getReusableReportsTabStateKey(

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder if we could reuse or extend getTopmostReportParams here? It might help us avoid manually repeating the REPORTS_SPLIT_NAVIGATOR -> REPORT traversal and reduce duplication in the route-finding logic

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

getTopmostReportParams can prefer a top-level Reports split and only returns report params. This helper needs the specific Reports tab instance, its initialized nested state, and the tab state key used as the jump target, so reusing it would still require the same traversal and could validate a different navigator.

@BartekObudzinski
BartekObudzinski marked this pull request as ready for review July 22, 2026 12:38
@BartekObudzinski
BartekObudzinski requested review from a team as code owners July 22, 2026 12:38
@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested a review from DylanDylann July 22, 2026 12:38
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@DylanDylann 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
melvin-bot Bot requested review from trjExpensify and removed request for a team July 22, 2026 12:38

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 468d2dea06

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment thread src/components/Navigation/NavigationTabBar/InboxTabButton.tsx Outdated
@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⏱️ Ran out of time before I could finish. This usually means the task was too complex or I got stuck exploring. Please try again with a more specific request or post in #melvinbot-ai.

Run details

@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🤖 I verified the Tests steps on web (dev NewDot, wide layout). Result: passed — the Inbox report renders fully with no persistent skeleton across repeated Home↔Inbox navigations, the URL stays /r/:reportID, and no console/network errors were observed. Two steps couldn't be exercised by the headless web driver (noted below).

# Step Result
1 Wide screen, Home/Inbox LHN visible ✅ Pass
2 Refresh, tap Inbox → central report shows content ✅ Pass
3 Full cached report content after load ✅ Pass
4–5 Home → Inbox again → same report, no new skeleton ✅ Pass
6 Repeated Home→Inbox keeps URL /r/:reportID ✅ Pass
7 Browser back/forward restores Home & Inbox report ⚠️ Out of scope
8 Other report from LHN / deep link, no defer skeleton ⚠️ Partial
9 No JS console errors ✅ Pass
Evidence & caveats
  • URL stability (step 6): Network Referer headers confirm the Inbox report URL was consistently https://dev.new.expensify.com:8082/r/7748235410368844 across three Home→Inbox navigations; the Home tab used /home.
  • No skeleton (steps 3–5): An is exists label="Loading" assertion failed on every visit (i.e. no loading indicator present) while the Concierge report content was asserted present each time.
  • Console/network (step 9): All 50 scanned network requests returned HTTP 200 with x-jsoncode: 200; no error responses. Direct JS-console readout isn't available on the web driver, so this is inferred from clean network traffic.
  • Step 7 (browser back/forward): The agent-device web driver returns UNSUPPORTED_OPERATION for browser history navigation, so this could not be exercised.
  • Step 8 (other report / deep link): This fresh test account only has the Concierge report in the LHN, so a second LHN report and a deep-link open couldn't be exercised. The available report loaded without a defer skeleton.
  • Transient first-mount skeleton (step 3): The one-time skeleton on the very first warm mount is a sub-frame transition that a post-load headless snapshot can't capture; the end state (full content, no skeleton) was confirmed.

Screenshots

Initial state: Inbox tab with Concierge report loaded
After first Inbox tab click - full report content, no skeleton
Second Home to Inbox navigation - same report appears immediately
Third Home to Inbox navigation - report URL /r/7748235410368844
Final state: Inbox report fully loaded, no loading skeleton

▶ Session recordings (1)

@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Tests verification — wide web (dev build @ 468d2de)

I ran the Tests steps on a wide desktop viewport (1440×900) against a fresh local build of this branch. Most steps passed. Two could not be fully verified due to test-harness limitations, called out below.

# Step Result
1 Home shows no central report ✅ Pass
2 Refresh → Inbox shows skeleton once, then cached report ⚠️ Inconclusive — cached report rendered, but no skeleton observed
3 Home → Inbox again shows same report immediately, no skeleton ✅ Pass
4 Repeat Home → Inbox, URL stays /r/:reportID ✅ Pass (/r/6423160280876552)
5 Browser back/forward restores Home + same report ⚠️ Not directly testable in harness (see below)
6 Open another report from LHN, no defer skeleton ✅ Pass
9 No JS console errors ✅ No errors detected

Overall: No regressions found — repeated Home → Inbox navigation consistently restores the same cached report immediately, the URL stays /r/:reportID, and opening other reports from the LHN renders without a defer skeleton. All API calls returned 200 and no console errors surfaced.

Caveats on steps 2 and 5
  • Step 2 (skeleton): The cached Concierge report rendered immediately on every Inbox open, and I never captured the one-time loading skeleton. This is expected when report data is already warm in the Onyx cache (content paints synchronously). The test harness also can't reproduce a session-preserving F5 refresh — its open always creates a fresh browser context — so the exact "skeleton appears once after refresh" moment couldn't be isolated. This is a harness limitation, not evidence of a defect; the "no skeleton on subsequent visits" behavior (steps 3–5) was confirmed.
  • Step 5 (browser back/forward): Programmatic browser back/forward isn't supported for web in the test harness. URL transitions between /home and /r/6423160280876552 were confirmed correct via network referers, but history-based restoration wasn't directly exercised.

These two steps would benefit from a manual pass by the author/reviewer.

Evidence

Step 2 — Inbox opened after fresh load, cached report renders (no skeleton captured):
Step 2 - Inbox after Home
Step 2 - immediate skeleton check

Step 3 — same report shown immediately on repeat navigation:
Step 3 - Inbox again

Step 4 — URL stays /r/:reportID on repeat navigation:
Step 4 - third nav, URL stable

Step 5 — Inbox report consistently restored:
Step 5 - Inbox restored

Step 6 — different report (Melvin Bot DM) opened from LHN, no defer skeleton:
Step 6 - new report from LHN

@trjExpensify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PR doesn’t need product input as a perf refactor PR. Unassigning and unsubscribing myself.

@trjExpensify
trjExpensify removed their request for review July 22, 2026 23:27
return rootState?.routes.findLast((route) => route.name === NAVIGATORS.TAB_NAVIGATOR);
}

function getReportsTabStateKey(rootState: RootNavigationState): string | undefined {

@WojtekBoman WojtekBoman Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NAB: I wonder if the function name could be adjusted as we return here TabNavigator's state key

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good call, renamed it to getTabNavigatorStateKey.

@sumo-slonik sumo-slonik left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good. I went through the spots that seemed risky (react-freeze, the deferred-mount lifecycle, the raw jumpTo dispatches) and didn't find any bugs. Just one small inline NAB. Nice work! 🎉

const tabNavigatorRoute = getTabNavigatorRoute(rootState);
const tabState = getTabState(tabNavigatorRoute);
const reportsSplitRoute = tabState?.routes.findLast((route) => route.name === NAVIGATORS.REPORTS_SPLIT_NAVIGATOR);
const preservedReportRoute = reportsSplitRoute?.state?.routes.findLast((route) => route.name === SCREENS.REPORT);

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NAB: Worth adding a quick comment here. preservedReportID comes from the current navigation state, while reportID comes from the preserved snapshot (which may lag while the Reports tab is frozen). A mismatch is expected and intentionally triggers a full navigation. The preserved* naming is also a bit misleading since these variables actually represent the live route state.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done, thank you

@DylanDylann

DylanDylann commented Jul 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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
Screen.Recording.2026-07-27.at.17.06.21.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2026-07-27.at.17.05.07.mov
iOS: HybridApp
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2026-07-27.at.17.04.42.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2026-07-27.at.17.02.04.mov

@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested a review from JS00001 July 27, 2026 10:17
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
import {isRecord} from '@libs/ObjectUtils';

function getStringParam(params: unknown, key: string): string | undefined {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nab can we move this to ObjectUtils, this method isnt related to the tab bar

@JS00001

JS00001 commented Jul 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Going to go ahead to merge to get this in

@JS00001
JS00001 merged commit fd5d2f9 into Expensify:main Jul 27, 2026
35 of 41 checks passed
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚧 JS00001 has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/JS00001 in version: 9.4.45-0 🚀

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

@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site articles under docs/articles. No help site changes are required, so I have not created a draft PR.

Why: This is a pure internal performance optimization. It changes how the Inbox tab restores the last-opened report — focusing the already-mounted ReportScreen via a cached TabActions.jumpTo and deferring the heavy report-actions list behind NavigationDeferredMount — rather than rebuilding the nested route. There are no user-facing changes: no new features, settings, tabs, buttons, labels, or workflows. The only observable difference is that navigating Home → Inbox is faster (and the loading skeleton shows only on the first warm mount).

All changed files are navigation internals and their unit tests:

  • src/components/Navigation/NavigationTabBar/* (Inbox tab button + tab-state helpers)
  • src/libs/Navigation/* (split navigator, navigation utils, param types)
  • src/pages/inbox/ReportActions.tsx, ReportScreen.tsx (deferred mount plumbing)
  • src/CONST/index.ts (telemetry span constant)
  • tests/unit/* (unit tests)

The help site documents user-facing product behavior, and none of that behavior changes here, so there is nothing to update.

@BartekObudzinski, since no user-facing behavior changed, there is no linked help site PR to review here. If you believe a docs update is warranted, let me know and I'll create one.

@jponikarchuk

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Deploy Blocker #97154 was identified to be related to this PR.

@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.4.45-14 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

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.