Dedupe getTransactionsForReport lookups in Search row Action column

[TMisiukiewicz]

Explanation of Change

useLiveRowCapabilities runs per Search list row. For report rows it called getTransactionsForReport(data, reportID) twice per render — once inside getActions and again inside getPrimaryAction. Each call scans every key of the search snapshot, so fast-scrolling the expenses list burned significant JS time re-deriving the same result for every visible row and produced blank rows.

Fix:

• New getTransactionsByReportID(data) in SearchUIUtils groups the snapshot's transactions by reportID in one pass (same grouping rule already used by processTransactionEntry inside classifyAndPreprocess).
• SearchResultsProvider computes it once per snapshot and exposes currentSearchTransactionsByReportID on the existing SearchResultsContext (React Compiler memoizes it on data identity, so it recomputes only when the snapshot changes).
• The hook looks up its own report's transactions and passes them to getActions (via the already-existing but previously unused precomputedTransactionsForReport param) and to getPrimaryAction (new optional param with the same name).

No behavior change:

• All three useLiveRowCapabilities call sites (ExpenseReportListItem, TransactionListItem, TransactionGroupListItem) already source their snapshotData from the same useSearchResultsContext(), so the map is derived from identical data.
• getTransactionsForReport is kept as the fallback when no precomputed array is supplied, so every other caller and the empty-map case behave exactly as before.
• Transaction rows are unaffected: getActions uses [transaction] for transaction entries and getPrimaryAction skips the lookup entirely.

Test-only churn: MockSearchContextProvider and six tests/ui/*ListItemHeaderTest.tsx files construct SearchResultsContextValue by hand, so they each needed the new field; useLiveRowCapabilitiesTest needed useSearchResultsContext added to its @components/Search/SearchContext mock.

This PR stands alone off main.

Fixed Issues

$ #97975
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Open Spend tab
2. Go through every category in "Expense reports" section
3. Verify in each one of them buttons displayed in a rows match buttons in prod

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Same as tests

• 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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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 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 used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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.ts 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 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.
• 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.
• 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

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/components/Search/SearchContextDefinitions.ts	53.57% <100.00%> (+1.71%)	⬆️
...arch/SearchList/ListItem/useLiveRowCapabilities.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/components/Search/SearchResultsProvider.tsx	79.31% <100.00%> (+1.53%)	⬆️
src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts	66.06% <78.57%> (+0.11%)	⬆️
... and 16 files with indirect coverage changes

[github-actions]

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

[melvin-bot]

@parasharrajat 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]

[mountiny]

@MelvinBot review

[MelvinBot]

Review — looks correct and safe to merge 👍

This is a clean, behavior-preserving perf refactor: it replaces two per-row full-snapshot scans (getTransactionsForReport called inside both getActions and getPrimaryAction) with one snapshot-wide grouping computed once in the provider. I traced the equivalence and the change holds up.

Verified the core equivalence: getTransactionsByReportID buckets transactions with the exact same iteration + filter as getTransactionsForReport (for..in over data, isTransactionEntry, transaction?.reportID), so map.get(reportID) returns an identical array to the old call for any non-empty reportID — including preserving iteration order. The ?? getTransactionsForReport(...) fallback keeps every other caller and the empty-map case unchanged.

What I checked (correctness trace)

• Call-site data is the same object the map is derived from. All three sites source snapshotData from useSearchResultsContext() → currentSearchResults?.data — the same data the provider passes to getTransactionsByReportID at SearchResultsProvider.tsx:85-96. No stale/mismatched-snapshot risk.
• reportID param matches the report the key resolves to. For the two report-row sites (ExpenseReportListItem, TransactionGroupListItem), reportID and itemKey (report_<reportID>) refer to the same report, so map.get(reportID) lines up with getReportFromKey(...).reportID used inside getActions/getPrimaryAction.
• Transaction rows are unaffected. TransactionListItem passes a transaction_<id> key; getActions takes the [transaction] branch and getPrimaryAction only uses the precomputed value under isReportEntry(key), so the passed value is ignored there — matching the PR description.
• The new precomputedTransactionsForReport param on getPrimaryAction mirrors the already-existing one on getActions. Both fall back identically.

Minor, non-blocking:

• Confirm the compliance check is green for the provider. The whole win depends on React Compiler memoizing getTransactionsByReportID(searchData) on searchData identity — if it didn't compile (or diverged between Babel/OXC), the scan would run every provider render and the new Map identity would change each render, re-rendering all useSearchResultsContext() consumers. Note this isn't a new risk: resultsValue was already an inline object pre-PR, so it already relied on the compiler. Just worth a quick react-compiler-compliance-check confirmation since a fresh field was added.
• No direct unit test for getTransactionsByReportID. It's only exercised indirectly. A tiny test asserting it matches getTransactionsForReport grouping (and that transactions with a falsy reportID are excluded) would lock the equivalence against future edits.
• Reports with zero transactions in the snapshot fall back to a full scan (map.get → undefined). Harmless and rare — just noting the optimization doesn't cover that path.

Testing note: I drove the web app to the Spend → Reports view to visually confirm rows/action-buttons render, but the fresh test account has no workspaces/reports, so there were no populated rows to exercise. The screen itself renders cleanly with no errors/crashes; end-to-end action-button parity on a populated list wasn't verifiable in this run and is worth a manual check per the PR's test steps.

Evidence

Search Spend > Reports tab empty state renders without errors

[joekaufmanexpensify]

No product review needed

[parasharrajat]

Testing..

[parasharrajat]

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.

06.08.2026_21.20.19_REC.mp4

06.08.2026_21.27.23_REC.mp4

06.08.2026_21.31.33_REC.mp4

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[parasharrajat]

LGTM.

[parasharrajat]

LGTM.

[parasharrajat]

Bump @mountiny

[mountiny]

Looks good

[github-actions]

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

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #97877.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-98854271dd7-7e8bfd0-a5a8bda8bb2b72f67f33fe548ed16d975f9cf223/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-9885427-7e8bfd0-3077419cfa767886df1d63bcc1ff29089b823598/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://97877.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.52-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes required.

This PR is an internal performance refactor of the Search list rendering path. It dedupes getTransactionsForReport lookups by grouping the search snapshot's transactions by reportID once per snapshot (via the new getTransactionsByReportID in SearchUIUtils) and passing the precomputed array into getActions/getPrimaryAction, instead of re-scanning the snapshot twice per visible row.

There is no user-facing behavior change — the PR description states this explicitly, and the diff confirms it:

• All changes are to internal utilities, context definitions/types, and tests.
• No new features, UI copy, button/tab/setting labels, feature names, or flows were added or changed.
• The action buttons shown in Search rows (Pay, Approve, Submit, etc.) render identically to before — this only changes how the data behind them is computed, not what is shown.

Since nothing in App/docs/articles describes this rendering internals path, and no customer-facing surface changed, I did not create a help site docs PR.

If you believe a specific help article is affected that I missed, reply with @MelvinBot <details> and I'll take another look.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.52-11 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android