perf: decompose MoneyRequestConfirmationList by OlimpiaZurek · Pull Request #86958 · Expensify/App

OlimpiaZurek · 2026-04-02T11:27:09Z

Explanation of Change

1. Extract side effects into 5 focused components:
MoneyRequestConfirmationList had 15 useEffect hooks handling unrelated concerns: telemetry, tax calculation, distance amount computation, category/tag auto-selection, split validation, split rebalancing, merchant auto-population, rate validation, and more. These are unrelated responsibilities tangled in a single component (CLEAN-REACT-PATTERNS-4).

This PR extracts 12 of those effects into 5 focused side-effect-only components.

2. Remove redundant props:

The component received a full transaction object AND 11 individually extracted props. All 3 parent components extracted these from the same transaction they passed — pure redundancy.
Now the component derives these values internally from the transaction it already receives. React.memo comparator simplified from 35 → 25 prop comparisons.

Result: Create Expense flow
🟢 Duration Diff: -73.900 ms (-2.4%)
🟢 Commit Count Diff: -12

Fixed Issues

$ #81849, #86986
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Create a manual expense from the global FAB → verify confirmation screen renders correctly and submission works
Create a scan expense with receipt → verify receipt loads on confirmation, SmartScan fields appear
Create a split expense with multiple participants → verify confirmation and split submission
Create an invoice → verify send invoice flow completes
Create a track expense with and without receipt → verify track flow
Create a per diem expense → verify per diem submission
Create a GPS distance request → verify location permission modal appears and geolocation works
Create an odometer distance request → verify image stitching produces receipt
Create a distance request → verify distance merchant auto-populates and rate is validated
On a policy workspace expense chat, create an expense → verify tax defaults are applied correctly
Create an expense with a policy that has only one enabled category → verify it auto-selects
Create a split expense → verify split shares validate correctly (sum matches total, at least 2 participants)

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

same as tests
// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

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 · 2026-04-02T11:38:00Z

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
src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationList.tsx	`64.82% <100.00%> (+3.13%)`	⬆️
...yRequestConfirmationList/ConfirmationTelemetry.tsx	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
...nts/MoneyRequestConfirmationList/TaxController.tsx	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
src/pages/Share/SubmitDetailsPage.tsx	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
src/pages/iou/SplitBillDetailsPage.tsx	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
...es/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx	`54.88% <ø> (-0.16%)`	⬇️
...uestConfirmationList/DistanceRequestController.tsx	`84.37% <84.37%> (ø)`
...neyRequestConfirmationList/SplitBillController.tsx	`53.84% <53.84%> (ø)`
...MoneyRequestConfirmationList/FieldAutoSelector.tsx	`59.09% <59.09%> (ø)`
... and 165 files with indirect coverage changes

melvin-bot · 2026-04-02T15:33:36Z

@ShridharGoel 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]

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 3d0e61b000

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-04-02T15:51:42Z

src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationList.tsx

-        endSpan(CONST.TELEMETRY.SPAN_CONFIRMATION_LIST_READY);
-    }, [transaction?.transactionID]);
+    // Derive iou values from transaction instead of receiving as props (CLEAN-REACT-PATTERNS-2)
+    const iouAmount = transaction?.amount ?? 0;


Read split draft amount from normalized transaction value

SplitBillDetailsPage passes SPLIT_TRANSACTION_DRAFT entries that keep edits in modifiedAmount (via setDraftSplitTransaction/getUpdatedTransaction), but this component now derives iouAmount from transaction.amount directly. In the edit-split flow where the original amount is 0, users can change the amount and still fail confirmation because the stale iouAmount stays 0 and trips the isEditingSplitBill && iouAmount === 0 guard, so completion is blocked. Please derive amount (and related fields) through the existing transaction getters (getAmount/getCurrency or getTransactionDetails) so draft modifications are respected.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Looks valid, right?

yes, already fixed

ShridharGoel · 2026-04-03T13:24:34Z

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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
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: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.6.59.17.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.6.58.19.PM.mov

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.6.50.11.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.6.11.55.PM.mov

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.6.08.12.PM.mov

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.6.57.01.PM.mov

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.6.56.26.PM.mov

ShridharGoel · 2026-04-03T13:25:05Z

Bug: Negative amount changes to positive

Screen.Recording.2026-04-03.at.6.54.21.PM.mov

OlimpiaZurek · 2026-04-03T16:04:22Z

Bug: Negative amount changes to positive

Fixed

joekaufmanexpensify · 2026-04-03T20:45:46Z

No product review needed

extract side-effect components from MoneyRequestConfirmationList

4180756

melvin-bot bot assigned OlimpiaZurek Apr 2, 2026

remove redundant props

3d0e61b

OlimpiaZurek changed the title ~~perf: extract side-effect components from MoneyRequestConfirmationList~~ perf: decompose MoneyRequestConfirmationList Apr 2, 2026

OlimpiaZurek marked this pull request as ready for review April 2, 2026 15:33

OlimpiaZurek requested review from a team as code owners April 2, 2026 15:33

melvin-bot bot requested review from ShridharGoel and joekaufmanexpensify and removed request for a team April 2, 2026 15:33

OlimpiaZurek mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2026

[Metrics] Create Expense flows #81849

Open

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Apr 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

address codex review

81a54d4

negative amount fix

22c3bdf

joekaufmanexpensify removed their request for review April 3, 2026 20:45

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

perf: decompose MoneyRequestConfirmationList#86958

perf: decompose MoneyRequestConfirmationList#86958
OlimpiaZurek wants to merge 4 commits intoExpensify:mainfrom
callstack-internal:perf/refactor-MoneyRequestConfirmationList-extract-side-effect-components

OlimpiaZurek commented Apr 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Apr 2, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

OlimpiaZurek Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel commented Apr 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel commented Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

OlimpiaZurek commented Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

joekaufmanexpensify commented Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Conversation

OlimpiaZurek commented Apr 2, 2026 • edited 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 Apr 2, 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!

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot Apr 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel Apr 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

OlimpiaZurek Apr 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel commented Apr 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel commented Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

OlimpiaZurek commented Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

joekaufmanexpensify commented Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

OlimpiaZurek commented Apr 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Apr 2, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

ShridharGoel commented Apr 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading