Decouple footer from transaction prop by OlimpiaZurek · Pull Request #92766 · Expensify/App

OlimpiaZurek · 2026-06-05T11:58:49Z

Explanation of Change

This PR removes the last layer of full-transaction subscriptions in the MoneyRequestConfirmationListFooter subtree:

ConfirmationFieldList no longer reads the transaction at all. The two hooks it calls (useFooterDerivedFlags, useFooterTagVisibility) now self-subscribe to disjoint narrow slices (5 fields + 1 field).
The footer no longer receives the transaction as a prop. Each of the 4 sections self-resolves its own narrow slice via useTransactionSelector. The footer receives isScanRequest: boolean instead.

Fixed Issues

$ #90385
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Manual expense: open a chat → + → Create expense → Manual → enter an amount, pick a participant → Next. Verify all fields render on the confirmation page (Amount, Description, Merchant, Category, Date, Tags, Tax, Attendees, toggles, Report).
Scan flow: + → Create expense → Scan → take a photo or pick from gallery. Verify the confirmation page enters compact mode (only required fields + receipt thumbnail). Tap Show more → optional fields appear.
Distance flow: + → Track distance → Manual → add 2 waypoints → Next. Verify the map renders at the bottom of the modal with the route, and Distance + Rate fields display correctly. Try an invalid waypoint → verify the pending/error indicator shows in place of the map.
Per-diem flow (workspace with per-diem rates): + → Create expense → Per diem → pick destination + dates. Verify Time / Rate / Destination fields render. Submit → expense posts with the correct rate and amount.
Invoice flow: + → Send invoice → continue. Verify the Send from row shows your invoicing workspace. Tap it → pick a different workspace → display updates.
Split bill: group chat → + → Split expense → enter amount, pick participants → Next. Edit Merchant and Description individually → verify each saves. Submit → split posts with correct per-person amounts.
Edit existing expense: open one → tap Amount, Description, Merchant, Category, Tag, Tax individually → change each → verify each saves.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

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

OlimpiaZurek · 2026-06-05T12:04:09Z

@codex

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-06-05T12:09:06Z

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. What shall we delve into next?

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".

melvin-bot · 2026-06-05T12:14:23Z

@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]

ShridharGoel · 2026-06-05T12:16:24Z

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

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-06-05.at.8.31.45.PM.mov

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-06-05.at.8.34.59.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-06-05.at.8.26.30.PM.mov

ShridharGoel · 2026-06-05T14:45:01Z

-    const {iouType, reportID, isReadOnly, didConfirm} = useConfirmationFields();
+function InvoiceSenderSection({selectedParticipants}: InvoiceSenderSectionProps) {
+    const {iouType, reportID, transactionID, isReadOnly, didConfirm} = useConfirmationFields();
+    const transaction = useTransactionSelector(transactionID, invoiceSenderSliceSelector);


Shouldn't we subscribe after the iouType check? Might not create much difference since anyways it would return, but still maybe it can be slightly better for perf?

Yeah, that makes sense, applied the change. I believe the perf will be better since flows that don't apply to the section now skip the transaction subscription entirely

ShridharGoel · 2026-06-05T14:45:13Z

-function PerDiemSection({isPerDiemRequest, transaction, policy, shouldDisplayFieldError, formError}: PerDiemSectionProps) {
+function PerDiemSection({isPerDiemRequest, policy, shouldDisplayFieldError, formError}: PerDiemSectionProps) {
    const {action, iouType, transactionID, reportID, isReadOnly, didConfirm} = useConfirmationFields();
+    const transaction = useTransactionSelector(transactionID, perDiemSliceSelector);


ShridharGoel · 2026-06-05T14:45:52Z

    const styles = useThemeStyles();
-    const {iouType, isReadOnly} = useConfirmationFields();
+    const {iouType, transactionID, isReadOnly} = useConfirmationFields();
+    const transaction = useTransactionSelector(transactionID, distanceMapSliceSelector);


Same, let me know your thoughts.

codecov · 2026-06-08T09:52:38Z

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	`92.42% <ø> (ø)`
.../components/MoneyRequestConfirmationListFooter.tsx	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
...stConfirmationListFooter/ConfirmationFieldList.tsx	`94.73% <100.00%> (-0.92%)`	⬇️
...firmationListFooter/hooks/useFooterDerivedFlags.ts	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
...irmationListFooter/hooks/useFooterTagVisibility.ts	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
...irmationListFooter/sections/DistanceMapSection.tsx	`92.30% <100.00%> (-7.70%)`	⬇️
...mationListFooter/sections/InvoiceSenderSection.tsx	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
...ConfirmationListFooter/sections/ReceiptSection.tsx	`92.59% <100.00%> (+0.28%)`	⬆️
...MoneyRequestConfirmationList/sections/selectors.ts	`82.47% <84.37%> (+0.93%)`	⬆️
...ConfirmationListFooter/sections/PerDiemSection.tsx	`33.33% <28.57%> (-23.81%)`	⬇️
... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

github-actions · 2026-06-09T08:04:55Z

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

github-actions · 2026-06-09T08:10:38Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #92766.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-f3cb6996be5-b0598d3-e83deb17f492d9c76eb7791d34e92a20f828f092/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-f3cb699-b0598d3-467267b0671ac6c87a07fbc57645f869f9103570/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://92766.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-06-10T01:01:57Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.4.2-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-06-10T01:04:36Z

Help site review — no changes required

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site files under App/docs/articles.

Conclusion: No help site updates are needed.

This is a pure internal performance refactor. It decouples MoneyRequestConfirmationListFooter and its sections from the full transaction prop, replacing it with narrow Onyx slice subscriptions (useTransactionSelector + per-section selectors) and passing isScanRequest: boolean instead of the whole transaction. There are no user-facing changes:

No new features, settings, tabs, or buttons
No changes to product copy, labels, or flows (Manual / Scan / Distance / Per-diem / Invoice / Split all behave identically)
No new or modified UI that an end user would interact with

Since the help site documents product behavior — which is unchanged here — there's nothing to add or update.

Because no documented behavior changed, I did not create a draft help site PR.

@OlimpiaZurek, please confirm this assessment — if you believe any documented behavior is affected, let me know and I'll create the help site PR.

OSBotify · 2026-06-10T19:55:18Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.4.4-1 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-06-10T19:58:14Z

Help site review: No changes required

I reviewed the changes in this PR and no updates to the help site files under App/docs/articles are required.

Why: This is a purely internal performance refactor. It changes how the MoneyRequestConfirmationListFooter subtree subscribes to Onyx transaction data — moving from a single full-transaction subscription to narrow, per-section slices via useTransactionSelector. No user-facing behavior, UI text, labels, flows, or features change as a result.

Evidence

All 11 changed files are under src/components/ (component/hook/selector code and one UI test). No src/languages/* strings were added or modified.
The footer now receives isScanRequest: boolean instead of the full transaction prop, and each section self-resolves its own data slice — an internal data-subscription change only.
The confirmation page renders the same fields (Amount, Description, Merchant, Category, Date, Tags, Tax, Attendees, Report, etc.) across the same flows (manual, scan, distance, per-diem, invoice, split). Nothing in the documented user experience changes.

Since no documentation updates are needed, I did not create a draft help site PR.

@OlimpiaZurek, please review the linked help site PR and confirm it reflects the current behavior. Then mark the linked help site PR Ready for review

(Note: no help site PR was created because this PR contains no user-facing changes that would require documentation updates. If you believe a docs change is warranted, let me know what behavior to document and I'll create the draft PR.)

OSBotify · 2026-06-10T23:19:25Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.4.4-3 🚀

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

OlimpiaZurek added 2 commits June 5, 2026 13:05

perf: push transaction subscription into footer hooks

131a715

perf: decouple footer from transaction prop via per-section slices

6d97e68

melvin-bot Bot assigned OlimpiaZurek Jun 5, 2026

OlimpiaZurek marked this pull request as ready for review June 5, 2026 12:14

OlimpiaZurek requested review from a team as code owners June 5, 2026 12:14

melvin-bot Bot requested review from ShridharGoel and heyjennahay and removed request for a team June 5, 2026 12:14

OlimpiaZurek mentioned this pull request Jun 5, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-06-25] [Tracking] Refactor MoneyRequestConfirmationListFooter to reduce re-renders #90385

Closed

ShridharGoel reviewed Jun 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

OlimpiaZurek added 2 commits June 8, 2026 11:46

refactor: gate footer sections before they subscribe

8cc78c8

Merge branch 'main' into decouple-footer-from-transaction-prop

3e675c9

ShridharGoel approved these changes Jun 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from cristipaval June 8, 2026 14:12

cristipaval approved these changes Jun 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

cristipaval requested a review from Julesssss June 8, 2026 19:50

Julesssss approved these changes Jun 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

cristipaval merged commit f3cb699 into Expensify:main Jun 9, 2026
35 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jun 10, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-06-10 #93122

Closed

70 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

OlimpiaZurek commented Jun 5, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

OlimpiaZurek commented Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel commented Jun 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel Jun 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

OlimpiaZurek Jun 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel Jun 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel Jun 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jun 8, 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!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 9, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 9, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 10, 2026

Help site review — no changes required

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 10, 2026

Help site review: No changes required

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

ShridharGoel commented Jun 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Jun 8, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading