App BaseShareLogList list refactor

Details

This PR replaces deprecated <OptionsSelector /> component in favour of <SelectionList /> and also refactors internal logic, streamlining how searchOptions are created, reducing the render count.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/20354 PROPOSAL: no proposal

Tests

Same as QA
[ ] Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

same as QA

QA Steps

[ ] Open Preferences page
[ ] Tap About > Troubleshooting
[ ] Enable client side logging if it's off
[ ] Tap View Debug Console > Share Log
[ ] Verify everything works
[ ] Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

[x] I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
[x] I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
- [x] I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
- [x] I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
- [x] I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
- [x] I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- [x] 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)
- [x] 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).
[x] I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
[x] I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
- [x] Android: Native
- [x] Android: mWeb Chrome
- [x] iOS: Native
- [x] iOS: mWeb Safari
- [x] MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- [x] MacOS: Desktop
[x] 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)
[x] I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
- [x] 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)
- [x] I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- [x] I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- [x] 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.
- [x] I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  - [x] If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
- [x] I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- [x] 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)
- [x] 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.
- [x] I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
[x] If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
[x] I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
[x] 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)
[x] I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
[x] I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
[x] I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
[x] If any new file was added I verified that:
- [x] 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
[x] If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- [x] A similar style doesn't already exist
- [x] The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
[x] 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.
[x] 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)
[x] 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.
[x] 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.
[x] 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:
- [x] I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- [x] I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
[x] 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.
[x] 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

https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/134388952/9438e4dc-6719-4d85-853f-c9f5f5b3fc87

Android: mWeb Chrome

https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/134388952/d4a958e8-cd54-4ad1-9be9-1817e0d21e8b

iOS: Native

https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/134388952/f0a9f3e2-90c5-48a3-bdb2-8070ec931136

iOS: mWeb Safari

https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/134388952/a810e4ea-7e0a-4b1f-b9e1-cd4a39df4c65

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/134388952/a7d708af-df9f-4585-b075-8db9294a4dd9

MacOS: Desktop

https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/134388952/7ed4235a-6480-49f2-8336-f5d24d88d06f

Mar 25 '24 15:03 lukemorawski

@tgolen 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]

Mar 25 '24 15:03 melvin-bot[bot]

Can you please update the PR description to link to a GH for this work? I would like to have more context behind the work being done.

Fixed. Forgot to paste it in.

Mar 26 '24 10:03 lukemorawski

Sorry, this isn't really what I was suggesting. I was thinking of just moving it outside of useMemo() but still keeping it inside the component. I'd still like to see if this is possible. But why? Now it's nice and snug inside a useMemo, without any perf penalty and perhaps even with some small perf gain, as both of those helper functions are called only when useMemo deps change and not on every render.

Mar 26 '24 15:03 lukemorawski

I think it just doesn't seem to fit because it's like doing a double-memo almost. If the memo runs and the options data aren't ready, then a default set of options is used. When the memo runs again, and the options data are ready, then the real options are used. It should just not call the memo at all until the options data are ready.

It feels like it should just be more simple than that.

Use default options in the first place which require no helper methods or memo
Once the data is ready (by using memo), then update the search options

Mar 26 '24 16:03 tgolen

@tgolen Good thinking and I see your point, but I have few additions:

It should just not call the memo at all until the options data are ready. The useMemo still will be called, regardless of the position of isOptionDataReady. Let's go through a scenario: Render cycles:

personalDetails and reports data are not ready - isOptionsDataReady is false. searchOptions useMemo is called and empty values are early returned.
upon next render isOptionsDataReady is true because either reports or personalDetails changed so the useMemo is called again

As you can see it doesn't really matter that much whether the flag's value is calculated inside the useMemo callback function or outside. useMemo hook would still be called as it's dependant on the same data that the flag is. That's why it's logical to group calculations dependent on the same data set. In this case we won't get a perf boost as calculations of the flag are not very "expensive", but still it's something. The number of render cycles doesn't change on the position of the flag either. It's 2 in both cases. Before this refactoring it was 3 renders, so a 33% reduction ;)

Mar 26 '24 16:03 lukemorawski

OK, I understand there is technically no difference. I can chalk this up to personal preference in that case and not let it be a blocker. Thanks for listening!

Mar 26 '24 17:03 tgolen

@tgolen well, in that case I'm happy to make an exception :D

Mar 27 '24 09:03 lukemorawski

@abdulrahuman5196 I think you were intended to be the C+ for this (from looking at the issue), so I've added you as a reviewer. Can you please complete the reviewer checklist on this?

Mar 27 '24 13:03 tgolen

@lukemorawski This PR references https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/36038 issue which already has a PR - https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/38039.

Is both PR related? Any background information on this PR?

Mar 27 '24 16:03 abdulrahuman5196

@abdulrahuman5196 sorry, wrong issue number. Fixing that now

Mar 28 '24 09:03 lukemorawski

@rushatgabhane I think this review is for you. Feel free to takeover. If not I can review as well.

Mar 28 '24 09:03 abdulrahuman5196

@abdulrahuman5196 For the sake of urgency, let's just move forward with you doing the C+ review for this if you don't mind.

Mar 29 '24 15:03 tgolen

Reviewer Checklist

[x] I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
[x] I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
[x] I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- [x] I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- [x] I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- [x] 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)
- [x] 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)
[x] I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
[x] I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
[x] I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- [x] Android: Native
- [x] Android: mWeb Chrome
- [x] iOS: Native
- [x] iOS: mWeb Safari
- [x] MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- [x] MacOS: Desktop
[x] 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
[x] I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- [x] 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).
- [x] I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- [x] I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- [x] 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.
- [x] I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- [x] I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- [x] 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)
- [x] 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.
- [x] I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
[x] If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
[x] I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
[x] 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)
[x] I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
[x] I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
[x] If a new component is created I verified that:
- [x] A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- [x] All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- [x] The file is named correctly
- [x] The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- [x] The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- [x] 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)
- [x] 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)
- [x] All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- [x] 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
[x] If any new file was added I verified that:
- [x] 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
[x] If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- [x] A similar style doesn't already exist
- [x] The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
[x] 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.
[x] 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)
[x] 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.
[x] 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.
[x] 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:
- [x] I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- [x] I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
[x] 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.
[x] 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.
[x] I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.