Add Optimistic Updates to Search Transactions by JS00001 · Pull Request #60189 · Expensify/App

JS00001 · 2025-04-14T16:05:52Z

Explanation of Change

When scanning receipts, submitting expenses, etc, it takes ~2-3 seconds, maybe more for the search page to refresh, which can be very confusing. In this PR, we add optimistic updates to the search page (exclusively for expenses, reports, invoices), as soon as the expense is added.

Note - Read the issue below. We only are applying optimistic updates when we are viewing all expenses with no filters applied. This is because we need the BE to calculate the search when we have results. For this first PR, we just do expenses with no status/filters.

$ #59947

Tests

Add various expenses, receipts, distance, etc and ensure they optimistically update. Send personal expenses to be tracked, workspace expenses, etc.
Note, optimistic updates are not expected to work when any filters/statuses are enabled.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Same as above

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Screen.Recording.2025-04-15.at.2.17.29.PM.mov

…stic-search

melvin-bot · 2025-04-15T18:33:08Z

@AndrewGable 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]

…stic-search

AndrewGable · 2025-04-17T14:27:09Z

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 tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- 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.js 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.
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: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

OSBotify · 2025-04-17T14:39:06Z

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

github-actions · 2025-04-18T20:42:15Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 9.1.30-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-04-21T23:20:55Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 9.1.30-4 🚀

platform	result
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	failure ❌
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

dominictb · 2025-07-31T03:23:40Z

+    if (currentSearchQueryJSON && toAccountID != null && fromAccountID != null) {
+        const validSearchTypes: SearchDataTypes[] = [CONST.SEARCH.DATA_TYPES.EXPENSE, CONST.SEARCH.DATA_TYPES.INVOICE];
+        const shouldOptimisticallyUpdate =
+            currentSearchQueryJSON.status === CONST.SEARCH.STATUS.EXPENSE.ALL && validSearchTypes.includes(currentSearchQueryJSON.type) && currentSearchQueryJSON.flatFilters.length === 0;


Skipping the filters here led to this issue #64128 where the query with filters do not get optimistically updated. This is not a mistake, just a case that was not considered before the to do queries are implemented.

ikevin127 · 2025-09-12T23:30:10Z


+function getCurrentSearchQueryJSON() {
+    const rootState = navigationRef.getRootState();
+    const lastPolicyRoute = rootState?.routes?.findLast((route) => route.name === NAVIGATORS.REPORTS_SPLIT_NAVIGATOR || route.name === NAVIGATORS.SEARCH_FULLSCREEN_NAVIGATOR);


The addition of the route.name === NAVIGATORS.REPORTS_SPLIT_NAVIGATOR check here led to the following issue:

[Due for payment 2025-09-17] [$250] Reports - Expense disappears from "Reports" when splitted while offline. #68350

which we addressed by removing the check (see proposal for details).

JS00001 added 6 commits April 10, 2025 12:15

start updating hash

b3a7843

initial optimistic update

736ffae

optimistics starting to work

66b5967

add hash checking for what type of search we are on

77905d4

log stash

5924771

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:Expensify/App into jsenyitko-optimi…

74c7f22

…stic-search

JS00001 self-assigned this Apr 14, 2025

JS00001 added 14 commits April 15, 2025 08:41

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:Expensify/App into jsenyitko-optimi…

5aee58e

…stic-search

add optimistic updates

eb6ecd7

add hash

2c6e661

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:Expensify/App into jsenyitko-optimi…

e5e5185

…stic-search

much better way of getting search data

9a4917a

consolidate into one function

9928db9

eslint fixes

7f11f32

Fix bug with optimistic updates

d1090e6

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:Expensify/App into jsenyitko-optimi…

82b9e2a

…stic-search

fix unit tests, move stuff to better spots

33179f9

fix eslint errors

4e59bf4

add error state

c91252b

remove failrue data, search corrects it

614a0f4

optimistic updates for Invoices

7ce978b

JS00001 marked this pull request as ready for review April 15, 2025 18:32

JS00001 requested a review from a team as a code owner April 15, 2025 18:32

melvin-bot Bot requested review from AndrewGable and removed request for a team April 15, 2025 18:33

AndrewGable reviewed Apr 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/SearchQueryUtils.ts Outdated

JS00001 added 2 commits April 17, 2025 07:31

update 1 letter var

f021b90

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:Expensify/App into jsenyitko-optimi…

ee13812

…stic-search

JS00001 requested a review from AndrewGable April 17, 2025 11:32

AndrewGable approved these changes Apr 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

AndrewGable merged commit 9750f07 into main Apr 17, 2025

AndrewGable deleted the jsenyitko-optimistic-search branch April 17, 2025 14:29

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Apr 18, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-04-18 #60506

Closed

64 tasks

FitseTLT mentioned this pull request Apr 23, 2025

Fix - Reports - New expense is not briefly highlighted in the list after expense is submitted #60282

Closed

50 tasks

QichenZhu mentioned this pull request May 2, 2025

[$250 Reports - New expense is not briefly highlighted in the list after expense is submitted #59449

Closed

8 tasks

dominictb reviewed Jul 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

ikevin127 reviewed Sep 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

huult mentioned this pull request Dec 6, 2025

[$250] Reports-Unopened expense is not shown in Reports/Expenses offline #73606

Closed

8 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add Optimistic Updates to Search Transactions#60189

Add Optimistic Updates to Search Transactions#60189
AndrewGable merged 22 commits into
mainfrom
jsenyitko-optimistic-search

JS00001 commented Apr 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Apr 15, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AndrewGable commented Apr 17, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 17, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 18, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 21, 2025

Uh oh!

dominictb Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

ikevin127 Sep 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Conversation

JS00001 commented Apr 14, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Apr 15, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AndrewGable commented Apr 17, 2025

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 17, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 18, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 21, 2025

Uh oh!

dominictb Jul 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ikevin127 Sep 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

JS00001 commented Apr 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading