Skip to content

[No QA] Show skeleton in BaseSidebarScreen to avoid mounting heavy SidebarLinks during initial load#84153

Merged
JS00001 merged 7 commits intoExpensify:mainfrom
callstack-internal:perf/early-return-skeleton-sidebar
Mar 6, 2026
Merged

[No QA] Show skeleton in BaseSidebarScreen to avoid mounting heavy SidebarLinks during initial load#84153
JS00001 merged 7 commits intoExpensify:mainfrom
callstack-internal:perf/early-return-skeleton-sidebar

Conversation

@BartekObudzinski
Copy link
Contributor

@BartekObudzinski BartekObudzinski commented Mar 4, 2026

Explanation of Change

During initial app load, SidebarLinks (and its entire subtree: LHNOptionsList, FlashList, all OptionRowLHN items and their hooks) was mounting immediately and rendering an empty list, with a skeleton overlay placed on top via an absoluteFillObject view. This meant the heavy component tree was paying full mount cost just to be hidden behind a skeleton.

This change moves the skeleton decision up to BaseSidebarScreen. A module-level Onyx.connectWithoutView subscription sets a hasEverFinishedLoading flag the first time IS_LOADING_APP transitions to false. While isLoadingApp is true and the app has never finished loading, BaseSidebarScreen renders OptionsListSkeletonView directly in place of SidebarLinksData. The heavy component tree does not mount at all until data is ready. The module-level flag ensures the skeleton never reappears during subsequent reconnects (where IS_LOADING_APP could briefly flip back to true).

isLoading prop removed from SidebarLinks and SidebarLinksData as it is no longer needed.

Fixed Issues

$ #77175
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

N/A

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 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

@BartekObudzinski BartekObudzinski changed the title [No QA] Show skeleton in BaseSidebarScreen to avoid mounting heavy SidebarLinks during initial load Show skeleton in BaseSidebarScreen to avoid mounting heavy SidebarLinks during initial load Mar 5, 2026
@BartekObudzinski BartekObudzinski changed the title Show skeleton in BaseSidebarScreen to avoid mounting heavy SidebarLinks during initial load [No QA] Show skeleton in BaseSidebarScreen to avoid mounting heavy SidebarLinks during initial load Mar 5, 2026
@BartekObudzinski BartekObudzinski marked this pull request as ready for review March 5, 2026 12:37
@BartekObudzinski BartekObudzinski requested review from a team as code owners March 5, 2026 12:37
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from JmillsExpensify and abdulrahuman5196 and removed request for a team March 5, 2026 12:37
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 5, 2026

@abdulrahuman5196 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]

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from a team, JS00001 and Pujan92 and removed request for a team March 5, 2026 12:37
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 5, 2026

@Pujan92 @JS00001 One of you needs to 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]

Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 750608312c

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".

<View style={[styles.flex1]}>
<SidebarLinksData insets={insets} />
</View>
<View style={[styles.flex1]}>{shouldShowSkeleton ? <OptionsListSkeletonView shouldAnimate /> : <SidebarLinksData insets={insets} />}</View>

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P1 Badge Mount sidebar data while app readiness is unresolved

This conditional can deadlock app initialization on inbox-first routes: when isLoadingApp is true, SidebarLinksData (and therefore SidebarLinks) never mounts, but SidebarLinks is where useConfirmReadyToOpenApp() is called to resolve the isReadyToOpenApp gate that openApp() waits for before it can finish loading. On startup paths that land in the reports split (for example /inbox or /r/:id) before HomePage mounts, openApp() waits for readiness while this screen keeps rendering only the skeleton, so the sidebar can remain stuck in loading indefinitely.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good catch — addressed in 32977a6. useConfirmReadyToOpenApp() is now called unconditionally in BaseSidebarScreen so that openApp() can proceed even when the skeleton is shown and SidebarLinksData has not mounted yet. The hook is idempotent, so the duplicate call once SidebarLinks mounts is harmless.

@Pujan92
Copy link
Contributor

Pujan92 commented Mar 5, 2026

@JS00001 I don't know how but two C+ are assigned here by Melvin. Shall I proceed with the review or let @abdulrahuman5196 to do it?

@JS00001 JS00001 removed the request for review from abdulrahuman5196 March 5, 2026 13:33
@JS00001
Copy link
Contributor

JS00001 commented Mar 5, 2026

@Pujan92 go for it!

@Pujan92
Copy link
Contributor

Pujan92 commented Mar 5, 2026

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: 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 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: HybridApp
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: HybridApp
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2026-03-06.at.16.40.50.mov


// Once the app finishes loading for the first time, we never show the skeleton again
// (even if isLoadingApp briefly flips back to true during a reconnect).
let hasEverFinishedLoading = false;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why are we doing this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

isLoadingApp can briefly flip back to true during a reconnect (e.g. network loss → reconnection). Without this latch, users would see the skeleton flash over an already-loaded LHN, which is a UX regression. hasEverFinishedLoading ensures the skeleton only appears on the very first app load and never again after that.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are we doing this subscription outside of the view? Could we use a ref for this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A ref resets to its initial value when the component unmounts. If BaseSidebarScreen unmounts and remounts (e.g. navigating between tabs), a ref-based flag would go back to false and the skeleton could flash again even though the app already finished loading. A module-level variable survives independently of the component lifecycle, so it acts as a true one-time latch for the entire app session.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That makes sense, I know that we typically try to avoid using connectWithoutView so could you add a similar comment to what you said above this so that people know why it was added?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done in 80bb9d1 — expanded the comment to explain why we use a module-level variable + connectWithoutView instead of a ref.

JS00001
JS00001 previously approved these changes Mar 5, 2026
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 5, 2026

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/pages/inbox/sidebar/BaseSidebarScreen.tsx 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/pages/inbox/sidebar/SidebarLinks.tsx 91.66% <100.00%> (+0.36%) ⬆️
src/pages/inbox/sidebar/SidebarLinksData.tsx 85.71% <ø> (-1.25%) ⬇️
... and 282 files with indirect coverage changes

optionMode={viewMode}
onFirstItemRendered={setSidebarLoaded}
/>
{!!isLoading && optionListItems?.length === 0 && (
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think optionListItems length is used here to avoid showing BlockingView(shouldShowEmptyLHN)

Screen.Recording.2026-03-05.at.21.35.27.mov

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good catch. Restored the skeleton overlay in SidebarLinks using IS_LOADING_REPORT_DATA instead of the old IS_LOADING_APP (which is now handled by BaseSidebarScreen). This prevents BlockingView from flashing when SidebarLinks mounts but reports have not populated yet.

Copy link
Contributor

@JmillsExpensify JmillsExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No product review required.

Copy link
Contributor

@Pujan92 Pujan92 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from JS00001 March 6, 2026 11:12
@JS00001 JS00001 merged commit b06c09a into Expensify:main Mar 6, 2026
30 of 31 checks passed
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2026

🚧 @JS00001 has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Mar 6, 2026

✋ 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
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Mar 6, 2026

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/JS00001 in version: 9.3.33-0 🚀

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants