[HOLD discussion] Add section for Proposing Performance Improvements

[Beamanator]

Explanation of Change

Creates template for contributors to propose performance improvements in our App product

Fixed Issues

$ #66161

Tests

None needed, this just adds documentation

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

N/A

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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

[melvin-bot]

@Krishna2323 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]

[Beamanator]

Still deciding if we should go with a high traffic account, OR link to some cleaned onyx state for download

[mountiny]

I think having a real online account is better so it is closer to real-life user experience, however, I think we might need a bit more complex account than the high-traffic account. It does not have any transactions/ approvers etc as far as I know. Maybe we could beef it up with some script?

[tgolen]

I agree with both things Vit said.

We also want to be careful that this demo account doesn't become outdated as we release more and more functionality. Just something to keep in mind, don't need to solve it right now.

[Beamanator]

Since we're discussing in slack, we might create a new slack group instead - no GH group needed now right?

[mountiny]

Yeah, I think that sounds right. I don't think the external people can tag internal people. We could do the same as with the onyx-experts tag though so everyone in the group sets this tag into notification settings in Slack

[mountiny]

I think having a real online account is better so it is closer to real-life user experience, however, I think we might need a bit more complex account than the high-traffic account. It does not have any transactions/ approvers etc as far as I know. Maybe we could beef it up with some script?

[mountiny]

I thought we agreed that with the execution time, it should be a percentage AND a minimum absolute value. Because we want to avoid someone improving something that takes 50ms. This way, they would improve it to 39ms, which would be valid. Eventually we should focus on these too, but right now, I think we should try to make sure the proposals aim for bigger performance improvements

[Beamanator]

Hmm am I misunderstanding the convo in this thread?

I feel like I see "OR" a lot but maybe I'm not quite understanding what you're recommending?

[mountiny]

Yeah, I think that sounds right. I don't think the external people can tag internal people. We could do the same as with the onyx-experts tag though so everyone in the group sets this tag into notification settings in Slack

[tgolen]

This is kind of awkward because it doesn't meet either of "measurable and based on realistic scenarios". I suggest removing this item. There are so few people that this would be their first PR, and it's such a low bar, that I don't think it is worth having this.

[Beamanator]

That's totally fair - the most recent convo for this point was here, where it seems people didn't have a problem with 1 merged PR so I might leave this comment around while resolving the others to see if anyone agrees / disagrees - I'm definitely happy to remove this for now though!

[tgolen]

I agree with both things Vit said.

We also want to be careful that this demo account doesn't become outdated as we release more and more functionality. Just something to keep in mind, don't need to solve it right now.

[tgolen]

This part feels more like it should exist after "required tools" and before "before/after metrics"

[Beamanator]

Will move this lower! 👍

[tgolen]

What is "this" referring to? I don't quite understand the question.

[Beamanator]

It's referring to the previous state of "worse performance" - this is supposed to be generic so it can apply to all proposals, but maybe it's too unclear & therefore won't get any useful response 😅

[tgolen]

This is making an assumption that it's caused by an anti-pattern, which I don't think is a safe assumption. We also believe in not pre-optimizing things, so it could just be a matter of something we find that we now would like to optimize. That is different than the performance problem being caused by an anti-pattern.

[mountiny]

I think the idea here is that whatever is causing the performance overhead head that the proposal addresses could be used in the App in other places - we would like to encourage the developer to identify it as a pattern and fix it everywhere, not just in one instance (or post N proposals with the same optimisation in bunch of places).

I agree we don't want to pre-optimize, but at the same time we should encourage the contributors to fix issues holistically and this section should aim for that. That is just for context

[tgolen]

This part would be weird to have in the template... is this where the template ends?

[Beamanator]

Yes exactly, they def wouldn't want to copy / paste this in their proposal. This will be more clear when i put everything into a block