[sosek108]

Explanation of Change

This stacks on #92 (REPORT_ATTRIBUTES on useOnyxState), which builds on the Onyx bump in Expensify#104690 (Onyx Expensify#862).

DERIVED.VISIBLE_REPORT_ACTIONS holds, for every report, which actions are visible. OnyxDerived recomputes it after every report-action, report or name-value-pairs write and writes the whole map back to Onyx and to disk. A sent message can't render until that value arrives, so the new row waits for the whole OnyxDerived flush.

This removes the derived value. Pure selectors compute visibility per report, cached on the report's actions object, so every consumer shares one compute. Per-report readers (LHN rows, the report screen, parent subtitle, context menu, linked-action guard) use useVisibleReportActions(reportID), which depends only on that report's keys. Search, share and attachment readers use useAllVisibleReportActions, which keeps a report's previous object when its visibility did not change. Support-ticket survey hiding is unchanged.

Measurements against #92, large account (4,057 reports), web at 4x CPU throttle, staging API:

• Send message (visible): 867 -> 707 ms (-18%).
• Search router open: 1,194 -> 1,142 ms (-4%).
• One report-action write with the Search router open: 683 -> 649 ms (-5%).
• Open report and cold startup: parity.

Alone on Expensify#104690, without #92, send is neutral: the row renders earlier, but the remaining OnyxDerived flush still blocks the paint.

Known cost: on send, the chat list re-renders every cell (React self time +41% in a render probe). The follow-up keeps unchanged per-report visibility stable.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/callstack-internal/expensify-issues/issues/3081
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Open a chat and send a few messages. Verify each message appears and stays in the list.
2. Open a chat with hidden actions (for example a support ticket that was reopened as a new ticket). Verify the old survey stays hidden.
3. In the LHN, verify the last message preview of a chat updates after sending.
4. Open the Search router and search for a chat. Verify results and last-message previews are correct.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Go offline, send a message in a chat. Verify it appears with the pending style.
2. Go online. Verify it stays in place.

QA Steps

Same as tests.

• 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 any copy / text that was added to the app 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)
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• 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)
• 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 the PR adds or modifies the UI:
  • I asked an AI agent to review the changes for accessibility issues and addressed its findings.
  • I tested with a screen reader (VoiceOver on macOS) and verified all new/changed elements are reachable with a logical focus order.
  • I verified all new/changed elements have meaningful accessible names and roles.
  • I verified state changes are announced (e.g. checked/unchecked, expanded/collapsed, selected).
• 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