Skip to content

Open linked message at top#93403

Open
VickyStash wants to merge 24 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
callstack-internal:VickyStash/feature/open-linked-message-centered
Open

Open linked message at top#93403
VickyStash wants to merge 24 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
callstack-internal:VickyStash/feature/open-linked-message-centered

Conversation

@VickyStash

@VickyStash VickyStash commented Jun 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

When a chat is opened at a specific message — via a comment deep link or the unread marker — position the target message near the top of the viewport (with a 40px offset) , so the user immediately sees the message in context right away.

FlashList patch 013 — viewPosition support for initialScrollIndexParams

The existing slice-based approach (useFlashListScrollKey, which cut the data at the target so it landed at the bottom edge) is replaced by FlashList's native initialScrollIndex machinery, extended with a new viewPosition option (0 = start, 0.5 = center, 1 = end — same semantics as scrollToIndex).

ReportActionsList

  • Computes initialScrollIndex / initialScrollIndexParams directly:
    • Linked / unread message (targetIndex > 0): {viewPosition: 1, viewOffset: 40} → target near the top with a 40px offset.
    • shouldFocusToTopOnMount(money/expense report): unchanged
  • Gates the first render behind a ReportActionsSkeletonView while a linked message is loading (initialScrollKey && !isOffline && !hasOnceLoadedReportActions): the batch of actions that arrives right after the initial load would otherwise shift the list and break the anchor.
  • Removes the actionIndexMap workaround and reverts displayAsGroup to use the FlashList-provided index — the data is no longer sliced, so the index already matches renderedVisibleReportActions.

⚠️ Reassure test failing:

Detailed explanation

Reassure: ReportActionsList.perf-test render-count change explained

The reassure check reports a render-count regression on this test (3 → 6). After investigation, most of this is a measurement artifact, not a real performance regression. Details below.

TL;DR

  • The reported +4 (3 → 6) overstates the real cost.
  • When all deferred renders are counted, the true delta is +1 (8 → 9).
  • main's baseline of 3 is artificially low: ~5 of its renders are requestAnimationFrame-deferred and fall outside reassure's measurement window, so they're never counted.
  • The branch moved that same work from deferred (uncounted) to synchronous (counted), which inflates the apparent regression.

Why the baseline is misleadingly low

Reassure counts every React commit between render() and cleanup(). The window closes the moment the scenario (await screen.findByTestId('report-actions-list')) resolves — which happens on the first commit, because the list's testID is present immediately. Combined with fakeTimers.enableGlobally: true (so requestAnimationFrame is faked and only fires when timers advance), main's rAF-driven renders never run before the component is unmounted.

Proof — running pure main code and only adding a timer/rAF flush inside the scenario:

State Normal scenario (rAF deferred) Scenario + timer flush (all renders counted)
main 3 8
this branch 6 9

So main truly does ~8 renders of work; reassure attributes only 3 to it.

What this branch actually changes

The entire +3 comes from the scroll-positioning rewrite — replacing useFlashListScrollKey (data-slice + 2-frame rAF handoff) with native initialScrollIndex. This shifts work from rAF-deferred (uncounted) to synchronous (counted). Bisecting the +3:

  1. +1 — native scroll to the linked message. The new initialScrollIndex/initialScrollIndexParams (ReportActionsList.tsx, targetIndex > 0 branch) makes FlashList scroll on mount, which fires onContentSizeChange → trackVerticalScrolling synchronously inside the measurement window. On main this work happened via rAF, outside the window.
  2. +2 — removal of useFlashListScrollKey. On main, when initialScrollKey was set, that hook sliced the data (data.slice(targetIndex)) so the linked action sat at the visual bottom with no native scroll, then ran a controlled 2-frame rAF handoff (deferred, uncounted). The branch deletes the hook and lets the full list mount and settle synchronously instead.

Conclusion

No meaningful list-rendering slowdown (durations are flat). The headline +3 is almost entirely a measurement artifact: the scroll-positioning rewrite moves the same work from rAF-deferred (uncounted by reassure) to synchronous (counted). With all deferred renders counted, the real delta is only +1 (8 → 9). Re-baselining is appropriate.

Profiling on web shows no meaningful difference in main vs branch measurements:

Report initial open + linking Report initial open
report_initial_open report_open

Fixed Issues

$ #92152
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
  1. Open a chat with unread messages -> make sure first undread message is displayed at top of the chat
  2. Open a chat -> copy link to any message -> open copied link in new tab -> make sure linked message is displayed at top of the chat
  3. Open a chat -> go to the thread of any message -> tap on the header to return back -> see the message is linked and displayed at top
  4. Open a chat with RGB action -> see the message with action is displayed at top of the chat.

Offline tests

Same, as in the Tests section

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Same, as in the Tests section

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.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
android_web.mp4
iOS: Native
ios.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
ios_web.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web.mp4

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⚠️ This PR is possibly changing native code and/or updating libraries, it may cause problems with HybridApp. Please check if any patch updates are required in the HybridApp repo and run an AdHoc build to verify that HybridApp will not break. Ask Contributor Plus for help if you are not sure how to handle this. ⚠️

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jun 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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
...c/components/FlashList/InvertedFlashList/index.tsx 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/pages/inbox/report/ReportActionsList.tsx 77.46% <76.92%> (-1.83%) ⬇️
... and 256 files with indirect coverage changes

@VickyStash

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Three versions of loading on the initial report loading when there is a linked message:

  1. Full loading:
1_full_loading.mp4
  1. Scroll correction after loading finishes
2_scroll_correction.mp4
  1. Center linked + loading above and below.
    This one will jump if the linked item is the newest (the bottom one)
3.center.linked.item.+.loading.mp4

@mountiny

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@Expensify/design What do you think?

@dannymcclain

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Honestly I think I like option 1 the best. There's just so much bouncing around in the other ones. Curious for more thoughts from the team though.

@shawnborton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Yeah, that's where I lean towards as well.

@mountiny

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Same

@VickyStash

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@quinthar, are you okay with going with the full-loading option, since it seems to be the most voted?

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

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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: e29132c09a

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".

Comment on lines +483 to +484
if (initialScrollKey && !isOffline && !reportLoadingState?.hasOnceLoadedReportActions) {
return <ReportActionsSkeletonView />;

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Stop showing the linked-message skeleton after load failure

When OpenReport fails while opening a linked/unread message, the failure path only clears isLoadingInitialReportActions and does not set hasOnceLoadedReportActions, so this condition stays true forever while the route still has initialScrollKey. In that online failure or timeout scenario, users remain stuck on the skeleton instead of seeing cached actions or any retry/error state; gate this on the request still loading rather than hasOnceLoadedReportActions alone.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated in 36f6a04

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #93403.

Android 🤖 iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-e71858bfe1f-912d4a2-3b7945096c89d752c354cf7c567f808ccdd69313/index.html ❌ FAILED ❌
Android The QR code can't be generated, because the iOS build failed
Web 🕸️
https://93403.pr-testing.expensify.com
Web

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

@mountiny

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@VickyStash Seems like the reassure failure might be related to these changes

@VickyStash

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@VickyStash Seems like the reassure failure might be related to these changes

Yes, please see the PR description, it has a detailed explanation. Let me know if you have any questions.

@mountiny

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Ah I see thanks!

There are conflicts

@aimane-chnaif can you review please?

# Conflicts:
#	patches/@shopify/flash-list/details.md
@aimane-chnaif

aimane-chnaif commented Jun 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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 that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
  • 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 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 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)
  • 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)
  • 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.
  • For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this 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.
  • 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.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: HybridApp
ios.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
msafari.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web.mov

@mountiny

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@shawnborton are you happy with the behaviour now?

@aimane-chnaif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Clicking on action badge pill scrolls up to see the report action at the bottom.
Maybe not be a blocker as already production behavior and we're handling only deep link here.

Screen.Recording.2026-06-19.at.6.25.35.PM.mov

@aimane-chnaif

aimane-chnaif commented Jun 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

There's a small flicker when open linked message first time.

Screen.Recording.2026-06-19.at.6.28.48.PM.mov
Screen.Recording.2026-06-19.at.6.31.54.PM.mov

Flicker also happens in production so let's not block on this.

Screen.Recording.2026-06-19.at.6.35.29.PM.mov

@shawnborton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The new behavior looks great to me! The only thing I noticed was that if you have a message that is marked as unread that is quite high up in the history... if you scroll even higher up, you see the green pill:
CleanShot 2026-06-20 at 07 49 42@2x

Clicking that just brings you to the bottom instead of the message that actually says new. Is that expected? Maybe it is, but just wanted to check!

@shawnborton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is what I mean:

CleanShot.2026-06-20.at.07.51.04.mp4

@mountiny

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I would expect that it takes you to the first new message, but not sure if this is something this PR is changing @aimane-chnaif can you please check how this compares with production? thanks!

@VickyStash

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Clicking that just brings you to the bottom instead of the message that actually says new. Is that expected? Maybe it is, but just wanted to check!

I've just check and it's production behaviour too, so not created in this PR:

prod_behaviour.mp4

Regarding this @aimane-chnaif comment:

Clicking on action badge pill scrolls up to see the report action at the bottom.
Maybe not be a blocker as already production behavior and we're handling only deep link here.

I guess I should update to scroll after pill tap to the same position as it would scroll in case of deep linking, right?


@mountiny @shawnborton, so two questions:

  1. Should I try to change the New messages pill scroll behavior?
  2. Should I change the scroll position for action pills (e.g., Pay pill) in this PR to follow the deep-linked position?

@mountiny

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I think both of these are NAB for this PR

@shawnborton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Agree, perhaps we can fix it in a follow up though?

@dannymcclain

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Would love those little improvements in a follow up! (But def agree they're not blockers here)

@mountiny

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@aimane-chnaif Can you complete the checklist please?

@aimane-chnaif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Not blocking on flicker issue (also happening on production) but let's try to fix this separately.

flicker.mov

if (targetIndex > 0) {
initialScrollIndex = targetIndex;
// top position with 40px offset
initialScrollIndexParams = {viewPosition: 1, viewOffset: 40};

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NAB: Define 40px value in CONST to be reusable.

@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #92152 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot requested a review from JS00001 June 22, 2026 14:45
@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🤖 Code review — the approach (replace the data-slice useFlashListScrollKey hack with native initialScrollIndex + a new viewPosition param) is clean and a clear improvement: it deletes the index-offset workaround (actionIndexMap) and lets displayAsGroup use the real FlashList index again. The viewPosition additions to the FlashList patch are all properly guarded behind viewPosition !== undefined, so other inverted lists are unaffected. A few things worth a look before merge:

1. One patch change is not guarded and affects every initialScrollIndex consumer. Unlike the viewPosition blocks, the recomputeLayouts widening in applyInitialScrollAdjustment runs unconditionally:

- this.layoutManager.recomputeLayouts(0, initialScrollIndex);
+ this.layoutManager.recomputeLayouts(0, this.getDataLength() - 1);

(patch L26-27)

This now recomputes all item layouts (was: only up to the target) on initial mount for any list using initialScrollIndex — including the existing shouldFocusToTopOnMount expense/money-report path, not just the new linked-message path. That's an O(n) cost at mount that scales with report length. Can you confirm a large/high-traffic expense report (the focus-to-top path) still opens without a perceptible regression? The reassure analysis in the description covers ReportActionsList.perf-test, but that's the linked-message scenario — the focus-to-top path also inherits this change.

2. Magic numbers / hidden coupling in the bottom-crop heuristic. In applyInitialScrollIndex the crop logic hardcodes // 8px is bottom padding of every item and CROP_OFFSET = 10. If that per-item bottom padding ever changes, the hiddenPortion <= 8 check silently stops cropping with no test to catch it. Consider sourcing the 8 from the same constant/style the items use, or at least cross-linking them in a comment so the coupling is discoverable.

3. Test coverage. Codecov flags ReportActionsList.tsx at -1.83%, and the new branching — targetIndex > 0{viewPosition: 1, viewOffset: 40} and the skeleton gate — is the core of the feature and has no unit coverage. Since this replaces a previously-tested hook with inline logic, a couple of unit tests (linked message resolves to a positive index; the loading-gate condition) would be worth adding.

Things I checked that look fine
  • Rules of hooks: the new early return <ReportActionsSkeletonView /> at L483 sits after the last hook (the listFooterComponent useMemo at L450), so no conditional-hook violation.
  • targetIndex === 0 not handled — correct: index 0 is the newest item at the bottom of the inverted list, so no scroll is needed. Matches the old targetIndex <= 0 early-return.
  • keyExtractor(item) is the module-level single-arg function, so dropping the index arg is fine.
  • Skeleton gate when reportLoadingState is undefined: undefined?.isLoadingInitialReportActions is falsy → the list renders immediately rather than getting stuck on the skeleton. Good fail-open.

These are all NAB-adjacent except possibly #1 — none look like blockers, but #1 is the one I'd want a reviewer to consciously sign off on since it changes behavior for lists beyond this feature's scope.


Next Steps: Reply with @MelvinBot <feedback> to refine this review.

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

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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: fd247282dd

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".

return (
<FlashList<T>
{...restProps}
{...props}

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Suppress newer-page loads during initial anchor

When a linked/unread chat opens near the newest edge and hasNewerActions is true, this now forwards the real onStartReached on the very first FlashList mount; the removed scroll-key hook used to replace it with a no-op during the initial positioning handoff. With onStartReachedThreshold={0.75}, FlashList can immediately call loadNewerChatsAfterTransitions, prepend newer actions, and move the target away from the requested top offset before the initial anchor has settled. Consider deferring/suppressing onStartReached until the initial linked-message positioning has completed.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Previously onStartReached was supressed cause with old initialScrollKey logic, the reportActions array was cut off initially, and user always started at bottom -> onStartReached was always triggered by mistake.
Since we have changed the approach, I think we don't need this guard anymore.

@VickyStash

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

To know the reason of this change

- this.layoutManager.recomputeLayouts(0, initialScrollIndex);
+ this.layoutManager.recomputeLayouts(0, this.getDataLength() - 1);

you can check this PR: Shopify/flash-list#2318

isTrackIntentUser,
});

const targetIndex = initialScrollKey ? renderedVisibleReportActions.findIndex((item) => keyExtractor(item) === initialScrollKey) : -1;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NAB, do we need the ternary? Will keyextractor ever return undefined? Can we just use the default behavior of findIndex, since it won't match if initial scroll key doesn't exist?

@JS00001

JS00001 commented Jun 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mountiny are you reviewing this one too?

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.

7 participants