[NoQA] Memoize: Fix debugging stats issues #48322

kacper-mikolajczak · 2024-08-30T09:58:23Z

Details

Add monitoringName to memoized functions
- Some of the memoized functions lack identifiers while each function should have an id to be distinguishable.
Update avgFnTime calculation
- Memoized functions with a 100% cache hit ratio have avgFnTime equal to zero, while it should be equal to at least the first function call time.
Analyze memoization for getEmojiUnicode
- Cache retrieval tends to be slower than the actual function call, while it should be the other way around.
Analyze getLocaleDigits usage
- This function seems not to be used at all, possibly due to a specific flow Jason performed; consider adding memoize stats data to analytics.
Investigate getUnreadReportsForUnreadIndicator performance
- Retrieval/execution times are way above expected (8ms/22ms), while it should be faster.
Optimize caching for freezeScreenWithLazyLoading
- It creates many unnamed empty cache entries; check how to cache effectively and add monitoringName.

Fixed Issues

$ #48319
PROPOSAL: #48319 (comment)

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2024-08-30T09:58:28Z

@ishpaul777 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]

kacper-mikolajczak · 2024-08-30T09:59:18Z

@ishpaul777 This PR is not yet ready for review, sorry for the miss-click!

kacper-mikolajczak · 2024-08-30T10:42:42Z

After trying to follow Jason's flow and exploring different parts of the app, I've noticed:

getLocaleDigits caches properly but it was not used in Jason's flow
on my end, getEmojisUnicode cache retrieval was faster than the function. Let's keep it and wait until we have access to broader data
getUnreadReportsForUnreadIndicator cache performance heavily depends on the number of reports supplied to it as a key (if there are many reports, key check will take longer). Same goes for the original function. The outcome could go either way (long retrieval process or long function) depending on the environment. I'd say let's leave the caching for now and think about a potential solution to drop caching for the function we are noticing lose in performance. This could be done in runtime as well (runtime checks slows down app so let's be extra cautious)

Cache dump

[
  {
    "id": "NumberFormatUtils",
    "stats": {
      "calls": 1813,
      "hits": 1803,
      "avgCacheRetrievalTime": 0.0023205953239618595,
      "avgFnTime": 0.06000000089406967,
      "cacheSize": 10
    }
  },
  {
    "id": "getLocaleDigits",
    "stats": {
      "calls": 183,
      "hits": 182,
      "avgCacheRetrievalTime": 0.004395604297354978,
      "avgFnTime": 0.29999999701976776,
      "cacheSize": 1
    }
  },
  {
    "id": "getEmojiUnicode",
    "stats": {
      "calls": 704,
      "hits": 685,
      "avgCacheRetrievalTime": 0.0017099554950169378,
      "avgFnTime": 0.01578947431162784,
      "cacheSize": 19
    }
  },
  {
    "id": "getUnreadReportsForUnreadIndicator",
    "stats": {
      "calls": 36,
      "hits": 24,
      "avgCacheRetrievalTime": 2.592046599053531,
      "avgFnTime": 0.6083333355685075,
      "cacheSize": 12
    }
  }
]

kacper-mikolajczak · 2024-08-30T11:06:07Z

We might also adjust (or add another) timing for cacheRetrievalTime.

Currently it measure the time for cache itself but not for the entire memoize overhead, which might be insightful.

We either can add memoizeFnTime as a new mark or change cacheRetrievalTime to be measured from function start

App/src/libs/memoize/index.ts

Line 67 in b912e17

const retrievalTimeStart = performance.now();

kacper-mikolajczak · 2024-08-30T11:12:44Z

Update avgFnTime calculation
Memoized functions with a 100% cache hit ratio have avgFnTime equal to zero, while it should be equal to at least the first function call time.

After investigating, the first call is registered properly.

What is happening is that monitoring was enabled after initial function call was made, so the function call timing could not be registered and all subsequent calls were intercepted by the cache, so we ended up with zero value for fnTime.

kacper-mikolajczak · 2024-09-02T08:04:01Z

Status update: #48319 (comment)

kacper-mikolajczak · 2024-09-02T09:51:49Z

Cache retrieval time stat was changed as follows:

Retrieval time adjustments

In the memoize module, we now track retrieval from the direct start of the function. Before, we started tracking the time after the initial setup (args, key calculations etc.). Setup can also contribute to retrieval time, so it should be measured as well.

This should contribute to more precise timings.

Before

        const statsEntry = stats.createEntry();

        // Detect if memoized function was called with `new` keyword. If so we need to call the original function as constructor.
        const constructable = !!new.target;

        const truncatedArgs = truncateArgs(args, options.maxArgs);

        const key = options.transformKey ? options.transformKey(truncatedArgs) : (truncatedArgs as Key);

        const retrievalTimeStart = performance.now();

After

        const statsEntry = stats.createEntry();

        const retrievalTimeStart = performance.now();

        // Detect if memoized function was called with `new` keyword. If so we need to call the original function as constructor.
        const constructable = !!new.target;

        const truncatedArgs = truncateArgs(args, options.maxArgs);

        const key = options.transformKey ? options.transformKey(truncatedArgs) : (truncatedArgs as Key);

fnTime and retrievalTime unification at stat entry level

In order to remove some complexity, the fnTime and cacheRetrievalTime marks were merge together into one processingTime and its separation was moved to the Stats module (based on didHit prop). It does not change anything in runtime, just simplifying code a bit.

kacper-mikolajczak · 2024-09-02T09:55:11Z

@ishpaul777 The PR is ready to be reviewed now :)

CC @mountiny

mountiny

Changes look good to me, not sure if we need a c+ review on this one

mountiny · 2024-09-02T10:39:11Z

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

mountiny · 2024-09-02T10:39:39Z

Thanks for the investigation, looks good to me

melvin-bot · 2024-09-02T10:40:20Z

@mountiny looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

mountiny · 2024-09-02T10:40:41Z

Hmm checklists are filled in, not an emergency

OSBotify · 2024-09-02T10:58:56Z

✋ 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 · 2024-09-02T23:45:41Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.28-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-09-03T23:26:17Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.0.28-3 🚀

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

remove getItemHeight wrapper

f623f39

kacper-mikolajczak requested a review from a team as a code owner August 30, 2024 09:58

melvin-bot bot requested a review from ishpaul777 August 30, 2024 09:58

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team August 30, 2024 09:58

kacper-mikolajczak marked this pull request as draft August 30, 2024 09:59

add missing monitoringNames

1727cab

kacper-mikolajczak mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2024

Memoize: Debugging stats investigations #48319

Closed

kacper-mikolajczak added 2 commits September 2, 2024 11:27

adjust cacheTime stats calculations

5f18151

rename marks

3574d9d

kacper-mikolajczak force-pushed the fix/memoize-stats branch from a5bc6aa to 3574d9d Compare September 2, 2024 09:48

kacper-mikolajczak changed the title ~~Memoize: Fix debugging stats issues~~ [NoQA] Memoize: Fix debugging stats issues Sep 2, 2024

kacper-mikolajczak marked this pull request as ready for review September 2, 2024 09:54

mountiny assigned kacper-mikolajczak Sep 2, 2024

mountiny approved these changes Sep 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit 528995d into Expensify:main Sep 2, 2024
26 of 30 checks passed

melvin-bot bot added the Emergency label Sep 2, 2024

mountiny removed the Emergency label Sep 2, 2024

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-09-02 #48438

Closed

46 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[NoQA] Memoize: Fix debugging stats issues #48322

[NoQA] Memoize: Fix debugging stats issues #48322

kacper-mikolajczak commented Aug 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 30, 2024

kacper-mikolajczak commented Aug 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

kacper-mikolajczak commented Aug 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

kacper-mikolajczak commented Aug 30, 2024

kacper-mikolajczak commented Aug 30, 2024

kacper-mikolajczak commented Sep 2, 2024

kacper-mikolajczak commented Sep 2, 2024

kacper-mikolajczak commented Sep 2, 2024

mountiny left a comment

mountiny commented Sep 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mountiny commented Sep 2, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 2, 2024

mountiny commented Sep 2, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 2, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 2, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 3, 2024

[NoQA] Memoize: Fix debugging stats issues #48322

[NoQA] Memoize: Fix debugging stats issues #48322

Conversation

kacper-mikolajczak commented Aug 30, 2024 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 30, 2024

kacper-mikolajczak commented Aug 30, 2024 • edited Loading

kacper-mikolajczak commented Aug 30, 2024 • edited Loading

kacper-mikolajczak commented Aug 30, 2024

kacper-mikolajczak commented Aug 30, 2024

kacper-mikolajczak commented Sep 2, 2024

kacper-mikolajczak commented Sep 2, 2024

Retrieval time adjustments

fnTime and retrievalTime unification at stat entry level

kacper-mikolajczak commented Sep 2, 2024

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny commented Sep 2, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

mountiny commented Sep 2, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 2, 2024

mountiny commented Sep 2, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 2, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 2, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 3, 2024

kacper-mikolajczak commented Aug 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

kacper-mikolajczak commented Aug 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

kacper-mikolajczak commented Aug 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mountiny commented Sep 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading