Skip to content

[CP Staging] Add Scan flow Camera init telemetry#83275

Merged
marcaaron merged 12 commits intomainfrom
marcaaron-initializeVisionCameraMetrics
Feb 25, 2026
Merged

[CP Staging] Add Scan flow Camera init telemetry#83275
marcaaron merged 12 commits intomainfrom
marcaaron-initializeVisionCameraMetrics

Conversation

@marcaaron
Copy link
Contributor

@marcaaron marcaaron commented Feb 24, 2026

Adds telemetry to help us understand performance of the native scan flow for creating expenses.

What we're tracking

Camera initialization - How long it takes from opening the scan screen until the camera is actually ready to capture. On native, we defer ending the "open create expense" span until the camera finishes initializing so we capture the full user-perceived load time.

Shutter to confirmation - For single-scan flows, tracks how long it takes from tapping the shutter button to reaching the confirmation screen.

Fixed Issues

$ #81849

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A - telemetry only

QA Steps

  • 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 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.

Extends SPAN_OPEN_CREATE_EXPENSE to include camera initialization time by deferring the span end until the native camera is ready. Adds a new child span SPAN_CAMERA_INIT for granular tracking.
Web doesn't need camera init tracking - the file picker loads instantly on desktop, and mobile web camera telemetry isn't a priority.
Tracks time from tapping the camera shutter to when the confirmation page renders, complementing existing camera init and submit expense spans.
Fixes a race condition where onInitialized could fire before the span was started, and adds missing early return when camera.current is null to prevent continuing photo capture flow.
@marcaaron marcaaron changed the title [WIP] Add Scan flow Camera init telemetry Add Scan flow Camera init telemetry Feb 24, 2026
@marcaaron marcaaron marked this pull request as ready for review February 24, 2026 02:01
@marcaaron marcaaron requested review from a team as code owners February 24, 2026 02:01
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from suneox February 24, 2026 02:01
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 24, 2026

@suneox 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 trjExpensify and removed request for a team February 24, 2026 02:01
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: 5a431adc7b

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment on lines +159 to +160
if (transactionRequestType === CONST.IOU.REQUEST_TYPE.SCAN) {
return;

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P1 Badge Restrict scan span deferral to native camera flow

IOURequestStartPage now skips endSpan(SPAN_OPEN_CREATE_EXPENSE) for every scan request type, but only the native scan screen ends that span on camera init. I checked the web scan implementation (src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepScan/index.tsx) and it has no corresponding endSpan/cancelSpan for SPAN_OPEN_CREATE_EXPENSE, so web scan sessions will keep this span open until some later unrelated end/cancel path, inflating or dropping create-expense timing telemetry.

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.

// End the create expense span on mount for web (no camera init tracking needed)
useEffect(() => {
endSpan(CONST.TELEMETRY.SPAN_OPEN_CREATE_EXPENSE);
}, []);

Cancel SPAN_OPEN_CREATE_EXPENSE when permission is DENIED (not just BLOCKED/UNAVAILABLE), and always cancel the span on unmount if camera never initialized.
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 24, 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/CONST/index.ts 92.43% <ø> (ø)
...es/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx 56.97% <100.00%> (+0.08%) ⬆️
src/pages/iou/request/IOURequestStartPage.tsx 69.34% <50.00%> (-12.71%) ⬇️
...ages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepScan/index.tsx 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...u/request/step/IOURequestStepScan/index.native.tsx 39.11% <43.24%> (+0.81%) ⬆️
... and 6 files with indirect coverage changes


// Wraps a camera that will only be active when the tab is focused or as soon as it starts to become focused.
function Camera({cameraTabIndex, ref, forceInactive = false, ...props}: NavigationAwareCameraNativeProps) {
function Camera({cameraTabIndex, ref, forceInactive = false, onInitialized, ...props}: NavigationAwareCameraNativeProps) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

onInitialized is already part of CameraProps, and NavigationAwareCameraNativeProps is Omit<CameraProps, 'isActive'> & {...} , so it's already included in the ...props spread.

})
.catch((error: string) => {
setDidCapturePhoto(false);
if (!isMultiScanEnabled) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This pattern is repeated 5 times, we could extract a small helper to reduce the repetition:

const cancelShutterSpan = useCallback(() => {
    if (!isMultiScanEnabled) {
        cancelSpan(CONST.TELEMETRY.SPAN_SHUTTER_TO_CONFIRMATION);
    }
}, [isMultiScanEnabled]);

}
endSpan(CONST.TELEMETRY.SPAN_OPEN_CREATE_EXPENSE);
}, []);
}, [transactionRequestType]);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changing the dep array from []to [transactionRequestType] means this effect re-runs when the user switches tabs . Maybe we should keep [] with an eslint-disable?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh right, startMoneyRequest() does not happen when we switch tabs. 👍

@marcaaron marcaaron changed the title Add Scan flow Camera init telemetry [CP Staging] Add Scan flow Camera init telemetry Feb 24, 2026
Copy link
Contributor

@luacmartins luacmartins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just one small comment

return;
}
startSpan(CONST.TELEMETRY.SPAN_CAMERA_INIT, {
name: 'camera-init',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

use const

Suggested change
name: 'camera-init',
name: CONST.TELEMETRY.SPAN_CAMERA_INIT,

if (cameraInitSpanStarted.current || cameraPermissionStatus !== RESULTS.GRANTED || device == null) {
return;
}
startSpan(CONST.TELEMETRY.SPAN_CAMERA_INIT, {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NAB A minor missing thing is tracking the speed of getting cameraPermissionStatus. But there's probably not much gain to be had there and it might be tricky to exclude tracking spans where user needs to approve permission.

Copy link
Contributor

@Julesssss Julesssss Feb 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nevermind, i see you cancelling these spans. In that case would it be possible to start tracking earlier to include the permission check time?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah I think that might be something good to follow up on. My goal with this PR is to hopefully give a sketch around some of the native time that's showing up as "missing instrumentation" in sampled profiles. If we see that the camera readiness is super fast then maybe we look at permissions next?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In that case would it be possible to start tracking earlier to include the permission check time?

I kind of don't want to do this because it's user dependent. I'm trying to instrument a specific flow which is:

  • user already gave us permissions
  • camera inits
  • receipt is scanned

I would think that if they haven't given us permission that metric will be "however long it takes them to approve or deny".

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense

Copy link
Contributor

@luacmartins luacmartins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

luacmartins commented Feb 24, 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 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 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.ts 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.
  • 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: mWeb Chrome
iOS: HybridApp
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

PR doesn’t need product input as a performance metric related PR. Unassigning and unsubscribing myself.

@trjExpensify trjExpensify removed their request for review February 25, 2026 00:17
@marcaaron marcaaron merged commit f5a76a3 into main Feb 25, 2026
32 checks passed
@marcaaron marcaaron deleted the marcaaron-initializeVisionCameraMetrics branch February 25, 2026 07:49
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

✋ 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

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.3.26-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify OSBotify added the CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging label Feb 25, 2026
@izarutskaya
Copy link

Hi @marcaaron Any QA steps for this? Thanks

@marcaaron
Copy link
Contributor Author

@izarutskaya Nope!

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.3.26-8 🚀

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

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

Labels

CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants