Replace OUTSTANDING_REPORTS_BY_POLICY_ID derived value with a memoized useOnyxState hook

[sosek108]

Explanation of Change

This targets the Onyx store bump in Expensify#98956, and builds on the useOnyxState hook from the Onyx branch feature/onyx-store-useonyxstate-recut.

OUTSTANDING_REPORTS_BY_POLICY_ID is computed by OnyxDerived from the report collection. On every report write the engine rebuilds the whole map, writes it back into Onyx and to disk, and hands every consumer a new object, even when the write was a chat rename that no outstanding report cares about. The consumers are the expense header actions, the expense view, the move-expense report pickers, the Search write actions and the workspace member pages, so all of them re-render on any report write.

This replaces the derived value with a selector over the live report collection, read through useOnyxState. @hooks/useOnyx swaps the report collection for the Search snapshot inside Search, and useOnyxState reads the store directly, so Search keeps getting live reports as it did from the derived key. The selector keeps the config's filter exactly: open or submitted expense reports that have a policy and are not pending delete, grouped by policy. It is cached on the collection reference, so every mounted consumer shares one build per write. A policy whose reports did not change keeps its previous object, and the whole map keeps its object when no policy changed, so consumers skip the re-render without a deep compare. Consumers that need every policy use useOutstandingReportsByPolicyID; the ones that only need one policy (the workspace member pages, the approver check and the report field) use useOutstandingReportsForPolicy, so a write in another workspace leaves them alone. The config, its key and its type are removed. The persisted row is left on disk, as with the TODOS removal.

A new reassure test runs unchanged on the base and on this branch, with 20 consumers mounted over 5,000 reports. Ten chat renames go from 11 renders (22.0 ms) to 1 (2.5 ms). Ten writes to another workspace's outstanding report take the single-workspace consumers from 11 renders (7.7 ms) to 1 (1.0 ms). The whole chat-rename write loop goes from 290 ms to 70 ms, because the engine no longer rebuilds and stores the map on every write. When an outstanding report of the consumers' workspace is approved and reopened, every consumer re-renders on both, and the time is the same within noise.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/callstack-internal/expensify-issues/issues/3077
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Open an expense report that you submitted in a workspace where you have another open report. Open the More menu on the report header and on one expense, and verify "Move expense" shows.
2. Tap "Move expense" (or open the Report field of an expense) and verify the list shows your reports in that workspace that can still take expenses, and no approved or closed ones.
3. Approve or submit one of those reports from another device or account, then reopen the list and verify it updates.
4. Go to Search > Expenses, select expenses from an open report and verify the bulk actions still offer moving them to another report.
5. As an admin, go to Workspace > Members, select a member who is the approver of a report waiting for approval and try to remove them. Verify the approver warning shows. Open that member's details page and verify the same.
6. As that approver, try to leave the workspace from the workspace list and verify the approver warning shows.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Go offline.
2. Create a new expense report in a workspace. Open an expense in another report of that workspace and verify "Move expense" lists the new report.
3. Delete that report while offline and verify it no longer shows in the list.
4. Go back online and verify the list stays the same.

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 followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • 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 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)
• 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 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

[coderabbitai]

Important

Draft PR not reviewed

Draft PRs are not automatically reviewed by default.

• Trigger a manual review

To automatically review draft PRs, update your CodeRabbit configuration:

reviews:
  auto_review:
    drafts: true

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}