Replace VISIBLE_REPORT_ACTIONS derived value with per-report useOnyxState hooks

[sosek108]

Explanation of Change

This targets the Onyx store bump in Expensify#98956 and builds on the unmerged useOnyxState from react-native-onyx.

VISIBLE_REPORT_ACTIONS is an OnyxDerived map from reportID to the cached visibility of each of its report actions. isReportActionVisible uses it to skip the full visibility check, and falls back to that check when an action has no cached entry. The engine updates the changed report on every report action write for the whole life of the app and writes the whole map back into Onyx and to disk each time, even though most readers only need one report.

This removes the derived value. The visibility compute moves unchanged into a selector with a cache per report, keyed on the report's actions object and the signed-in accountID. Readers that need one report (the LHN row, the report and money request report action lists, the parent navigation subtitle, the linked action guard and the report action context menu) use useVisibleReportActions, which depends only on that report's report actions key and the session. The LHN row also passes its transaction thread, so it subscribes to both reports. Writes to any other report don't run their selector at all. The Search surfaces (autocomplete, the router warmer, the search selector and the share tab) need every report and use useAllVisibleReportActions. It walks the collection once per write for all of them together, reuses the cached visibility of every report that didn't change, and returns the previous map when nothing visible changed. Both hooks read the store live, so the Search snapshot never applies, as before. The hooks return the same {[reportID]: visibility} shape as before, so the utils keep their signatures; the type is renamed to VisibleReportActions. The config, its key and its type are removed, along with its outdated comment about a report dependency. The persisted row is left on disk, as with the TODOS removal.

A new reassure test mounts 50 real LHN rows, or the Search router warmer, over up to 2,050 reports with actions, unchanged on the base and on this branch. Render counts are the same in every scenario, and a probe of getOptionData shows that a write to one report re-renders only the row that shows it, on both. Ten comment writes take 240 ms instead of 288 ms with only LHN rows mounted, 318 ms instead of 355 ms with the Search consumer mounted, and 264 ms instead of 312 ms with nothing mounted (medians of 6 alternating runs). The difference is the engine's compute and its write of the whole map, which no longer happen.

Fixed Issues

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

Tests

1. Sign in with an account that has chats and expense reports in the LHN.
2. Send a message in a chat. Verify the LHN row for that chat shows the new message as its last message.
3. Open a one-expense report whose expense has comments, add a comment on the expense, and verify the LHN row of the report shows that comment.
4. Delete the last message in a chat from its context menu. Verify the LHN row falls back to the previous message.
5. Open a thread, then tap the parent report link in the header. Verify the parent report opens on the parent message.
6. Open a link to a message that was deleted. Verify the not-found view appears.
7. Open the Search router and type a chat name. Verify the chat appears with its last message, and that whispers to other users don't show as last message.
8. Open a money request report. Verify its actions list shows the same actions as before.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Go offline and send a message in a chat. Verify it appears in the chat and as the last message of its LHN row.
2. Delete that message while offline. Verify the LHN row falls back to the previous message.

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.}