[jmgraa]

Explanation of Change

This is Part 1 of a 3-part stacked PR series introducing a golden master regression harness for SearchRouter option search.

The harness records, on main and before the upcoming in-memory SearchOptionsIndex, what the existing OptionsListUtils pipeline (createFilteredOptionList through getSearchOptions) returns for a deterministic account, so later refactors can prove they change nothing.

Stack:
  ➔ [PR 1/3] Add baseline search parity test for SearchRouter
    [PR 2/3] Add autocomplete filters, tie-breaking and permutation invariants
    [PR 3/3] Check search results after Onyx updates against a cold build

• tests/utils/searchParity/generateSearchFixture.ts: a deterministic account with fixed IDs, unique timestamps and unique contact names. It covers 1:1 DMs, a group chat, a self-DM, own and others' workspace chats, an invoice room, #admins/#announce/custom rooms (one with an error, one whose workspace is gone), threads (with replies, hidden, empty, drafted, pinned), a task, expense reports, an archived DM, a DM with an unknown participant, and 40 filler contacts.
  • Stored names: Vít Novák, José Ñúñez, İsmail Yılmaz, Groß Straße, Łukasz Wójcik, Οδυσσεύς, Zoë 👩‍💻 (ZWJ), Ana​Maria (U+200B), Bob Builder (NBSP), NFD-decomposed René Dupont, first.last+tag@x.com, an SMS login.
  • Queries include prefixes, infixes, multi-word, punctuation, phone digits, regex metacharacters, emails to invite, and query-side normalization (JOSÉ, İSMAIL, Vít, René, Groß, an existing contact's phone and the own login, which must not invite).
• tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsSearchParityTest.ts: runs the production configs and records the results.
  • Option lists: searching (content only), SearchRouter idle at a small cap and at the production cap.
  • Call sites: searchRouterLocal (the SearchAutocompleteList local pass) and searchRouterDisplayed (its ranking via combineOrderingOfReportsAndPersonalDetails, the userToInvite append and the 20-row cap) for every query.
  • Passes: blank query at the production cap; the server-ID pass in Auth order, including the self-DM, reports the canonical filter rejects and an ID with no local report, all of which it drops; and the SearchRouter opened over a focused empty thread or empty submitted report, which only appear while focused.

Serialization

Each option is one diff-friendly line:

<keyForList> <text> [flags] [alt: ...] [sub: ...] [accID: ...] [invitedLogin]

• [flags]: [selected], [disabled], [bold], [gbr], [rbr], [archived].
• [alt: ...]: alternateText (chat previews in search results).
• [sub: ...]: subtitle, only for rooms and workspace chats, because that is what search matches for them.
• [accID: ...]: the option's accountID, printed whenever it is non-zero (1:1 rows and contacts; groups and rooms carry none).
• [invitedLogin]: only on userToInvite, when its login differs from its text.

Fields the SearchRouter never reads (participantsList, icons, policyID, ownerAccountID, item) are deliberately not serialized.

Notes

• getReportByID is kept stable per reports collection with a WeakMap, as useCallback(..., [allReports]) does in useFilteredOptions, so the preview cache is not invalidated between queries.
• hasMore is recorded from getSearchOptions; no SearchRouter consumer reads it (the router's hasMore comes from useFilteredOptions).
• Snapshot policy: re-record (npm test -- tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsSearchParityTest.ts -u) only against the pre-migration pipeline on main, so the migration never becomes its own oracle.

Fixed Issues

$ #103148
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Run npm test -- tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsSearchParityTest.ts.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

N/A

• 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 verified any copy / text that was added to the app 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 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 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.

[jmgraa]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-22T23:40:07.647722Z	c87406c	Manual request

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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[jmgraa]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: c87406c694

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".