Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Audit][Implementation] - Use shrinkMode strict to reduce the APK size #39592

Conversation

hurali97
Copy link
Contributor

@hurali97 hurali97 commented Apr 4, 2024

Details

This PR is part of Audit by callstack and is concerned with reducing the APK size. Since it's regarding APK size, it only affects android.

By default, Android Build Tools uses default shrinking mode when shrinkResources is enabled in app/build.gradle file. Which covers the most cases and we already have this covered as part of enabling ProGuard here.

Building on top of this, we can further reduce the APK size by ~2 MB if we use shrinkMode=strict, however this requires to add keep rules for not removing the images we require. This is also fixed in this PR by adding assets_animations_ and assets_images_ to the keep.xml file.

Before:

  APK Size MB Download Size MB
All architectures 105.4 101.5
     

After:

  APK Size MB Download Size MB
All architectures 103.1 99.3
     

Fixed Issues

$ #39700
PROPOSAL: #39700

Tests

Testing Steps:

  • General usage of the app should not result in missing images

  • 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

  • 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
    • MacOS: Desktop
  • 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 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
      • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed 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.js 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 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Screen.Recording.2024-04-04.at.4.22.07.PM.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome

N/A

iOS: Native

N/A

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/A

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

N/A

MacOS: Desktop

N/A

Copy link
Contributor

@Julesssss Julesssss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This feels like a very low-priority performance task, but I see no reason to not merge it 👍

@hurali97 hurali97 marked this pull request as ready for review April 5, 2024 12:13
@hurali97 hurali97 requested a review from a team as a code owner April 5, 2024 12:13
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from s77rt and removed request for a team April 5, 2024 12:13
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 5, 2024

@s77rt 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]

@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor

s77rt commented Apr 5, 2024

@Julesssss Can you please add Ready To Build label to trigger adhoc build?

@Julesssss
Copy link
Contributor

Yep done. Only Android needs to be tested here

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Apr 8, 2024

@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor

s77rt commented Apr 8, 2024

Missing illustrations / icons

  • Report (Action created)
  • Workspace card background
  • Sharecode Expensify Icon
Production PR

Copy link
Contributor

@Julesssss Julesssss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm wondering if it's even worth finishing this. We'll need further exceptions to fix the resources getting stripped out which may further reduce the APK filesize reduction gains.

@hurali97
Copy link
Contributor Author

hurali97 commented Apr 9, 2024

I'm wondering if it's even worth finishing this. We'll need further exceptions to fix the resources getting stripped out which may further reduce the APK filesize reduction gains.

@Julesssss I will try adding these to exceptions and see if it's affecting the APK size. If it's then we will close this PR and if it's not then we may continue with this PR.

@hurali97
Copy link
Contributor Author

hurali97 commented Apr 9, 2024

@Julesssss I applied the changes and it turns out that the gains are not that much now as compared to the baseline.

Baseline:

  APK Size MB Download Size MB
All architectures 105.4 101.5
     

Before fixes:

  APK Size MB Download Size MB
All architectures 103.1 99.3
     

After fixes:

  APK Size MB Download Size MB
All architectures 104.6 100.7
     

Comparing After fixes to the Baseline gives us only 0.8 MB of reduction in APK size and Download size. This is not much of a gain as it was before. For the context, below is the fix I have applied.

Screenshot 2024-04-09 at 5 29 13 PM

Let me know if we want to move forward with this PR or otherwise 👍

Copy link
Contributor

@Julesssss Julesssss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Alright, thanks for confirming. I think we should close the PR and move on.

@hurali97
Copy link
Contributor Author

hurali97 commented Apr 9, 2024

Closing this as the gains are not that high after fixing the reported regressions.

@hurali97 hurali97 closed this Apr 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants