First pass: Collect all report IDs that are being deleted
Second pass: Collect transaction IDs, but exclude any transactions whose reportID is in the list of reports being deleted

Can you add comments for the two loops?

Added @eh2077

❌ CONSISTENCY-3 (docs)

The condition selectedItem.action === CONST.SEARCH.ACTION_TYPES.VIEW && key === selectedItem.reportID is duplicated across both loops (first used to collect report IDs, then used as a continue guard in the second loop). The iteration over Object.keys(selectedTransactions) and the const selectedItem = selectedTransactions[key] lookup are also duplicated.

Since the two-pass approach is needed (the second loop depends on the completed reportIDList), you can still eliminate the duplication by using a Set of report keys from the first loop, then simply checking membership in the second loop instead of re-evaluating the same condition:

const reportIDSet = new Set<string>();

for (const key of Object.keys(selectedTransactions)) {
    const selectedItem = selectedTransactions[key];
    if (selectedItem.action === CONST.SEARCH.ACTION_TYPES.VIEW && key === selectedItem.reportID) {
        reportIDSet.add(selectedItem.reportID);
    }
}

const reportIDList = Array.from(reportIDSet);

for (const key of Object.keys(selectedTransactions)) {
    if (reportIDSet.has(key)) {
        continue;
    }
    const selectedItem = selectedTransactions[key];
    if (\!selectedItem.reportID || \!reportIDSet.has(selectedItem.reportID)) {
        transactionIDList.push(key);
    }
}

This removes the duplicated condition and the duplicated variable lookup, and as a bonus, using a Set makes the .includes() check O(1) instead of O(n).

Please rate this suggestion with 👍 or 👎 to help us improve! Reactions are used to monitor reviewer efficiency.