fix(charts): scale native Victory charts from measured bubble width

[roryabraham]

Explanation of Change

Admins room VirtualCFO summary charts on native mobile were scaled using a window-width estimate (windowWidth - 92px) instead of the actual chat bubble width. On iPhone this over-shrank charts (~44% scale), making them hard to read.

Native VictoryChartContainer now re-exports VictoryChartContainerResponsive, matching web: an outer onLayout wrapper measures available width and applies uniform scale via VictoryChartContainerFixed.

Companion Web-Expensify PR fixes chart aspect ratio in email notifications for the same issue.

Fixed Issues

For #95222

PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Run npm run test -- tests/unit/computeChartScaleTest.ts tests/unit/VictoryChartContainerNativeTest.ts and confirm all tests pass.
2. Open a workspace #admins room on iOS native with a VirtualCFO monthly spend summary message containing charts.
3. Confirm charts fill the chat bubble width without horizontal overflow and appear larger/more legible than before.
4. Repeat on Android native.
5. Rotate the device and confirm charts maintain aspect ratio without distortion.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — chart sizing is layout-only; offline messages render the same as online.

QA Steps

1. Open a workspace #admins room that has a VirtualCFO monthly spend analysis message with bar, horizontal bar, and pie charts.
2. On iOS native, confirm each chart scales to the message bubble width without stretching or clipping.
3. On Android native, confirm the same behavior.
4. On mWeb (narrow viewport), confirm charts remain proportional when resizing the browser window.

• 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 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 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 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 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.
• 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

[roryabraham]

Companion Web-Expensify PR for email chart aspect ratio: https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/54217

[roryabraham]

@MelvinBot is this PR effectively a dupe of #93245?

[MelvinBot]

No — not a dupe. They fix different issues and different problems, even though both touch VictoryChartContainer/index.native.tsx.

• [No QA] fix: polar chart label spacing, text clarity #93245 ("polar chart label spacing, text clarity", issue #92958, merged): tweaked visual details of the existing native renderer — pie slice label radius factors, a polar height ratio, and pie label components/golden images. It kept the windowWidth - 92px estimate for scaling.
• This PR (#95250) ("scale native charts from measured bubble width", issue #95222): replaces that windowWidth - 92px estimate entirely by re-exporting VictoryChartContainerResponsive (the onLayout-measured container already used on web). It fixes charts being over-shrunk (~44% scale) and hard to read on iPhone.

Why they're distinct

#93245 edited the body of the old window-width-based VictoryChartContainer in place — it modified scale's inputs' neighbors (polar height, borderRadius) but not the scaling mechanism itself. #95250 deletes that whole implementation and points native at the shared responsive container, so scale comes from a measured bubble width instead of a hardcoded window-width estimate.

One real overlap to be aware of: #95250 removes the POLAR_CONTAINER_HEIGHT_RATIO logic that #93245 added to index.native.tsx. That behavior needs to still live in VictoryChartContainerResponsive/VictoryChartContainerFixed (the PR description says it matches web and touches VictoryChartContainerFixed), so it's worth confirming polar height handling isn't regressed. The pie-label changes from #93245 (in VictoryChartPie*.tsx) are untouched by this PR and remain in effect.

So #95250 supersedes the scaling approach #93245 was built on, but it isn't a duplicate of it — it targets a separate legibility bug.