[Onyx Audit] prevent storage reads for RAM-only keys by JKobrynski · Pull Request #740 · Expensify/react-native-onyx

JKobrynski · 2026-02-19T13:45:30Z

Details

This is a solution to the RAM-only migration. You can check the conversation in the issue starting with this comment where I suggested two potential solutions and solution 1 (the one that this PR implements) was accepted.

Related Issues

GH_LINK Expensify/App#80091

Automated Tests

Unit tests to the newly implemented logic were created.

Manual Tests

Simply test the base flows of E/App to make sure everything works correctly, especially the sign in.

Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web-compressed.mov

MacOS: Desktop

fabioh8010

Early review – Could we also add some tests for RAM-only keys in useOnyxTest.ts too? We have for the deprecated initWithStoredValues but don't have any of RAM-only keys there.

tests/unit/onyxTest.ts

…91-prevent-storage-reads-for-ram-only-keys

Krishna2323 · 2026-02-23T04:08:03Z

@JKobrynski @mountiny I can review and test this once it’s ready for review, since it’s linked to Expensify/App#80091.

tests/unit/onyxTest.ts

tests/unit/useOnyxTest.ts

JKobrynski · 2026-02-23T14:47:32Z

@Krishna2323 ready for review!

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: b4f4b05f80

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".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-02-23T14:52:44Z

lib/OnyxUtils.ts

+        const filteredKeys = keys.filter((key) => !isRamOnlyKey(key));
+        cache.setAllKeys(filteredKeys);


Preserve RAM-only keys for storage cleanup

Do not filter RAM-only keys out of getAllKeys() before the clear flow runs, because Onyx.clear() derives keysToBeClearedFromStorage from OnyxUtils.getAllKeys() (lib/Onyx.ts, clear path) and already avoids re-writing RAM-only defaults. With this filter, any stale persisted value from a pre-migration version (key later marked RAM-only) is no longer discoverable by clear(), so logout/clear leaves that data on disk indefinitely instead of removing it.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Seems like its been already discussed here.

Right! I also checked if this breaks any existing logic, and everything looked fine.

Krishna2323 · 2026-02-23T14:53:59Z

Will review in 15mins.

Krishna2323 · 2026-02-23T16:16:53Z

@JKobrynski should we mention this behavioral change in the PR description or somewhere? Please also check this comment from the AI review, seems legit to me.

Note: Onyx.update() no longer throws on invalid entries (bad onyxMethod, non-string key, etc.). It now logs via Logger.logInfo and skips the invalid operation, allowing the rest of the batch to proceed.

Krishna2323 · 2026-02-23T18:30:10Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: HybridApp
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: HybridApp
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
I verified proper code patterns were followed (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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- 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 verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
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.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
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.
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this 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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

android_native.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android_chrome.mp4

iOS: HybridApp

ios_native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios_safari.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web_chrome.mp4

Krishna2323

LGTM and works well! 🚀

Left a minor comment/suggestion: #740 (comment)

mountiny

Nice thanks @Krishna2323 !

@JKobrynski Can you please address those comments?

JKobrynski · 2026-02-24T08:34:12Z

@mountiny on it

JKobrynski · 2026-02-24T10:49:10Z

@Krishna2323

Note: Onyx.update() no longer throws on invalid entries (bad onyxMethod, non-string key, etc.). It now logs via Logger.logInfo and skips the invalid operation, allowing the rest of the batch to proceed.

I'm not sure what you mean, this wasn't introduced in this PR right?

Krishna2323 · 2026-02-24T10:53:42Z

@JKobrynski sorry for that, seems like I meant to add that comment elsewhere.

JKobrynski · 2026-02-24T10:54:50Z

No worries! Are we good to go here or would you like me to clarify something else?

Krishna2323 · 2026-02-24T10:56:12Z

Nope. Everything else looks good to me. Thanks!

JKobrynski · 2026-02-25T10:52:13Z

@mountiny can we merge this? I can prepare a bump right away

prevent storage reads for RAM-only keys

f00b48f

melvin-bot bot assigned JKobrynski Feb 19, 2026

JKobrynski changed the title ~~prevent storage reads for RAM-only keys~~ [Onyx Audit] prevent storage reads for RAM-only keys Feb 19, 2026

JKobrynski mentioned this pull request Feb 19, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-02-19] [Onyx Audit] Remove initWithStoredValues from useOnyx Expensify/App#80091

Open

fabioh8010 reviewed Feb 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/unit/onyxTest.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

address review comments

edd14c6

JKobrynski requested a review from fabioh8010 February 20, 2026 13:19

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into JKobrynski/feat/800…

bc9c52b

…91-prevent-storage-reads-for-ram-only-keys

fabioh8010 reviewed Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/unit/onyxTest.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

tests/unit/onyxTest.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tests/unit/useOnyxTest.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

address review comments

b4f4b05

JKobrynski requested a review from fabioh8010 February 23, 2026 09:19

fabioh8010 approved these changes Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

JKobrynski marked this pull request as ready for review February 23, 2026 14:47

JKobrynski requested a review from a team as a code owner February 23, 2026 14:47

melvin-bot bot requested review from stitesExpensify and removed request for a team February 23, 2026 14:47

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Krishna2323 approved these changes Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

mountiny approved these changes Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

JKobrynski requested a review from mountiny February 24, 2026 13:50

stitesExpensify approved these changes Feb 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

		const filteredKeys = keys.filter((key) => !isRamOnlyKey(key));
		cache.setAllKeys(filteredKeys);

Conversation

JKobrynski commented Feb 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Details

Related Issues

Automated Tests

Manual Tests

Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

fabioh8010 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 commented Feb 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

JKobrynski commented Feb 23, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot Feb 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 Feb 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JKobrynski Feb 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 commented Feb 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 commented Feb 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 commented Feb 23, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JKobrynski commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

JKobrynski commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

JKobrynski commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

Krishna2323 commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

JKobrynski commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

JKobrynski commented Feb 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Krishna2323 commented Feb 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading