Skip to content

move PusherPing off the durable write queue - #97702

Open
adhorodyski wants to merge 3 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
callstack-internal:fix/pusher-ping-off-write-queue
Open

move PusherPing off the durable write queue#97702
adhorodyski wants to merge 3 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
callstack-internal:fix/pusher-ping-off-write-queue

Conversation

@adhorodyski

@adhorodyski adhorodyski commented Aug 3, 2026 •
edited by mountiny
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

PusherPing is a 30 second heartbeat that checks the Pusher event path. The client posts a ping over HTTP and the server answers with a PONG over the websocket.

It was sent with API.write, so it was written to disk every 30 seconds, retried up to 10 times with doubling backoff, and could hold the head of the single-flight queue while a real write waited behind it. In a 4 hour window it was the most retried command in the app: 5,075 attempts across 2,924 users, against 1,135 for the next command.

This moves PUSHER_PING to SIDE_EFFECT_REQUEST_COMMANDS and sends it with API.makeRequestWithSideEffects. That path is not persisted, not retried, and does not touch the queue. API.read waits for the write queue to drain first, which is the coupling being removed.

The probe stays. checkForLatePongReplies calls Pusher.reconnect() when a PONG goes missing, which shipped in #96883.

Fixed Issues

$ #97712
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

tests/unit/PusherPingPongTest.ts: the existing watchdog tests needed a mock fix, because the automocked @libs/API returns undefined and pingPusher now chains a .catch on the returned promise. Added one assertion that the ping goes out through makeRequestWithSideEffects with PusherPing and that the old write path is not called. Verified it fails against the old call and passes against the new one.

Also ran tests/unit/APITest.ts, tests/unit/SequentialQueueTest.ts, tests/unit/NetworkTest.tsx and tests/unit/RequestTest.ts. All pass.

Manual check for a reviewer: sign in, wait a minute, and confirm the [Pusher PINGPONG] Received a PONG event from the server log still arrives and that PusherPing no longer appears in PERSISTED_REQUESTS.

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Same as tests

  • 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 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 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

@adhorodyski adhorodyski changed the title Send the Pusher heartbeat off the durable write queue move PusherPing off the durable write queue Aug 3, 2026
@adhorodyski

adhorodyski commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]
chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Aug 3, 2026
View reviewed changes

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: f89d16e97b

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".

Comment thread src/libs/actions/User.ts
@adhorodyski @claude
Hoist the API mock handle to satisfy no-multiple-api-calls
7649b85 
The no-multiple-api-calls rule counts `API` tokens per function body, so the
third assertion pushed the describe block over the limit. One module-scope
mockAPI handle keeps the count at zero inside functions.

Drop the pingID shape assertion too: pingPusher builds a typed
PusherPingParams, so tsc already guarantees it is a string.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@adhorodyski
adhorodyski marked this pull request as ready for review August 3, 2026 17:30
@adhorodyski
adhorodyski requested review from a team as code owners August 3, 2026 17:30
@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested review from inimaga and trjExpensify and removed request for a team August 3, 2026 17:30
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@inimaga 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]

@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team August 3, 2026 17:31
@mountiny mountiny mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2026
Open
@DylanDylann

DylanDylann commented Aug 3, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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
  • 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 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 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 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)
  • 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.
  • 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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2026-08-04.at.01.01.03.mov

DylanDylann
DylanDylann reviewed Aug 3, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread tests/unit/PusherPingPongTest.ts Outdated
@trjExpensify

trjExpensify commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PR doesn’t need product input as a refactor PR. Unassigning and unsubscribing myself.

@trjExpensify
trjExpensify removed their request for review August 3, 2026 22:44
@adhorodyski @claude
Make the PING assertion drive its own timer tick
92c35ab 
The test advanced no timers, so it only passed because the two watchdog tests
ahead of it had already run the 30s ping interval and the mock was never
cleared. Run alone it saw zero calls. Clearing the mock and advancing one ping
interval makes it independent of test order.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector[bot] chatgpt-codex-connector[bot] left review comments
@inimaga inimaga Awaiting requested review from inimaga
@mountiny mountiny Awaiting requested review from mountiny
+1 more reviewer
@DylanDylann DylanDylann DylanDylann left review comments
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@adhorodyski adhorodyski

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@adhorodyski @DylanDylann @trjExpensify