Update error handling in Onyx to prevent unnecessary data eviction

[VickyStash]

Details

This PR updates error handling by:

• adding operation retries limitation. Before, failed operations could retry endlessly, but with this PR, the number of retries is limited to 5.
• preventing data eviction if error is not related to the storage capacity.

Related Issues

$ Expensify/App#73779

Automated Tests

Added to tests/unit/onyxUtilsTest.ts

Manual Tests

1. Launch the iOS/Android app and open the logs.
2. Send an expense
3. See the errors about some failing operations. But since the errors are not related to storage capacity, the data isn't evicted from the storage.

Before

After

Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Related 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 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 / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / 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 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 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
  • If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
  • 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 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 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[chrispader]

This looks good to me, i just have a few minor comments 🙌🏼

[chrispader]

NAB: Do you think it would be feasible to add a type backing TMethod that requires an onyx method to have an optional retryAttempt parameter on the last position? 👀

[fabioh8010]

Minor things!

@VickyStash is possible to add some unit tests to cover these retry mechanisms?

[VickyStash]

@VickyStash is possible to add some unit tests to cover these retry mechanisms?

Sure, it's planned! I've mentioned it here.

[VickyStash]

While writing the tests, I've found some flaws in the eviction mechanism.

We get keyForEviction by checking recentlyAccessedKeys:

react-native-onyx/lib/OnyxCache.ts

Lines 419 to 429 in 6a24680

	/**
	* Finds a key that can be safely evicted
	*/
	getKeyForEviction(): OnyxKey | undefined {
	for (const key of this.recentlyAccessedKeys) {
	if (!this.evictionBlocklist[key]) {
	return key;
	}
	}
	return undefined;
	}

In the recentlyAccessedKeys the key can be related to the data that was removed.

So if we remove value:

react-native-onyx/lib/OnyxUtils.ts

Line 899 in 6a24680

return remove(keyForRemoval).then(() => onyxMethod(...args));

We notify subscribers about that => the key is added to the recentlyAccessedKeys.

It means:

• We can end up trying to evict the key that already has no data inside.
• On retries, we always try to remove the key that was just removed before, cause it's the latest one in the recentlyAccessedKeys

[chrispader]

LGTM, i have minor requests but these are not blockers. Thanks for your work @VickyStash 🙌🏼

[chrispader]

Thanks for the changes! LGTM!

[VickyStash]

@abzokhattab Can you please take another look?

[abzokhattab]

@VickyStash sure! taking alook now

[abzokhattab]

Added a small comment here, but overall the changes look good to me.

Keep up the great work @VickyStash 🎉

[VickyStash]

I see the reassure check is failing, but it looks like it failed with the same error on other PRs as well today, so I think it's not related to this PR:

• https://github.com/Expensify/react-native-onyx/actions/runs/19030271423
• https://github.com/Expensify/react-native-onyx/actions/runs/19027363152/job/54333313959

@TMisiukiewicz I see this comment from you, but I guess it shouldn't fail anymore, right?

[TMisiukiewicz]

@VickyStash yeah I think it should not fail, I can see that keyChange test fails here, which is something unrelated to my PR 🤔

[VickyStash]

@VickyStash yeah I think it should not fail, I can see that keyChange test fails here, which is something unrelated to my PR 🤔

But I see the same test was failing in your PR as well, and was merged into main with the failing check.

[mountiny]

Discussed in Slack here that the reassure tests seem to be flaky so we should not hold on this https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C05LX9D6E07/p1762287203445669?thread_ts=1762215968.042109&cid=C05LX9D6E07

One question still though

[mountiny]

Thanks! I think there are only one NAB left and we dont need to hold on that