[No QA][ECUK] MFA re-register flow when server returns "registration required" by chuckdries · Pull Request #81747 · Expensify/App

chuckdries · 2026-02-06T19:57:42Z

Explanation of Change

When process is called with the BACKEND.REGISTRATION_REQUIRED error, we need to delete the multifactorAuthenticationPublicKeyIDs from onyx and start the flow over.

Fixed Issues

$ #81745
PROPOSAL:

Tests

This one isn't testable under normal circumstances because the commands we use to revoke a user's keys should also clear this state for us in an onyx update, so you have to manipulate the onyx state locally (or somehow force your client to miss the onyx update). Also, this flow is only available on native.

Go to account > troubleshoot
press biometrics > test to kick off the registration flow
Register successfully
run Onyx.get("account").then(console.log) in your console to print the account onyx key
store the value of multifactorAuthenticationPublicKeyIDs to a variable, you'll need it later
press biometrics > remove to revoke your keys on the server
run Onyx.merge("account", { multifactorAuthenticationPublicKeyIDs: [<value you stored earlier>] }) in your console to make the client think you're still registered
Press biometrics > test
Verify that after a brief moment on the fingerprint screen, you're redirected to the magic code input, and the rest of the flow works normally

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

N/A - not possible to test without a devtools connection

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

reregister.flow.test.mp4

iOS: Native

reregister.ios.mp4

melvin-bot · 2026-02-06T19:57:51Z

@eh2077 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]

codecov · 2026-02-06T20:07:35Z

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ibs/MultifactorAuthentication/Biometrics/VALUES.ts	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
...c/pages/settings/Security/SecuritySettingsPage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
...onents/MultifactorAuthentication/Context/State.tsx	`6.38% <0.00%> (-0.29%)`	⬇️
...rc/libs/actions/MultifactorAuthentication/index.ts	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
...ponents/MultifactorAuthentication/Context/Main.tsx	`4.06% <0.00%> (-0.14%)`	⬇️
...tifactorAuthentication/Context/usePromptContent.ts	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 25 files with indirect coverage changes

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: baa0abbf3c

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 · 2026-02-06T20:08:28Z

src/libs/actions/MultifactorAuthentication/index.ts

+function clearLocalMFAPublicKeyList() {
+    Onyx.merge(ONYXKEYS.ACCOUNT, {
+        multifactorAuthenticationPublicKeyIDs: null,
+    });


Clear MFA keys to undefined, not null

Setting multifactorAuthenticationPublicKeyIDs to null leaves the field defined, so code that treats “ever registered” as !== undefined will still think the user has MFA credentials. For example, SecuritySettingsPage uses account?.multifactorAuthenticationPublicKeyIDs !== undefined to decide whether to show the Revoke option, which means after a REGISTRATION_REQUIRED reset the UI can still show “Revoke” even though the server has no credentials, leading to a misleading action and likely a failed revoke call. Clearing the list by removing the key (or setting to undefined) would keep the “ever registered” semantics aligned with the rest of the app and hide the revoke UI when appropriate.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

We want it to remain defined. The semantics are that undefined means "This user has never registered a public key", which is not true here

rafecolton · 2026-02-06T21:21:56Z

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 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: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

github-actions · 2026-02-06T21:24:09Z

🚧 @rafecolton has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

src/components/MultifactorAuthentication/Context/usePromptContent.ts

src/libs/actions/MultifactorAuthentication/index.ts

Co-authored-by: Rafe Colton <1058475+rafecolton@users.noreply.github.com>

…ionPublicKeyIDs

src/components/MultifactorAuthentication/Context/usePromptContent.ts

src/libs/MultifactorAuthentication/Biometrics/VALUES.ts

Co-authored-by: Rafe Colton <1058475+rafecolton@users.noreply.github.com>

github-actions · 2026-02-06T22:55:43Z

🚧 @chuckdries has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

github-actions · 2026-02-06T22:59:10Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #81747.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-ba89683-cc9fb948f79fedd9b657a68374c8b3b984d8a3f5/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-ba89683-c4ef11e1cd28762d86754de5b6d1aca01896a1c2/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://81747.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-02-06T23:02:43Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

chuckdries requested review from JakubKorytko, dariusz-biela and rafecolton February 6, 2026 19:57

chuckdries requested review from a team as code owners February 6, 2026 19:57

melvin-bot bot assigned chuckdries Feb 6, 2026

melvin-bot bot requested review from JmillsExpensify and eh2077 and removed request for a team February 6, 2026 19:57

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team February 6, 2026 19:57

chuckdries added 3 commits February 6, 2026 12:00

fix lint and comment

f598b96

Fix usePromptContent jank

eb60c68

Fix prettier

92c8d82

chuckdries force-pushed the chuckdries/ecuk/3ds/reregister branch from baa0abb to 92c8d82 Compare February 6, 2026 20:01

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

rafecolton removed request for JmillsExpensify and eh2077 February 6, 2026 21:22

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rafecolton requested changes Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/components/MultifactorAuthentication/Context/usePromptContent.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/libs/actions/MultifactorAuthentication/index.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

chuckdries and others added 4 commits February 6, 2026 13:42

Apply suggestions from code review

78e6db4

Co-authored-by: Rafe Colton <1058475+rafecolton@users.noreply.github.com>

Minor comment clarification

917e8e0

Add constants for special meaningful values of multifactorAuthenticat…

92e9712

…ionPublicKeyIDs

Fix prettier

a6d5648

rafecolton previously approved these changes Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/components/MultifactorAuthentication/Context/usePromptContent.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/libs/MultifactorAuthentication/Biometrics/VALUES.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Apply suggestions from code review

dc7d20f

Co-authored-by: Rafe Colton <1058475+rafecolton@users.noreply.github.com>

chuckdries dismissed rafecolton’s stale review via dc7d20f February 6, 2026 22:37

chuckdries changed the title ~~[No QA][ECUK] MFA re-register flow when server returns "registration required?~~ [No QA][ECUK] MFA re-register flow when server returns "registration required" Feb 6, 2026

rafecolton approved these changes Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

chuckdries merged commit ba89683 into main Feb 6, 2026
35 checks passed

chuckdries deleted the chuckdries/ecuk/3ds/reregister branch February 6, 2026 22:55

Conversation

chuckdries commented Feb 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Feb 6, 2026 • edited by github-actions bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

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 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chuckdries Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rafecolton commented Feb 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

chuckdries commented Feb 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Feb 6, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

rafecolton commented Feb 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading