Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

@codex review

@mkhutornyi 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]

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

Suggested QA Steps:

Setup (how to observe reconnects): Open the app in Chrome, open DevTools → Network tab, and type ReconnectApp into the filter box. Leave it open during each test — every ReconnectApp request will appear as a row, so you can count them. (Alternatively filter the Console for reachability.)

1. Healthy boot — no phantom reconnects

1. Make sure you're on a stable internet connection.
2. Close and reopen the app (or hard-refresh) and log in.
3. Wait ~60 seconds for the app to settle.
   • ✅ Expected: You see the normal one-time OpenApp/ReconnectApp from sign-in, and then nothing. There should be no repeating burst of ReconnectApp calls while the network is healthy and untouched.
   • ❌ Fail: A stream of repeated ReconnectApp calls with no network change.

2. Force Offline toggle → exactly one reconnect

1. Open the Test Tools menu and turn Force offline ON.
   • ✅ The offline indicator appears; no ReconnectApp fires.
2. Turn Force offline OFF.
   • ✅ Expected: The offline indicator disappears and exactly one ReconnectApp fires. Not zero (data must resync), not several.

3. Real connectivity loss → one reconnect on return

1. Turn on airplane mode (mobile) or disconnect WiFi/unplug ethernet (web).
2. Wait for the offline indicator to appear (a few seconds).
3. Turn airplane mode off / reconnect.
   • ✅ Expected: Once connectivity returns, the offline indicator clears and exactly one ReconnectApp fires. Any pending changes you made offline sync through.

4. Rapid offline/online cycling doesn't storm

1. Toggle Force offline ON→OFF→ON→OFF a few times in a row.
   • ✅ Expected: Each OFF produces one ReconnectApp (so N toggles → N reconnects), with no extra pile-up of calls between toggles.

5. Staging-server toggle doesn't trigger a storm (staging/dev builds only)

1. In Test Tools, flip the Use Staging Server toggle a couple of times.
   • ✅ Expected: No burst of ReconnectApp/Ping calls purely from flipping the toggle. On a production build (where the toggle has no effect on the API URL) it should cause no reconnect at all.

In every test:

• ✅ Data stays in sync after each recovery (make an edit while offline, confirm it lands after reconnect).

I can't run change requests for your access level. I can investigate, or file an issue in Expensify/Expensify instead.

Failed after 0s · 0 tools used · view debug log

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

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

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #96504.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-908172c212d-b6b55c0-3df97088c74141ee9b92775c595ac57a67614321/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-908172c-b6b55c0-3767701ad1d2f2ddeb24ab7ea58ab8b07114f2c5/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://96504.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

@mkhutornyi this happened to you while testing?

1. Healthy boot — no phantom reconnects
   Make sure you're on a stable internet connection.
   Close and reopen the app (or hard-refresh) and log in.
   Wait ~60 seconds for the app to settle.
   ✅ Expected: You see the normal one-time OpenApp/ReconnectApp from sign-in, and then nothing. There should be no repeating burst of ReconnectApp calls while the network is healthy and untouched.
   ❌ Fail: A stream of repeated ReconnectApp calls with no network change.

@mkhutornyi this happened to you while testing?

1. Healthy boot — no phantom reconnects
   Make sure you're on a stable internet connection.
   Close and reopen the app (or hard-refresh) and log in.
   Wait ~60 seconds for the app to settle.
   ✅ Expected: You see the normal one-time OpenApp/ReconnectApp from sign-in, and then nothing. There should be no repeating burst of ReconnectApp calls while the network is healthy and untouched.
   ❌ Fail: A stream of repeated ReconnectApp calls with no network change.

No. It's a pass ✅

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.43-0 🚀

🤖 Help site review — no changes required

I reviewed the changes in this PR and confirmed that no updates to Expensify's help site files under docs/articles are required, so I have not created a draft PR.

Why: This PR is a purely internal networking fix. It changes:

• src/libs/NetworkState.ts — the internal NetInfo reachability logic that decides when a confirmed-reachable event counts as a "recovery" that should fire reconnectApp().
• contributingGuides/NETWORK_STATE_DETECTION.md — a developer-facing contributing guide (not part of the public help site).
• tests/unit/NetworkStateReachabilityTest.ts and tests/unit/NetworkStateTest.ts — unit tests.

None of this alters any user-facing feature, setting, tab, button, or workflow. It's an under-the-hood change to how the app detects genuine offline→online transitions versus fake recovery signals (boot emissions, refresh() re-emits, staging-toggle reconfigures). There is no corresponding help-site article — a search of docs/articles for reachability/offline-indicator/reconnect content returned no matches.

@adhorodyski — since no help site changes are needed, there's no linked help site PR to review. If you believe this change does affect documented behavior, reply with details and I'll draft the docs update.