Skip to content

Fix duplicate supportal sign-in that trips the support-token rate limit - #95042

Merged
danieldoglas merged 3 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
allgandalf:fix-supportal-duplicate-signin
Jul 1, 2026
Merged

Fix duplicate supportal sign-in that trips the support-token rate limit#95042
danieldoglas merged 3 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
allgandalf:fix-supportal-duplicate-signin

Conversation

@allgandalf

@allgandalf allgandalf commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

A supportal /transition link is handled by two different screens depending on auth state: LogInWithShortLivedAuthTokenPage on PublicScreens and LogOutPreviousUserPage on AuthScreens. When the support sign-in sets session.authToken, AppNavigator swaps PublicScreensAuthScreens, which re-mounts the transition screen and fires signInWithSupportAuthToken a second time. Each mint hits the same throttled Auth GetSupportAuthToken command, and the intended supportal-to-NewDot flow already spends all 3 slots of the 3-in-30s supportLogin throttle, so the duplicate call comes back 405 throttled. The backend returns that throttle as an empty 200, so NewDot ends up with no session and shows the blank "session expired" screen.

The dedupe guard (token === getLastShortAuthToken()) only lived in LogInWithShortLivedAuthTokenPage, and signInWithSupportAuthToken never recorded the token, so neither firing site was actually deduped. This PR makes the guard symmetric across both transition owners:

  • signInWithSupportAuthToken now records the handled token via NetworkStore.setLastShortAuthToken, matching signInWithShortLivedAuthToken.
  • LogOutPreviousUserPage now checks that guard before firing the supportal sign-in, so the re-mount after the navigator swap does not fire a duplicate.

This supersedes #91200 (which added only the setLastShortAuthToken half). Thanks @dsilva for the handoff.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/647201
$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/383021
PROPOSAL: N/A (internal RCA from production logs)

Tests

  1. Sign in to NewDot as a support agent.
  2. From OldDot supportal, open a customer via the "New Expensify" button.
  3. Verify you land in the customer's account, not a blank page or a "session expired" screen.
  4. In the Network tab, verify only one SignInWithSupportAuthToken request is sent for the transition (no duplicate that returns 405 throttled).
  5. Supportal into a second customer and verify the same result.
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A. The supportal transition requires an active connection to establish the session.

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 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 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 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 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

@allgandalf
allgandalf requested review from a team as code owners July 1, 2026 09:28
@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested review from Krishna2323 and flaviadefaria July 1, 2026 09:28
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@Krishna2323 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 requested review from a team and mananjadhav and removed request for a team July 1, 2026 09:28
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@mananjadhav 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]

@Krishna2323

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@allgandalf I can review this if required.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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
src/pages/LogOutPreviousUserPage.tsx 96.55% <100.00%> (+3.69%) ⬆️
src/libs/actions/Session/index.ts 41.41% <0.00%> (-0.22%) ⬇️
... and 286 files with indirect coverage changes

@allgandalf

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@allgandalf I can review this if required.

I'm not sure this PR can be tested without access to supportal, asking on slack

@allgandalf
allgandalf requested review from cead22, danieldoglas and mountiny and removed request for Krishna2323, flaviadefaria and mananjadhav July 1, 2026 09:42
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@mountiny

mountiny commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I supportalled 4 times and it worked all well! No redirect!

@mountiny

mountiny commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@codex review

@mountiny mountiny left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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

Android: HybridApp
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: HybridApp
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

@mountiny
mountiny requested a review from Copilot July 1, 2026 12:39
@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Bravo.

Reviewed commit: e3f9616faf

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".

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

This PR prevents duplicate supportal sign-ins during /transition flows by ensuring the short-lived support auth token is recorded and by skipping a second SignInWithSupportAuthToken call when the transition screen re-mounts after the navigator swap.

Changes:

  • Record handled support tokens in signInWithSupportAuthToken() via NetworkStore.setLastShortAuthToken().
  • Add a duplicate-token guard in LogOutPreviousUserPage to avoid re-firing the support sign-in after PublicScreens → AuthScreens re-mount.
  • Add a UI test covering the “already-handled support token” scenario to ensure no duplicate support sign-in is triggered.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File Description
tests/ui/SessionTest.tsx Adds a dedicated UI test to assert support-token transitions don’t trigger a duplicate support sign-in when re-processed.
src/pages/LogOutPreviousUserPage.tsx Adds a getLastShortAuthToken() guard before calling signInWithSupportAuthToken() to prevent duplicate requests during remount.
src/libs/actions/Session/index.ts Records the handled support auth token in NetworkStore to enable cross-screen deduping.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comment on lines 44 to +50
if (isSupportalLogin) {
signInWithSupportAuthToken(shortLivedAuthToken);
// The public transition page may already have started this exact sign-in before the Public/Auth
// navigator swap re-mounted us here. Firing it again trips the support-token rate limit, so skip
// the duplicate but still finish navigating home.
if (shortLivedAuthToken !== getLastShortAuthToken()) {
signInWithSupportAuthToken(shortLivedAuthToken);
}

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the legacy shortLivedToken is only read on the non-support magic-link path (signInWithShortLivedAuthToken(token)). the supportal branch always uses shortLivedAuthToken, both here and in LogInWithShortLivedAuthTokenPage's support branch, and OldDot's supportLoginNewDot.php only ever sends shortLivedAuthToken for a support transition. so shortLivedToken is always empty on this branch and normalizing wouldn't change anything, keeping shortLivedAuthToken matches how the support token is passed everywhere.

@danieldoglas
danieldoglas merged commit df5850f into Expensify:main Jul 1, 2026
40 checks passed
@OSBotify

OSBotify commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

OSBotify pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 1, 2026
Fix duplicate supportal sign-in that trips the support-token rate limit

(cherry picked from commit df5850f)

(cherry-picked to staging by mountiny)
@OSBotify OSBotify added the CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging label Jul 1, 2026
@OSBotify

OSBotify commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.25-2 🚀

platform result
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅

@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🤖 Help site review: no changes required.

This PR is an internal bug fix for the supportal → New Expensify sign-in flow. It makes the short-lived-auth-token dedupe guard symmetric across both transition owners (signInWithSupportAuthToken now records the handled token, and LogOutPreviousUserPage checks the guard before firing) so the navigator swap can't fire a duplicate SignInWithSupportAuthToken that trips the 3-in-30s support-token throttle.

Why no help site update is needed:

  • The change is scoped to session/auth internals (src/libs/actions/Session/index.ts, src/pages/LogOutPreviousUserPage.tsx) plus a UI test — there's no user-facing feature, setting, label, or workflow change.
  • Supportal is an internal support-agent tool, not a customer-facing feature documented in docs/articles.
  • A search of docs/articles for supportal / support auth token / short-lived auth / "session expired" returned no matching help articles to update.

No draft PR was created since there are no help site changes to make.

@allgandalf, please review the linked help site PR and confirm it reflects the current behavior. Then mark the linked help site PR Ready for review

@OSBotify

OSBotify commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.4.25-2 🚀

platform result
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

@OSBotify

OSBotify commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.26-0 🚀

platform result
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅

@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🤖 Help site review: no changes required.

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site files under App/docs/articles and no documentation updates are needed.

Why: This PR is an internal bug fix for the supportal → New Expensify sign-in transition. It makes the duplicate-sign-in dedupe guard symmetric across the two transition owners (signInWithSupportAuthToken now records the token via NetworkStore.setLastShortAuthToken, and LogOutPreviousUserPage checks that guard before firing) so the navigator's PublicScreens → AuthScreens swap no longer fires a second SignInWithSupportAuthToken that trips the support-token rate limit and leaves a blank "session expired" screen.

This flow is:

  • Internal-only — it's the Expensify support-agent supportal transition, not a customer-facing feature.
  • Not documented in the public help site. A search of App/docs/articles for supportal, support auth token, session expired, and shortLivedAuthToken returned no matches.
  • No user-facing changes — no UI, feature names, tab names, settings labels, or buttons were added or changed.

Because there is no customer-facing behavior or terminology change, there is nothing to add or correct in the help site, and no draft docs PR was created.

@allgandalf, if you believe any customer-facing help article is affected by this change, let me know which article and I'll open a draft docs PR.

@OSBotify

OSBotify commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.4.27-2 🚀

platform result
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants