[No QA] Harden TransitionTracker callback handling

[JakubKorytko]

Explanation of Change

Hardened TransitionTracker callback execution by sharing guarded sync/async error handling across immediate and queued paths. Added an info log when waitForUpcomingTransition times out without a transition start, plus unit coverage for these cases.

Fixed Issues

$ #94673
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

N/A - this is internal TransitionTracker hardening with no direct user-facing flow. Covered by automated unit tests in tests/unit/Navigation/TransitionTrackerTest.ts.

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

N/A - no user-facing behavior change to validate manually on staging.

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

[JakubKorytko]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work!

Reviewed commit: 2781a4960c

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".

[JakubKorytko]

@codex review

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/Navigation/TransitionTracker.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (+3.07%)	⬆️
src/libs/Pusher/index.native.ts	78.94% <100.00%> (+0.10%)	⬆️
src/libs/Pusher/index.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 13 files with indirect coverage changes

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Breezy!

Reviewed commit: 7f08b9b50c

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".

[melvin-bot]

@cretadn22 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]

[mountiny]

@MelvinBot review

[MelvinBot]

Review

LGTM — clean, well-scoped hardening with good test coverage. No blocking issues. A couple of observations below.

The Pusher reject(error) change is the important part, and it's correct. Before this PR, the throw error in __DEV__ only rejected the subscribe promise on the immediate path (no active transitions), where callback() ran synchronously inside the Promise executor. On the deferred path the callback runs later inside flushCallbacks, whose try/catch already swallowed the throw — so the promise would neither resolve nor reject and hang forever. Switching to reject(error) makes both paths behave consistently, so this actually fixes a latent bug rather than just accommodating the new isolation. 👍

Minor notes (non-blocking)

• Immediate-path behavior change is global. Routing the immediate path through runCallback now swallows synchronous throws for every immediate caller, not just the deferred ones. Pusher was the one caller that depended on the throw propagating, and it's handled. I scanned the other ~90 runAfterTransitions callers and they're all fire-and-forget, so this looks safe — just flagging it as the one semantic change worth keeping in mind.

• Timeout info log could be a little noisy. MAX_TRANSITION_START_WAIT_MS is 1000ms and waitForUpcomingTransition is used broadly (e.g. the removeDraftTransaction IOU flows). Any dispatch where a transition legitimately never starts within 1s will now emit this Log.info. It's only info-level and genuinely diagnostic, so probably fine, but worth watching if it shows up frequently.

• didTimeout race is handled correctly — clearTimeout runs right after Promise.race resolves, so when the transition-start wins, the flag stays false and no false-positive log fires. The added test covers this.

I couldn't run the unit tests in this environment, but Codecov reports 100% coverage on TransitionTracker.ts and the tests read correctly by inspection.

[collectioneur]

LGTM 🚀

[mountiny]

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]

LGTM

[github-actions]

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

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #95481.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-35d93a03acf-163e75a-09c9c5b4ef34a5e22121d06788e6c9a4035d3ec2/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-35d93a0-163e75a-13b87723a63404f874decf6c092a99976786c786/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://95481.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.29-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes required.

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

Why

All four changed files are internal engineering with no customer-facing behavior:

• src/libs/Navigation/TransitionTracker.ts — extracts a shared runCallback helper for guarded sync/async error isolation and adds an info log when waitForUpcomingTransition times out.
• src/libs/Pusher/index.ts / index.native.ts — in __DEV__, reject the promise explicitly instead of throwing, since TransitionTracker now isolates callback errors.
• tests/unit/Navigation/TransitionTrackerTest.ts — unit coverage for the above.

There are no new features, UI elements, tab/settings labels, buttons, workspace/billing/integration flows, or any product behavior a user would see or read about. The PR is marked [No QA] and its author notes "no user-facing behavior change." Nothing in the help site documents this internal transition/Pusher plumbing, so no article is affected.

Since no help site changes are required, I did not create a draft docs PR.

@JakubKorytko, please confirm you agree no help site updates are needed here. If you believe a user-facing behavior change is involved that should be documented, let me know and I'll draft the help site PR.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.31-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Help site review: no documentation changes required.

I reviewed the changes in this PR and confirmed that no updates are needed to Expensify's help site files under App/docs/articles.

Why: This PR is internal engineering hardening with no user-facing behavior:

• src/libs/Navigation/TransitionTracker.ts — shares guarded sync/async error handling across the immediate and queued callback paths, and adds an info log when waitForUpcomingTransition times out.
• src/libs/Pusher/index.ts & index.native.ts — reject the subscribe Promise explicitly (in __DEV__) instead of relying on a thrown scheduler callback.
• tests/unit/Navigation/TransitionTrackerTest.ts — unit coverage for the above.

None of this changes any product feature, UI, tab, setting, button, or user-facing flow — it's error-isolation plumbing behind navigation transitions and Pusher subscriptions. The help site documents customer-facing product behavior, which is unchanged here (the PR is even marked [No QA] with "no user-facing behavior change"). So there's nothing to add, remove, or correct in the help articles, and no draft docs PR was created.

If you believe a specific help article is affected, let me know which flow and I'll take another look.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.4.31-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android