8000 Fix: NetSuite auth error persists after correcting tokens on unverified connection by imgyf · Pull Request #85200 · Expensify/App · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

Fix: NetSuite auth error persists after correcting tokens on unverified connection#85200

Open
imgyf wants to merge 1 commit intoExpensify:mainfrom
imgyf:imgyf/85196-fix-netsuite-auth-error-regression
Open

Fix: NetSuite auth error persists after correcting tokens on unverified connection#85200
imgyf wants to merge 1 commit intoExpensify:mainfrom
imgyf:imgyf/85196-fix-netsuite-auth-error-regression

Conversation

@imgyf
Copy link
Contributor
@imgyf imgyf commented Mar 13, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Explanation of Change

PR #83434 introduced a regression where first-time NetSuite connections that fail with incorrect tokens cannot be corrected. The issue is that updateNetSuiteTokens (designed for already-initialized connections) was being called for unverified connections that had never successfully connected. The backend UpdateNetSuiteTokens command skips initConnection, so it fails for connections that were never fully initialized.

This fix adds an isConnectionUnverified check so that:

  • Verified connections (previously working) with auth errors → use updateNetSuiteTokens (preserves existing configuration)
  • Unverified connections (never successfully connected) with auth errors → use connectPolicyToNetSuite (runs full initialization)

Fixed Issues

$ #85196

Tests

  1. Create a fresh workspace and enable "Accounting"
  2. Click "Connect" at NetSuite (upgrade the workspace if needed)
  3. Enter incorrect NetSuite tokens and confirm
  4. Verify an authentication error state and RBRs appear
  5. Click on the 3-dot menu next to the connection
  6. Enter correct NetSuite tokens and confirm
  7. Verify the connection succeeds and no persistent auth error appears
  8. On a workspace with an existing working NetSuite connection, update tokens via the 3-dot menu
  9. Verify the connection succeeds and existing configuration is preserved (not reset)
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A - NetSuite connection requires network connectivity to authenticate with NetSuite servers. The form submission is queued via the standard Onyx optimistic update pattern which already handles offline gracefully.

QA Steps

Same as Tests (steps 1-9), performed on staging environment.

  • 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 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 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.ts 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 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))
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.

Screenshots/Videos

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

@imgyf @claude
fix: use connectPolicyToNetSuite for unverified connections with auth…
261e18e 
… errors

When a first-time NetSuite connection fails with incorrect tokens, the
connection is never fully initialized (unverified). On retry with correct
tokens, we should use connectPolicyToNetSuite (full init) instead of
updateNetSuiteTokens (which only works for already-initialized connections).

Fixes Expensify#85196

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@imgyf imgyf requested review from a team as code owners March 13, 2026 07:56
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from heyjennahay and puneetlath and removed request for a team March 13, 2026 07:56
@melvin-bot
Copy link
melvin-bot bot commented Mar 13, 2026

@puneetlath 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
Copy link
codecov bot commented Mar 13, 2026 •
edited by github-actions bot
Loading

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...uiteTokenInput/subPages/NetSuiteTokenInputForm.tsx 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 166 files with indirect coverage changes

@puneetlath
Copy link
Contributor
puneetlath commented Mar 13, 2026

@imgyf did someone ask you to raise this PR?

cc @madmax330

@imgyf
Copy link
Contributor Author
imgyf commented Mar 13, 2026

@puneetlath no, but the issue was surfaced by the deploy blocker that's caused by my other PR so I thought I had to be the one who fix it.

Should I close this PR?

@puneetlath
Copy link
Contributor
puneetlath commented Mar 13, 2026

Ah I see. Ok if you were the one who raised the original PR that makes sense to me.

@madmax330
Copy link
Contributor
madmax330 commented Mar 13, 2026

@imgyf can you add as reviewer the C+ who reviewed the offending PR?

cc @luacmartins since you're app deployer

@luacmartins luacmartins requested review from ShridharGoel and truph01 and removed request for truph01 March 13, 2026 16:56
@ShridharGoel
Copy link
Contributor
ShridharGoel commented Mar 13, 2026 •
edited
Loading

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 St 8000 orybook 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
AndroidNetsuite.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2026-03-14.at.2.00.53.AM.mov
iOS: HybridApp
Screen.Recording.2026-03-14.at.2.07.25.AM.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2026-03-14.at.1.35.49.AM.mov
Screen.Recording.2026-03-14.at.1.40.45.AM.mov

@ShridharGoel
Copy link
Contributor
ShridharGoel commented Mar 13, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Edit: Looks like this behaviour is same as prod, so we can ignore.

After trying again (either with the correct details or not), the error text does not go away immediately. Ideally, it should be gone and only show again if there's some error again. Looks like the error is not being cleared optimistically.

Screen.Recording.2026-03-14.at.1.40.45.AM.mov

@ShridharGoel
Copy link
Contributor
ShridharGoel commented Mar 13, 2026

Looks like this behaviour is same as prod, so we can ignore.

@ShridharGoel
Copy link
Contributor
ShridharGoel commented Mar 13, 2026

@imgyf Can you complete the checklist? Some points are not checked, and there are no videos/screenshots.

@ShridharGoel
Copy link
Contributor
ShridharGoel commented Mar 13, 2026

Not having videos is fine though, since you'll not be having the Netsuite creds.

@ShridharGoel
Copy link
Contributor
ShridharGoel commented Mar 13, 2026

Can you add tests in a follow-up ?

@ShridharGoel
Copy link
Contributor
ShridharGoel commented Mar 13, 2026

In the test steps, it is mentioned:

On a workspace with an existing working NetSuite connection, update tokens via the 3-dot menu
Verify the connection succeeds and existing configuration is preserved (not reset)

But there's no way to update the tokens without disconnecting the connection. Can you remove these two steps?

ShridharGoel
ShridharGoel approved these changes Mar 13, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor
@ShridharGoel ShridharGoel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approving, with the expectation that manual testing steps in the description will be updated and unit tests will be added in a follow-up.

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from madmax330 March 13, 2026 20:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@heyjennahay heyjennahay Awaiting requested review from heyjennahay

@puneetlath puneetlath Awaiting requested review from puneetlath

@madmax330 madmax330 Awaiting requested review from madmax330

1 more reviewer

@ShridharGoel ShridharGoel ShridharGoel approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@imgyf imgyf

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@imgyf @puneetlath @madmax330 @ShridharGoel
0