[chrispader]

cc @tgolen @fabioh8010

Native Onyx.merge can leave SQLite out of sync with the cache when inserting data with null properties or resetting a value through a batched null. I now persist the merged value for these cases and keep delta merges for existing values. The new integration suite exercises the native merge path with NitroSQLite's Node mock.

Details

For a previously unused key, null means remove the property:

await Onyx.merge('test', {keep: true, remove: null});

// Before
// Cache:  {keep: true}
// SQLite: {keep: true, remove: null}

// After
// Cache:  {keep: true}
// SQLite: {keep: true}

The upsert applies JSON_PATCH only to existing rows, so new rows previously stored the delta unchanged.

SQLite rejection assertions compare messages so they work across Jest environments.

Related Issues

Expensify/App#105485

Supersedes #528 and margelo#2.

Linked E/App PR

Expensify/App#105482

Automated Tests

The native integration cases compare subscriber, cache, and persisted values for null removal, whole-value resets, nested replacement, and arrays. They also cover batching, unchanged values, and RAM-only keys.

Manual Tests

Use the reproduction below in an initialized native Onyx development build with two registered test keys.

Reproduction

1. Set the first test key to {old: true}.
2. Queue a merge batch for that key containing null followed by {new: true}.
3. Export persisted state with Onyx.exportState() and check that the key contains only {new: true}.
4. Merge {nested: {keep: true, remove: null}} into the previously unused second key.
5. Export persisted state and check that the second key contains only {nested: {keep: true}}.

Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Related Issues section above
• I linked the corresponding Expensify/App PR in the ### Linked E/App PR section above, and verified this change against it (E/App CI passed and manual testing completed)
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • 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 / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / 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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • 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 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.js 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 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
  • If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
  • 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 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 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

This change has no UI.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	⚠️ Failed 2026-10-29T17:34:20.275127Z We couldn’t complete this review. Comment @codex review to try again.	4e49fbb	Draft marked ready

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[tgolen]

Sounds like a good fix. Thank you!

[fabioh8010]

Hi @chrispader nice catch, thanks! Could you please provide a linked E/App PR for testing? We should at least do a simple login/some action/logout test to make sure everything is alright. And the PR will also be later used for the bump.

[chrispader]

@fabioh8010 on it! 👍🏼

[chrispader]

@fabioh8010 I applied your naming suggestions in 2c8b38e.

The linked App PR is Expensify/App#105482. I've tested and recorded the suggested login/some action/logout flow there, everything works!

App is still on Onyx 3.0.120, and this branch would also pull in 3.0.121 to 3.0.141, which need NitroSQLite 10.2 from Expensify/App#102422. So the App PR pins this fix on top of 3.0.120 instead.