[No QA] Fix stale artifacts cache on iOS - #99185

looks good, two minor questions 😄

@eh2077 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]

@MelvinBot review

@jakubstec perhaps you can get a peer review from someone at SWM? Also I'm going OOO and don't have time to review this one this week. It seems reasonable, but frankly Ruby is pretty foreign to me

Review

The approach is sound and the mechanism holds up. I traced the build-time half against RN's own replace-rncore-version.js: writing stale into .last_build_configuration is a value that matches neither Debug nor Release, so shouldReplaceRnCoreConfiguration returns true and re-extracts, and RN writes the real config back only on success — so a failed/interrupted build correctly retries. The comments are excellent. A few points, none blocking:

1. Confirm the wiring lands in the HybridApp Podfile

This module is only consumed by the HybridApp build, so nothing in this repo calls the new add_sync_prebuilt_script_phase — the post_install hook that invokes it lives in the linked Mobile-Expensify PR. Worth a reviewer double-checking there that add_sync_prebuilt_script_phase(installer) is actually called, since if it isn't, the build-time re-extraction silently never runs and we're back to the original stale-cache bug. The raise guard on L83-L84 only fires if the method runs at all.

2. Agree with the bot: include the package name in the stamp

The stamp at L53-L54 and the written stamp at L266-L267 key only on version, while the prefetch cache and prune_cache already key on package + version precisely because react-hybrid and react-standalone version independently and aren't interchangeable. In a warm sandbox switched between packages where both resolve to the same version string, both the podspec re-eval and the build-time sync would false-negative and keep the wrong artifact. It's an unlikely combo (the two packages normally build from different project_pods_roots), so low severity — but folding resolution['packageName'] into the stamp is cheap belt-and-suspenders and makes the stamp match the cache's own identity model.

3. On the two open questions from the earlier review

• "Should we explicitly return an exit code?" — This looks already handled: the prepended prelude is bash "…/sync-prebuilt-rncore.sh" || exit 1 (L86) and the script itself runs set -euo pipefail, so a failing prelude does fail the build rather than silently reproducing the stale cache.
• "Should we raise instead of log here?" — I'd keep the log in force_rncore_podspec_reevaluation. Unlike assert_local_rncore_source, that line is the normal "artifacts changed, re-evaluating" info path, not a detection that our injection failed to land — the actual injection-failure guard already exists as the raise in add_sync_prebuilt_script_phase. Converting it to a raise wouldn't add a real safety net.

I can't exercise the iOS pod install/Xcode flow here, so this is a static review only — the manual test plan in the description is the right way to confirm end-to-end.

view run

@MelvinBot according to

2. Agree with the bot: include the package name in the stamp

I don’t think it makes sense to complicate our pipeline here. This implementation is tailored to our specific needs, and it’s highly unlikely that we’ll use it this way in the future.

You're right — I checked, and the collision I described can't happen. Dropping the suggestion.

The stamp lives at Pods/ReactNativeCore-artifacts/.artifacts-version, which is under project_pods_root — so it's per-Podfile, not shared. And the two packages never share a Podfile: HybridApp runs pod install in Mobile-Expensify/ios, while standalone NewDot runs in ios/ with RCT_USE_RN_DEP=0 RCT_USE_PREBUILT_RNCORE=0 and an ios/Podfile that doesn't require this module at all. So a given sandbox only ever sees one package name, and the version alone does identify the artifact there. My scenario needed one sandbox to see both — it can't.

Only optional nit left, take it or leave it: the cache comment right below explicitly says "a version alone does not identify an artifact," which is what sent me down this path. A half-line on the stamp noting it's per-sandbox so the package name is fixed would stop the next reader (or bot) from filing the same comment. Zero pipeline complexity.

The other two points from my review stand as-is — nothing blocking from me.

view run

Hi @roryabraham, I can't provide helpful review here as I'm not familiar with Ruby. Can you assign someone else please? thanks!

Yeah, I think we don't have many ruby developers on board 😅

Also, I missed this before:

Confirm the wiring lands in the HybridApp Podfile

But I can confirm that wiring lands in the HybridApp Podfile

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

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