Classify "Failed to write blobs" IDB errors as INVALID_DATA (never retry)

[elirangoshen]

Details

DataError: Failed to write blobs (InvalidBlob) (Windows Chromium) / (IOError) (macOS Chromium) is thrown by IndexedDB when a File/Blob in the written value references backing bytes that no longer exist — in practice, a picked file that was modified, deleted, or renamed on disk between being picked and the first persist of the request queue. Production logs show ~46k such failures over 3 days, all with the same signature: the write fails on the first attempt and on every one of the 5 bounded retries (retryAttempt: 0/5 → 5/5), because retrying re-reads the same dead blob.

Today this error falls through to UNKNOWN, which the operation layer handles with bounded retries — provably futile for this error class. This PR classifies failed to write blobs as INVALID_DATA ("non-serializable payload, never retriable — the same data will always fail"), which is exactly the taxonomy's contract for it. This kills the 5×-per-write retry storm; the UNKNOWN branch's own doc asks for recurring cases to be promoted into a named class, which is what this does.

This is a storage-layer defense: it stops the futile retries for any value that carries a dead File/Blob, regardless of which app flow produced it.

Related Issues

Expensify/App#97050

Linked E/App PR

Expensify/App#96957

Automated Tests

Added tests/unit/storage/providers/classifyErrorTest.ts covering the new branch (both InvalidBlob and IOError dialects → INVALID_DATA) plus the existing classes (put-clone failure, quota, backing-store corruption, transient connection failures, and the UNKNOWN fallthrough).

Manual Tests

1. Run the web app against this Onyx ref in Chrome.
2. In a report, attach a file from disk; while the preview modal is open, delete the file on disk; send.
3. Verify the console shows a single classified invalidData storage failure with no retryAttempt: 1/5–5/5 retry sequence (previously: class: unknown with 5 futile retries per write).

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

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[elirangoshen]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

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

Reviewed commit: fcfaf4e83d

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".

[Julesssss]

Hi @elirangoshen is this okay to merge, I'm not sure that the linked App PR was successful or not

[fabioh8010]

I think it's because it's including Onyx changes (Onyx main + PR) that are not in E/App yet, but please confirm @elirangoshen

[elirangoshen]

Hi @elirangoshen is this okay to merge, I'm not sure that the linked App PR was successful or not

Hi I forgot to add screenshot to the linked pr, now i added and yes it was successful.