Skip to content

Add npm min-release-age cooldown for supply chain protection - #847

Merged
Valforte merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
nicolasbonet-npm-min-release-age
Sep 16, 2026
Merged

Valforte merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
nicolasbonet-npm-min-release-age

Conversation

@NicolasBonet

@NicolasBonet NicolasBonet commented Sep 16, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Details

  • Adds a 7-day npm install cooldown (min-release-age=7) so freshly published, possibly malicious package versions are not resolved; npm ci and lockfile-clean installs are unaffected.
  • eslint-config-expensify is excluded because we publish and consume it same-day.

Design doc: https://expensify.enterprise.slack.com/docs/T03SC9DTT/F0BNG8W2FML

Related Issues

https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/636594

Linked E/App PR

Expensify/App#95897

Automated Tests

None added: npm enforces the cooldown at version-resolution time, and existing CI npm ci covers the no-op case.

Manual Tests

Tooling-only change, no library code affected. Existing CI npm ci covers the no-op case.

  1. Run nvm use and confirm npm --version prints 11.17.0.
  2. Run npm config get min-release-age from the repo root and confirm it prints 7.
  3. Run npm ci and confirm it installs the lockfile contents without errors.
  4. Run npm install @types/node@latest --dry-run and confirm npm resolves a version published at least 7 days ago (currently 22.20.1, not the fresh 22.20.3).
  5. Run npm install @types/node@latest --dry-run --min-release-age=0 and confirm npm resolves the fresh version, showing the bypass works.

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

N/A, no UI change.

Only resolve package versions published at least 7 days ago. npm ci and
lockfile-clean installs are unaffected. See Expensify/Expensify#636594
@NicolasBonet
NicolasBonet requested a review from a team as a code owner September 16, 2026 17:44
@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 16, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

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

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-09-16T17:46:59.981855Z 4ccbf62 PR opened
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.

@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested review from Valforte and removed request for a team September 16, 2026 17:44

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 4ccbf62606

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".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment thread .npmrc

@Valforte Valforte left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@Valforte
Valforte merged commit a15c4a1 into main Sep 16, 2026
11 of 16 checks passed
@os-botify

os-botify Bot commented Sep 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Published to npm in 3.0.112 🎉

@fabioh8010

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@NicolasBonet Could you create a PR in E/App to bump Onyx to this new version?

@NicolasBonet
NicolasBonet deleted the nicolasbonet-npm-min-release-age branch September 18, 2026 19:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants