Make Destroy debug button force an observable sign out

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

The "Destroy" row in the Troubleshoot test-tool menu (invalidateCredentials) previously only cleared the stored auto-generated device credentials. Because the current authToken stayed valid and no request was fired, nothing observable happened — the user stayed signed in until some unrelated action later happened to trigger a reauth, so the button appeared to do nothing.

This implements Option 2 from the approved analysis: make "Destroy" force an observable sign out for debugging (e.g. to reproduce auth/logout issues). It now:

1. Clears the stored credentials (as before).
2. Corrupts the local authToken (INVALID_TOKEN), like invalidateAuthToken does.
3. Fires an authenticated request (openApp()).

With credentials gone and the token corrupted, the request gets a 407, the reauthentication flow hits the missing-credentials guard in Reauthentication.ts, and redirectToSignIn lands the tester on the login screen. The token corruption + request are chained after the credentials Onyx.merge resolves so the reauth flow reads the already-empty credentials. The comment above the button was updated to describe the new behavior.

"Invalidate" (reauth test — session stays active by design) is unchanged.

Fixed Issues

$ #95592
PROPOSAL: #95592 (comment)

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what tests you performed that validate your change worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas they need to test for regressions.

• 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 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 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)
• 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 new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• 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.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/components/TestToolMenu.tsx	92.85% <ø> (+92.85%)	⬆️
src/libs/actions/Session/index.ts	42.01% <0.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
... and 760 files with indirect coverage changes

[MelvinBot]

I looked into the failing checks. There's nothing to fix with a code push — the only failing check is the PR Author Checklist (checklist), and that one is expected to fail here.

Why it's failing: The checklist job reports "0 out of 38 checklist items" completed. That's the human PR Author Checklist in the description, plus the Tests/QA Steps sections that this PR intentionally leaves as // TODO: The human co-author must fill out.... I won't check those boxes or write test steps on your behalf — they need to reflect what you actually tested.

Everything else is green:

• ✅ ESLint, typecheck, all 8 test jobs, Bun tests, Storybook, spellcheck, builds — all passing
• ⏳ baseline-perf-tests / branch-perf-tests are still running (informational benchmarks, not blocking)

To turn the checklist green: complete the PR Author Checklist and fill in the Tests / QA Steps sections in the PR body, then re-run the check.