Migrate to react-native-nitro-sqlite

[chrispader]

@mountiny

Details

This PR migrates Onyx to use react-native-nitro-sqlite instead of react-native-quick-sqlite.

There are only some minor changes to the types and usages of some operations, so there are no major logic changes.

Nitro now allows generic type parameters for execute and executeAsync and also includes general improvements to the API.

Related Issues

$ Expensify/App#53063

Automated Tests

No new tests needed. No changes in logic.

Manual Tests

In order to test this PR in E/App use this branch

Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Related 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 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
  • MacOS / Desktop
• 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

MacOS: Desktop

[mountiny]

Can this be used with App that is not yet migrated the the nitro-sqlite?

[mountiny]

@chrispader let @dominictb know when this si ready for testing and checklist

[mountiny]

@chrispader does @dominictb need to use Expensify/App#53149 with these changes?

[chrispader]

Can this be used with App that is not yet migrated the the nitro-sqlite?

@mountiny I've already migrated E/App too in Expensify/App#53149. The changes could technically already be used, but i would hold on this PR to be merged first, so we can just bump the Onyx version in E/App instead of using a git commit.

[chrispader]

@chrispader does @dominictb need to use Expensify/App#53149 with these changes?

yes, i just added a note to Manual Tests

[dominictb]

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 tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • 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)
  • 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 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)
• 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.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• 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.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• 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

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-11-29.at.15.10.39-compressed.mov

MacOS: Desktop

[dominictb]

Just tested a number of flows and no problem so far 😄 Only 1 question above ^ and we're good to 🚀. @chrispader Don't forget to fill your Author Checklist.

[dominictb]

Got this warning when I pressed Pay with Expensify for an expense report whose submitter does not have a bank account:

[dominictb]

@chrispader Any update?

[chrispader]

I'm pretty busy with other tasks this week, will look into this next monday

[chrispader]

Got this warning when I pressed Pay with Expensify for an expense report whose submitter does not have a bank account:

I currently cannot reproduce this since i have no bank account/wallet set up.

This is a SQLite internal error, which should not be possible, since we never use transactions and rollbacks, but i'll have to look into this deeper once i have the bank account set up and i am able to click on "Pay with Expensify".

[dominictb]

@chrispader You can follow the credential here 🧵 to connect to a bank account for a workspace.

[chrispader]

Got this warning when I pressed Pay with Expensify for an expense report whose submitter does not have a bank account:

I cannot reproduce this. Do you have any specific repro steps for this? Does this warning appear right after you click the "Pay with Expensify" button?

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.16.Pro.-.2024-12-17.at.16.45.12.mp4

[mountiny]

@dominictb please let us know if you can still reproduce this

[chrispader]

@dominictb @mountiny this is ready for review and the prerequisite for Expensify/App#53149

[dominictb]

Code changes overall look good. I'll rebuild today after completing other tasks (not to waste time rebuilding) to see if there's any runtime errors.

[dominictb]

[dominictb]

@chrispader Can you pull main please? Then we're good to go.

[chrispader]

@chrispader Can you pull main please? Then we're good to go.

done! @dominictb

[mountiny]

Thanks! changes look good to me, tests should cover the main logic

[mountiny]

@fabioh8010 @rlinoz do you want to review?

[rlinoz]

Looks good to me!

[fabioh8010]

Changes are simple and look good to me! I have some questions though:

1. I know it's not the main goal of the issue, but I'm curious if we have any kind of performance improvements by using react-native-nitro-sqlite now? If yes, could you provide some info?
2. Do we need to think about a migration strategy here? Or everything is supposed to work same as before when using the new package? I'm more concerned about logged in users with stored data before/after this update.
3. Related to above, @chrispader I really appreciate if you add some manual tests around the App and provide videos for all platforms proving that this change is safe to ship 👍

[dominictb]

@chrispader How is it going?

[chrispader]

Changes are simple and look good to me! I have some questions though:

1. I know it's not the main goal of the issue, but I'm curious if we have any kind of performance improvements by using react-native-nitro-sqlite now? If yes, could you provide some info?
2. Do we need to think about a migration strategy here? Or everything is supposed to work same as before when using the new package? I'm more concerned about logged in users with stored data before/after this update.
3. Related to above, @chrispader I really appreciate if you add some manual tests around the App and provide videos for all platforms proving that this change is safe to ship 👍

Thanks for the feedback!

1. There might be subtle performance improvements, but i don't think it will be too much of a difference. The main performance improvement comes from the optimizations in Nitro Modules around reducing boilerplate JSI calls and reducing complexity in general. The C++ implementation of NitroSQLite and SQLite in general were already very performant before.

There definitely shouldn't be worse performance than before, since our benchmarks indicated that NitroSQLite was always faster than the QuickSQLite due to performance gains from Nitro Modules.

2. Everything is supposed to work exactly as before. The API for e.g. execute() changed a bit compared to QuickSQLite, but the underlying persistence layer works exactly the same. In this PR, we handled all the necessary changes to Onyx to make it work like before. No user should be logged out and no should notice any change in the app.

3. Will add videos and tests in a bit. 🙌🏼

cc @dominictb

[rlinoz]

@chrispader what are we missing here?

[chrispader]

@chrispader what are we missing here?

@rlinoz i don't think there's anything missing here, as long as testing and review are good

i'm not on my macbook right now, will try to resolve conflicts later today

[chrispader]

@rlinoz merge conflicts resolved, this should be ready to go!

[os-botify]

🚀 Published to npm in 2.0.105 🎉