feat: fallback to NoopProvider if we run into OOM [2/3]

[kirillzyusko]

Details

A follow up for #439

This is a second PR in chain of multiple PRs. In this PR I added:

• name property to all providers (used in logger if we ran into OOM);
• added NoopProvider that is used as a fallback one when OOM happens;
• added tryOrDegradePerformance function that attempt to perform operation and in case of specific error substitutes the storage to a fallback one;

Related Issues

Expensify/App#29403

Automated Tests

This PR changes the way we use the storage but the functionality of the library to the outer world is the same. Therefore no new tests were added.

Manual Tests

Verify that no flows and functionality were broken by the changes. Check for console errors regarding Onyx.

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

[kirillzyusko]

@danieldoglas @tgolen I can't add you as reviewers, so just tagging you here 👀

The PR is hard to review now, because it's based on my changes in first PR, but when first PR is merged, then all changes that belongs to first PR will be automatically cleaned up from this PR (and we will have less files to review).

[kirillzyusko]

@danieldoglas @tgolen tagging you again - this PR is ready for review 😊

[tgolen]

Thanks for the ping! I was waiting for the rebase.

[tgolen]

It doesn't every look like anything is using this rejection. If so, maybe it should be removed?

[kirillzyusko]

@tgolen I think no, it's better to have it here

The function tryOrDegradePerformance just acts as an interceptor - it simply executes the function and in case of a specific exception just substitutes a provider. And when we develop such generic functions it's important to propagate exceptions further.

And this function keeps full backward compatibility - if getItem or any other function would throw exception before, then it would be thrown further (and potentially we may have a code that handles these errors). So I'd like to keep this line and propagate exceptions and don't silently swallow them.

[kirillzyusko]

@tgolen may I ask you to review it again? 👀

[danieldoglas]

LGTM

[blazejkustra]

Can't we just remove setMemoryOnlyKeys from react-native-onyx's storages? I think it serves no purpose in the app:

☝️ All these are just empty functions.

Only this part is relevant:

/**
 * When set these keys will not be persisted to storage
 * @param {string[]} keyList
 */
function setMemoryOnlyKeys(keyList) {
    // When in memory only mode for certain keys we do not want to ever drop items from the cache as the user will have no way to recover them again via storage.
    cache.setRecentKeysLimit(Infinity);
}

cc @tgolen @kirillzyusko

edit: Actually, is cache.setRecentKeysLimit(Infinity); needed as well? It's used in the app like this:

const enable = () => {
    Log.info('[MemoryOnlyKeys] enabled');
    Onyx.set(ONYXKEYS.IS_USING_MEMORY_ONLY_KEYS, true);
    Onyx.setMemoryOnlyKeys();
};

const disable = () => {
    Log.info('[MemoryOnlyKeys] disabled');
    Onyx.set(ONYXKEYS.IS_USING_MEMORY_ONLY_KEYS, false);
    Onyx.setMemoryOnlyKeys();
};

[kirillzyusko]

Good point @blazejkustra

@tgolen will be happy to hear your thoughts 😊

[tgolen]

I think it's OK to remove at this point. It has a little bit of complex history. We used to use it, but it was never fully implemented either. Expensify/App#26304

Let's just kill it 🔪

[blazejkustra]

Do I have a green light to remove Onyx.setMemoryOnlyKeys method as well?

[tgolen]

Yep!

[tgolen]

Actually, no... sorry. I should have checked App first. It's still being referenced in App. So we need to remove those first.