refactor: unify storage/providers (for further InMemory storage integration) [1/3]

[kirillzyusko]

Details

A follow up for #439

This is the first PR that prepares an "infrastructure" for next PR. In this PR I did:

• all calls to providers are managed via additional Storage layer (in future this layer will intercept errors and will substitute provider to InMemory);
• synchronization between tabs is not a responsibility of provider anymore - now it's handled in separate InstanceSync class/object - such approach allows us to avoid code duplication if we add InMemory provider on web;
• all providers are initialized lazily (all providers got a new init method);

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

[github-actions]

CLA Assistant Lite bot All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅

[kirillzyusko]

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

[kirillzyusko]

recheck

[danieldoglas]

Adding original reviewers from #439

[kirillzyusko]

@tgolen I addressed your notes - would you mind to check this PR again? 👀

[tgolen]

Gotcha, I see what you did now! I like it.

[tgolen]

Does this need to use lodash, or can it just be an empty arrow function like init: () => {}?

[kirillzyusko]

@tgolen if I add empty functions I'm getting eslint errors:

Do you think it would be better to specify our own function?

[tgolen]

Hm, that's interesting. OK, it's probably fine to leave it as NOOP for now. Thanks for trying!

[tgolen]

Was there any specific reason to move this up here? I think it makes sense but I'm also surprised that it wasn't here to begin with.

[kirillzyusko]

@tgolen it was already asked in #439 (comment)

And I agree, that it's better to keep initialization in a single place 👀

[marcaaron]

Got some competing priorities so will have to pull myself off the review to avoid becoming a blocker. If there is anything that needs my attention I am happy to take a look!

[tgolen]

Looks like you'll need to run prettier on this branch to get the lint test to pass.

[kirillzyusko]

@tgolen I fixed eslint errors in 1932e25 - can you please check if it's okay? 👀

[danieldoglas]

Changes LGTM based on what I've read in the description. Please assign me on the next PR as well so I can get more context.

[tgolen]

Looks like the lint errors are fixed. Sorry, I didn't catch this one earlier either:

Looks like you need to setup commit signing. It can be a pain to go back and sign previous commits... so what you could do is close this PR and create a brand new one after you've setup commit signing. Up to you!

[kirillzyusko]

Looks like you need to setup commit signing.

My bad 🤦‍♂️

I signed them now and pushed to this PR (hopefully now everything is okay and it can be merged 😊)

[kirillzyusko]

@tgolen is there any other blockers preventing this PR from being merged?