Add SequentialQueue.push(). Fix up tests.

[marcaaron]

Details

This is a fairly small, but significant change since it means that all Report_AddComment requests are now blocking and move through the SequentialQueue exclusively. Here's a rough overview of what is happening now...

Before:

1. Report_AddComment command is made and gets put into the main queue
2. Main queue runs:
   • If we are online the request is processed in the main queue. If the request fails it will be pushed back into the main queue and if we are offline the next time the queue runs it will be moved to the sequential queue.
   • If we are offline the request is moved into the sequential queue and will be run when we come back online

After:

1. Report_AddComment command is made and gets immediately persisted and placed directly in the "sequential" queue and will also process immediately if not already processing
2. If the queue is processing it will be scheduled to process again when the current run finishes

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/208283

Tests

Test blocking behavior of the sequential queue

1. Add several comments to a report
2. Verify that they run in sequence
3. Verify that any non Report_AddComment requests happen after the Report_AddComment ones (except for Log)
   

Test that new comments get pushed to the bottom of the queue if it is processing

1. Go offline
2. Add several comments to a report
3. Come back online and quickly add another comment to the report after the first Report_AddComment request can be seen (Tip use the "Slow 3G" option to make the timing easier)
4. Verify the last comment is sent after the final Report_AddComment call
5. Verify non persistable requests happen only after the `Report_AddComment calls finish
   

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Review Checklist

PR Reviewer Checklist

• 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 verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • iOS / native
  • Android / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • Android / Chrome
  • MacOS / Chrome
  • 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 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 was added in all src/languages/* files
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • 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 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
• 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 */
  • Any functional components have the displayName property
  • 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 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(themeColors.componentBG)
• 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.

QA Steps

See Test Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Screenshots

No UI Changes

[marcaaron]

Added this because the stack trace isn't necessary and was creating extra noise while debugging tests.

[marcochavezf]

Looks great! It took me a bit of time to figure out some details of the context, but I like how the network logic is being improved!

[marcaaron]

@sketchydroide I'm going to merge this so we can keep moving through the Network Improvements changes, but let me know if there's anything you have questions about.

[OSBotify]

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by @sketchydroide in version: 1.1.57-8 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

@Expensify/applauseleads please QA this PR and check it off on the deploy checklist if it passes.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by @chiragsalian in version: 1.1.57-17 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅