[No QA] Node-integration SQLite tests via better-sqlite3

[sosek108]

Details

Adds Node-side integration tests for SQLiteProvider so the SQLite storage path is covered in CI on every PR, instead of relying on manual device runs to catch SQL-shaped regressions. Until now, the provider had no real test coverage: unit tests stub out the database, and bugs in query strings, parameter binding, merge semantics, or escaping only surfaced once the code hit a real engine on device — late, expensive, and easy to miss. Running the actual provider against a real SQL engine in Node closes that gap at zero infrastructure cost: failures show up in seconds on the same CI that already runs the rest of the suite, refactors to the SQL layer become safe to make, and the contract between SQLiteProvider and the underlying database (merge behavior, null handling, injection safety, batch semantics) is now pinned down by executable tests rather than tribal knowledge.

Related Issues

Expensify/App#91861

Linked E/App PR

Expensify/App#91959

Automated Tests

This PR introduces integration tests in SQLiteProviderTest.ts. This is new file and contains same tests as IDBKeyvalProviderTest.ts for different provider.

Manual Tests

None. This PR adds automated testing only.

Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Related Issues section above
• I linked the corresponding Expensify/App PR in the ### Linked E/App PR section above, and verified this change against it (E/App CI passed and manual testing completed)
• 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
• 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

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 8c627f8414

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: e006ca0d45

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Use the better-sqlite3 export= type shape

Fresh evidence in the current diff is that @types/better-sqlite3 has been added, so TypeScript now reads its declarations and this named type import still fails: the package is declared as a CommonJS export = Database module, which only supports the default/import-equals shape rather than import type {Database}. In npm run typecheck this produces TS2616 before the new SQLite tests can run; derive the instance type from the default import or use the declaration's supported import form instead.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[pecanoro]

@sosek108 Did you take a look at this comment?