[SQLite] add table to persist decrypted messages
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by kamil on Mon, Apr 22, 4:11 PM.

Details

Reviewers

tomek
marcin

Commits

Summary

Schema:

id: this is a field working as autoincrement, in queries we'll pass it as NULL, and SQLite engine will automatically assign it to track messages order (docs)
message_id: message ID needed to later confirm to the other peer that the message was processed/backed up
sender_device_id: messages sender
plaintext: decrypted messages
status: messages status to distinguish in what phase this message is, it will be something like received | processed | backup-done

Test Plan

Repository

rCOMM Comm

Lint

Lint Not Applicable

Unit

Tests Not Applicable

kamil held this revision as a draft.

kamil published this revision for review.Tue, Apr 23, 6:39 AM

native/cpp/CommonCpp/DatabaseManagers/SQLiteQueryExecutor.cpp
638 ↗	(On Diff #39373)	We could use `CHECK` to enforce this field to behave as an ENUM at the SQL level. https://www.sqlite.org/lang_createtable.html#ckconst https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5299267/how-to-create-enum-type-in-sqlite Alternatively I am wondering if having two boolean columns: `processed` and `backed_up` wouldn't be better. It would be more idiomatic to to check in code - w wouldn't have to compare against some hardcoded strings.

native/cpp/CommonCpp/DatabaseManagers/SQLiteQueryExecutor.cpp
638 ↗	(On Diff #39373)	Alternatively I am wondering if having two boolean columns: processed and backed_up wouldn't be better. It would be more idiomatic to to check in code - w wouldn't have to compare against some hardcoded strings. That is a bad idea - we would risk some data anomalies such as `processed` as false and `backed_up` as true. Single columns is better. However make sure that it is not returned to C++ code as string but at some point it is converted to enum or constant defined in a class.

native/cpp/CommonCpp/DatabaseManagers/SQLiteQueryExecutor.cpp
638 ↗	(On Diff #39373)	We could use `CHECK` to enforce this field to behave as an ENUM at the SQL level. I feel like leaving this as `TEXT` gives us more flexibility. This is something we might want to adjust in the future to our needs and then it'll require migration/updating DB schema. I think forcing ENUM on a different level, in C++ type definition or JS should be enough, I'll add a diff with the definition of statuses on both C++ and JS when needed.