Accepting to unblock, but please look at my comment about moving clearance code to DatabaseManager::clearSensitiveData()

Looks good but please add the dependency array

Different convention than useDispatchActionPromise, but the reason sounds convincing.

Database stuff LGTM, but after ENG-4930 I think @inka should also take a look at migrating code.

unwrap -> expect

thanks @michal and @bartek for feedback!

use error!

address review

rebase before landing

• address review
• review before landing

rebase before landing

address review

rebase before landing

rebase before landing

rebase before landing

@bartek, @michal could you take a brief look at Rust?

CI

rebase

• curve25519 -> ed25519
• deviceID -> userID
• remove auto-establishing session

In D8993#268930, @ashoat wrote:

At some point we'll probably want to think about how uploads might work in the background. If the backup is large, I could imagine that the client would need background upload in order to complete the upload. Is there a task to track this?

In D9033#268896, @ashoat wrote:

@kamil, would you be interested in commandeering this revision?

Looks like a straightforward change

Could you add to the test plan case, when you first apply this diff and then log in? (I remember this was a tricky case when implementing the first version)

Some more bugs I found while testing D8918, I will address them later

LGTM but letting other reviewers take a look

Looks good! Only some questions inline

Thanks for this!

Hey no worries, this is a good shout. The reason that the tooltip is positioned like that is because the tooltip has 3 parts the label, the action buttons, and the timestamp and we center align based on all three of those elements

I can see that the placement is still bit wonky when the label is missing, but I feel like this might be outside the scope of this diff. I created a follow up linear task to eventually address this

https://linear.app/comm/issue/ENG-4879/make-the-message-action-tooltip-more-aligned-with-the-message

In D8957#267890, @ashoat wrote:

@kamil, would you mind taking over this diff, addressing my inline comment, and landing it?

Tested with real keyserver:

• send the correct message and check if it passes validation
• send a malformed message and check if an error is thrown

rebase

• updated event type
• update message type value to reflect value defined in Rust
• test with real keyserver, tests are not accurate

• rebase
• update comment

• update comment
• deviceId -> deviceID