feat: iOS interop [WPB-15034]

[typfel]

What's new in this PR

Adds an iOS client to the e2e interop tests

---

PR Submission Checklist for internal contributors

• The PR Title
  • conforms to the style of semantic commits messages¹ supported in Wire's Github Workflow²
  • contains a reference JIRA issue number like SQPIT-764
  • answers the question: If merged, this PR will: ... ³

1. https://sparkbox.com/foundry/semantic_commit_messages
2. https://github.com/wireapp/.github#usage
3. E.g. feat(conversation-list): Sort conversations by most emojis in the title #SQPIT-764.

[github-actions]

Bencher Report

Branch	feat/ios-interop
Testbed	ubuntu-latest

Click to view all benchmark results

Benchmark	Latency	milliseconds (ms)
Commit add f(group size)/cs1/mem/1002	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	18.84
Commit add f(group size)/cs1/mem/2	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	6.94
Commit add f(group size)/cs1/mem/202	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	9.60
Commit add f(group size)/cs1/mem/402	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	12.18
Commit add f(group size)/cs1/mem/602	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	14.90
Commit add f(group size)/cs1/mem/802	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	16.82
Commit add f(number clients)/cs1/mem/1002	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	991.51
Commit add f(number clients)/cs1/mem/2	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	7.04
Commit add f(number clients)/cs1/mem/202	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	85.46
Commit add f(number clients)/cs1/mem/402	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	222.14
Commit add f(number clients)/cs1/mem/602	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	430.93
Commit add f(number clients)/cs1/mem/802	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	678.37
Commit pending proposals f(group size)/cs1/mem/1002	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	117.18
Commit pending proposals f(group size)/cs1/mem/2	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	28.68
Commit pending proposals f(group size)/cs1/mem/202	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	46.38
Commit pending proposals f(group size)/cs1/mem/402	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	61.52
Commit pending proposals f(group size)/cs1/mem/602	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	80.03
Commit pending proposals f(group size)/cs1/mem/802	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	95.78
Commit pending proposals f(pending size)/cs1/mem/1	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	18.95
Commit pending proposals f(pending size)/cs1/mem/101	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	115.45
Commit pending proposals f(pending size)/cs1/mem/21	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	35.95
Commit pending proposals f(pending size)/cs1/mem/41	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	56.88
Commit pending proposals f(pending size)/cs1/mem/61	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	75.79
Commit pending proposals f(pending size)/cs1/mem/81	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	96.00
Commit remove f(group size)/cs1/mem/1002	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	27.72
Commit remove f(group size)/cs1/mem/2	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	6.85
Commit remove f(group size)/cs1/mem/202	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	9.24
Commit remove f(group size)/cs1/mem/402	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	12.30
Commit remove f(group size)/cs1/mem/602	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	16.92
Commit remove f(group size)/cs1/mem/802	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	22.36
Commit remove f(number clients)/cs1/mem/1002	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	30.03
Commit remove f(number clients)/cs1/mem/2	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	138.59
Commit remove f(number clients)/cs1/mem/202	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	116.20
Commit remove f(number clients)/cs1/mem/402	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	93.71
Commit remove f(number clients)/cs1/mem/602	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	72.11
Commit remove f(number clients)/cs1/mem/802	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	51.17
Commit update f(group size)/cs1/mem/1002	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	138.08
Commit update f(group size)/cs1/mem/2	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	7.07
Commit update f(group size)/cs1/mem/202	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	33.77
Commit update f(group size)/cs1/mem/402	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	84.95
Commit update f(group size)/cs1/mem/602	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	86.98
Commit update f(group size)/cs1/mem/802	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	112.23

🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 76.20%. Comparing base (d5b496e) to head (54f9a86).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #850   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   76.20%   76.20%           
=======================================
  Files         113      113           
  Lines       20688    20688           
=======================================
  Hits        15766    15766           
  Misses       4922     4922           

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d5b496e...54f9a86. Read the comment docs.

[SimonThormeyer]

Approved with a single comment

[istankovic]

Could you please fold the fixup commit into the commit introducing the change the fixup commit is touching?

[typfel]

Could you please fold the fixup commit into the commit introducing the change the fixup commit is touching?

Of course, I thought it's nicer to leave them as fixups while reviewing so you can see the only the relevant changes I make.

[istankovic]

Regarding commit sequencing, I think it would be better if we modify b7197602d2da263b038dbe9987e7ee26d2f07a4e (ci: build and install ios interop client in interop workflow) so that the changes touching .github/workflows/rust.yml are moved to the next commit, 04b3f1a88b62261d38043f344551127f93025876 (ci: re-use job for building ios artifacts).

That way, the first one would just add the grant_permissions.sh and install_app.sh scripts, and the second one would actually make use of those scripts in the CI.

[istankovic]

Here we're using github.event.number, elsewhere we're using github.run_id to uniquely name artifacts. I think we should be consistent, and use github.run_id everywhere, unless there is a good reason to prefer github.event.number here.

[typfel]

I just moved the job into separate file maybe @coriolinus can give a reason.

[coriolinus]

I didn't touch that actually; it appears to come from 1ce7d95, which is @SimonThormeyer.

I don't think there's a strong reason here to prefer either one here. TBH we'd probably be fine without a distinguishing number in either case; looking deeper into the download artifact action, it automatically partitions by run id anyway. Adding an event number or run id just helps us keep track of things if we happen to download some artifacts for manual inspection.

[istankovic]

looking deeper into the download artifact action, it automatically partitions by run id anyway

Ah, didn't know that, thanks!

[istankovic]

@typfel what went wrong here? Was that some sort of github CI timeout?

[typfel]

@typfel what went wrong here? Was that some sort of github CI timeout?

I was testing another chrome version. I guess it was unsuccessful

[istankovic]

@typfel what went wrong here? Was that some sort of github CI timeout?

I was testing another chrome version. I guess it was unsuccessful

Was there a successful run of build bindings / e2e-interop-test (pull_request) ?
In the above run I can see the test took too long, as if it was stuck during migration.
I assume that doesn't happen locally on your machine, does it?

[typfel]

@typfel what went wrong here? Was that some sort of github CI timeout?

I was testing another chrome version. I guess it was unsuccessful

Was there a successful run of build bindings / e2e-interop-test (pull_request) ? In the above run I can see the test took too long, as if it was stuck during migration. I assume that doesn't happen locally on your machine, does it?

I think the migration logs are unrelated that's coming from the the ffi client but afterwards the web client is initialised and that got stuck apparently.

[istankovic]

Looks good to me. 👍

I'm curious about the total CI time now, as github sometimes really takes a long time to give a macos runner.

[typfel]

Looks good to me. 👍

I'm curious about the total CI time now, as github sometimes really takes a long time to give a macos runner.

It can a really long time