chore: one on one conversation details [WPB-15479]

[Garzas]

WPB-15479 [Android] Allow 1:1 conversations to be moved from user profile to folder

---

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

• The PR Description

  • is free of optional paragraphs and you have filled the relevant parts to the best of your ability

---

What's new in this PR?

• updated GetOneToOneConversationUseCase to GetOneToOneConversationDetailsUseCase which will return
  ConversationDetails.OneOne to have access to information about folders

[yamilmedina]

Just a small log we need to remove, anyway lgtm !

[github-actions]

Test Results

3 417 tests  +1   3 309 ✅ +1   6m 14s ⏱️ -10s
  584 suites ±0     108 💤 ±0 
  584 files   ±0       0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 1bd7602. ± Comparison against base commit e21b0a8.

This pull request removes 1 and adds 2 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.

com.wire.kalium.logic.data.conversation.ConversationRepositoryTest ‑ givenUserHasKnownContactAndConversation_WhenGettingConversationDetailsByExistingConversation_ReturnTheCorrectConversation[jvm]

com.wire.kalium.logic.data.conversation.ConversationRepositoryTest ‑ givenUserHasKnownContactAndConversation_WhenGettingConversationByExistingConversation_ReturnTheCorrectConversation[jvm]
com.wire.kalium.logic.data.conversation.ConversationRepositoryTest ‑ givenUserHasKnownContactAndConversation_WhenGettingConversationDetailsByExistingConversation_ReturnTheCorrectConversationDetails[jvm]

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Bencher Report

Branch	chore/one-on-one-conversation-details
Testbed	ubuntu-latest

⚠️ WARNING: No Threshold found!

Without a Threshold, no Alerts will ever be generated.

• Latency (nanoseconds (ns))

Click here to create a new Threshold
For more information, see the Threshold documentation.
To only post results if a Threshold exists, set the --ci-only-thresholds CLI flag.

Click to view all benchmark results

Benchmark	Latency	microseconds (µs)
com.wire.kalium.benchmarks.logic.CoreLogicBenchmark.createObjectInFiles	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	694.40
com.wire.kalium.benchmarks.logic.CoreLogicBenchmark.createObjectInMemory	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	524,812.00
com.wire.kalium.benchmarks.persistence.MessagesNoPragmaTuneBenchmark.messageInsertionBenchmark	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	1,345,162.42
com.wire.kalium.benchmarks.persistence.MessagesNoPragmaTuneBenchmark.queryMessagesBenchmark	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	22,354.58

🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[datadog-wireapp]

Datadog Report

Branch report: chore/one-on-one-conversation-details
Commit report: e2c76af
Test service: kalium-jvm

✅ 0 Failed, 3309 Passed, 108 Skipped, 1m 4.52s Total Time

[ohassine]

I'd recommend using a JOIN instead of a subquery, it is more efficient.

SELECT ConversationDetails.*
FROM ConversationDetails
JOIN User ON ConversationDetails.qualifiedId = User.active_one_on_one_conversation_id
WHERE User.qualified_id = :user_id;

[Garzas]

I analyzed the performance of both queries using EXPLAIN ANALYZE in SQLite. The execution plans are identical, both queries utilize the same indexes and have no significant performance difference.

Since there's no additional cost for the subquery, the choice between JOIN and WHERE (SELECT …) comes down to readability and preference.

[ohassine]

ok.. thanks for checking

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 33.33333% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 53.98%. Comparing base (e21b0a8) to head (1bd7602).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ersistence/dao/conversation/ConversationDAOImpl.kt	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
...versation/GetOneToOneConversationDetailsUseCase.kt	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...um/logic/feature/conversation/ConversationScope.kt	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3260      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    53.98%   53.98%   -0.01%     
===========================================
  Files         1303     1303              
  Lines        37446    37454       +8     
  Branches      3781     3781              
===========================================
+ Hits         20216    20220       +4     
- Misses       15809    15812       +3     
- Partials      1421     1422       +1     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
.../logic/data/conversation/ConversationRepository.kt	59.73% <100.00%> (+0.30%)	⬆️
...um/persistence/dao/conversation/ConversationDAO.kt	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...um/logic/feature/conversation/ConversationScope.kt	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...versation/GetOneToOneConversationDetailsUseCase.kt	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ersistence/dao/conversation/ConversationDAOImpl.kt	71.97% <0.00%> (-1.02%)	⬇️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

---

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 e21b0a8...1bd7602. Read the comment docs.