feat(crashlytics): Firbase web modular V9 API

[exaby73]

Description

Related issues

Release Summary

Checklist

• I read the Contributor Guide and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs.
  • Yes
• My change supports the following platforms;
  • Android
  • iOS
• My change includes tests;
  • e2e tests added or updated in packages/\*\*/e2e
  • jest tests added or updated in packages/\*\*/__tests__
• I have updated TypeScript types that are affected by my change.
• This is a breaking change;
  • Yes
  • No

Test Plan

---

Think react-native-firebase is great? Please consider supporting the project with any of the below:

• 👉 Star this repo on GitHub ⭐️
• 👉 Follow React Native Firebase and Invertase on Twitter

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
react-native-firebase	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Sep 4, 2023 7:17pm
react-native-firebase-next	❌ Failed (Inspect)			Sep 4, 2023 7:17pm

[russellwheatley]

Nice work. Much better having no duplicate tests running. Like that we have a declaration file for the modular API. Only one change from me 👍

iOS CI seems flaky and unrelated. Also - code coverage CI is picking up code that is covered, not sure what to do about that but ignore?

[exaby73]

Code coverage has been having trouble with the modular APIs. Most if not all of the code is tested, but some functions that can't be tested (and that weren't tested in the V8 APIs either) cause the coverage to go down. Not sure what to do about those. I don't feel writing noop tests to make coverage happy is a good idea so I left it so.

As for the flakiness, it has always been flaky but now since we are essentially testing the same flaky code twice, just wrapped in modular functions, the probability of flakiness showing itself is higher.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #7283 (35094f4) into main (794e081) will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 42.31%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #7283      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     53.79%   53.77%   -0.02%     
  Complexity      735      735              
============================================
  Files           231      232       +1     
  Lines         11633    11659      +26     
  Branches       1867     1867              
============================================
+ Hits           6257     6268      +11     
- Misses         5029     5044      +15     
  Partials        347      347              

[mikehardy]

Looking through this now - as a general comment though - please don't mix feature/fix changes with dependency changes, and please don't do merge commits. Much better to rebase off main and repush. I'll do so and drop the various deps + merge commit stuff so the PR is easier to review

CI should not be flaky either - that's something that should be a specific comment as needed. It does flake but I try to squash the flakes as soon as possible - that was actually a focus end of last week and I think things are purring along pretty well now

[mikehardy]

rebased this and repushed to clear out the files that were inadvertently commited + reverted and to remove the merge, looks clean now

just one note on doc typing

[mikehardy]

still investigating the test coverage notes saying there is no coverage when it appears there should be but types are fixed with the typedef suggestion, and I pushed that.

If e2e CI run gets the coverage I expect this will merge immediately, otherwise I'll keep investigating

[mikehardy]

Crashlytics modular methods are not being covered in CI coverage reports

Need to investigate why not, but don't want to block the PR so this is a separate issue