Store hidden config per client ID

[isaacroldan]

WHY are these changes introduced?

The current implementation stores dev store URLs in a flat structure, which can lead to conflicts when developers work with multiple organizations. This change introduces app-specific storage of dev store URLs.

WHAT is this pull request doing?

Updates the hidden configuration structure to store dev store URLs under app-specific keys, preventing conflicts when connecting to different organizations. The change includes:

• Modifying the AppHiddenConfig interface to use app names as keys
• Using deep merge for config updates
• Updating store context handling to reference app-specific store URLs

Example:

{
  "testa8e113c942b95b54c1d0ffbc2": {
    "dev_store_url": "test-store-3.myshopify.com"
  },
  "test6f7048e1a203d6ae64c601f1": {
    "dev_store_url": "test-store-2.myshopify.com"
  }
}

How to test your changes?

1. Create multiple app configurations in your app
2. Run dev commands for different apps
3. Verify that each app maintains its own dev store URL
4. Confirm that switching between apps preserves their respective store configurations

Measuring impact

• n/a - this doesn't need measurement, e.g. a linting rule or a bug-fix

Checklist

• I've considered possible cross-platform impacts (Mac, Linux, Windows)
• I've considered possible documentation changes

[isaacroldan]

• Store hidden config per client ID #5399 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[github-actions]

We detected some changes at packages/*/src and there are no updates in the .changeset.
If the changes are user-facing, run "pnpm changeset add" to track your changes and include them in the next release CHANGELOG.

[github-actions]

Coverage report

St.❔	Category	Percentage	Covered / Total
🟡	Statements	75.77% (+0.04% 🔼)	9135/12057
🟡	Branches	70.96% (+0.04% 🔼)	4466/6294
🟡	Functions	75.44% (+0.02% 🔼)	2377/3151
🟡	Lines	76.31% (+0.05% 🔼)	8625/11302

Show files with reduced coverage 🔻

St.❔	File	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
🟢	... / app.ts	88.57% (-0.32% 🔻)	69.89% (-0.44% 🔻)	93.1% (+0.12% 🔼)	90.6% (+0.19% 🔼)
🟢	... / app-event-watcher.ts	95.18% (-1.2% 🔻)	86.49% (-2.7% 🔻)	95.45%	100%

Test suite run success

2075 tests passing in 924 suites.

Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from f80eebf

[gonzaloriestra]

The purpose and the code LGTM, but what happens with the users that already had a saved store without client ID? Will they lose it? I couldn't test it yet

[isaacroldan]

Yes, they'll be forced to reselect the store.
It will only happen for users that created an app with the last release.

I think that's preferable over having to support some "migration" code forever.

[amcaplan]

I'm OK with that limited-blast-radius impact, but I think our code should include a test that ensures we can handle the old format without exploding. Otherwise we might accidentally make a future change that breaks things and users won't easily be able to fix it.

[gonzaloriestra]

I agree it's preferable. But I think it's something we should at least discuss, maybe gather some numbers, decide if we want to inform the user somehow... Another option could be to support the migration only for a few versions, as it doesn't look too complicate.

[isaacroldan]

Ok, added a simple migration in the loadHiddenConfig function, we can remove that (2 lines) in 1-2 versions.

[isaacroldan]

Also added a bunch of tests to cover all possible cases