fix: Move ready queue processing after identity request

[alexs-mparticle]

Instructions

1. PR target branch should be against development
2. PR title name should follow this format: https://github.com/mParticle/mparticle-workflows/blob/main/.github/workflows/pr-title-check.yml
3. PR branch prefix should follow this format: https://github.com/mParticle/mparticle-workflows/blob/main/.github/workflows/pr-branch-check-name.yml

Summary

• Changes the order of when we purge the ready queue so that it comes after the identify request is attempted.
• Will also continue to clear out the ready queue as part of the initial init flow if an identify request is unnecessary, such as if there is an existing session.
• This attempts to solve an issue where a User Identity Change should occur before event logs are queued in the ready queue, but will be queued after because the ready queue is purged before the identify request returns.

Testing Plan

• Was this tested locally? If not, explain why.
• {explain how this has been tested, and what, if any, additional testing should be done}

Reference Issue (For mParticle employees only. Ignore if you are an outside contributor)

• Closes https://go.mparticle.com/work/SQDSDKS-6835

[rmi22186]

Your PR description appropriately states when this is the case, rather than "for some reason", so I'd turn that into a comment.

"Will also continue to clear out the ready queue as part of the initial init flow if an identify request is unnecessary, such as if there is an existing session".

[rmi22186]

Is this args function necessary? I haven't pulled this code down, but as I read through the processReadyQueue function, the only times I see args is where it references the item in the array, as opposed to it being a key on window.mParticle.

[alexs-mparticle]

I'm open to discussing this further. Adding args here was the only way I could get it to hit that specific codepath in my tests.

[rmi22186]

let's hop on a zoom about this to walk through

[rmi22186]

hm. when i comment out line 32, it passes for me. see screenshot below:

[rmi22186]

one last comment, but looks good otherwise

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
21.8% Duplication on New Code (required ≤ 3%)

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[rmi22186]

lgtm!