feat: add ID-based and field-based knex database loaders for use with locking modifiers

[wschurman]

Why

For #704 and #705, these only exposed the modifiers on loadManyByEqualityConjunction/loadManyBySQL, but a decent proportion of the callsites in the Expo server would prefer loadById since the existence semantics are stronger (throws an EntityNotFoundError when not found).

The alternative is to require these callsites use loadManyByEqualityConjunction and then manually throw a EntityNotFoundError when null in the application, but this violates the abstraction responsibility as only the library should be throwing its errors if we can help it.

How

Expose similar-error-semantic loader methods on the knex loader, but with distinct names, that require a modifier (otherwise the normal loader should be used).

Agent use

Fully-agent-generated. Prompt was:

  A lot of callers that want to use skipLocked/forShare/forUpdate were loading by ID and expecting the row
  to exist (i.e. throw a EntityNotFoundError like loadByIDAsync does on the normal loader). Should we add
  analogous loadByIdAsync/loadByFieldEqualingAsync/etc on the knex loader? Maybe with names that are
  distinct to indicate better that they don't dataloader/cache and go directly to DB? what could we call
  them?

  is there a way to make it so that the required EntityLoaderRowLockingModifiers param requires at least
  one of forUpdate/forShared and optionally skipLocked ? also what's the behavior of these methods that
  return non-nullable when using skipLocked and the object was locked?

Test Plan

Run updated tests.

[wschurman]

• feat: add ID-based and field-based knex database loaders for use with locking modifiers #706 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (68e222f) to head (39d0252).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              main      #706    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%            
==========================================
  Files          109       109            
  Lines        18169     18485   +316     
  Branches      1564      1596    +32     
==========================================
+ Hits         18169     18485   +316     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	30.06% <99.68%> (+1.21%)	⬆️
unittest	94.80% <100.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[ide]

Splitting out like this is nice.