chore: adr in code and junit5 parameterized tests (WPB-10396) (#3288)

.github/workflows/deploy-adr-docs.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+name: Deploy ADR Docs
+
+on:
+  push:
+    branches: [ 'develop', 'chore/adr-and-tests' ]
+  pull_request:
+    types: [ opened, synchronize ]
+    paths: [ 'docs/adr/**' ]
+
+permissions:
+  contents: write
+  pull-requests: write
+
+env:
+  GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.ANDROID_BOB_GH_TOKEN }}
+
+jobs:
+  publish:
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - name: Checkout project
+        uses: actions/checkout@v4
+
+      - name: Install pip for adr-viewer
+        run: |
+          sudo apt-get update
+          sudo apt-get install -y python3-pip
+          pip install adr-viewer
+
+      - name: Generate ADR docs
+        run: |
+          adr-viewer --adr-path docs/adr --output docs/index.html
+
+      - name: Deploy docs 🚀
+        if: github.event_name == 'push' && github.ref_name == 'develop'
+        uses: JamesIves/[email protected]
+        with:
+          branch: gh-pages
+          clean: false
+          folder: docs
+          target-folder: docs
+
+      - name: Comment new ADR(s) in PR
+        if: github.event.pull_request.head.repo.full_name == github.repository && github.event_name == 'pull_request'
+        run: |
+          echo "# New ADR(s) in this PR 📚:" > /tmp/new-adr
+          gh pr diff ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }} --name-only | grep docs/adr | xargs cat >> /tmp/new-adr
+          gh pr comment ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }} -F /tmp/new-adr --edit-last || gh pr comment ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }} -F /tmp/new-adr

app/src/test/kotlin/com/wire/android/ui/userprofile/common/UsernameMapperTest.kt

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+package com.wire.android.ui.userprofile.common
+
+import com.wire.android.framework.TestUser.OTHER_USER
+import com.wire.kalium.logic.data.user.OtherUser
+import com.wire.kalium.logic.data.user.type.UserType
+import org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals
+import org.junit.jupiter.params.ParameterizedTest
+import org.junit.jupiter.params.provider.EnumSource
+
+class UsernameMapperTest {
+
+    @ParameterizedTest
+    @EnumSource(TestParams::class)
+    fun `should map other user to its username - handle accordingly`(params: TestParams) {
+        assertEquals(params.expected, UsernameMapper.fromOtherUser(params.input), "Failed for input: <${params.input}>")
+    }
+
+    companion object {
+
+        enum class TestParams(val input: OtherUser, val expected: String) {
+            FEDERATED_USER(OTHER_USER.copy(userType = UserType.FEDERATED, handle = "handle"), "handle@domain"),
+            REGULAR_USER(OTHER_USER.copy(userType = UserType.GUEST, handle = "handle"), "handle"),
+            NO_HANDLE_USER(OTHER_USER.copy(userType = UserType.INTERNAL, handle = null), "")
+        }
+    }
+}

docs/adr/0000-template-lightway-adr.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+# Decision record template by Michael Nygard
+
+This is the template in [Documenting architecture decisions - Michael Nygard](http://thinkrelevance.com/blog/2011/11/15/documenting-architecture-decisions).
+You can use [adr-tools](https://github.com/npryce/adr-tools) for managing the ADR files.
+
+In each ADR file, write these sections:
+
+# Title
+
+## Status
+
+What is the status, such as proposed, accepted, rejected, deprecated, superseded, etc.?
+
+## Context
+
+What is the issue that we're seeing that is motivating this decision or change?
+
+## Decision
+
+What is the change that we're proposing and/or doing?
+
+## Consequences
+
+What becomes easier or more difficult to do because of this change?

docs/adr/0001-record-architecture-decisions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+# 1. Record architecture decisions
+
+Date: 2024-08-05
+
+## Status
+
+Accepted
+
+## Context
+
+We agreed in the past to use ADR's, but we lost track of it as we were using confluence to keep
+them. This concern was raised in the last collective, and we need to decide how to proceed.
+
+## Decision
+
+We will use Architecture Decision Records in the code and as part of the review process.
+We will use the [Lightway ADR template](0000-template-lightway-adr.md) to keep the ADRs simple and
+easy to maintain.
+
+## Consequences
+
+- We need to add a new folder to the repository, `docs/adr`, to keep the architecture decision
+  records.
+- Whenever a new refactoring or library is introduced, a new ADR should be created.
+- You can always request in the Pull request review process to add a new ADR, if you think it's
+  necessary.

docs/adr/0002-calling-activities-refactor.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+# 2. Calling activity refactor
+
+Date: 2024-08-01
+
+## Status
+
+Accepted
+
+## Context
+
+To support a second incoming call we need to refactor the code so we can handle the ongoing content
+context, without losing the current context.
+
+This is a retroactive decision record implemented
+on https://github.com/wireapp/wire-android/pull/3264
+
+## Decision
+
+Create 2 separate activities, one for the Incoming/Outgoing calls and another for the ongoing call.
+In this way, we can keep the context of the ongoing call and handle the incoming/outgoing calls.
+
+The design and interaction will look like this:
+
+<img src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/66f19cce-c2bc-4777-a0eb-b5cda035df8a"/>
+
+## Consequences
+
+- StartingActivity will handle Incoming and Outgoing calls content, these contents are disposable
+  and can be recreated when receiving a new call.
+- OngoingCallActivity will handle the ongoing call content, this content is not disposable and
+  should be kept during the call.

docs/adr/0003-introducing-junit5-parametrizable-tests.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# 3. Use parameterizable tests in JUnit5
+
+Date: 2024-08-05
+
+## Status
+
+Proposed
+
+## Context
+
+Sometimes we need to write multiple tests for the same scenario, changing only the input values.
+
+## Decision
+
+We will use parameterizable tests in JUnit5 to avoid writing multiple tests for the same scenario.
+
+## Consequences
+
+- Introduction of `@ParameterizedTest` annotation in the test class
+  and [library](https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/#writing-tests-parameterized-tests).
+- The test method will receive the parameters as arguments.