Feature/0293 oem android specific

[kboskin]

Fixes #1588

This PR is [ready] for review.

Risk

This PR makes [minor] API changes.

Testing Plan

• I have verified that I have not introduced new warnings in this PR (or explain why below)
• I have run the unit tests with this PR
• I have tested this PR against Core and verified behavior (if applicable, if not applicable, explain why below).
• I have tested Android, Java SE, and Java EE

Core Tests

• Check that app receives VehicleType in the SDL receiver of App and decides if it should proceed or not
• Check that it`s possible to connect with App w/o metadata params
• Connect with the non-Ford app in the XML to the Ford Vehicle, check that notification doesn't appear, unregister the process executed
• Connect with the Ford app in the XML to the Ford Vehicle, check that connection established, SDL use case continues
• Check that there are no errors when App connects with OEM make data, but w/o model/any other non-mandatory
• For BT connection: check that after the app closed and relaunch the app start SDL service
• Check that app sends startService msg and reads the VehicleData from the response when the MultiplexTransport has connected and executes exclusive app filtering logic

Test report

Core version / branch / commit hash / module tested against
HMI name / version / branch / commit hash / module tested against

Unit Tests

• AndroidToolsTests link

  • Test testVehicleTypeSave tests if the VehicleType serialized and stored correctly in the shared preferences (persistent app storage).
    Expected behavior - serialization/deserialization works properly, the object is saved in the persistent storage

• SdlAppInfoTests link

  • Existing tests are updated to be executed with a method containing the new parameter (context)
  • Test testDeserializeVehicleInfo checks the deserialization process of the VehicleType configured in the XML by the developer works and compares deserialized information with the object programmatically configured.
    Expected behavior - objects are identical
  • Test testVehicleTypeSupported checks the logic of determining if the VehicleType passed as an argument is present in the list of VehicleType retrieved from the mock XML file (XML configured by developer in future).
    Expected behavior - passed valid object is considered as present in the predefined list, XML deserialization works fine, the final deserialized list contains passed object
  • Test testVehicleTypeNotSupported tests the reversed logic of testVehicleTypeSupported

• VehicleTypeTests link

  • Introduced tests are testing a new constructor of the object. These tests are needed to cover the Android-specific behavior, the platform returns from the persistent storage HashMap object (platform-specific).
    Expected behavior - all the data, which was in the object should serialize/deserialize correctly

Summary

Changes according to #1588

CLA

• I have signed the CLA

[a-prykho]

@santhanamk could you please start Ford review? Thanks

[santhanamk]

@KostyaBoss I have reviewed this PR, and have given some suggestions. Please take a look whenever you get the chance.

[santhanamk]

@KostyaBoss I have reviewed your latest commits, and have provided some feedback. Please take a look whenever you get the chance.

[santhanamk]

@KostyaBoss I reviewed your latest commit, and provided more feedback. Please review everything whenever you get the chance.

[kboskin]

@santhanamk there were additional changes made, please, re-review

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1604 (25eb526) into develop (e6836ba) will decrease coverage by 0.31%.
The diff coverage is 30.76%.

❗ Current head 25eb526 differs from pull request most recent head ee95166. Consider uploading reports for the commit ee95166 to get more accurate results

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             develop    #1604      +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage      54.46%   54.14%   -0.32%     
- Complexity      5407     5433      +26     
=============================================
  Files            555      555              
  Lines          24746    25074     +328     
  Branches        3156     3230      +74     
=============================================
+ Hits           13477    13577     +100     
- Misses         10095    10307     +212     
- Partials        1174     1190      +16     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...martdevicelink/transport/SdlBroadcastReceiver.java	3.04% <0.00%> (-0.18%)	⬇️
...link/transport/USBAccessoryAttachmentActivity.java	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...com/smartdevicelink/util/IntegrationValidator.java	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...anagers/screen/choiceset/BaseChoiceSetManager.java	43.52% <0.00%> (-0.37%)	⬇️
...gers/screen/choiceset/PreloadChoicesOperation.java	18.80% <0.00%> (-1.57%)	⬇️
...vicelink/managers/screen/menu/BaseMenuManager.java	48.92% <0.00%> (ø)
.../com/smartdevicelink/protocol/SdlProtocolBase.java	15.20% <0.00%> (-0.10%)	⬇️
...va/com/smartdevicelink/session/BaseSdlSession.java	22.60% <0.00%> (-0.48%)	⬇️
.../smartdevicelink/transport/TransportConstants.java	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...artdevicelink/transport/utl/SdlDeviceListener.java	7.93% <2.22%> (-2.41%)	⬇️
... and 9 more

[santhanamk]

@KostyaBoss I have reviewed this PR, and have given a few suggestions. Please take a look whenever you get the chance.

[kboskin]

@santhanamk Covered as much as possible, added a bunch of tests to cover new functions. There is also a failing test after merging the latest develop branch, related to the RemoteDisplayTests. Please, re-review, let me know if there is anything I should adjust

[santhanamk]

@KostyaBoss the SdlRemoteDisplayTests passed for me. I left a few suggestions. Please review whenever you get a chance.

Can you also please take a look at my suggestions from 4-5 days ago, and see if anything needs to be changed there?

[JulianKast]

@YaroslavLutsenko I have some more request changes.

[JulianKast]

@YaroslavLutsenko I have been testing and I have some more requested changes. Could you also add some Java Docs to the newly added methods in this PR, an example would be:

    /**
     * This method will retrieve the Bluetooth Mac address from the transport record.
     *
     * @return a string containing the Bluetooth Mac address of the connected vehicle
     */
    public String getBluetoothMacAddress() {

[YaroslavLutsenko]

@JulianKast I have applied your suggestions. Also I added some Java Docs. Could you check them, pls? (bbbd73d)

[JulianKast]

@YaroslavLutsenko a few minor things for clean up

[YaroslavLutsenko]

Hi @JulianKast, thank you. Done (c5c0e44)

[joeygrover]

There are some code clean up items that need to be taken care of especially in regards to NPEs. A few items need to be refactored to better align with the rest of the library and items that should be generalized so we can avoid adding hyper specific solutions.

[YaroslavLutsenko]

Hi, @joeygrover! Thank you for your feedback, I did several corrections. Could you check this pr again, please?