Integration Validator 2.0

[rob-gioia-branch]

Added a popup dialog displaying the Integration Validator results with options to view more details and export the logs

Reference

No ticket

Description

Clients that I've worked with were running into pain points when using the integration validator. On Android, the validator also did not have the popup functionality that iOS currently has. With the Integration Validator 2.0, clients can:

• Check their Branch SDK version
• View each of the checks and whether they passed or failed
• Get more details about why a test failed and how to fix it
• Link out to the relevant spot in the docs in their mWeb browser
• Export the Branch logs at the click of a button

Testing Instructions

• Run the integration validator using the usual method: IntegrationValidator.validate(this);

Risk Assessment [HIGH || MEDIUM || LOW]

LOW

• [ X ] I, the PR creator, have tested — integration, unit, or otherwise — this code.

Reviewer Checklist (To be checked off by the reviewer only)

• JIRA Ticket is referenced in PR title.
• Correctness & Style
  • Conforms to AOSP Style Guides
  • Mission critical pieces are documented in code and out of code as needed.
• Unit Tests reviewed and test issue sufficiently.
• Functionality was reviewed in QA independently by another engineer on the team.

cc @BranchMetrics/saas-sdk-devs for visibility.

[rob-gioia-branch]

@nsingh-branch - I've merged the Deep Linking Validator into here. Now there is a button at the bottom of the Integration Validator dialog so that the deep linking validator can be utilized without the client having to run that code separately.

Please LMK if any changes are needed. The only outstanding items based on our prior discussion are:

• Getting a designer to do an aesthetic pass on it
• Checking with legal regarding the use of the Branch logo / or needing the full name

Happy to make any changes that you, @NidhiDixit09 , or @gdeluna-branch request. Thanks!

cc: @ahmednawar

[rob-gioia-branch]

Hey @gdeluna-branch thank you for reviewing this PR! I made all of the changes you requested except for one, noted above, where each check is its own object so it wouldn't be possible to refactor the constructor to just take in one object. But please LMK if I am mistaken and I'm happy to take another look.

Regarding next steps:

• Who can we reach out to to check about using the Branch name / logo per your comment in slack? Do I just ask [email protected]?
• What is the process for looping in a designer to improve the aesthetics?

cc: @ahmednawar

[gdeluna-branch]

Taking some feedback offline

[rob-gioia-branch]

Thanks Gabe! Now that the offline feedback has been resolved and legal gave us their approval, sending this back your way

[gdeluna-branch]

Great work