feat: harden ClientCapabilityDTO for api v7 [WPB-14882]

[MohamadJaara]

WPB-14882 [Android] harden ClientCapabilityDTO for api v7

---

PR Submission Checklist for internal contributors

• The PR Title

  • conforms to the style of semantic commits messages¹ supported in Wire's Github Workflow²
  • contains a reference JIRA issue number like SQPIT-764
  • answers the question: If merged, this PR will: ... ³

• The PR Description

  • is free of optional paragraphs and you have filled the relevant parts to the best of your ability

---

What's new in this PR?

Issues

make the ClientCapability accept any unknown values

Causes (Optional)

in the migration from 1pi 6 to 7 there may be a new values there

Solutions

harden the serilizer to accept unknown values

Dependencies (Optional)

If there are some other pull requests related to this one (e.g. new releases of frameworks), specify them here.

Needs releases with:

• GitHub link to other pull request

Testing

Test Coverage (Optional)

• I have added automated test to this contribution

How to Test

Briefly describe how this change was tested and if applicable the exact steps taken to verify that it works as expected.

Notes (Optional)

Specify here any other facts that you think are important for this issue.

Attachments (Optional)

Attachments like images, videos, etc. (drag and drop in the text box)

---

PR Post Submission Checklist for internal contributors (Optional)

• Wire's Github Workflow has automatically linked the PR to a JIRA issue

---

PR Post Merge Checklist for internal contributors

• If any soft of configuration variable was introduced by this PR, it has been added to the relevant documents and the CI jobs have been updated.

---

References

1. https://sparkbox.com/foundry/semantic_commit_messages
2. https://github.com/wireapp/.github#usage
3. E.g. feat(conversation-list): Sort conversations by most emojis in the title #SQPIT-764.

[vitorhugods]

Would be nice to write a test for this serialiser.

[github-actions]

Test Results

0 tests   - 3 341   0 ✅  - 3 234   0s ⏱️ - 5m 43s
0 suites  -   572   0 💤  -   107 
0 files    -   572   0 ❌ ±    0 

Results for commit f56f1ce. ± Comparison against base commit 5396afa.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Bencher Report

Branch	feat/harden-ClientCapabilityDTO-for-api-v7
Testbed	ubuntu-latest

⚠️ WARNING: No Threshold found!

Without a Threshold, no Alerts will ever be generated.

• Latency (nanoseconds (ns))

Click here to create a new Threshold
For more information, see the Threshold documentation.
To only post results if a Threshold exists, set the --ci-only-thresholds CLI flag.

Click to view all benchmark results

Benchmark	Latency	nanoseconds (ns)
com.wire.kalium.benchmarks.logic.CoreLogicBenchmark.createObjectInFiles	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	661,428.52
com.wire.kalium.benchmarks.logic.CoreLogicBenchmark.createObjectInMemory	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	340,362,204.18
com.wire.kalium.benchmarks.persistence.MessagesNoPragmaTuneBenchmark.messageInsertionBenchmark	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	1,333,870,745.04
com.wire.kalium.benchmarks.persistence.MessagesNoPragmaTuneBenchmark.queryMessagesBenchmark	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	21,752,939.19

🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

[datadog-wireapp]

Datadog Report

Branch report: feat/harden-ClientCapabilityDTO-for-api-v7
Commit report: d407949
Test service: kalium-jvm

❌ 2 Failed (0 Known Flaky), 296 Passed, 12 Skipped, 15.12s Total Time

❌ Failed Tests (2)

• givenAValidRegisterClientRequest_whenCallingTheRegisterClientEndpoint_theRequestShouldBeConfiguredCorrectly[jvm] - com.wire.kalium.api.v0.user.client.ClientApiV0Test - Details

  Expand for error

   java.lang.AssertionError: expected:<ClientDTO(cookie=sldkfmdeklmwldwlek23kl44mntiuepfojfndkjd, registrationTime=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, lastActive=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, model=model, clientId=defkrr8e7grgsoufhg8, type=permanent, deviceType=phone, capabilities=[LegalHoldImplicitConsent], label=label, mlsPublicKeys=null)> but was:<ClientDTO(cookie=sldkfmdeklmwldwlek23kl44mntiuepfojfndkjd, registrationTime=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, lastActive=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, model=model, clientId=defkrr8e7grgsoufhg8, type=permanent, deviceType=phone, capabilities=[Unknown(name=LegalHoldImplicitConsent)], label=label, mlsPublicKeys=null)>
   
   java.lang.AssertionError: expected:<ClientDTO(cookie=sldkfmdeklmwldwlek23kl44mntiuepfojfndkjd, registrationTime=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, lastActive=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, model=model, clientId=defkrr8e7grgsoufhg8, type=permanent, deviceType=phone, capabilities=[LegalHoldImplicitConsent], label=label, mlsPublicKeys=null)> but was:<ClientDTO(cookie=sldkfmdeklmwldwlek23kl44mntiuepfojfndkjd, registrationTime=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, lastActive=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, model=model, clientId=defkrr8e7grgsoufhg8, type=permanent, deviceType=phone, capabilities=[Unknown(name=LegalHoldImplicitConsent)], label=label, mlsPublicKeys=null)>
   	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:89)
   	at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:835)
   	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:120)
   	at kotlin.test.junit.JUnitAsserter.assertEquals(JUnitSupport.kt:32)
   	at kotlin.test.AssertionsKt__AssertionsKt.assertEquals(Assertions.kt:63)
   	at kotlin.test.AssertionsKt.assertEquals(Unknown Source)
   	at kotlin.test.AssertionsKt__AssertionsKt.assertEquals$default(Assertions.kt:62)
   ...
  

• givenAValidRegisterClientRequest_whenCallingTheRegisterClientEndpointWithOldFormat_theRequestShouldBeConfiguredCorrectly[jvm] - com.wire.kalium.api.v0.user.client.ClientApiV0Test - Details

  Expand for error

   java.lang.AssertionError: expected:<ClientDTO(cookie=sldkfmdeklmwldwlek23kl44mntiuepfojfndkjd, registrationTime=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, lastActive=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, model=model, clientId=defkrr8e7grgsoufhg8, type=permanent, deviceType=phone, capabilities=[LegalHoldImplicitConsent], label=label, mlsPublicKeys=null)> but was:<ClientDTO(cookie=sldkfmdeklmwldwlek23kl44mntiuepfojfndkjd, registrationTime=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, lastActive=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, model=model, clientId=defkrr8e7grgsoufhg8, type=permanent, deviceType=phone, capabilities=[Unknown(name=LegalHoldImplicitConsent)], label=label, mlsPublicKeys=null)>
   
   java.lang.AssertionError: expected:<ClientDTO(cookie=sldkfmdeklmwldwlek23kl44mntiuepfojfndkjd, registrationTime=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, lastActive=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, model=model, clientId=defkrr8e7grgsoufhg8, type=permanent, deviceType=phone, capabilities=[LegalHoldImplicitConsent], label=label, mlsPublicKeys=null)> but was:<ClientDTO(cookie=sldkfmdeklmwldwlek23kl44mntiuepfojfndkjd, registrationTime=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, lastActive=2021-05-12T10:52:02.671Z, model=model, clientId=defkrr8e7grgsoufhg8, type=permanent, deviceType=phone, capabilities=[Unknown(name=LegalHoldImplicitConsent)], label=label, mlsPublicKeys=null)>
   	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:89)
   	at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:835)
   	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:120)
   	at kotlin.test.junit.JUnitAsserter.assertEquals(JUnitSupport.kt:32)
   	at kotlin.test.AssertionsKt__AssertionsKt.assertEquals(Assertions.kt:63)
   	at kotlin.test.AssertionsKt.assertEquals(Unknown Source)
   	at kotlin.test.AssertionsKt__AssertionsKt.assertEquals$default(Assertions.kt:62)
   ...
  

[yamilmedina]

The tests are failing, and sounds a good idea to have for v8.
The code freeze v7 is more clear now and new types will show up only in v8+

Then we can do the usual new API response support we do. @vitorhugods @MohamadJaara what do you think?

Created a PR in the meantime, with tests for retro compat endpoint.
#3173

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud