feat(android): Support android call notification style

[dprevost-LMI]

PR introducing the new Android 12 CallStyle notification related to phone calls.

CallStyle can produce three different notifications:

• Incoming

• Ongoing

• Screening

Notes on the changes:

• Upgrade to androidx.core:core:1.10.0 was required to have the CallSyle inside NotificationCompat (See also this google issue about it). This update also generates the room update. Else duplicated lib errors were generated
• Inside the call style as a premier, we have to process pressActions and create pending intent instead of behind outside of the style like the other (and be generic pressActions props)
• Unit test and even integration test was added
• I favoured java Enum instead of plain integer for style type & call type
• All test & lining commands were run as specified in the CONTRIBUTING.md
• All three call types were tested manually in the example app (the pictures above are proof!)

⚠️ Dependant projects might also need to update their androidx.core:core version or even their androidx.core:core-ktx to at least 1.10

⚠️ There is a known limitation where additional limited custom actions, as claimed in the doc, do not work right now. See this Google issue

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[mikehardy]

Just to note I see these commits flying by in my notification queue and I'm excited to see this when you think it's ready
No rush of course, it's your effort :-)
Totally fine with dependency updates as needed of course, core is actually on 1.15 now so bumping to 1.10 is arguably not even enough (but only doing what is necessary for the PR makes sense - no need to struggle on a side project of updating it)

[dprevost-LMI]

Just to note I see these commits flying by in my notification queue

😮 I can remove the draft PR; I thought the draft would not spam, sorry

core is actually on 1.15 now so bumping to 1.10 is arguably not even enough

Yeah, I struggled since on 1.10, I had some duplicate deps errors and needed to update the rooms deps too. So yeah, I'm doing the minimal since it is not the focus, as you mentioned!

While I have your attention, I struggle with the PendingIntent creation. I reached a working point, but having them in the NotificationAndroidStyleModel.java. I want to move that into its own class at some point.
However, I must pass the NotificationModel pretty deep, which seems bad. If you have any suggestions about that, let me know

[mikehardy]

No worries about spam, it's a drop in the bucket and it's pleasing to see notificaitons about a feature PR vs yet another "I can't compile NNN because of ABC" issue comment 😅

I reached a working point, but having them in the NotificationAndroidStyleModel.java. I want to move that into its own class at some point.
However, I must pass the NotificationModel pretty deep, which seems bad. If you have any suggestions about that, let me know

I'm a fan of "tested and working" over perfect, so I lean towards something that you know works first. Second, I'm not sure what exactly would be better, passing it down the way it is now doesn't seem so bad

The only thing I can see that makes me 🤔 is the inconsistent use of constants vs "magic numbers and strings" - I love the enums at the TS level and it would be nice to see constants or enums to match at the java level (and in the TS warning, which uses the numbers again vs the call types)

In general though, looks like it is shaping up. At first I thought this was just duplication of our full screen intent style (which is targeted for this use case as well) but as soon as I looked at the APIs in use it looks like this is just me being unaware of the problem area and that the APIs have moved on (as they always seem to for notifications...) to have specific call notification type for modern android. Nice to support it

[dprevost-LMI]

For your information, I just linked my project with my PR, and the first draft is working well in a happy path scenario!
I hope to wrap this up in the upcoming weeks!

From Notifee example project it looks like this:

[mikehardy]

That's wonderful!

[dprevost-LMI]

Do I need to create a feature issue for this PR, or is the PR only OK?

[mikehardy]

PR only is just fine - no need for administrivia like an issue just to close it, if there is a PR in flight already

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.81%. Comparing base (ae2953b) to head (1817d5e).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1134      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.08%   77.81%   +0.74%     
==========================================
  Files          32       32              
  Lines        1727     1771      +44     
  Branches      556      592      +36     
==========================================
+ Hits         1331     1378      +47     
+ Misses        395      340      -55     
- Partials        1       53      +52