[flags] FFL-1113: RUM Evaluation Tracking

[jonathanmos]

What does this PR do?

• Evaluation tracking through RUM

This is controlled by the rumIntegrationEnabled flag in FlagsConfiguration (enabled by default). No deduplication is performed for these requests.

Motivation

What inspired you to submit this pull request?

Additional Notes

Anything else we should know when reviewing?

Review checklist (to be filled by reviewers)

• Feature or bugfix MUST have appropriate tests (unit, integration, e2e)
• Make sure you discussed the feature or bugfix with the maintaining team in an Issue
• Make sure each commit and the PR mention the Issue number (cf the CONTRIBUTING doc)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 67.92453% with 17 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 70.76%. Comparing base (740290d) to head (82fe14a).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../flags/featureflags/internal/DatadogFlagsClient.kt	66.67%	9 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...android/internal/flags/RumFlagEvaluationMessage.kt	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...in/com/datadog/android/flags/FlagsConfiguration.kt	71.43%	2 Missing ⚠️
...lin/com/datadog/android/rum/internal/RumFeature.kt	75.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                     Coverage Diff                      @@
##           feature/feature-flagging    #2926      +/-   ##
============================================================
+ Coverage                     70.69%   70.76%   +0.08%     
============================================================
  Files                           834      836       +2     
  Lines                         30378    30415      +37     
  Branches                       5131     5136       +5     
============================================================
+ Hits                          21474    21523      +49     
+ Misses                         7444     7435       -9     
+ Partials                       1460     1457       -3     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...flags/featureflags/internal/RumEvaluationLogger.kt	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...lin/com/datadog/android/rum/internal/RumFeature.kt	92.86% <75.00%> (+1.10%)	⬆️
...in/com/datadog/android/flags/FlagsConfiguration.kt	88.24% <71.43%> (-11.76%)	⬇️
...android/internal/flags/RumFlagEvaluationMessage.kt	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
.../flags/featureflags/internal/DatadogFlagsClient.kt	78.95% <66.67%> (-7.89%)	⬇️

... and 39 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[0xnm]

I think we need to check this with iOS if it should be rumIntegrationEnabled or enableRumIntegration.

[jonathanmos]

They are using the same property name

[0xnm]

I think we need to explain it better. It is not clear to me what it is about.

[0xnm]

minor: if we expect value to be only one of the given types (like String, Int, Double) we can use sealed class here.

[0xnm]

We cannot inject processor simply when we create DatadogFlagsClient? Not sure what is the point of featureSdkCore.getFeature(FLAGS_FEATURE_NAME)?.unwrap<FlagsFeature>() if it is the same module.

[0xnm]

shouldn't we do this at the constructor call site? Otherwise having rumEvaluationLogger both as constructor argument and also a property is confusing.

[0xnm]

Suggested change

	verify(mockRumEvaluationLogger, never()).logEvaluation(any(), any())
	verifyNoInteractions(mockRumEvaluationLogger)

[0xnm]

Suggested change

	verify(mockRumEvaluationLogger).logEvaluation(
	flagKey = eq(fakeFlagKey),
	value = eq(fakeFlagValue)
	)
	verify(mockRumEvaluationLogger).logEvaluation(
	fakeFlagKey,
	fakeFlagValue
	)