chore: add core module - Githubissues

customerio / customerio-android

This is the official Customer.io SDK for Android.

MIT License

13 stars 9 forks source link

chore: add core module #305

Closed mrehan27 closed 5 months ago

mrehan27 commented 5 months ago

part of MBL-243

Changes

Added core module so we can start moving common classes from tracking to this module
Updated gradle scripts and CI workflows

github-actions[bot] commented 5 months ago

# Sample app builds 📱 Below you will find the list of the latest versions of the sample apps. It's recommended to always download the latest builds of the sample apps to accurately test the pull request. --- * java_layout: `rehan/mbl-243-core-module (1713956815)` * kotlin_compose: `rehan/mbl-243-core-module (1713956809)`

codecov[bot] commented 5 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 54.38%. Comparing base (48c64c9) to head (81f76e8). Report is 1 commits behind head on feature/cdp.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## feature/cdp #305 +/- ## ================================================= - Coverage 54.45% 54.38% -0.08% Complexity 282 282 ================================================= Files 109 109 Lines 2534 2534 Branches 355 355 ================================================= - Hits 1380 1378 -2 Misses 1032 1032 - Partials 122 124 +2 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

github-actions[bot] commented 5 months ago

Build available to test Version: rehan-mbl-243-core-module-SNAPSHOT Repository: https://s01.oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/snapshots/

mrehan27 commented 5 months ago

Compare SDK binary size report is failing because the size of core module is currently in KBs (908.4KB). This is okay for this PR, as we do not need to support KB measurements. The size will increase to MBs once we add a few more classes, and the task should then work fine.

mrehan27 commented 5 months ago

@Shahroz16 Yes, we could reuse base, but I avoided doing so for following reasons:

I believe core naming convention is more commonly used
I wanted to avoid the ripple effects that base module might cause as is it currently used by other modules
I'm still unsure whether we'll still need a lightweight separate base or just the core module eventually. So, I avoided making this decision too early to allow enough time to consider our options.