🧪 Add tests for ApkViewModel

[SayanthRock]

User description

🎯 What: Added missing unit tests for ApkViewModel in the feature-apkinspector module. The view model currently initializes a StateFlow and its state was completely untested.
📊 Coverage: Covered the initial state emission scenario ensuring the view model starts in ApkState.Idle.
✨ Result: Improved test coverage and reliability for the feature-apkinspector module by introducing turbine and kotlinx-coroutines-test for coroutine and flow testing. This sets a foundation for testing more complex view model states when they are added in the future.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 15152377058706558455 started by @SayanthRock

---

CodeAnt-AI Description

Add coverage for ApkViewModel’s initial idle state

What Changed

• Added a unit test confirming that ApkViewModel initially reports the idle state
• Added coroutine and flow testing support for the feature module

Impact

✅ Detects regressions in the initial APK inspector state
✅ Confirms predictable view-model startup behavior
✅ Establishes coverage for future state changes

💡 Usage Guide

Checking Your Pull Request

Every time you make a pull request, our system automatically looks through it. We check for security issues, mistakes in how you're setting up your infrastructure, and common code problems. We do this to make sure your changes are solid and won't cause any trouble later.

Talking to CodeAnt AI

Got a question or need a hand with something in your pull request? You can easily get in touch with CodeAnt AI right here. Just type the following in a comment on your pull request, and replace "Your question here" with whatever you want to ask:

@codeant-ai ask: Your question here

This lets you have a chat with CodeAnt AI about your pull request, making it easier to understand and improve your code.

Example

@codeant-ai ask: Can you suggest a safer alternative to storing this secret?

Preserve Org Learnings with CodeAnt

You can record team preferences so CodeAnt AI applies them in future reviews. Reply directly to the specific CodeAnt AI suggestion (in the same thread) and replace "Your feedback here" with your input:

@codeant-ai: Your feedback here

This helps CodeAnt AI learn and adapt to your team's coding style and standards.

Example

@codeant-ai: Do not flag unused imports.

Retrigger review

Ask CodeAnt AI to review the PR again, by typing:

@codeant-ai: review

Check Your Repository Health

To analyze the health of your code repository, visit our dashboard at https://app.codeant.ai. This tool helps you identify potential issues and areas for improvement in your codebase, ensuring your repository maintains high standards of code health.

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[codeant-ai]

🤖 CodeAnt AI — Review Status

Status	Commit	Started (UTC)	Finished (UTC)
✅ Reviewed your PR	338bcfa	Jul 27, 2026 · 10:39	10:41

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@SayanthRock, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 54 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: eba5da0b-4591-4c8b-819d-b10c18dca576

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d6f5998 and 338bcfa.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• feature-apkinspector/build.gradle.kts
• feature-apkinspector/src/test/java/com/sayanthrock/rockreleasehub/feature/apkinspector/ApkViewModelTest.kt
• gradle/libs.versions.toml

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch test-apk-viewmodel-15152377058706558455

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[ai-coding-guardrails]

Nice work! 😎

I didn't find anything of concern

Risk: 🟢 Low

Risk analysis

This PR adds unit tests for ApkViewModel and introduces testing libraries like turbine and kotlinx-coroutines-test. It does not modify any existing logic or introduce new runtime behavior, so all risk dimensions are minimal or non-applicable. The changes improve test coverage but do not affect security, data integrity, or operational aspects.

Think our bots are missing some context? Add custom requirements or guardrails in our management console