Fix fidchangelistener behavior

[eldhosembabu]

Fixing fidchangelistener behavior to get invoked for new fid creations as well

[gemini-code-assist]

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize the Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counterproductive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here.

[github-actions]

📝 PRs merging into main branch

Our main branch should always be in a releasable state. If you are working on a larger change, or if you don't want this change to see the light of the day just yet, consider using a feature branch first, and only merge into the main branch when the code complete and ready to be released.

[Doris-Ge]

nit: It may be more readable to clearly define what means a new FID, e.g.:

boolean isNewFidRegistered(PersistedInstallationEntry prefs, PersistedInstallationEntry updatedPrefs) {
   if (!TextUtils.equals(
            prefs.getFirebaseInstallationId(), updatedPrefs.getFirebaseInstallationId()) {
       return true;
   }
   if (!prefs.isRegistered() && updatedPrefs.isRegistered()) {
       return true;
   }
   return false;
}

[eldhosembabu]

IMO the name of this function "isNewFidRegistered" and the fid comparison that we are doing inside to determine fid change (ie. "hasFIDChanged") does not match. LMK if you think the refactor makes more sense.

[Doris-Ge]

IMO, when hasFIDChanged = true, it likely means a new fid is registered on the backend. Admittedly, there's a flaw in my example. We should double check updatedPrefs.isRegistered(), so

boolean isNewFidRegistered(PersistedInstallationEntry prefs, PersistedInstallationEntry updatedPrefs) {
   if (updatedPrefs.isRegistered() && !TextUtils.isEmpty(updatedPrefs.getFirebaseInstallationId()) {
       if (!TextUtils.equals(
                prefs.getFirebaseInstallationId(), updatedPrefs.getFirebaseInstallationId()) {
           // Fid has changed
           return true;
       }
       if (!prefs.isRegistered()) {
           // A new FID is just registered
           return true;
       }
   }
   return false;
}

If isNewFidRegistered is not a good name, we could simply name it shouldNotifyFidListener.

if (shouldNotifyFidListener(prefs, updatedPrefs)) {
    // IMO, updateFidListener should simply notify listeners instead of performing an additional check
    updateFidListener(updatedPrefs.getFirebaseInstallationId()); 
}

Feel free to resolve this comment if you still think the current implementation is better.