[PM-14846] Improve IP Address and Port Handling in StringExtensions

[SaintPatrck]

🎟️ Tracking

PM-14846
PM-20513
Relates to #5084

📔 Objective

Correct parsing of IP addresses with and without scheme and port. URI cannot parse an IP address with a port when it does not also include the scheme (http, https), so autofill matching triggered from the Quick Tile was not working properly.

• New Function: Added isIpAddress() to check if a string is a valid IPv4 address, optionally with a port and scheme.
• Regex Update: Added the IP_ADDRESS_WITH_OPTIONAL_PORT regex. It validates IPv4 addresses with or without ports (0-65535 range), with an optional http:// or https:// prefix.
• URI Parsing: Modified toUriOrNull() to handle IP addresses without schemes by adding a default "https://" scheme before parsing.
• Tests update: Added new tests for isIpAddress function.

📸 Screenshots

⏰ Reminders before review

• Contributor guidelines followed
• All formatters and local linters executed and passed
• Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
• Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
• Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
• CI builds passed
• Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
• Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

• 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
• 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
• ❓ (:question:) for questions
• 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
• 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
• ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
• 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
• ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – b354e1cf-9247-496f-8881-2c8689015cfe

Great job, no security vulnerabilities found in this Pull Request

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 82.86%. Comparing base (23ef5b3) to head (ffcae91).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5118      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.83%   82.86%   -0.97%     
==========================================
  Files         636      966     +330     
  Lines       49358    57256    +7898     
  Branches     6702     7160     +458     
==========================================
+ Hits        41377    47444    +6067     
- Misses       5745     7353    +1608     
- Partials     2236     2459     +223     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[SaintPatrck]

I considered replacing URI with android.net.Uri, but that introduces different problems and changes the behavior of this function.

• Uri.parse() is too lenient. It accepts URI's we consider invalid; e.g., not a uri.
• Uri does not return the correct port when the URI consists of {IP}:{PORT}, without the scheme.
• Uri is an Android class, so we cannot use it in unit tests. We would rely on the Roboelectric implementation of Uri, which may or may not accurately reflect the actual implementation from Google.

[al-tr]

I know it's merged, though why not use @ParameterizedTest in this case?

[SaintPatrck]

First time I've seen ParameterizedTest. Looks interesting. I'll keep it in mind for future use. Thanks for pointing it out!