[PM-28442] Added feature flag for migrate myvault to myitems

[aj-rosado]

🎟️ Tracking

https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-28442

📔 Objective

Add the feature flag for the Migrate myvault to myitems tasks

⏰ 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

[claude]

Claude finished @aj-rosado's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✓

I've reviewed the changes for adding the MigrateMyVaultToMyItems feature flag. Overall, this is a well-structured implementation that follows the established patterns in the codebase. Here's my detailed feedback:

✅ Strengths

👍 Excellent Pattern Consistency

• The implementation perfectly follows the established pattern for adding feature flags
• All four necessary touchpoints are correctly updated: FlagKey definition, activePasswordManagerFlags list, UI component, and string resource
• Code style adheres to Kotlin conventions and Bitwarden standards

👍 Proper Documentation

• KDoc comment follows the existing format and clearly describes the feature flag's purpose (FlagKey.kt:93-95)
• Consistent naming convention: pm-20558-migrate-myvault-to-myitems matches the Jira ticket reference

👍 Good Test Coverage

• Test correctly validates the keyName matches the expected string (FlagKeyTest.kt:31-34)
• Test ensures default value is false (FlagKeyTest.kt:46)
• Tests are placed in logical locations alongside similar assertions

👍 UI Integration

• Display label properly uses string resource (FeatureFlagListItems.kt:82)
• String is correctly placed in strings_non_localized.xml (not requiring translation)
• Boolean flag switch will render correctly in the debug menu

📝 Observations

ℹ️ Pre-existing Gap (Not introduced by this PR)
I noticed that FlagKey.NoLogoutOnKdfChange is present in:

• The FlagKey definition (FlagKey.kt:88-91)
• The activePasswordManagerFlags list (FlagKey.kt:37)
• The UI components (FeatureFlagListItems.kt:31, 78)

But it's missing from the test file:

• Not in the keyName assertion test (FlagKeyTest.kt:9-35)
• Not in the default value test (FlagKeyTest.kt:38-51)

This appears to be a pre-existing issue unrelated to this PR, but it would be good to address in a follow-up.

🎨 Minor Style Note

Alphabetization Pattern
The flag is added to the end of the activePasswordManagerFlags list (FlagKey.kt:38), which is fine. However, I notice the list doesn't follow a strict alphabetical or chronological order. Consider whether establishing a consistent ordering (alphabetical, chronological, or logical grouping) might improve maintainability, though this is a minor nitpick and not required for this PR.

✓ Architecture Compliance

• ✅ Follows module organization (core module for data models, ui module for UI components)
• ✅ Proper dependency flow (no circular dependencies)
• ✅ Sealed class pattern for type safety
• ✅ Default value correctly set to false for safety

Summary

This PR is ready to merge from a code quality perspective. The implementation is clean, follows all established patterns, and includes appropriate test coverage. The pre-existing test gap for NoLogoutOnKdfChange could be addressed in a separate PR to maintain consistency across all feature flags.

Verdict: ✅ Approve

---

Tasks Completed:

• Read changed files to understand implementation
• Review code changes using Bitwarden Android standards
• Post comprehensive review feedback

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – a43e61f8-b3b8-4966-9645-13066f16ae99

Great job! No new security vulnerabilities introduced in this pull request

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 85.39%. Comparing base (33e9313) to head (b053a10).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6235   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   85.39%   85.39%           
=======================================
  Files         755      755           
  Lines       54115    54115           
  Branches     7793     7793           
=======================================
  Hits        46212    46212           
  Misses       5190     5190           
  Partials     2713     2713           

☔ 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.