[PM-28468] Updated validation and navigation for MigrateToMyItems

[aj-rosado]

🎟️ Tracking

https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-28468

📔 Objective

Added an observable flow that will be updated after a sync and if the conditions are met will trigger the RootNavViewModel to display the MigrateToVaultItems flow.
Only after a sync in order to ensure we are not displaying the migration screen with stale data.

The conditions for the navigation are

• VAULT_OWNERSHIP policy is active
• User has vault items (no organizationId)
• FeatureFlag is active
• User hasInternetConnection

This is only in draft, missing all the unit tests and some manual tests

⏰ 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 – 2b4e1008-fcea-4164-990e-4181062255c7

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 72.41379% with 16 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.49%. Comparing base (7c929c3) to head (ff3693a).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...twarden/data/vault/manager/VaultSyncManagerImpl.kt	73.91%	4 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...arden/ui/platform/feature/rootnav/RootNavScreen.kt	0.00%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...en/ui/platform/feature/rootnav/RootNavViewModel.kt	85.71%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...ture/migratetomyitems/MigrateToMyItemsViewModel.kt	70.00%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
...feature/migratetomyitems/MigrateToMyItemsScreen.kt	0.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6279      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.53%   85.49%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         761      761              
  Lines       54522    54569      +47     
  Branches     7833     7856      +23     
==========================================
+ Hits        46636    46653      +17     
- Misses       5169     5192      +23     
- Partials     2717     2724       +7     

☔ 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.

[claude]

Claude finished @aj-rosado's task in 4m 40s —— View job

---

Code Review Complete

I've reviewed PR #6279 with a focus on the validation and navigation logic for the MigrateToMyItems flow.

---

Overall Assessment: REQUEST CHANGES

The implementation follows proper architectural patterns with excellent test coverage, but requires addressing a critical user experience issue before merge.

Critical Finding

Missing Migration State Persistence (VaultSyncManagerImpl.kt:565-575)

The shouldMigratePersonalVaultFlow will emit true on every sync when conditions are met, but there's no mechanism to track whether the user has already seen or dismissed the migration screen. This creates a poor UX where:

1. User syncs → migration screen shows
2. User dismisses or completes migration
3. User syncs again → migration screen shows again (endless loop)

Recommendation: Add persistence tracking before removing draft status:

// In SettingsDiskSource or AuthDiskSource
fun storeMigrationAttempted(userId: String, organizationId: String)
fun hasMigrationBeenAttempted(userId: String, organizationId: String): Boolean

Check this in verifyAndUpdateIfUserShouldMigrateVaultToMyItems to prevent repeated prompts.

---

Questions Requiring Clarification

1. Forced Sync Behavior (VaultSyncManagerImpl.kt:432-434): Why trigger a forced sync when decrypting ciphers? Could this cause unnecessary sync loops? The comment mentions ensuring fresh data, but the sync flow already validates at line 360.

2. Navigation Priority (RootNavViewModel.kt:133-136): Migration intercepts vault unlocked state - is blocking vault access until migration is addressed the intended behavior?

3. Logic Duplication (VaultSyncManagerImpl.kt:553-575): Two methods contain nearly identical validation logic differing only in input type. Consider extracting shared policy/flag/network checks.

---

Positive Findings

• ✅ Proper MVVM + UDF patterns with StateFlow
• ✅ Correct Hilt dependency injection throughout
• ✅ Comprehensive test coverage (261 lines added)
• ✅ Well-documented public APIs with KDoc
• ✅ Clean architecture with appropriate module organization
• ✅ No security concerns identified

---

Recommendation

Address the persistence issue (Finding 1) before removing draft status. The current TODO at MigrateToMyItemsViewModel.kt:77-84 combined with the missing state tracking will result in poor UX when the migration logic is fully implemented.

---

[SaintPatrck]

⛏️ Don't really need this comment. The function name is descriptive enough.