feat: launch AVD

[itsspriyansh]

This PR adds functionality for launching an AVD. The workflow is triggered using the --emulator flag with the connect subcomamnd as shown below:

npx @nightwatch/mobile-helper android connect --emulator

Screencast.from.04-07-24.10.39.32.PM.IST.webm

[garg3133]

I think instead of using --avd we should use --emulator flag to trigger this workflow since we are actually connecting to an emulator environment and then choosing which AVD to run in that emulator. Also, "emulator" would be easier for users to remember and use when compared to "avd".

We could probably use --avd as a valued flag here using which users can pass the AVD name to run in the emulator with the command itself:

npx @nightwatch/mobile-helper android connect --emulator --avd nightwatch-android-11

# could also use the @ patter that the emulator binary provides
npx @nightwatch/mobile-helper android connect --emulator @nightwatch-android-11

[itsspriyansh]

@garg3133 I have updated the PR. Here I have used as keyword for valued option because we know that any boolean option will be handled by the verifyOptions function. Therefore only an option with string value will be bypassed.

[itsspriyansh]

In this PR, --avd flag is used to specify the name of the avd to launch. If user runs the following command then the functionality works fine.

npx @nightwatch/mobile-helper android connect --emulator --avd <avd_name>

but if user passes a command like the one below

npx @nightwatch/mobile-helper android connect --emulator --avd

an error will be shown since avd is passed here as a boolean option and not a valued option. And the verifyOptions function in this PR #51 throws error for any unrecognized boolean flag. Since avd is not defined in the AVAILABLE_SUBCOMMANDS object it will be considered as unknown. Even though this is incorrect usage to just pass the avd option without a value, I think we shouldn't show an error and just proceed with the script and prompt the user to select a device.

If the user passes a value along with the flag then no error is shown and everything works fine because in the verifyOptions function we are just checking the options that have the value true. In this case, the valued options are ignored.

[garg3133]

Even though this is incorrect usage to just pass the avd option without a value, I think we shouldn't show an error and just proceed with the script and prompt the user to select a device.

You are correct here. If the user passes --avd only, we should proceed with the normal flow instead of throwing an error.

One question that I have here is - why are we only checking for boolean flags in verifyOptions and not all the possible flags? Why not add --avd to AVAILABLE_SUBCOMMANDS as well and verify it? We would anyway need it there to show in the help section, won't we?

[garg3133]

In the verifyOptions, we just want to skip the flags that are set to false (which would mean that those flag wasn't actually passed with the command), otherwise we should verify all other flags.

[garg3133]

@itsspriyansh Can you see what is remaining here?

[itsspriyansh]

@garg3133 Sure. I have updated the PR.

[itsspriyansh]

@garg3133 PR updated. Using spawnSync for now but we will replace it with spawnCommandSync once #57 is merged.

[garg3133]

@itsspriyansh Since you were asking whether we should test subcommand scripts or not, the fix I did in the last commit of this PR would have been caught if we have tests because in those tests we would have tried passing different versions of --avd flag and it wouldn't have worked correctly for boolean or array avds.