[PM-39612] fix: resolve autofill container-hint redirect to autofillable child

[aj-rosado]

🎟️ Tracking

https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-39612

📔 Objective

Some Android apps wrap their login EditText fields inside a container view (e.g., Material TextInputLayout). The container carries the semantic autofill hint (USERNAME, PASSWORD) but has autofillType = NONE (0), meaning it cannot receive a fill value. The inner EditText has autofillType = TEXT (1) but no hint, so heuristics never classify it. As a result, autofill silently failed — the fill dataset was built against the container's autofillId with autofillType = 0, which the framework dropped at fill time.

Changes:

• ViewNodeExtensions.kt: When a container node carries a semantic hint but has autofillType = NONE, findFirstAutofillableChild() locates the first descendant with autofillType = TEXT. The child's autofillId and autofillType are used in AutofillView.Data so the fill reaches the actual input field.
• AutofillParserImpl.kt: Added claimedAutofillIds tracking during traversal to prevent a child node from being added a second time after the container has already redirected to it.

[github-actions]

🤖 Bitwarden Claude Code Review

Overall Assessment: APPROVE

Reviewed the autofill container-hint redirect fix across ViewNodeExtensions.kt (redirecting a semantically-hinted container with AUTOFILL_TYPE_NONE to its first autofillable descendant) and AutofillParserImpl.kt (tracking claimedAutofillIds during traversal to prevent duplicate view/ignore entries). Traced the recursive traversal, redirect, and deduplication paths — including the container, nested-grandchild, and no-autofillable-child fallback scenarios — and confirmed the child's autofillId and autofillType correctly propagate to the fill dataset while the redirected child is not added a second time. Test coverage is thorough, mirroring each new branch with corresponding unit tests. No security, correctness, or breaking-change concerns identified.

Code Review Details

No findings at or above the confidence threshold. The change is well-scoped, follows existing traversal conventions, and the deduplication of both autofillViews and ignoreAutofillIds against claimedAutofillIds is consistent and correct.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 94.87179% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 86.48%. Comparing base (fe2e7c0) to head (650e227).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...bitwarden/data/autofill/util/ViewNodeExtensions.kt	90.90%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7146      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.76%   86.48%   -0.29%     
==========================================
  Files         868      912      +44     
  Lines       63975    65511    +1536     
  Branches     9585     9610      +25     
==========================================
+ Hits        55511    56654    +1143     
- Misses       5023     5412     +389     
- Partials     3441     3445       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
app-data	17.29% <94.87%> (-0.31%)	⬇️
app-ui-auth-tools	18.65% <0.00%> (-0.16%)	⬇️
app-ui-platform	16.78% <0.00%> (+0.30%)	⬆️
app-ui-vault	28.05% <0.00%> (+0.55%)	⬆️
authenticator	6.13% <0.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
lib-core-network-bridge	4.06% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
lib-data-ui	1.14% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.