[PM-18583] Separate Desktop and CLI ClientTypes

[trmartin4]

🎟️ Tracking

https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-18583

📔 Objective

We currently group the desktop and CLI clients together in the DesktopTypes.

This causes downstream issues for feature flag targeting, as the ClientType is used here to assign to the LaunchDarkly context for feature flag targeting.

This means that it is impossible to target a different CLI version than desktop version, without specifying individual device types in LaunchDarkly (bypassing the convenience of the ClientType).

The reason for this request related to the linked issue is that for New Device Verification, we will have different versions for the CLI and the desktop in the upcoming release (2025.2.1 vs. 2025.2.0), and in setting up the feature flags for this release I noticed the grouping.

⏰ 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

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[trmartin4]

@mzieniukbw was there a specific intent behind grouping the desktop and CLI together? I want to make sure that I don't break any other downstream contracts that might be relying on them being the same ClientType.

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – ca21cc5c-9e21-4010-972d-d7007d79c02b

Great job, no security vulnerabilities found in this Pull Request

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 44.51%. Comparing base (0f10ca5) to head (a867414).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/Core/Utilities/DeviceTypes.cs	80.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5441   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   44.51%   44.51%           
=======================================
  Files        1513     1513           
  Lines       70379    70383    +4     
  Branches     6349     6350    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        31327    31330    +3     
  Misses      37704    37704           
- Partials     1348     1349    +1     

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

[withinfocus]

Is this safe to do? I am not sure if anything else ... somewhere ... considers the CLI a desktop client type. I understand your intention, but if my question is difficult to answer you could just use device type more explicitly for LD targeting.

[trmartin4]

Is this safe to do? I am not sure if anything else ... somewhere ... considers the CLI a desktop client type. I understand your intention, but if my question is difficult to answer you could just use device type more explicitly for LD targeting.

I am not sure where all the ClientTypes are used. I posited the same question to @mzieniukbw as well.

On the other hand, this is currently a bug, since the CLI does not accept login approval requests. It's a hidden bug, because the CLI doesn't even register to receive the requests at all, but it shows that we have assumed that Desktop != CLI as consumers of the ClientType.

Are you suggesting that we would need to evaluate the current context targeting, as well as all other uses of the ClientType, before making this change?

[withinfocus]

Are you suggesting that we would need to evaluate the current context targeting, as well as all other uses of the ClientType, before making this change?

Yes, just to be safe that the CLI wouldn't be expected to fall into other targets. This seems unlikely, but I just don't know.