PM-31043: Add unarchive button to overflow menus

[david-livefront]

🎟️ Tracking

PM-31043

📔 Objective

This PR adds the unarchive button to the overflow menu for list items on the listing screen, vault screen, and search screen.

📸 Screenshots

⏰ 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 – 1c5072e5-3b28-4742-a214-17c39c7d0e81

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

[claude]

Claude finished @david-livefront's task in 2m 7s —— View job

---

Code Review Summary

PR: PM-31043: Add unarchive button to overflow menus

Reviewed: 11 files (+397/-1 lines)

Overview

This PR adds the unarchive button to overflow menus on the listing screen, vault screen, and search screen. The implementation follows the established pattern from the archive functionality (PR #6385).

Assessment

No blocking issues found. This is a clean, well-structured implementation.

What Was Reviewed

Area	Status
Security	No concerns - follows existing patterns
Correctness	Implementation is correct
Breaking Changes	None
Test Coverage	Adequate - success/failure cases covered for all 3 ViewModels
Pattern Consistency	Follows established archive patterns

Implementation Notes

1. No premium check for unarchive - Unlike handleArchiveClick, the unarchive handlers don't check for premium. This appears intentional - users should be able to unarchive items even without premium to avoid being locked out of their data.

2. Consistent patterns - The implementation mirrors the archive functionality:

   • UnarchiveClick action in ListingItemOverflowAction.VaultAction
   • handleUnarchiveClick and handleUnarchiveCipherReceive in all 3 ViewModels
   • Button visibility gated by archivedDate != null && deletedDate == null && isArchiveEnabled

3. Test coverage - Tests cover:

   • Success case (shows snackbar)
   • Error case (shows error dialog)
   • Menu item generation when cipher is archived

Minor Observation (Not Blocking)

There's no test for verifying the unarchive action is NOT shown when isArchiveEnabled = false. A corresponding test exists for archive (toOverflowActions should not return Archive action when Archive is disabled). This is a minor test coverage gap that could be addressed in a follow-up.

---

Result: Approved

The code is well-implemented, follows established patterns, and has adequate test coverage.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 94.31818% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.57%. Comparing base (afc1ff4) to head (1f8d44c).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...warden/ui/platform/feature/search/SearchContent.kt	0.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...rden/ui/platform/feature/search/SearchViewModel.kt	96.29%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...ult/feature/itemlisting/VaultItemListingContent.kt	0.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...t/feature/itemlisting/VaultItemListingViewModel.kt	96.55%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...bitwarden/ui/vault/feature/vault/VaultViewModel.kt	96.29%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6387      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   85.56%   85.57%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         764      764              
  Lines       55501    55589      +88     
  Branches     8047     8066      +19     
==========================================
+ Hits        47488    47571      +83     
  Misses       5239     5239              
- Partials     2774     2779       +5     

☔ 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.

[SaintPatrck]

⛏️

Suggested change

	fun `toOverflowActions should return Unarchive action when cipher is archive and not deleted`() {
	fun `toOverflowActions should return Unarchive action when cipher is archived and not deleted`() {

[SaintPatrck]

LGTM. Nitpick isn't worth blocking. Coverage gap is minor, so I agree it's not a blocker either.