RUMM-2806 Drop the covered wireframes only if top ones have a background

[mariusc83]

What does this PR do?

Before we were filtering out all the overlayed wireframes no matter if the top ones were having a solid background or not. This creates a problem because if the removed wireframe is actual the one that gives the main background in a View we will be loosing the contrast in the replay and will make some elements invisible (e.g. texts).

In order to fix this we are now only considering as valid overlays the wireframes that also have a solid backround.

Motivation

What inspired you to submit this pull request?

Additional Notes

Anything else we should know when reviewing?

Review checklist (to be filled by reviewers)

• Feature or bugfix MUST have appropriate tests (unit, integration, e2e)
• Make sure you discussed the feature or bugfix with the maintaining team in an Issue
• Make sure each commit and the PR mention the Issue number (cf the CONTRIBUTING doc)

[xgouchet]

what if the background is transparent?

[mariusc83]

Good catch, I am going to filter those out also.

[ncreated]

👍 or semi-transparent. On iOS we recently added isTranslucent for similar use case, which also takes view's alpha (opacity) into account. It doesn't yet check the background color's alpha, but remains extensible in that direction (e.g. a background of #FF000099 should be considered translucent).

[mariusc83]

yup I modified it in order to just consider alpha FF in the color and 1f in the ShapeStyle opacity. Any other wireframe with any alpha value will be not considered as overlay.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1198 (cc0004b) into feature/sdkv2 (05aa709) will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##           feature/sdkv2    #1198      +/-   ##
=================================================
- Coverage          83.38%   83.36%   -0.02%     
=================================================
  Files                356      356              
  Lines              11987    11985       -2     
  Branches            2061     2061              
=================================================
- Hits                9995     9991       -4     
- Misses              1357     1358       +1     
- Partials             635      636       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
.../android/sessionreplay/processor/WireframeUtils.kt	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...in/com/datadog/android/log/internal/LogsFeature.kt	84.71% <0.00%> (-5.88%)	⬇️
...rsistence/file/batch/PlainBatchFileReaderWriter.kt	86.27% <0.00%> (-2.94%)	⬇️
...ain/java/com/datadog/opentracing/PendingTrace.java	57.76% <0.00%> (-0.86%)	⬇️
.../android/rum/internal/monitor/DatadogRumMonitor.kt	92.82% <0.00%> (-0.55%)	⬇️
...src/main/kotlin/com/datadog/android/DatadogSite.kt	86.67% <0.00%> (ø)
...ndroid/telemetry/internal/TelemetryEventHandler.kt	72.27% <0.00%> (+0.84%)	⬆️
...n/com/datadog/android/v2/core/SdkInternalLogger.kt	80.77% <0.00%> (+3.85%)	⬆️
...id/rum/internal/ndk/DatadogNdkCrashEventHandler.kt	91.49% <0.00%> (+4.26%)	⬆️
.../kotlin/com/datadog/android/ktx/tracing/SpanExt.kt	100.00% <0.00%> (+13.33%)	⬆️

[xgouchet]

Nitpicking here, maybe using isOpaque would avoid having to handle the negation when thinking at the logic