[MS-1459] Enhance version code computation and validation

[meladRaouf]

This PR changes APK versionCode generation to be derived from the app's versionName instead of CI build order. The new scheme encodes the release year, minor version, patch version, and build sequence into a stable numeric versionCode.

This fixes a downgrade issue that occurred when creating hotfix builds for older releases, where newly generated APKs could end up with a lower versionCode than versions already published on Google Play.

Example

versionName | versionCode -- | -- 2026.11.1 (run 157) | 261101157

This ensures version codes remain predictable and monotonically increasing across rebuilds and hotfixes.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Updates the reusable APK build workflow to validate the provided version-name input and compute a new Android VERSION_CODE derived from the semantic version components, so CI builds can embed consistent version metadata into Gradle build properties.

Changes:

• Replaces the prior base/run-number version-code scheme with a semantic-version-based computation.
• Adds validation for VERSION_NAME format and bounds (year/minor/patch).
• Centralizes computation of VERSION_CODE and FILE_NAME into a single step.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

[luhmirin-s]

Is there any way to "unit test" the computation? It looks correct, but I would feel safer to approve it if there were tests :D

[BurningAXE]

Looks good! Smart to trim the pipeline runs to 3 digits!
I don't foresee any issues with this approach and it should be generous enough for lots of minor and patch releases.

[BurningAXE]

Is there any way to "unit test" the computation? It looks correct, but I would feel safer to approve it if there were tests :D

If we can unit test it, maybe we can put it on a test branch and feed it different values to see what it spits out.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

[meladRaouf]

Is there any way to "unit test" the computation? It looks correct, but I would feel safer to approve it if there were tests :D

If we can unit test it, maybe we can put it on a test branch and feed it different values to see what it spits out.

@luhmirin-s @BurningAXE
I have extracted the version code generation into a bash script file and the added a unit test for it

I asked copilot to run tests for the version code generation

Is there any way to "unit test" the computation? It looks correct, but I would feel safer to approve it if there were tests :D

[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