feat: add support for dual apps with Android profiles

[svenburkard]

Type of change(s)

• Bug fix
• Feature / enhancement
• Infrastructure / tooling (CI, build, deps, tests)
• Documentation

What changed and why

• Added user_serial and DB schema v6 to separate data per profile, supporting Dual Apps with Android profiles.
• Non‑breaking for existing users thanks to the v5 -> v6 migration.

Tests performed

• Tested on Android 16 on a Pixel 9a and Pixel 7a.
• Test case 1: Fresh install of the profile‑supporting foss-debug APK (no existing Fossify Launcher). Searched for work‑profile apps, added them to the home-screen and launched them.
• Test case 2: Fresh install of the current upstream foss-debug APK (no profile support, commit 774a045), configured the home-screen with default‑profile apps, then upgraded to the profile‑supporting foss-debug APK and verified all existing home‑screen configurations.

Before & after preview

• Before: apps from non‑default profiles were not visible and couldn’t be added to the home-screen:

• After: upgrading from upstream to profile supporting version:

• Existing home‑screen configurations from the previously installed upstream foss-debug APK were preserved.

• Apps from non‑default profiles are now visible, can be added to the home-screen and can be launched.

Closes the following issue(s)

• Closes Feat req: Support for Cloned / Dual Apps (Multiple App Instances) #294

Checklist

• I read the contribution guidelines.
• I manually tested my changes on device/emulator (if applicable).
• I updated the "Unreleased" section in CHANGELOG.md (if applicable).
• I have self-reviewed my pull request (no typos, formatting errors, etc.).
• I understand every change in this pull request.

[svenburkard]

I'll take a look at it the weekend to make the detekt check happy.

[svenburkard]

Hi @naveensingh,

I've fixed the open detekt violations via 6938e1b, c4de678 and a5c756a.

I also rebuilt the APK from last commit (a5c756a) and repeated the tests with Android 16 another time successfully.

Regarding commit c4de678: I’m not fully happy with the naming there. I mainly chose this approach to resolve the detekt magic-number violation. If you would have handled that differently or prefer an alternative solution like suppress, please let me know.

I’d be happy to get your review when you have time.

Thanks a lot,
Sven