Add comparator to track difference before and after

[AKalinich-Luxoft]

And send OnIVD notification only for case when some fields has
actually been changed.

Fixes #96

This PR is ready for review.

Testing Plan

Steps:

1. mobile sends a valid SetInteriorVehicleData to HMI with some params that will be changed
2. HMI apply that changes and send OnInteriorVehicleData notification with changed parameters
3. mobile sends a valid SetInteriorVehicleData to HMI with the same params

Summary

Add comparator to track difference before and after SetIVD request for each module data and send OnIVD if some values were actually changed

CLA

• I have signed the CLA

[AKalinich-Luxoft]

@jordynmackool This PR is ready for Livio review

[ShobhitAd]

This doesn't work correctly if only some properties are changed. For example sending SetInteriorVehicleData twice with params

{
	"moduleData": {
		"moduleType": "LIGHT",
		"lightControlData": {
			"lightState": [{
				"id": "FRONT_LEFT_HIGH_BEAM",
				"status": "ON",
				"density": 1
			}]
		}
	}
}

results in two OnInteriorVehicleData notifications being sent from the HMI. Probably due to extra params (like color) not being ignored by the if (undefined !== another[param] && check.

[AKalinich-Luxoft]

@ShobhitAd are you sure you are sending SetIVD twice with the same params? When I am trying to send the same params like you described above, I am getting only one OnIVD notification:

SDL -> HMI [14:10:59:485]: {"id":50,"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"RC.SetInteriorVehicleData","params":{"appID":1111048898,"moduleData":{"lightControlData":{"lightState":[{"color":{"blue":0,"green":0,"red":0},"density":0,"id":"FRONT_LEFT_HIGH_BEAM","status":"ON"}]},"moduleId":"d38e4a05-b17c-28e3-9d38-e4a05b17c28e","moduleType":"LIGHT"}}}

RCRPC.js:225 FFW.RC.SetInteriorVehicleData Request
RCRPC.js:529 FFW.RC.OnInteriorVehicleData Notification
RPCClient.js:323 HMI -> SDL [14:12:17:114]: {"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"RC.OnInteriorVehicleData","params":{"moduleData":{"moduleType":"LIGHT","moduleId":"d38e4a05-b17c-28e3-9d38-e4a05b17c28e","lightControlData":{"lightState":[{"color":{"blue":0,"green":0,"red":0},"density":0,"id":"FRONT_LEFT_HIGH_BEAM","status":"ON"}]}}}}
RPCClient.js:323 HMI -> SDL [14:12:17:114]: {"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":50,"result":{"code":0,"method":"RC.SetInteriorVehicleData","moduleData":{"moduleType":"LIGHT","moduleId":"d38e4a05-b17c-28e3-9d38-e4a05b17c28e","lightControlData":{"lightState":[{"color":{"blue":0,"green":0,"red":0},"density":0,"id":"FRONT_LEFT_HIGH_BEAM","status":"ON"}]}}}}
RPCClient.js:137 SDL -> HMI [14:12:23:144]: {"id":54,"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"RC.SetInteriorVehicleData","params":{"appID":1111048898,"moduleData":{"lightControlData":{"lightState":[{"color":{"blue":0,"green":0,"red":0},"density":0,"id":"FRONT_LEFT_HIGH_BEAM","status":"ON"}]},"moduleId":"d38e4a05-b17c-28e3-9d38-e4a05b17c28e","moduleType":"LIGHT"}}}

RCRPC.js:225 FFW.RC.SetInteriorVehicleData Request
RPCClient.js:323 HMI -> SDL [14:16:6:789]: {"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":54,"result":{"code":0,"method":"RC.SetInteriorVehicleData","moduleData":{"moduleType":"LIGHT","moduleId":"d38e4a05-b17c-28e3-9d38-e4a05b17c28e","lightControlData":{"lightState":[{"color":{"blue":0,"green":0,"red":0},"density":0,"id":"FRONT_LEFT_HIGH_BEAM","status":"ON"}]}}}}

[ShobhitAd]

@AKalinich-Luxoft I re-ran the test but I'm still seeing the same issue. I'm attaching my HMI console logs for the test
OnIVD_LIGHT.log

I think the issue occurs when one or more optional params are omitted from the request. It looks like if compareObjects is called with extra params in the second argument this condition https://github.com/smartdevicelink/sdl_hmi/blob/master/app/controller/sdl/Abstract/Controller.js#L408 will return a non-zero value(-1)

Could you retry the test you mentioned and send the SetInteriorVehicleData requests without the color parameter(only send the density, id and status params)

[AKalinich-Luxoft]

@ShobhitAd thank you for the additional input, I see now. I also noticed that my SPT sends optional params even if I unchecked them in UI.
Looks like we should consider the field as changed only when the comparator returns positive 1. I updated the condition and now it works as expected. See 553aeba