Fix attempt for ISXB-1066 where we still process a hold interaction despite having a more dominant interaction

[adrian-koretski-unity3d]

Description

Issue stems from having one of the interaction release early, causing the other to become the dominant interaction, then said other interaction releases. When the first is released, the second takes over and the hold interaction is never processed, leaving it to trigger despite both buttons being released.

Proposed solution is to still process the first interaction to ensure the hold is released.

Testing status & QA

Test case provided under the name Actions_WithMultipleBindingsAndMultipleInteractions_Works

Overall Product Risks

It fixes the issue but may create a different one.

For instance, if we have two buttons, A and W, bound to the same action, we can do

Press A & W Release A Press A Release W

Since both holds were released, no hold will be triggered.

Comments to reviewers

Current state of the fix is rough, PR mostly to open up to discussion if solution is viable.

Checklist

Before review:

• [ ] Changelog entry added.
  • Explains the change in Changed, Fixed, Added sections.
  • For API change contains an example snippet and/or migration example.
  • JIRA ticket linked, example (case %<ID>%). If it is a private issue, just add the case ID without a link.
  • Jira port for the next release set as "Resolved".
• [ ] Tests added/changed, if applicable.
  • Functional tests Area_CanDoX, Area_CanDoX_EvenIfYIsTheCase, Area_WhenIDoX_AndYHappens_ThisIsTheResult.
  • Performance tests.
  • Integration tests.
• [ ] Docs for new/changed API's.
  • Xmldoc cross references are set correctly.
  • Added explanation how the API works.
  • Usage code examples added.
  • The manual is updated, if needed.

During merge:

• [ ] Commit message for squash-merge is prefixed with one of the list:
  • NEW: ___.
  • FIX: ___.
  • DOCS: ___.
  • CHANGE: ___.
  • RELEASE: 1.1.0-preview.3.

After merge:

• [ ] Create forward/backward port if needed. If you are blocked from creating a forward port now please add a task to ISX-1444.

[adrian-koretski-unity3d]

Current state of the fix is rough, PR mostly to open up to discussion if solution is viable

[ekcoh]

If this PR should land it needs to first be updated with critical CI fix from develop before initiating more CI runs.

[ekcoh]

@adrian-koretski-unity3d @jfreire-unity Can this be closed/deleted since it seems to be a duplicate of ISXB-627?