feat: Add `apns-id` header to client return value

[RedPhoenixQ]

This exposes the apns-id header that is returned to identify a notification for debugging and tracking.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • APNs notification IDs returned by the server are now captured, surfaced with results, and included in subsequent request headers when available.

• Tests

  • Test suite expanded to verify APNs ID extraction/merging into results and correct request/connection behavior under concurrent requests.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[parse-github-assistant[bot]]

🚀 Thanks for opening this pull request!

[coderabbitai[bot]]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Client now captures apns-id from response headers into a local notificationId, threads it through the request flow, and updated createHeaderObject to accept notificationId so outgoing requests include an apns-id header when available.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Client logic lib/client.js	Introduce local notificationId in request flow; parse apns-id from response headers and store it; pass notificationId into createHeaderObject; update Client.prototype.createHeaderObject(uniqueId, requestId, channelId, notificationId) and header construction to include apns-id when present.
Tests test/client.js	Add tests asserting server apns-id response headers are merged into returned results for device and channel flows and that concurrent requests and connection reuse behavior remain unchanged.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and specifically describes the main change: exposing the APNs apns-id header in the client return value, which matches the core objective of the PR.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

• [ ] 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• [ ] Create PR with unit tests
• [ ] Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[parseplatformorg]

:white_check_mark: Snyk checks have passed. No issues have been found so far.

Status	Scanner	Critical	High	Medium	Low	Total (0)
:white_check_mark:	Open Source Security	0	0	0	0	0 issues

:computer: Catch issues earlier using the plugins for VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, Visual Studio, and Eclipse.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

:white_check_mark: All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. :white_check_mark: Project coverage is 95.86%. Comparing base (0d8bc6b) to head (9ea743a). :warning: Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #195      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.84%   95.86%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          23       23              
  Lines         842      846       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits          807      811       +4     
  Misses         35       35              

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:

• :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• :package: JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[RedPhoenixQ]

I added the header to existing tests, hope that is satisfactory. The other propagated headers are also tested indirectly but are more directly linked to a specific type of api call. In my understanding the apns-id header should be returned for every type of remote notification creation (generated by server if not provided).

If you'd want a separate test for this specific header I'll do that.

[mtrezza]

@RedPhoenixQ Thanks, we generally ask for not modifying existing tests if not necessary and add a new, specific test with an identifier that describes what it tests. So could you please revert the changes (unless necessary for existing tests to pass) and add a distinct test like it('returns APNs notification ID in response') or whether best describes it?

[RedPhoenixQ]

I misunderstood the purpose of the ManageChannelsClient tests and there indeed doesn't need to be a separate test there as is also uses the Client. I removed the duplicate

[mtrezza]

@RedPhoenixQ could you rebase the PR and see the test in https://github.com/parse-community/node-apn/pull/195#discussion_r2747487085 for ways to simplify your suggested test.

[RedPhoenixQ]

Thank you for taking the time. I've simplified the test as per the recommendation (amending the commit) and rebased on master

[parseplatformorg]

🎉 This change has been released in version 7.1.0