CoreTemp: refactor BLE runtime and added ANT+ HRM configurator

[zyf0717]

Summary

• Rework CoreTemp BLE lifecycle handling to support explicit pair/disconnect, reconnect backoff, cache rebuilds, pause/resume ownership, and status events.
• Add CORE Control Point support for ANT+ HRM scan, pair, status, and clear workflows.
• Add App Loader custom settings for background connection, widget visibility, debug logging, custom-profile mode, scan window, and default ANT+ HRM ID.
• Add CoreTemp regression and emulator app-test coverage for BLE lifecycle, Control Point, HRM workflows, settings, and package manifest behavior.
• Package coretemp.hrm.json, add deployable runtime modules, and bump CoreTemp to 0.10.

Validation

• npm test
• node apps/coretemp/tests/run.js
• Verified branch contains only CoreTemp changes.
• Tested on multiple Bangle.js 2 devices, multiple CORE and HEATSENSE devices, and PowerLabs Chest HRM, Polar H10, and Verity Sense ANT+ HRMs.

[zyf0717]

@ihewitt looping you in as the original CoreTemp author. This PR substantially refactors CoreTemp’s BLE lifecycle and adds ANT+ HRM configuration/control-point support. I’d appreciate your review, especially around whether the new runtime ownership model, reconnect/cache behavior, and settings UX still fit the app’s intended design.

For detailed docs please see README.md.

[ihewitt]

@ihewitt looping you in as the original CoreTemp author.

Apologies haven't had time to look through yet! And I didn't have my "authenticator" to hand to login to GitHub!!! 🤦‍♂️ I'll try to find the time tonight. 👍

[zyf0717]

@ihewitt looping you in as the original CoreTemp author.

Apologies haven't had time to look through yet! And I didn't have my "authenticator" to hand to login to GitHub!!! 🤦‍♂️ I'll try to find the time tonight. 👍

No worries, and thanks for taking a look when you can.

I made these changes for a deployment use case on my side and thought they might be useful upstream. Since this significantly changes the CoreTemp runtime/connection model, I’d value your thoughts on whether this fits as an update to the existing app or should be split out.

Happy to adjust or split the PR as needed!

[zyf0717]

Hi @ihewitt, just a gentle follow-up when you have a moment.

I now have downstream HeatSuite changes that depend on this CoreTemp work, and I’d ideally like to formalise the integration rather than end up with a fragmented deployment setup.

I’m mainly looking for a high-level steer on whether this direction is acceptable for the existing CoreTemp app, or whether you’d prefer it split out separately. Happy to make any changes needed from there — thanks!