refactor: rename ConversationOptions to CreateConversationParam

[MohamadJaara]

---

PR Submission Checklist for internal contributors

• The PR Title

  • conforms to the style of semantic commits messages¹ supported in Wire's Github Workflow²
  • contains a reference JIRA issue number like SQPIT-764
  • answers the question: If merged, this PR will: ... ³

• The PR Description

  • is free of optional paragraphs and you have filled the relevant parts to the best of your ability

---

What's new in this PR?

Issues

it was just a TODO in the code to do this rename

Needs releases with:

• GitHub link to other pull request

Testing

Test Coverage (Optional)

• I have added automated test to this contribution

How to Test

Briefly describe how this change was tested and if applicable the exact steps taken to verify that it works as expected.

Notes (Optional)

Specify here any other facts that you think are important for this issue.

Attachments (Optional)

Attachments like images, videos, etc. (drag and drop in the text box)

---

PR Post Submission Checklist for internal contributors (Optional)

• Wire's Github Workflow has automatically linked the PR to a JIRA issue

---

PR Post Merge Checklist for internal contributors

• If any soft of configuration variable was introduced by this PR, it has been added to the relevant documents and the CI jobs have been updated.

---

References

1. https://sparkbox.com/foundry/semantic_commit_messages
2. https://github.com/wireapp/.github#usage
3. E.g. feat(conversation-list): Sort conversations by most emojis in the title #SQPIT-764.

[saleniuk]

Just actions are failing probably because the import wasn't updated as well

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 75.00000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 47.83%. Comparing base (f98ff11) to head (eb77fe0).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...i/home/newconversation/NewConversationViewModel.kt	75.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (75.00%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #4032   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    47.83%   47.83%           
========================================
  Files          499      499           
  Lines        17443    17443           
  Branches      2859     2859           
========================================
  Hits          8344     8344           
  Misses        8240     8240           
  Partials       859      859           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...i/home/newconversation/NewConversationViewModel.kt	61.40% <75.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f98ff11...eb77fe0. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud