fix(contact-center): read mediaResourceId from interaction.media in holdResume()

[bhabalan]

COMPLETES # https://jira-eng-sjc12.cisco.com/jira/browse/CAI-7507

This pull request addresses

Port of #4848 to the task-refactor branch. The holdResume() method in Voice.ts reads mediaResourceId from the top-level this.data.mediaResourceId, which can become stale after partial event payloads (e.g. recording pause/resume events) overwrite task data. Although the refactored reconcileData() on this branch doesn't delete missing keys (unlike next), using the top-level field is fragile and inconsistent with how the canonical media data is stored in interaction.media.

by making the following changes

• Updated holdResume() in packages/@webex/contact-center/src/services/task/voice/Voice.ts to resolve mediaResourceId from this.data.interaction.media[mainInteractionId].mediaResourceId — the canonical source — with a fallback to the top-level this.data.mediaResourceId
• This applies to the hold path, resume path, state machine events, metrics tracking, and the error handling path
• Added mainInteractionId to the test data helper createBaseData() in the Voice test file
• Added a regression test that verifies hold() uses interaction.media as the source for mediaResourceId even when the top-level field is stale

Change Type

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation update
• Tooling change
• Internal code refactor

The following scenarios were tested

Automated Testing

• Added regression test: hold() reads mediaResourceId from interaction.media via mainInteractionId — simulates stale top-level mediaResourceId and verifies the correct value is sent to contact.hold()
• Existing unit tests unaffected (Voice.ts test suite has a pre-existing xstate.setup infrastructure issue on task-refactor that is unrelated to this change)

The GAI Coding Policy And Copyright Annotation Best Practices

• GAI was not used (or, no additional notation is required)
• Code was generated entirely by GAI
• GAI was used to create a draft that was subsequently customized or modified
• Coder created a draft manually that was non-substantively modified by GAI (e.g., refactoring was performed by GAI on manually written code)
• Tool used for AI assistance (GitHub Copilot / Other - specify)
  • Github Copilot
  • Other - Claude Code
• This PR is related to
  • Feature
  • Defect fix
  • Tech Debt
  • Automation

I certified that

• I have read and followed contributing guidelines
• I discussed changes with code owners prior to submitting this pull request
• I have not skipped any automated checks
• All existing and new tests passed
• I have updated the documentation accordingly

[bhabalan]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Breezy!

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".