Fixed
Status Update
Comments
da...@google.com <da...@google.com> #2
Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit 9fe209b0b6489fc3eba5be3c646beaf0efe8ed7e
Author: Jeremy Woods <jbwoods@google.com>
Date: Tue Aug 25 11:55:49 2020
Remove observers when unregistering ActivityResult
Currently, if you register an ActivityResult using a LifecycleOwner and
then go through process death, we add an Observer to fire the registered
callback once the lifecycle goes to STARTED. In the case of
unregistering, we should make sure to remove any observers that may have
been added.
Test: Added ActivityResultRegistryTest#testLifecycleOwnerCallbackUnregistered
Bug: 165608393
Change-Id: If81142b1a6abc72b105986a2460e4aeb96e29eaf
M activity/activity/src/androidTest/java/androidx/activity/result/ActivityResultRegistryTest.kt
M activity/activity/src/main/java/androidx/activity/result/ActivityResultRegistry.java
https://android-review.googlesource.com/1410730
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit 9fe209b0b6489fc3eba5be3c646beaf0efe8ed7e
Author: Jeremy Woods <jbwoods@google.com>
Date: Tue Aug 25 11:55:49 2020
Remove observers when unregistering ActivityResult
Currently, if you register an ActivityResult using a LifecycleOwner and
then go through process death, we add an Observer to fire the registered
callback once the lifecycle goes to STARTED. In the case of
unregistering, we should make sure to remove any observers that may have
been added.
Test: Added ActivityResultRegistryTest#testLifecycleOwnerCallbackUnregistered
Bug: 165608393
Change-Id: If81142b1a6abc72b105986a2460e4aeb96e29eaf
M activity/activity/src/androidTest/java/androidx/activity/result/ActivityResultRegistryTest.kt
M activity/activity/src/main/java/androidx/activity/result/ActivityResultRegistry.java
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #3
This has been fixed internally and will be available in the next release of Fragments.
da...@google.com <da...@google.com> #4
This is fixed internally and will be available in what might be Room 2.2.2
Description
Version used: 2.2.0
Devices/Android versions reproduced on:
- device usb:336662528X product:xcover4ltexx model:SM_G390F device:xcover4lte transport_id:5
- device product:sdk_gphone_x86 model:Android_SDK_built_for_x86 device:generic_x86 transport_id:4
- device usb:336662528X product:zerofltexx model:SM_G920F device:zeroflte transport_id:15
In Version 2.1.0 annotation @Relation was only allowed for list types, if you used it on a non-list type the following runtime error occured:
error: Fields annotated with @Relation must be a List or Set.
Since Version 2.2.0 @Relation can be used on non-list types, in order to model relations with a single object reference.
This is handy if you have 1-to-1 relations and you don't have to explicitly get the first item from the result list, instead you get the object directly.
release notes:
One-to-One Relations: The restriction in POJO fields annotated with @Relation to be of type List or Set has been lifted, effectively allowing single-value relations to be represented.
It seems that this new feature is only supported up to a certain amount of table rows. In more details it means that if you run a query on tables with 100 rows, the returned POJOs have all valid non-null references to the object specified by the @Relation annotation. If you run the same query on tables with more than 999 rows (999 still works, 1000 will fail) the result will be that all returned POJOs have NULL as referenced object (see my example project).
If you use the list type with @Relation annotation you don't have this limitation.
Please refer to the attached example project unit test.
In the example project the same entities are used but with two different POJO types. One is using a List<> type annotated with @Relation, and the other is using the newly supported object type.
Android unit test show that the list type always works but the object type works up to 999 rows, after that it starts to fail.