Fixed
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
da...@google.com
Yes, this is correct. Having individual navigation graphs on each activities overrides or disallow up navigation to the main activity.
ap...@google.com
I believe I have found the potential problem that is causing this:
// @ androidx.navigation.NavController
// line 124
// Now record the pop operation that we were sent
if (!mBackStack.isEmpty()) {
mBackStack.removeLast();
}
// We never want to leave NavGraphs on the top of the stack
while (!mBackStack.isEmpty()
&& mBackStack.peekLast() instanceof NavGraph) {
popBackStack();
}
the condition in while loop is never satisfied because of the above `if` statement above it has already removed the last item of the mBackStack (which was the NavGraph) and thus popBackStack() is never called again.
// @ androidx.navigation.NavController
// line 124
// Now record the pop operation that we were sent
if (!mBackStack.isEmpty()) {
mBackStack.removeLast();
}
// We never want to leave NavGraphs on the top of the stack
while (!mBackStack.isEmpty()
&& mBackStack.peekLast() instanceof NavGraph) {
popBackStack();
}
the condition in while loop is never satisfied because of the above `if` statement above it has already removed the last item of the mBackStack (which was the NavGraph) and thus popBackStack() is never called again.
da...@google.com
According to Ian Lake, NavigationUI does not support up navigation yet, that is why this is a feature request.
+Pedro Varela - we don't support navigating up through activities as part of NavigationUI yet, please star the feature request:https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/79993862 (this issue)
+Pedro Varela - we don't support navigating up through activities as part of NavigationUI yet, please star the feature request:
an...@google.com
Ian Lake said Up navigation is not supported through activities, only through fragments.
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.