Fixed
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
ra...@google.com
Can you give us the sample app or code that's exhibiting this problem?
st...@baramundi.de
ra...@google.com
Your examples have an initial delay + a flex time.
So the first instance will be closer to ~30 mins, because you want the periodic work to only be eligible at the end of initial delay + beginning of the flex window.
So the first instance will be closer to ~30 mins, because you want the periodic work to only be eligible at the end of initial delay + beginning of the flex window.
ra...@google.com
ra...@google.com
No, when `useInitialDelayForPeriodic` is set to `true`, I'm not using a flexInterval... check the code.
ap...@google.com
Sorry, i might have misread that part of the source code.
> BUT I'm not finding that. Let's say that "interval" of the periodic work is 15 mins, and I set an "initial delay" also of 15 mins, and I set this going when the user hits the button. I find that the immediate work is performed at 0 mins (triggered explicitly, not by WorkManager, so that's as expected), then at 15 mins NOTHING happens, and only at 30 mins does the first periodic work actually run.
What do you mean when you say - triggered work explicitly ? [ "I find that the immediate work is performed at 0 mins (triggered explicitly, not by WorkManager, so that's as expected)" ]
Which part of the source code are you referring to ?
> BUT I'm not finding that. Let's say that "interval" of the periodic work is 15 mins, and I set an "initial delay" also of 15 mins, and I set this going when the user hits the button. I find that the immediate work is performed at 0 mins (triggered explicitly, not by WorkManager, so that's as expected), then at 15 mins NOTHING happens, and only at 30 mins does the first periodic work actually run.
What do you mean when you say - triggered work explicitly ? [ "I find that the immediate work is performed at 0 mins (triggered explicitly, not by WorkManager, so that's as expected)" ]
Which part of the source code are you referring to ?
st...@baramundi.de
MyWorker.java:
static void schedulePeriodicWork(Context context, int appWidgetId, String trigger) {
Log.d(TAG, "schedulePeriodicWork for " + appWidgetId);
// do an immediate update, with periodic work kicking in later (subject to Doze etc)
doSomeWork(context, appWidgetId);
^^^^^^
this bit is where I call doSomeWork() directly, when scheduling the periodic work, to get a guaranteed immediate execution of the first work.
static void schedulePeriodicWork(Context context, int appWidgetId, String trigger) {
Log.d(TAG, "schedulePeriodicWork for " + appWidgetId);
// do an immediate update, with periodic work kicking in later (subject to Doze etc)
doSomeWork(context, appWidgetId);
^^^^^^
this bit is where I call doSomeWork() directly, when scheduling the periodic work, to get a guaranteed immediate execution of the first work.
ra...@google.com
Yeah.. I realized that's the part of the code that you were talking about. Your source code also had OneTimeWorkRequest's being created (but was not being called by anyone) - so was confused.
Description
Version used: 1.0.0-alpha08
Devices/Android versions reproduced on: Moto G5s Plus, Android 7.1.1 / Huawai P20 lite, Android 8.0.0
We can reproduce a crash of the workmanager on some devices.
In our code we enqueue a UniqueWork with ExistingWorkPolicy.REPLACE, as soon as it finishes with State.SUCEEDED we enqueue it again. There is always only one job at the time.
After about 100 jobs the workmanager crashes with: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Apps may not schedule more than 100 distinct jobs.
It looks like the workmanager does not prune the finished jobs fast enough, and they count as 'sheduled' job, even if they are finished?
The crash is reproducible on the Moto G5s Plus and Huawai P20 lite. But it behaves very inconsistent, sometimes it occurs on the first run, sometimes only after a few restarts of the app. But we cannot reproduce it on the Pixel 2 XL or the emulator.
Calling pruneWork() before enqueue() doesn't fix the problem.
Reducing the result lifetime by calling keepResultsForAtLeast(..) doesn't work as well.
We provided a sample app which triggers the issue.