IssueTracker

Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-main

commit f61da31809827bfac89af629c88ad9b8423e88b6
Author: Clara Fok <clarafok@google.com>
Date:   Wed Sep 06 14:14:11 2023

    Fix entry not marked complete after view is destroyed
   
    As part of a fix for b/279644470 in aosp/2566210, when the fragment view is destroyed, we would mark the transitioning (outgoing) entry as complete only if the entry has also been removed from backstack. However, in the simple navigate() case where the outgoing entry is not popped and remains in the backstack, this entry is not marked complete and ends up in the visibleEntries even though the view has been destroyed.
   
    Now the backstack check in ON_DESTROY is no longer necessary to fix the original b/279644470 bug -- the view being destroyed should be the right signal for completing entries regardless of whether transitioning effects are used. So this check is removed.
   
    Test: ./gradlew navigation:navigation-fragment:cC
    Test: ./gradlew navigation:navigation-runtime:cC
    Bug: 288520638
    Change-Id: I5caa9af1b5bd7084e76d7daf9515f7430bf2489d

M       navigation/navigation-fragment/src/androidTest/java/androidx/navigation/fragment/FragmentNavigatorTest.kt
M       navigation/navigation-fragment/src/androidTest/java/androidx/navigation/fragment/NavControllerWithFragmentTest.kt
M       navigation/navigation-fragment/src/main/java/androidx/navigation/fragment/FragmentNavigator.kt
M       navigation/navigation-runtime/src/androidTest/java/androidx/navigation/NavControllerTest.kt
M       navigation/navigation-runtime/src/main/java/androidx/navigation/NavController.kt

https://android-review.googlesource.com/2743918

Sorry, the right url above should be: https://developer.android.com/jetpack/docs/release-notes

I changed the ProGuard configuration as you can see it in the GitHub repository. It matches with your change here https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/frameworks/support/+/782087/2/work/workmanager/proguard-rules.pro if I don't miss anything. I cannot tell why "WorkParameters" is still listed. I verified the output once again by running ./gradlew clean --info --debug aCcc34c3Release. Feel free to run the build yourself. All you need to do is to create a random release-keystore and the app/gradle.properties from the app/gradle.properties.example.

So you saying when I want to migrate my app to targetSdkVersion 26 until November I need to raise the compileSdkVersion to 28 in order to use WorkManager? Using targetSdkVersion 26 with compileSdkVersion 28 won't work?

There shouldn't be any issues with targetSdkVersion 26 and compileSdkVersion 28.

Okay. I will try that. Thanks.
Feel free to contact me if you are not able to build my project.

Does it suffice to raise the compileSdkVersion to 28 or do I also have to raise the version of the support library artifacts at the same time? I tried your suggestion in comment #11 but the build still fails.

Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-master-dev

commit cee9ab55352f3ad506552afb4753baf8648b4c30
Author: Sumir Kataria <sumir@google.com>
Date:   Mon Oct 08 14:20:57 2018

    Fix class name in Proguard configuration.
   
    Bug: 116296569
    Test: N/A
    Change-Id: I3525f9d2f3b06523cbe842b35f97014677879a64

M       work/workmanager/proguard-rules.pro

https://android-review.googlesource.com/782087
https://goto.google.com/android-sha1/cee9ab55352f3ad506552afb4753baf8648b4c30

Support library as well.

Do the latest changes (WorkParameters -> WorkerParameters, NonBlockingWorker -> ListenableWorker) in the ProGuard configuration apply to WorkManager 1.0.0-alpha09 or 1.0.0-alpha10 or both?

alpha10.

Thank you. Can you please point me to the commit/file which represents the configuration for WorkManager 1.0.0-alpha09? Maybe here https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/support/+log/androidx-master-dev/work/workmanager/proguard-rules.pro?

There isn't one for alpha09... it's already released.  You can modify that commit and adapt it to alpha09.

Just change WorkParameters -> WorkerParameters.

Which commit do you refer to? The link I posted show the history of the proguard-rules.pro commits. Since the file exists for a year I would have expected that there was a version of the file which shipped with WorkManager 1.0.0-alpha which was released by September 19, 2018.

Or do you mean that the proguard-rules.pro being shipped with WorkManager 1.0.0-alpha is buggy?

Yes, alpha09 had a bug.  #19 suggests a modification to your app's proguard config to get around the issue.  alpha10 should be out soon with the fix.

Thank you for the clarification.

I prepared my test branch according to your recommendations (ProGuard, compileSdkVersion, targetSdkVersion, support libraries) as you can see here:
https://github.com/EventFahrplan/EventFahrplan/compare/master...workmanager

The release build however still fails:

00:20:09.182 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: androidx.work.impl.Schedulers: can't find dynamically referenced class androidx.work.impl.background.firebase.FirebaseJobService
00:20:09.182 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: androidx.work.impl.Schedulers: can't find dynamically referenced class androidx.work.impl.background.firebase.FirebaseJobScheduler
00:20:09.210 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: kotlin.internal.PlatformImplementationsKt: can't find dynamically referenced class kotlin.internal.jdk8.JDK8PlatformImplementations
00:20:09.210 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: kotlin.internal.PlatformImplementationsKt: can't find dynamically referenced class kotlin.internal.JRE8PlatformImplementations
00:20:09.210 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: kotlin.internal.PlatformImplementationsKt: can't find dynamically referenced class kotlin.internal.jdk7.JDK7PlatformImplementations
00:20:09.210 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: kotlin.internal.PlatformImplementationsKt: can't find dynamically referenced class kotlin.internal.JRE7PlatformImplementations
00:20:09.212 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: kotlin.jvm.internal.Reflection: can't find dynamically referenced class kotlin.reflect.jvm.internal.ReflectionFactoryImpl
00:20:09.228 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: okhttp3.internal.platform.AndroidPlatform: can't find dynamically referenced class com.android.org.conscrypt.SSLParametersImpl
00:20:09.228 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: okhttp3.internal.platform.AndroidPlatform: can't find dynamically referenced class org.apache.harmony.xnet.provider.jsse.SSLParametersImpl
00:20:09.228 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: okhttp3.internal.platform.AndroidPlatform$CloseGuard: can't find dynamically referenced class dalvik.system.CloseGuard
00:20:09.228 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: okhttp3.internal.platform.ConscryptPlatform: can't find dynamically referenced class org.conscrypt.ConscryptEngineSocket
00:20:09.229 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: okhttp3.internal.platform.Platform: can't find dynamically referenced class sun.security.ssl.SSLContextImpl
00:20:09.955 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: the configuration keeps the entry point 'androidx.core.graphics.drawable.IconCompatParcelizer { android.support.v4.graphics.drawable.IconCompat read(androidx.versionedparcelable.VersionedParcel); }', but not the descriptor class 'androidx.versionedparcelable.VersionedParcel'
00:20:09.955 [QUIET] [system.out] Note: the configuration keeps the entry point 'androidx.core.graphics.drawable.IconCompatParcelizer { void write(android.support.v4.graphics.drawable.IconCompat,androidx.versionedparcelable.VersionedParcel); }', but not the descriptor class 'androidx.versionedparcelable.VersionedParcel'

These aren't failures (unless your configuration has a problem).  As you can see, you have things listed from other libraries like okhttp as well.

Maybe, I missing the specific part in the output. I pasted a large part of the lower end here: http://pastebin.de/8421/

You need to add:

-dontwarn sun.misc.Unsafe

Thank you. This made the release build succeed.
Can you please explain which library (version) introduces the Unsafe class?

I am still facing this issue with WorkManager-1.0.0-beta01

2018-12-31 01:40:32.701 2947-2977/de.aurora.mggvertretungsplan.debug E/WM-WorkerFactory: Could not instantiate de.aurora.mggvertretungsplan.services.DownloadTimeTableWorker
    java.lang.IllegalAccessException: Class java.lang.Class<androidx.work.WorkerFactory> cannot access  method void de.aurora.mggvertretungsplan.services.DownloadTimeTableWorker.<init>(android.content.Context, androidx.work.WorkerParameters) of class java.lang.Class<de.aurora.mggvertretungsplan.services.DownloadTimeTableWorker>
        at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance0(Native Method)
        at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:343)
        at androidx.work.WorkerFactory.createWorkerWithDefaultFallback(WorkerFactory.java:92)
        at androidx.work.impl.WorkerWrapper.runWorker(WorkerWrapper.java:191)
        at androidx.work.impl.WorkerWrapper.run(WorkerWrapper.java:125)
        at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1167)
        at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:641)
        at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:764)
2018-12-31 01:40:32.701 2947-2977/de.aurora.mggvertretungsplan.debug E/WM-WorkerWrapper: Could not create Worker de.aurora.mggvertretungsplan.services.DownloadTimeTableWorker

My code can be found at https://github.com/d-Rickyy-b/MGGVertretungsplan.

I'd be very grateful for any kind of support.

Okay... I feel pretty stupid now - it seems that my constructor was package-private and for workmanager to work, it needed to be public. Maybe the exception could point to that issue?

That is correct. Worker must have a public constructor unless you instantiate it via your own WorkerFactory.