Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
su...@google.com
First of all thanks for this detailed issue.
This issue had been investigated thoroughly when it was first reported internally. The surprising detail in this report is that the issue is not reproducible before 1.7. I will look into this.
The main problem with POBox is the fact that it is deprecated. Since 2021 Sony has been shipping new Xperia devices with Gboard pre-installed. Although we are aware that there is still a considerable amount of users still using POBox, the described behavior is caused by POBox's noncompliant behavior with InputConnection and InputMethodManager documentation. However, this is understandable since TextView implementation was also not respecting the behavior that is expected from Editors.
Ultimately we have decided to enforce the documented behavior with specifically regards to when editors should call InputMethodManager.updateSelection. Also, although unconfirmed, there were traces of possible custom code being included in Sony OEM images that changed how InputMethodManager was notified from TextView. If POBox also depended on something like this, it would be impossible for Compose code to replicate the same unknown behavior.
dr...@gmail.com
Or is that option not available?
Even if the root cause is POBox, from the perspective of the app's customers, it looks like an app bug, so this issue is a blocker against updating Jetpack Compose.
ra...@google.com
Just to be sure, it is dangerous to replace Compose TextField with Android View EditText as a workaround for this issue.
Compose 1.7 has a bug that causes ANR when the focus is on EditText.
Another View-related bug in Compose 1.7 is that an Android View is focused by calling FocusManager.clearFocus().
Perhaps there is a lack of testing of Compose 1.7 in combination with Android View. There is also a possibility that there are other fatal bugs related to View.
In other words, the only options for apps targeting the Japanese market that require POBox support are to continue using Compose 1.6 or to use EditText in combination with various workarounds.
dr...@gmail.com
Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-main
Author: Halil Ozercan <
Link:
Fix POBox keyboard issue
Expand for full commit details
Fix POBox keyboard issue
Fix: 373743376
Fix: 329209241
Test: NullableInputConnectionWrapperTest
Change-Id: I94e0e598274fb88b255f977f9fbd50dfbbb1ecb1
Files:
- M
compose/ui/ui/src/androidInstrumentedTest/kotlin/androidx/compose/ui/text/input/NullableInputConnectionWrapperTest.kt - M
compose/ui/ui/src/androidMain/kotlin/androidx/compose/ui/text/input/NullableInputConnectionWrapper.android.kt
Hash: 57f58c4b80d5d8470b2aca325dfdcd55f235231e
Date: Thu Oct 24 01:25:20 2024
ra...@google.com
Many thanks again for this report. Especially for giving us a huge clue in terms of what could be going wrong. The fix is now merged and I will ask for a cherry-pick into a stable release.
dr...@gmail.com
Do you have any concrete plan to cherry-pick the fix into current stable version (1.7.x)? We are currently waiting it.
ra...@google.com
Yes, this fix is planned to be included in a future 1.7.x release.
dr...@gmail.com
Thanks for the fix. Sorry to follow up on this. is it possible for you to share specific release version/date for the stable version? We are waiting on this to decide on our direction.
ra...@google.com
I will fix this.
ap...@google.com
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit 39859499e6c1d1502f8dc764360b55a62eaba233
Author: Rahul Ravikumar <rahulrav@google.com>
Date: Mon Jun 17 16:28:19 2019
Fix for drifts in WorkRequests with periodStartTime = 0
* When we have WorkRequests with initial delays (and periodStartTime = 0)
and a process death occurs - we would previously look at all WorkSpecs
in ENQUEUED state and reschedule them.
* This would cause a drift for WorkSpecs with periodStartTime = 0,
because they would be scheduled relative to System.currentTimeInMillis().
* To fix this we move the cleanup step into ForceStopRunnable, given it is the
first Runnable being executed in the TaskExecutor. This way we can also
more accureately target WorkSpecs that were previously RUNNING rather than
having to reschedule all WorkSpecs that were ENQUEUED.
Fixes:
Test: Existing unit tests in ForceStopRunnableTests, updated tests in WorkManagerImplTest.
Change-Id: I0fb5477c70a43b751fec1e0c5d9901188e2396f4
M work/workmanager/src/androidTest/java/androidx/work/impl/WorkManagerImplTest.java
M work/workmanager/src/androidTest/java/androidx/work/impl/utils/ForceStopRunnableTest.java
M work/workmanager/src/main/java/androidx/work/impl/WorkDatabase.java
M work/workmanager/src/main/java/androidx/work/impl/model/WorkSpecDao.java
M work/workmanager/src/main/java/androidx/work/impl/utils/ForceStopRunnable.java
Description
When I set up a periodic job, I want the first in the series to be performed INSTANTLY (the user expects it... they hit a button and are waiting for an immediate result), and then for subsequent ones to be performed based on the periodic schedule (more vague timings is fine... the user is no longer waiting).
When you set up a periodic work request *without* a flex interval, it can run anytime in the set interval, i.e. from NOW until the end of the interval. If the device is awake when the periodic work request is scheduled, which is the case for me, I find that the first work in the series is generally performed at the START of the interval, i.e. NOW... though "NOW" may not be instantly (it's up to the device to decide... may be delayed a few seconds).
Because it cannot be guaranteed that the first periodic work will be performed *instantly*, instead I do an explicit call to the work-performing function outside of the WorkManager realm, and put a flexInterval on the periodic work of 5 mins so that the first periodic work will certainly not be performed straight away, but instead it will be near the end of the first period, most likely 5 mins before the end. This is not quite ideal (first gap between work runs is not quite a full interval) but it's OK... the user won't care or even notice it runs 5 mins "early" the first time.
Now, I thought that the ability to set an "initialDelay" in 2.1.0 would solve my problems... so that I could:
(a) still make an explicit call to the work-performing function to do the immediate work, guaranteed to be NOW (the user expects that)
(b) set up a periodic work request WITHOUT flexInterval (i.e. use the whole interval) and WITH an initial delay equal to the period "interval"
That way, I get the immediate work done, and then after "interval" the periodic work request is scheduled, and because (let's assume) the device is still awake, the first periodic work will likely perform at the START of the interval, i.e. almost straight away, i.e. pretty close to exactly one "interval" after the user set the schedule going.
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.
It seems that either the first periodic work happens at the END of the first interval (15-30 mins) and not the start (like it usually does, if the device is awake and not busy), or WorkManager delayed first periodic interval to be at 30-45 mins, i.e. it waited 30 mins not 15 mins, twice what I asked for.
So, how is "setInitialDelay" for a periodic work request meant to work? It doesn't just wait "delay" (instead of not waiting at all) and then enqueue the periodic work request?