Fixed

Bug

Gradle 8.1 configuration cache breakages

Status Update

No update yet.

Description

au...@google.com

created issue #1

Jun 16, 2023 09:00PM

DESCRIBE THE ISSUE IN DETAIL:

AGP cmake causes configuration cache invalidation.

STEPS TO REPRODUCE:

./gradlew zipTestConfigsWithApks in the androidx project
./gradlew zipTestConfigsWithApks (second time)

EXPECTED

Configuration cache is used the second time

ACTUAL

Configuration cache is not used the second time

Calculating task graph as configuration cache cannot be reused because the file system entry '../../out/androidx/appsearch/appsearch-local-storage/build/intermediates/cxx' has been created.

It seems that AGP is checking for existence of this directory, thus making this an input to the configuration cache. As stuff is written to this directory, it invalidates the configuration cache.

Studio Build: n/a
Version of Gradle Plugin: 8.2.0-alpha08
Version of Gradle: 8.1
Version of Java: 17
OS: linux

Comments

au...@google.com <au...@google.com> #2Jun 16, 2023 09:04PM

Can you include a sample project that crashes in release mode?

au...@google.com <au...@google.com> #3Jun 16, 2023 09:38PM

For us this is only happening in places where LifecycleEventEffect is used. Example stacktrace:

Fatal Exception: java.lang.IllegalStateException
CompositionLocal LocalLifecycleOwner not present
androidx.lifecycle.compose.LocalLifecycleOwnerKt$LocalLifecycleOwner$1$1.invoke (LocalLifecycleOwner.android.kt:63)
androidx.lifecycle.compose.LocalLifecycleOwnerKt$LocalLifecycleOwner$1$1.invoke (LocalLifecycleOwner.android.kt:62)
kotlin.SynchronizedLazyImpl.getValue (LazyJVM.kt:74)
androidx.compose.runtime.LazyValueHolder.getCurrent (LazyValueHolder.java:29)
androidx.compose.runtime.LazyValueHolder.getValue (LazyValueHolder.java:31)
androidx.compose.runtime.CompositionLocalMapKt.read (CompositionLocalMap.kt:90)
androidx.compose.runtime.ComposerImpl.consume (Composer.kt:2135)
androidx.lifecycle.compose.LifecycleEffectKt.LifecycleEventEffect (LifecycleEffect.kt:748)
com.freeletics.feature.profile.ProfileUiKt$ProfileUi$1.invoke (ProfileUi.kt:62)

This is also on Lifecycle 2.8.2 with Compose 1.6.

bb...@gmail.com <bb...@gmail.com> #4Jun 17, 2023 12:59PM

Here is a sample project

https://github.com/nilsjr/Koncept

Checkout repository
Build release apk with ./gradlew :app:assembleRelease -PenableReleaseSigning=true
App starts without crash
Comment or remove line 14 in https://github.com/nilsjr/Koncept/blob/develop/app/proguard-rules.pro
Build release apk with ./gradlew :app:assembleRelease -PenableReleaseSigning=true
App crashing on start

FATAL EXCEPTION: main (Ask Gemini)
  Process: de.nilsdruyen.koncept, PID: 5880
  java.lang.IllegalStateException: CompositionLocal LocalLifecycleOwner not present
  ...

ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com> Jun 19, 2023 10:28AM

Assigned to bi...@google.com.

bi...@google.com <bi...@google.com> #5Jun 21, 2023 10:54PM

comment#4:

Thank you for sharing the sample project. I can confirm that I was able to reproduce the issue, and that your workaround works. I will investigate the problem further.

au...@google.com <au...@google.com> #6Jun 21, 2023 10:57PM

It appears that the custom ProGuard rule was not working as intended across all projects.

However, using public static *** getLocalLifecycleOwner(); (with the wildcard type ***) seems to work consistently in the sample project and our internal experiments:

-if public class androidx.compose.ui.platform.AndroidCompositionLocals_androidKt {
    public static *** getLocalLifecycleOwner();
}
-keep public class androidx.compose.ui.platform.AndroidCompositionLocals_androidKt {
    public static *** getLocalLifecycleOwner();
}

We are investigating further, and we will be working on a fix for the issue.

au...@google.com <au...@google.com> #7Jun 21, 2023 10:58PM

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

commit 79f5644cb937d950318c3c5ef2aca70ab1413119
Author: Marcello Galhardo <mgalhardo@google.com>
Date: Fri Jun 14 16:34:11 2024

Fix Lifecycle 2.8 custom ProGuard rule

* The custom ProGuard rule was not working as intended across all projects.
* Replacing by `public static *** getLocalLifecycleOwner();` (with the wildcard type `***`) seems to work consistently in all projects.

Fixes:

b/346808608

Test: manual
Change-Id: I4cfdecc0bbfc0be02d66efcee2c63bb5b025dca2

M lifecycle/lifecycle-runtime-compose/proguard-rules.pro

https://android-review.googlesource.com/3133056

bi...@google.com <bi...@google.com> #8Jun 21, 2023 11:56PM

Could you please make an immediate patch release as 2.8.2 crashes with the above exception?

Message last modified on Jun 21, 2023 11:57PM

jo...@google.com <jo...@google.com> #9Jun 22, 2023 03:32PM

comment#8:

These changes are scheduled to be included in our upcoming hot-fix release, version 2.8.3.

au...@google.com <au...@google.com> #10Jun 22, 2023 04:00PM

The following release(s) address this bug.It is possible this bug has only been partially addressed:

androidx.lifecycle:lifecycle-runtime-compose:2.8.3
androidx.lifecycle:lifecycle-runtime-compose-android:2.8.3
androidx.lifecycle:lifecycle-runtime-compose-desktop:2.8.3

jo...@google.com <jo...@google.com> #11Jun 22, 2023 05:03PM

It seems that Lifecycle 2.8.3 is not available on Google's Maven repository: https://maven.google.com/web/index.html#androidx.lifecycle:lifecycle-runtime-compose Any idea when it will be deployed?

au...@google.com <au...@google.com> #12Jun 22, 2023 05:05PM

comment#11:

There was a mix-up, and the Lifecycle 2.8.3 artifacts won't be available until Monday. Sorry for the false alarm.

sp...@google.com <sp...@google.com> #13Jun 22, 2023 05:08PM

Seems to be good now. Thanks!

bi...@google.com <bi...@google.com> #14Jun 22, 2023 06:43PM

Lifecycle 2.8.3 is now available on maven.google.com.

bi...@google.com <bi...@google.com> #15Jun 27, 2023 09:45PM

I'm still getting "java.lang.IllegalStateException: CompositionLocal LocalLifecycleOwner not present" with 2.8.3 in release builds (with obfuscation enabled). Adding

-keep class androidx.compose.ui.platform.AndroidCompositionLocals_androidKt { *; }

to my ProGuard rules fixes the issue. Any advice?

In my setup I have an app that's using the lifecycle dependencies directly, but some other dependencies of mine also include the same (and these libraries are obfuscated too) - not sure if this makes a difference.

jo...@google.com <jo...@google.com> Jun 28, 2023 04:38PM

Reassigned to jo...@google.com.

au...@google.com <au...@google.com> #16Jun 28, 2023 05:41PM

comment#15:

I'm unable to offer advice since I can't replicate the issue you're experiencing -- but based on your message, it appears Lifecycle "should" be working correctly.

Would you please create a separated issue and include a sample project that reproduces the problem you're encountering?

au...@google.com <au...@google.com> #17Jul 13, 2023 04:54PM