AndroidX Navigation 2.6.0 broke dynamic app bar title for non String arguments [316676794]

Fixed

Bug

Status Update

No update yet.

Description

si...@gmail.com

created issue #1

Dec 16, 2023 04:56PM

Component used: Navigation
Version used: androidx.navigation:navigation-*:2.6.0 and above
Devices/Android versions reproduced on: Not applicable

This commit b1ac7d6 introduced a regression in how the title is dynamically rendered, and more precisely how the Bundle containing parameters is accessed.

Previously, it used the default Bundle.get(key) method:

if (argType == NavType.ReferenceType) {
    val value = context.resources.getString(arguments[argName] as Int)
    title.append(value)
} else {
    title.append(arguments[argName].toString())
}

But after this commit, it now uses Bundle.getString(key):

if (argType == NavType.ReferenceType) {
    val value = context.getString(bundle.getInt(argName))
    builder.append(value)
} else {
    builder.append(bundle.getString(argName))
}

Unfortunately, this breaks basic usage, with other types than String, since Bundle.getString(key) will return null.

Here is a very simple example:

<navigation>
    <fragment android:label="Album #{albumId}">
        <argument android:name="albumId" app:argType="long" />
    </fragment>
</navigation>

Previously it would have correctly set the title to "Album #42" (for example).
But since this update, it will render "Album #null"!

Comments

si...@gmail.com <si...@gmail.com> #2Dec 16, 2023 05:20PM

This is with the latest CameraX 1.1.0-beta03.

il...@google.com <il...@google.com> Dec 19, 2023 09:37PM

Assigned to il...@google.com.

ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #3Dec 19, 2023 10:21PM

Marked as fixed.

Thanks for reporting the issue. We will look into the bug and update here soon.

il...@google.com <il...@google.com> #4Dec 19, 2023 10:26PM

We will catch this exception while clarify what is going wrong in the meantime.

Hi Shuzen
We've got this public issue from developers where querying CameraCharacteristics.CONTROL_ZOOM_RATIO_RANGE seems to cause crash on some cheap devices in India.
Is this because these cheap devices do not pass CTS ?

si...@gmail.com <si...@gmail.com> #5Dec 19, 2023 10:44PM

Is it possible to get a bugreport from those devices?

na...@google.com <na...@google.com> #6Jan 24, 2024 07:53PM

One of our project members can potentially get their hands on one of these devices but we currently don't have access to one. It's probably a lot easier for you folks to get one since we can't really afford to buy phones.

Ideally you could get some of these cheap Indian/Chinese phones for the CameraX device lab.

This Jio device is Google certified but in my experience most non-Pixel phones are pretty far from genuinely passing the CTS and have a lot of failures that aren't just flaky tests. I'm not sure how they get their devices certified but apparently there are waivers. Google doesn't do the certification but rather third parties do, and it's possible they're simply cutting corners or acting in a corrupt way. Usually there are a lot of failing CTS Camera tests. It doesn't help that a lot of those CTS Camera tests are super flaky without a high quality device and a proper testing setup with proper lightning, etc. They can still fail from flakiness even with that setup. Probably why they can so easily skip meeting these requirements, since the certification companies are used to flaky / failing tests and aren't really doing their job properly.

si...@gmail.com <si...@gmail.com> #7Jan 27, 2024 11:57AM

We have a project member in India who could buy one of these phones and since they're so cheap (around $80 or something) I could cover that but in general I don't really want to be buying phones we don't really need.

il...@google.com <il...@google.com> #8Jan 31, 2024 12:08AM

Hi ,

Thanks for the informations. You are right, it's possible that the devices are not genuinely passing the CTS.
Regardless, we will fix this in CameraX. (Thanks for letting us know BTW)
We will also try to get one of these device to test if there are other issues.

Scott

si...@gmail.com <si...@gmail.com> #9Feb 3, 2024 09:01AM

This crash looks similar to the one in b/216667482. We might want to do a similar workaround here.

il...@google.com <il...@google.com> #10Feb 5, 2024 10:58PM

It seems there are two approaches
1) Fix it generally
2) Have a quirk for this, only enable the fix when device has this quirk.

The problem with the quirk is that it is too easy to miss some other devices that have this issue too.
Having a general fallback that works reasonably can fix the issue for all problematic devices.
(In these two cases, they are both reasonable to return false if the key access failed)

But I do think it has benefits to have a quirk so that we know exactly what workaround we handled in CameraX.

Maybe , we can have a type of quirk or workaround that we apply generally for all devices ?

WDYT?

ju...@gmail.com <ju...@gmail.com> #11Dec 2, 2024 05:47PM

I had similar considerations while adding the try-catch code (aosp/2092403). I want to have a quirk to document the workaround we made, but it would be a little weird that the quirk should always return true on the device quirk check. I was wondering if it is possible to have another type of quirk, e.g. a function with comment in quirk format.