Status Update
Comments
am...@google.com <am...@google.com>
am...@google.com <am...@google.com> #2
This is a particularly hard device to come by - do you happen to have access to the device? If so could you provide us with the output of: adb shell dumpsys media.camera > info.txt
Thanks!
ca...@gmail.com <ca...@gmail.com> #3
Stacktrace:
Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Can not get supported output size under supported maximum for the format: 34
at androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSupportedOutputSizes(SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:355)
at androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSuggestedResolutions(SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:197)
at androidx.camera.camera2.internal.Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.getSuggestedResolutions(Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.java:198)
at androidx.camera.core.CameraX.calculateSuggestedResolutions(CameraX.java:943)
at androidx.camera.core.CameraX.bindToLifecycle(CameraX.java:293)
at androidx.camera.lifecycle.ProcessCameraProvider.bindToLifecycle(ProcessCameraProvider.java:227)
Below are some findings based on our debugging
When Dex is connected
previewConfig.getMaxResolution() is returning "731x411" as maxSize.
Inside Preview.Builder.build() -> Default_MAX_resolution is set to "CameraX.getSurfaceManager().getPreviewSize()" which is 731x411
this is being picked as maxSize.
While rendering maxSize is 731x411 and minSize is 640x480 and below are available outputSizes
0 = {Size@11860} "4032x3024"
1 = {Size@11861} "3984x2988"
2 = {Size@11862} "4032x2268"
3 = {Size@11863} "3024x3024"
4 = {Size@11864} "2976x2976"
5 = {Size@11865} "3840x2160"
6 = {Size@11866} "3264x2448"
7 = {Size@11867} "4032x1960"
8 = {Size@11868} "2880x2160"
9 = {Size@11869} "3264x1836"
10 = {Size@11870} "2160x2160"
11 = {Size@11871} "2560x1440"
12 = {Size@11872} "2224x1080"
13 = {Size@11873} "2048x1152"
14 = {Size@11874} "1920x1080"
15 = {Size@11875} "1440x1080"
16 = {Size@11876} "1088x1088"
17 = {Size@11877} "1280x720"
18 = {Size@11878} "1024x768"
19 = {Size@11879} "1056x704"
20 = {Size@11880} "960x720"
21 = {Size@11881} "960x540"
22 = {Size@11882} "720x720"
23 = {Size@11883} "800x450"
24 = {Size@11884} "720x480"
25 = {Size@11885} "640x480"
26 = {Size@11886} "352x288"
27 = {Size@11887} "320x240"
28 = {Size@11888} "256x144"
29 = {Size@11889} "176x144"
and couldn't find any size in this range.
When Dex not connected
minsize = 640x480
maxsize = 1920x1080
0 = {Size@11836} "4032x3024"
1 = {Size@11837} "3984x2988"
2 = {Size@11838} "4032x2268"
3 = {Size@11839} "3024x3024"
4 = {Size@11840} "2976x2976"
5 = {Size@11841} "3840x2160"
6 = {Size@11842} "3264x2448"
7 = {Size@11843} "4032x1960"
8 = {Size@11844} "2880x2160"
9 = {Size@11845} "3264x1836"
10 = {Size@11846} "2160x2160"
11 = {Size@11847} "2560x1440"
12 = {Size@11848} "2224x1080"
13 = {Size@11849} "2048x1152"
14 = {Size@11850} "1920x1080"
15 = {Size@11851} "1440x1080"
16 = {Size@11852} "1088x1088"
17 = {Size@11853} "1280x720"
18 = {Size@11854} "1024x768"
19 = {Size@11855} "1056x704"
20 = {Size@11856} "960x720"
21 = {Size@11857} "960x540"
22 = {Size@11858} "720x720"
23 = {Size@11859} "800x450"
24 = {Size@11860} "720x480"
25 = {Size@11861} "640x480"
26 = {Size@11862} "352x288"
27 = {Size@11863} "320x240"
28 = {Size@11864} "256x144"
29 = {Size@11865} "176x144"
and we have 12 available sizes in this range
Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.java:: getPreviewSize()
mCameraSupportedSurfaceCombinationMap.get(cameraId).getSurfaceDefinition().getPreviewSize() = "1920x1080"
cameraId=0
ki...@gmail.com <ki...@gmail.com> #4
The issue root cause is that CameraX will default filter out sizes smaller than 640x480. For Preview, the max size will be limited to under display size. I checked the HW spec info for the issue related devices. Display size of FUJITSU F-04J/F-05J is 360x640. That will result int that no size exists in the conditions that is larger or equal to 640x480 and smaller or equal to 360x640.
A temporary workaround for this situation is to use Preview.Builder#setTargetResolution() to set a size smaller than 640x480 to bypass the problem.
For device FUJITSU arrowsM04, I checked its HW spec info and its display size I found is 1280x720. It seems that the problem should not exist in the device.
Could you confirm that the problem exist on arrowsM04 device? What will be the returned value when using Display#getRealSize to obtain the display size?
am...@google.com <am...@google.com> #5
> A temporary workaround for this situation is to use Preview.Builder#setTargetResolution() to set a size smaller than 640x480 to bypass the problem.
OK. I will try it.
> Could you confirm that the problem exist on arrowsM04 device?
We receive the crash report (Crashlytics) that this crash has occurred on arrowsM04.
We don't have this device so we can't confirm that the problem really exist on arrowsM04.
> What will be the returned value when using Display#getRealSize to obtain the display size?
We can't investigate it for the same reason.
Thank you.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #6
This issue happened on devices that the display size is smaller than 640x480. In original auto-resolution mechanism, supported sizes smaller than 640x480 will be default filter out.
The auto-resolution mechanism encodes the guaranteed configurations tables in CameraDevice#createCaptureSession(SessionConfiguration). It defines that the PREVIEW size is the small one of the device display size and 1080p. The PREVIEW size will be the maximal size limitation for Preview use case. The reason it limits the size to display size and 1080p is the stream output in display size or 1080p has been able to provide good enough preview quality. Therefore, auto-resolution mechanism will limit the selected size to be smaller than the small one of the device display size and 1080p.
With above two conditions, in this issue, all sizes smaller than 640x480 have been filter out, therefore, there is no size smaller than the display size 320x240 can be selected to use. And cause the exception.
Solution:
When the display size is smaller than 640x480, auto-resolution mechanism won't filter out those small sizes smaller than 640x480. This makes those small size be left and can be selected for the Preview use case on small display devices.
The solution has been merged and will be included in next CameraX release.
lo...@gmail.com <lo...@gmail.com> #7
Hello.
This crash still occurs.
- CAMERAX VERSION: 1.0.0-beta4
- ANDROID OS BUILD NUMBER: Android 7.1.1
- DEVICE NAME: FUJITSU F-02H
We receive following crash report from FUJITSU F-02H. So far We have received this crash report only from F-02H.
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException
Can not get supported output size under supported maximum for the format: 34
androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSupportedOutputSizes (SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:349)
androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSuggestedResolutions (SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:197)
androidx.camera.camera2.internal.Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.getSuggestedResolutions (Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.java:198)
androidx.camera.core.CameraX.calculateSuggestedResolutions (CameraX.java:949)
androidx.camera.core.CameraX.bindToLifecycle (CameraX.java:351)
androidx.camera.lifecycle.ProcessCameraProvider.bindToLifecycle (ProcessCameraProvider.java:230)
(our application's package name).CameraFragment.bindCameraUseCases (CameraFragment.java:174)
t....@gmail.com <t....@gmail.com> #8
Could you help to provide the following information to clarify the issue?
1. Is the full name of the device Fujitsu Arrows NX F-02H that has a 1440x2560 display?
2. Please help to provide the supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE that is obtained by StreamConfigurationMap#getOutputSizes(int).
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #9
- Is the full name of the device Fujitsu Arrows NX F-02H that has a 1440x2560 display?
Yes
- Please help to provide the supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE that is obtained by StreamConfigurationMap#getOutputSizes(int).
Since we don't have this device, we'll try to collect this information in the next version of our app. The next version will be released later this month.
ad...@gmail.com <ad...@gmail.com> #10
Hello.
- Please help to provide the supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE that is obtained by StreamConfigurationMap#getOutputSizes(int).
We have collected the output of the device where the crash occurs.
Device1
- Model : arrows Be F-05J
- Android Version : 7.1.1
- Supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE
CameraId 0: 480x480
CameraId 1: 2048x1536 ,1920x1080 ,1280x720 ,960x720 ,640x480 ,320x240 ,176x144
Device2
- Model : Fujitsu arrows M04
- Android Version : 7.1.1
- Supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE
CameraId 0: 480x480
CameraId 1: 2048x1536 ,1920x1080 ,1280x720 ,960x720 ,640x480 ,320x240 ,176x144
Additional Information
CameraX version : 1.0.0-beta04
We collect the supported output sizes by following code.
val errorString = buildString {
append("The supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE: ")
(requireContext().getSystemService(Context.CAMERA_SERVICE) as CameraManager).apply {
cameraIdList.forEachIndexed { index, cameraId ->
val msg = if (VERSION.SDK_INT >= VERSION_CODES.M) {
val configurationMap =
getCameraCharacteristics(cameraId).get(CameraCharacteristics.SCALER_STREAM_CONFIGURATION_MAP)
val sizes = configurationMap?.getOutputSizes(ImageFormat.PRIVATE)
"CameraId $index: ${sizes?.joinToString(" ,")}"
} else {
"CameraId $index: This device version is under M."
}
append(msg)
}
}
}
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #11
ch...@google.com <ch...@google.com> #12
I tried to find the device specs and both 720x1280
size display. For the camera id 0 device, it is a different case that the display size is larger than 640x480
but the device only supports a 480x480
size. The case also caused the same IllegalArgumentException and was also fixed by 1.0.0-beta04
release. Before 480x480
size would be filtered out and then caused the IllegalArgumentException. After it was merged, the 640x480
size threshold was removed and then the 480x480
size would be kept and selected to use.
It looks like 1.0.0-beta04
release had been used to collect the supported sizes information. But the issue should have been fixed by 1.0.0-beta04
release. Did you only check the device model name to collect the supported sizes information or collect the information when the IllegalArgumentException issue happens again?
CameraX's 1.0.0-beta04
version. Maybe you can also consider to upgrade to the latest 1.0.0-rc01
version for your application. Thanks.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #13
Did you only check the device model name to collect the supported sizes information or collect the information when the IllegalArgumentException issue happens again?
We collect informations only from the device on which IllegalArgumentException happened.
Our latest app uses CameraX version 1.0.0-beta10
and this issue still occurres.
However we don't receive crash report from Fujitsu arrows Be F-05J
or Fujitsu arrows M04
so far. (This doesn't mean this issue is fixed on these devices because our app is heavily rely on camera so these device's user wouldn't use our app anymore.)
Instead, we receive crash report from
- Model : Fujitsu F-03K
- Android Version : 7.1.2
- Supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE
CameraId 0 : 480x480
CameraId 1 : 2048x1536 ,1920x1080 ,1280x720 ,960x720 ,640x480 ,320x240 ,176x144
ja...@gmail.com <ja...@gmail.com> #14
I missed some settings when I simulated the issue by robolectric test so that I was not able to reproduce it. Now, I can reproduce the issue if the device only supports one 480x480 resolution. I'm working on the solution and target to make it included in next release.
ch...@google.com <ch...@google.com> #15
Branch: androidx-main
commit 69d15dff7bb857ee33a0f643ff42a0f8bc475ab2
Author: charcoalchen <charcoalchen@google.com>
Date: Fri Jan 08 18:30:03 2021
Fixed IllegalArgumentException issue happened when all preview supported sizes are smaller than 640x480 and display size is larger than 640x480.
Do not filter out sizes smaller than 640x480 when all preview supported sizes are smaller than 640x480 and display size is larger than 640x480.
Relnote:"Fixed IllegalArgumentException issue happened when all preview supported sizes are smaller than 640x480 and display size is larger than 640x480."
Bug: 150506192
Test: SupportedSurfaceCombinationTest
Change-Id: I2a63ce8e2ad42a9cc060c8635ac3603bf440b1ec
M camera/camera-camera2/src/main/java/androidx/camera/camera2/internal/SupportedSurfaceCombination.java
M camera/camera-camera2/src/test/java/androidx/camera/camera2/internal/SupportedSurfaceCombinationTest.java
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #16
ch...@google.com <ch...@google.com> #17
@CoordinatorLayout.DefaultBehavior(FixAppBarLayoutBehavior.class)
public CustomAppBarLayout extends AppBarLayout {
// ....
}
That way, you do not have to mess around with your layouts or the LayoutParams.
am...@google.com <am...@google.com> #18
ar...@google.com <ar...@google.com> #19
az...@gmail.com <az...@gmail.com> #20
dg...@gmail.com <dg...@gmail.com> #21
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #22
jo...@gmail.com <jo...@gmail.com> #23
dr...@gmail.com <dr...@gmail.com> #24
fa...@gmail.com <fa...@gmail.com> #25
ps...@gmail.com <ps...@gmail.com> #26
dr...@gmail.com <dr...@gmail.com> #27
dr...@gmail.com <dr...@gmail.com> #28
al...@google.com <al...@google.com> #29
am...@google.com <am...@google.com> #30
ps...@gmail.com <ps...@gmail.com> #31
de...@gmail.com <de...@gmail.com> #32
de...@gmail.com <de...@gmail.com> #33
pr...@gmail.com <pr...@gmail.com> #34
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #35
ay...@gmail.com <ay...@gmail.com> #36
9g...@gmail.com <9g...@gmail.com> #37
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #38
za...@gmail.com <za...@gmail.com> #39
sh...@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> #40
ja...@gmail.com <ja...@gmail.com> #41
de...@gmail.com <de...@gmail.com> #42
pe...@gmail.com <pe...@gmail.com> #43
Hoping to see a proper solution, currently this is my workaround until then. Not the best workaround, but does work for me:
Override
public void onScrollStateChanged(final int state)
{
super.onScrollStateChanged(state);
if (state == RecyclerView.SCROLL_STATE_SETTLING)
{
this.stopScroll();
}
}
pe...@gmail.com <pe...@gmail.com> #44
hu...@gmail.com <hu...@gmail.com> #45
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #46
an...@gmail.com <an...@gmail.com> #47
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #49
ha...@gmail.com <ha...@gmail.com> #50
ri...@gmail.com <ri...@gmail.com> #51
fa...@gmail.com <fa...@gmail.com> #52
de...@gmail.com <de...@gmail.com> #53
au...@google.com <au...@google.com> #54
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #55
The issue is that after a fling event, the nested scrolling api has no way of informing the RecyclerView that a fling animation has reached the end of the scroll distance, and thus sometimes, the scroll animation is continuing in the background such that when the first tap occurs, it is interpreted as an interruption to the fling, which puts the RV back into its scrolling state as if the user started scrolling, and thus, the touch events don't propagate down to the child to cause a click to occur.
Some larger changes are needed to fix this (and at least one other) issue, and I'm in the midst of that work.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
za...@gmail.com <za...@gmail.com> #56
dr...@gmail.com <dr...@gmail.com> #57
May I ask in this version, fix this issue?
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #58
sp...@gmail.com <sp...@gmail.com> #59
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #60
When RecyclerView is flung, and it hits the bounds of it's scrollable distance and has a NestedScrollingParent, it continues to animate the fling so that the NestedScrollingParent might receive the events and scroll. RV has no way of knowing if any NestedScrollingParents have hit their bounds, and thus it continues the fling even if nothing is moving.
On top of that, when RV is flinging and is touched, it stops it's fling and prevents the touch event from causing a click, so that a touch meant to stop a fling doesn't cause a click.
Put those two things together and you get the perceived behavior that when an RV is flung, and stops, the next touch event doesn't click.
I'm pursuing a but can't make any promises as to when it will be available. Sorry for the inconvenience.
ha...@gmail.com <ha...@gmail.com> #61
pr...@gmail.com <pr...@gmail.com> #63
su...@gmail.com <su...@gmail.com> #64
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #65
ny...@gmail.com <ny...@gmail.com> #66
fa...@gmail.com <fa...@gmail.com> #67
le...@gmail.com <le...@gmail.com> #68
pi...@gmail.com <pi...@gmail.com> #69
yi...@gmail.com <yi...@gmail.com> #70
de...@gmail.com <de...@gmail.com> #71
t....@gmail.com <t....@gmail.com> #72
cn...@gmail.com <cn...@gmail.com> #73
za...@gmail.com <za...@gmail.com> #74
da...@gmail.com <da...@gmail.com> #75
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #76
ro...@gmail.com <ro...@gmail.com> #77
an...@googlemail.com <an...@googlemail.com> #78
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #79
I am actively solving this issue. In fact, the CL that makes the necessary changes in RecyclerView has been submitted to aosp (as AndroidX is now developed there):
The fix is coming by way of an update to nested scrolling and thus need to be implemented across multiple classes. For example, for the issue to be fixed when a RecyclerView is in a CoordinatorLayout with the AppBarLayout.Behavior, implementation has to be done in each of those classes.
Unfortunately the rollout of these changes is also going to take some time, but do know that we are taking as seriously as we can.
fr...@gmail.com <fr...@gmail.com> #80
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #81
sh...@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> #83
I've tried both java and xml ways but in vain.
Checked on emulator running on 5.0 and physical device running on 7.1.1
Any ideas ?
sh...@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> #84
ss...@gmail.com <ss...@gmail.com> #85
am...@gmail.com <am...@gmail.com> #87
am...@google.com <am...@google.com>
pa...@gmail.com <pa...@gmail.com> #88
Dear Google developers, can you please take it on priority?
we...@gmail.com <we...@gmail.com> #89
kp...@gmail.com <kp...@gmail.com> #90
I think it is related with NestedScrollingChild3 and NestedScrollingParent3 and since 1.1.0-alpha01 RecyclerView and CoordinatorLayout implements those.
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #91
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #92
androidx.core 1.1.0-alpha01
androidx.appcompat 1.1.0-alpha01
androidx.coordinatorlayout 1.1.0-alpha01
androidx.recyclerview 1.1.0-alpha01
androidx.swiperefreshlayout 1.1.0-alpha01
(and an upcoming release of the android material design library)
This issue should be fixed!
I'm closing it, but do let me know if it seems to still be happening!
pa...@outlook.com <pa...@outlook.com> #93
This is a BottomSheet with a NestedScrollView, it does not contain any RecyclerView:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<androidx.coordinatorlayout.widget.CoordinatorLayout
xmlns:android="
xmlns:app="
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="match_parent"
android:clipChildren="false">
<com.google.android.material.appbar.AppBarLayout
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="wrap_content">
<!--Other views and tested with and without a Toolbar inside-->
</com.google.android.material.appbar.AppBarLayout>
<androidx.core.widget.NestedScrollView
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="match_parent"
android:background="@color/white"
app:layout_behavior="@string/appbar_scrolling_view_behavior">
<LinearLayout
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
android:orientation="vertical"
android:paddingBottom="8dp"
android:paddingTop="8dp">
<!--Enough views to create a scrollable area-->
</LinearLayout>
</androidx.core.widget.NestedScrollView>
</androidx.coordinatorlayout.widget.CoordinatorLayout>
In this scenario (with or without a Toolbar view in the AppBarLayout parent) whenever you scroll the NestedScrollView to the top or to the bottom and try to tap on any items inside the LinearLayout the first tap will always fail to initiate the expected action, forcing you to do a second tap since after the first one the taps start working. This happens whenever you scroll to the top or bottom of the NestedScrollView every single time, even after you tap for a second or n times.
I am using the library versions or most up to date (a couple were already updated since then) the Assignee listed in his last reply.
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #94
There isn't a public bug that I'm aware of that is tracking that precise work, but know that your specific issue will be fixed in an upcoming release of the Android Material Design library.
pa...@outlook.com <pa...@outlook.com> #95
me...@google.com <me...@google.com> #96
yq...@gmail.com <yq...@gmail.com> #97
pv...@gmail.com <pv...@gmail.com> #98
recyclerview-v7:28.0.0
vz...@gmail.com <vz...@gmail.com> #99
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #100
The AndroidX version of RecyclerView picks up where that version left off and is currently supported:
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #101
sa...@gmail.com <sa...@gmail.com> #102
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #103
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #104
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #105
te...@gmail.com <te...@gmail.com> #106
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #107
ma...@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> #108
ma...@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> #109
but it's working fine if I double tap it quickly
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #110
bo...@gmail.com <bo...@gmail.com> #111
Updated my AndroidX dependencies and fixed the issue with appbarlayout/bottomnav/recyclerview. Did not try out MotionLayout
Description
Version used: 26.0.2
Theme used: Theme.AppCompat.NoActionBar
Devices/Android versions reproduced on: AVD API 25
I just upgraded to API 26 and support library 26.0.2. But I found that my RecyclerView items is not clickable right after the scrolling. If you wait for a second, it will work. But if you click the item immediately, it won't. Even if the RecyclerView is not scrolling at all(e.g. has scrolled to the top).
When I downgraded to support library 25.4.0 everything goes fine again. The key point is that my RecyclerView is in a CoordinatorLayout and has a SCROLL_FLAG_SCROLL flag on my Toolbar of the AppBarLayout. If I don't use this flag, then this problem will disappear.
I've tried to add focusable="false" to the CoordinatorLayout but still had no luck.
Is there any way to disable this behavior? Because it's really annoying to click twice to trigger the click event.
I think the problem is the scrollState of the RecyclerView. When it's stopped scrolling, it's not changed to SCROLL_STATE_IDLE immediately. Looking into the source code of RecyclerView, I found there's a ViewFlinger controlling the scroll state. When I fling down to scroll to the top, it's not calling setScrollState(SCROLL_STATE_IDLE) immediately. Instead, it wait for a while to trigger this method. The more fast I fling, the more time I need to wait. It just like the RecyclerView is still scrolling in the background. Because the scroller.isFinished() doesn't return true right after the RecyclerView stop scrolling when it touched the top. Maybe it's a bug of the RecyclerView when it's in a CoordinatorLayout.
The attachment is a screen recording of this behavior.
<android.support.design.widget.CoordinatorLayout
android:id="@+id/coordinateLayout"
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="match_parent">
<android.support.design.widget.AppBarLayout
android:id="@+id/fragmentAppBar"
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
app:elevation="0dp"
android:background="@null">
<include
android:id="@+id/dynamicActionBarHolder"
layout="@layout/dynamic_action_bar"/>
</android.support.design.widget.AppBarLayout>
<android.support.v4.widget.SwipeRefreshLayout
android:id="@+id/pullToRefreshMailRecycler"
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="match_parent"
app:layout_behavior="@string/appbar_scrolling_view_behavior">
<android.support.v7.widget.RecyclerView
android:id="@+id/mailRecyclerView"
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="match_parent"/>
</android.support.v4.widget.SwipeRefreshLayout>
</android.support.design.widget.CoordinatorLayout>
layout/dynamic_action_bar.xml
<FrameLayout xmlns:android="
xmlns:app="
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="?attr/actionBarSize"
app:layout_scrollFlags="scroll"
android:clickable="true"
android:background="?theme.dynamicActionBarBackground">
<ImageButton
android:id="@+id/dynamicAcbMenuIcon"
android:layout_width="?attr/actionBarSize"
android:layout_height="?attr/actionBarSize"
android:background="@drawable/article_explicit_button_background"
android:src="?theme.menuIcon"/>
<RelativeLayout
android:id="@+id/dynamicAcbTitleHolder"
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
android:layout_marginStart="?attr/actionBarSize"
android:paddingTop="5dp"
android:paddingBottom="5dp"
android:paddingEnd="5dp"
android:layout_gravity="center_vertical">
<TextView
android:id="@+id/dynamicAcbTitle"
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
android:singleLine="true"
android:textSize="@dimen/action_bar_title_portrait_size"
android:textColor="?theme.listItemTitleColor"
android:ellipsize="end"
android:text="ActionBar"/>
<TextView
android:id="@+id/dynamicAcbSubtitle"
android:layout_below="@+id/dynamicAcbTitle"
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
android:singleLine="true"
android:textSize="@dimen/action_bar_subtitle_portrait_size"
android:textColor="?theme.listItemTitleColor"
android:ellipsize="end"
android:text="If you say so"/>
</RelativeLayout>
</FrameLayout>