Fixed
Status Update
Comments
li...@gmail.com <li...@gmail.com> #2
Yigit, do you have time to fix it?
reemission of the same liveData is racy
reemission of the same liveData is racy
se...@google.com <se...@google.com>
il...@google.com <il...@google.com> #3
yea i'll take it.
ug...@gmail.com <ug...@gmail.com> #4
Thanks for the detailed analysis. This may not be an issue anymore since we've started using Main.immediate there but I' not sure; I'll try to create a test case.
bo...@gmail.com <bo...@gmail.com> #5
just emitting same live data reproduces the issue.
@Test
fun raceTest() {
val subLiveData = MutableLiveData(1)
val subject = liveData(testScope.coroutineContext) {
emitSource(subLiveData)
emitSource(subLiveData) //crashes
}
subject.addObserver().apply {
testScope.advanceUntilIdle()
}
}
@Test
fun raceTest() {
val subLiveData = MutableLiveData(1)
val subject = liveData(testScope.coroutineContext) {
emitSource(subLiveData)
emitSource(subLiveData) //crashes
}
subject.addObserver().apply {
testScope.advanceUntilIdle()
}
}
il...@google.com <il...@google.com>
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #6
With 2.2.0-alpha04 (that use Main.immediate), the issue seems to be still there (I tested it by calling emitSource() twice, like your test case)
ra...@gtempaccount.com <ra...@gtempaccount.com> #7
yea sorry immediate does not fix it.
I actually have a WIP fix for it:
https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/frameworks/support/+/1112186
if your case is the one i found (emitting same LiveData multiple times, as shown in #5) you can work around it by adding a dummy transformation.
val subLiveData = MutableLiveData(1)
val subject = liveData(testScope.coroutineContext) {
emitSource(subLiveData.map {it })
emitSource(subLiveData.map {it} )
}
I actually have a WIP fix for it:
if your case is the one i found (emitting same LiveData multiple times, as shown in #5) you can work around it by adding a dummy transformation.
val subLiveData = MutableLiveData(1)
val subject = liveData(testScope.coroutineContext) {
emitSource(subLiveData.map {it })
emitSource(subLiveData.map {it} )
}
jo...@gmail.com <jo...@gmail.com> #8
Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit af12e75e6b4110f48e44ca121466943909de8f06
Author: Yigit Boyar <yboyar@google.com>
Date: Tue Sep 03 12:58:11 2019
Fix coroutine livedata race condition
This CL fixes a bug in liveData builder where emitting same
LiveData source twice would make it crash because the second
emission registry could possibly happen before first one is
removed as source.
We fix it by using a suspending dispose function. It does feel
a bit hacky but we cannot make DisposableHandle.dispose async
and we do not want to block there. This does not mean that there
is a problem if developer disposes it manually since our emit
functions take care of making sure it disposes (and there is
no other way to add source to the underlying MediatorLiveData)
Bug: 140249349
Test: BuildLiveDataTest#raceTest_*
Change-Id: I0b464c242a583da4669af195cf2504e2adc4de40
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/2.2.0-alpha05.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/current.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/public_plus_experimental_2.2.0-alpha05.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/public_plus_experimental_current.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/restricted_2.2.0-alpha05.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/restricted_current.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/src/main/java/androidx/lifecycle/CoroutineLiveData.kt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/src/test/java/androidx/lifecycle/BuildLiveDataTest.kt
https://android-review.googlesource.com/1112186
https://goto.google.com/android-sha1/af12e75e6b4110f48e44ca121466943909de8f06
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit af12e75e6b4110f48e44ca121466943909de8f06
Author: Yigit Boyar <yboyar@google.com>
Date: Tue Sep 03 12:58:11 2019
Fix coroutine livedata race condition
This CL fixes a bug in liveData builder where emitting same
LiveData source twice would make it crash because the second
emission registry could possibly happen before first one is
removed as source.
We fix it by using a suspending dispose function. It does feel
a bit hacky but we cannot make DisposableHandle.dispose async
and we do not want to block there. This does not mean that there
is a problem if developer disposes it manually since our emit
functions take care of making sure it disposes (and there is
no other way to add source to the underlying MediatorLiveData)
Bug: 140249349
Test: BuildLiveDataTest#raceTest_*
Change-Id: I0b464c242a583da4669af195cf2504e2adc4de40
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/2.2.0-alpha05.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/current.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/public_plus_experimental_2.2.0-alpha05.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/public_plus_experimental_current.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/restricted_2.2.0-alpha05.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/restricted_current.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/src/main/java/androidx/lifecycle/CoroutineLiveData.kt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/src/test/java/androidx/lifecycle/BuildLiveDataTest.kt
jb...@google.com <jb...@google.com>
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #9
Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit 9f9de42fa23c3da48bc71bc2d6ab7f0f20cdb532
Author: Jeremy Woods <jbwoods@google.com>
Date: Mon Aug 26 08:49:52 2019
Fix incorrect pop animation in multiple transactions
When a fragment is added by a pop and then removed in back to back
transactions, we should use a normal exit animation instead of a popExit
animation.
This change keeps track of the first Fragment being visibly removed
(remove, hide, or detach) in a set of FragmentTransactions. It passes
the animations of subsequent removing fragments to the one that will be
visible when the animation is executed. The Fragments are tracked by a
tag on their container.
Test: all tests pass, and tested in app
Bug: 111659726
Change-Id: I18eefc2fdb4fc4c27c467212cc2e68beb20ea00b
M fragment/fragment/src/main/java/androidx/fragment/app/FragmentManager.java
M fragment/fragment/src/main/res/values/ids.xml
https://android-review.googlesource.com/970127
https://goto.google.com/android-sha1/9f9de42fa23c3da48bc71bc2d6ab7f0f20cdb532
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit 9f9de42fa23c3da48bc71bc2d6ab7f0f20cdb532
Author: Jeremy Woods <jbwoods@google.com>
Date: Mon Aug 26 08:49:52 2019
Fix incorrect pop animation in multiple transactions
When a fragment is added by a pop and then removed in back to back
transactions, we should use a normal exit animation instead of a popExit
animation.
This change keeps track of the first Fragment being visibly removed
(remove, hide, or detach) in a set of FragmentTransactions. It passes
the animations of subsequent removing fragments to the one that will be
visible when the animation is executed. The Fragments are tracked by a
tag on their container.
Test: all tests pass, and tested in app
Bug: 111659726
Change-Id: I18eefc2fdb4fc4c27c467212cc2e68beb20ea00b
M fragment/fragment/src/main/java/androidx/fragment/app/FragmentManager.java
M fragment/fragment/src/main/res/values/ids.xml
jb...@google.com <jb...@google.com> #10
This has been fixed internally and will be available in the Fragment 1.2.0-alpha03 release.
Description
Version used: 1.0.0-alpha03
Devices/Android versions reproduced on: All
The attached sample project consists of three fragments: Step1, Step2, Step3
Step1 can navigate to two destinations (both are Step2 fragment).
Both Step2 destinations has an action to go to Step3. The destination with a problem action has popUpTo set to Step1.
All actions have the same transition animations set.
When tapping next on Step2 (on destination with navigation action with popUpTo=Step1) the Step2 fragment is being animated the wrong way.