Status Update
Comments
te...@gmail.com <te...@gmail.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!
ad...@google.com <ad...@google.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
ph...@gmail.com <ph...@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?
ph...@gmail.com <ph...@gmail.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.
ph...@gmail.com <ph...@gmail.com> #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.
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.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)
ad...@google.com <ad...@google.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).
vi...@google.com <vi...@google.com> #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.
vg...@gmail.com <vg...@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)
}
}
}
vi...@google.com <vi...@google.com> #11
vi...@google.com <vi...@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.
vi...@google.com <vi...@google.com> #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
fi...@google.com <fi...@google.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.
an...@lifesense.com <an...@lifesense.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
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #16
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #17
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit 49b601979ebccb8fcc6b8d670b79ae1c5f818dbf
Author: Kolin Krewinkel <kkrewink@fb.com>
Date: Mon Jun 29 19:47:11 2020
[StaggeredGridLayoutManager] Avoid OutOfBounds exception during mutations if SpanLookup data structure has not yet been lengthened
**Background**
A use case within our app ran into this issue frequently as a result of inserting items between a set of full span items. We applied numerous band-aids (clearing of the span cache, filler items, etc.), but those had a bunch of unintended side-effects.
- Within the code, my first approach was to limit the array fill to `MIN(length, position)`, but that really didn't feel like the right fix.
- Digging deeper, I found that the position being extended to with `ensureSize()` did not factor in the maximum extent of items in `mData` or `mFullSpanItems` (which do not necessarily have the same "cap" in terms of position / length).
- A fix that I tried relating to this was to always `ensureSize()` for mData's length, but that results in expontential growth because of the fact that mData's length ≠ number of items.
- To keep it simple, I realized the easiest thing to do is just ensure that mData is large enough for the `item count` we're supposed to be displaying.
- Through discussion in review, we ended up reverting to the simpler version using `MIN()`.
Note that the test case does something which I *think* is pretty uncommon in vanilla adapters, but is the case for us when using it paired with Litho. That was the easiest repro case for me to arrive at, but I'm sure there are others.
Bug:122303625
Bug:74877618
Bug:160193663
Bug:37086625
Test: New test case in StaggeredGridLayoutManagerTest validates that the `Arrays.fill()` invocation does not lead to a crash.
Change-Id: Iab0a1220b4eae8f2b184822d518c6d696c278b19
M recyclerview/recyclerview/src/androidTest/java/androidx/recyclerview/widget/StaggeredGridLayoutManagerTest.java
M recyclerview/recyclerview/src/main/java/androidx/recyclerview/widget/StaggeredGridLayoutManager.java
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #18
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit 49b601979ebccb8fcc6b8d670b79ae1c5f818dbf
Author: Kolin Krewinkel <kkrewink@fb.com>
Date: Mon Jun 29 19:47:11 2020
[StaggeredGridLayoutManager] Avoid OutOfBounds exception during mutations if SpanLookup data structure has not yet been lengthened
**Background**
A use case within our app ran into this issue frequently as a result of inserting items between a set of full span items. We applied numerous band-aids (clearing of the span cache, filler items, etc.), but those had a bunch of unintended side-effects.
- Within the code, my first approach was to limit the array fill to `MIN(length, position)`, but that really didn't feel like the right fix.
- Digging deeper, I found that the position being extended to with `ensureSize()` did not factor in the maximum extent of items in `mData` or `mFullSpanItems` (which do not necessarily have the same "cap" in terms of position / length).
- A fix that I tried relating to this was to always `ensureSize()` for mData's length, but that results in expontential growth because of the fact that mData's length ≠ number of items.
- To keep it simple, I realized the easiest thing to do is just ensure that mData is large enough for the `item count` we're supposed to be displaying.
- Through discussion in review, we ended up reverting to the simpler version using `MIN()`.
Note that the test case does something which I *think* is pretty uncommon in vanilla adapters, but is the case for us when using it paired with Litho. That was the easiest repro case for me to arrive at, but I'm sure there are others.
Bug:122303625
Bug:74877618
Bug:160193663
Bug:37086625
Test: New test case in StaggeredGridLayoutManagerTest validates that the `Arrays.fill()` invocation does not lead to a crash.
Change-Id: Iab0a1220b4eae8f2b184822d518c6d696c278b19
M recyclerview/recyclerview/src/androidTest/java/androidx/recyclerview/widget/StaggeredGridLayoutManagerTest.java
M recyclerview/recyclerview/src/main/java/androidx/recyclerview/widget/StaggeredGridLayoutManager.java
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #19
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit 49b601979ebccb8fcc6b8d670b79ae1c5f818dbf
Author: Kolin Krewinkel <kkrewink@fb.com>
Date: Mon Jun 29 19:47:11 2020
[StaggeredGridLayoutManager] Avoid OutOfBounds exception during mutations if SpanLookup data structure has not yet been lengthened
**Background**
A use case within our app ran into this issue frequently as a result of inserting items between a set of full span items. We applied numerous band-aids (clearing of the span cache, filler items, etc.), but those had a bunch of unintended side-effects.
- Within the code, my first approach was to limit the array fill to `MIN(length, position)`, but that really didn't feel like the right fix.
- Digging deeper, I found that the position being extended to with `ensureSize()` did not factor in the maximum extent of items in `mData` or `mFullSpanItems` (which do not necessarily have the same "cap" in terms of position / length).
- A fix that I tried relating to this was to always `ensureSize()` for mData's length, but that results in expontential growth because of the fact that mData's length ≠ number of items.
- To keep it simple, I realized the easiest thing to do is just ensure that mData is large enough for the `item count` we're supposed to be displaying.
- Through discussion in review, we ended up reverting to the simpler version using `MIN()`.
Note that the test case does something which I *think* is pretty uncommon in vanilla adapters, but is the case for us when using it paired with Litho. That was the easiest repro case for me to arrive at, but I'm sure there are others.
Bug:122303625
Bug:74877618
Bug:160193663
Bug:37086625
Test: New test case in StaggeredGridLayoutManagerTest validates that the `Arrays.fill()` invocation does not lead to a crash.
Change-Id: Iab0a1220b4eae8f2b184822d518c6d696c278b19
M recyclerview/recyclerview/src/androidTest/java/androidx/recyclerview/widget/StaggeredGridLayoutManagerTest.java
M recyclerview/recyclerview/src/main/java/androidx/recyclerview/widget/StaggeredGridLayoutManager.java
Description
NOTE: The device resolution is important because the number of elements visible and the number of elements added to the RecyclerView is specific. Please run this on an emulator of 1080x1920 (confirmed on Pixel API 27 and Nexus 5 API 25).
Repro steps:
1. Create an emulator with 1080x1920.
2. Launch the StaggeredBug sample on the emulator.
3. Click the button at the bottom of the view.
Callstack:
java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: Array index out of range: 13
at java.util.Arrays.rangeCheck(Arrays.java:1598)
at java.util.Arrays.fill(Arrays.java:2928)
at androidx.recyclerview.widget.StaggeredGridLayoutManager$LazySpanLookup.invalidateAfter(StaggeredGridLayoutManager.java:2878)
at androidx.recyclerview.widget.StaggeredGridLayoutManager.handleUpdate(StaggeredGridLayoutManager.java:1550)
at androidx.recyclerview.widget.StaggeredGridLayoutManager.onItemsUpdated(StaggeredGridLayoutManager.java:1526)
at androidx.recyclerview.widget.RecyclerView$6.dispatchUpdate(RecyclerView.java:1016)
at androidx.recyclerview.widget.RecyclerView$6.onDispatchSecondPass(RecyclerView.java:1027)
at androidx.recyclerview.widget.AdapterHelper.consumePostponedUpdates(AdapterHelper.java:121)
at androidx.recyclerview.widget.AdapterHelper.consumeUpdatesInOnePass(AdapterHelper.java:557)
at androidx.recyclerview.widget.RecyclerView.dispatchLayoutStep2(RecyclerView.java:3918)
at androidx.recyclerview.widget.RecyclerView.dispatchLayout(RecyclerView.java:3641)
at androidx.recyclerview.widget.RecyclerView.onLayout(RecyclerView.java:4194)
at android.view.View.layout(View.java:17637)
at android.view.ViewGroup.layout(ViewGroup.java:5575)
at android.widget.LinearLayout.setChildFrame(LinearLayout.java:1741)
at android.widget.LinearLayout.layoutVertical(LinearLayout.java:1585)
at android.widget.LinearLayout.onLayout(LinearLayout.java:1494)
at android.view.View.layout(View.java:17637)
at android.view.ViewGroup.layout(ViewGroup.java:5575)
at android.widget.FrameLayout.layoutChildren(FrameLayout.java:323)
at android.widget.FrameLayout.onLayout(FrameLayout.java:261)
at android.view.View.layout(View.java:17637)
at android.view.ViewGroup.layout(ViewGroup.java:5575)
at androidx.appcompat.widget.ActionBarOverlayLayout.onLayout(ActionBarOverlayLayout.java:444)
at android.view.View.layout(View.java:17637)
at android.view.ViewGroup.layout(ViewGroup.java:5575)
at android.widget.FrameLayout.layoutChildren(FrameLayout.java:323)
at android.widget.FrameLayout.onLayout(FrameLayout.java:261)
at android.view.View.layout(View.java:17637)
at android.view.ViewGroup.layout(ViewGroup.java:5575)
at android.widget.LinearLayout.setChildFrame(LinearLayout.java:1741)
at android.widget.LinearLayout.layoutVertical(LinearLayout.java:1585)
at android.widget.LinearLayout.onLayout(LinearLayout.java:1494)
at android.view.View.layout(View.java:17637)
at android.view.ViewGroup.layout(ViewGroup.java:5575)
at android.widget.FrameLayout.layoutChildren(FrameLayout.java:323)
at android.widget.FrameLayout.onLayout(FrameLayout.java:261)
at com.android.internal.policy.DecorView.onLayout(DecorView.java:726)
at android.view.View.layout(View.java:17637)
at android.view.ViewGroup.layout(ViewGroup.java:5575)
at android.view.ViewRootImpl.performLayout(ViewRootImpl.java:2346)
at android.view.ViewRootImpl.performTraversals(ViewRootImpl.java:2068)
at android.view.ViewRootImpl.doTraversal(ViewRootImpl.java:1254)
at android.view.ViewRootImpl$TraversalRunnable.run(ViewRootImpl.java:6337)
at android.view.Choreographer$CallbackRecord.run(Choreographer.java:874)
at android.view.Choreographer.doCallbacks(Choreographer.java:686)
at android.view.Choreographer.doFrame(Choreographer.java:621)
at android.view.Choreographer$FrameDisplayEventReceiver.run(Choreographer.java:860)
at android.os.Handler.handleCallback(Handler.java:751)
at android.os.Handler.dispatchMessage(Handler.java:95)
at android.os.Looper.loop(Looper.java:154)
at android.app.ActivityThread.main(ActivityThread.java:6119)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Native Method)
at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit$MethodAndArgsCaller.run(ZygoteInit.java:886)
at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main(ZygoteInit.java:776)
Application terminated.
It seems like the call to ensureSize(positionStart + itemCount) in offsetForAddition isn't correct; maybe something like ensureSize(mFullSpanItems.size() + itemCount)?
To describe what's happening in the sample, clicking the button adds a chunk of elements to the ListAdapter but also modifies an existing element. The real-world use case is a list of category headers which expand when clicked. After applying the two changes to the adapter, the DiffUtil is creating two ops of [ADD, UPDATE]. The ADD operation modifies mFullSpanItems.mPosition to be something like [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14]. The op also tries to ensure that mData is large enough but instead does nothing. The UPDATE op then does an array copy by utilizing the mPosition values from the previous op. These mPosition values are outside the bounds of the array.