Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
di...@google.com
Thanks for the report. I will route this to the appropriate internal team and update this when I hear back from them.
ad...@gmail.com
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
"2022-06-12 18:47:15.156 1841-4562/? W/PackageManager: Intent does not match component's intent filter: Intent { act=com.google.android.gms.wearable.BIND_LISTENER"
jo...@gmail.com
sa...@google.com
+1, can confirm it doesn't work on Android 13:=
2022-07-15 11:26:15.023 589-5347 PackageManager pid-589 W Intent does not match component's intent filter: Intent { act=com.google.android.gms.wearable.BIND_LISTENER cmp=xxx/xxx.WatchMessageReceiver }
2022-07-15 11:26:15.023 589-5347 PackageManager pid-589 W Access blocked: ComponentInfo{xxx/xxx.WatchMessageReceiver}
2022-07-15 11:26:15.023 589-5347 ActivityManager pid-589 W Unable to start service Intent { act=com.google.android.gms.wearable.BIND_LISTENER cmp=xxx/xxx.WatchMessageReceiver } U=0: not found
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
Note that I've been able to make it work by:
- Adding
<action android:name="com.google.android.gms.wearable.BIND_LISTENER" />in the intent filter - Removing
<data android:scheme="wear" android:host="*" />
But I feel like this is not something we should do
ch...@gmail.com
I'm really afraid Android 13 might get released as-is, breaking WearOS app communication 😨😨
ga...@solidatus.com
If you're not targeting API 33 you're not affected by the bug. So it's a big bug, and yes we of course expected more from Google, but you can always target the api level later when it's fixed.
But I agree this is kind of desperating that more than 1.5 month after the first report nothing has changed.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
As an interim update on this issue: we've been already working on the fix that should be available by Android 13 release. The fix requires thorough testing, I'll keep this bug updated as soon as we have more to share. Thanks!
ro...@ferrum.net
@
Thank you for the update @
pa...@goglobal-consulting.com
Android 13 is out today and we still have no patch unlike what you said a month ago
ma...@myplane.io
d....@adcash.com
This issues has been already given high priority (updated external priority on this bug to reflect internal status). The fix is on the way and going through the final rounds of testing, so the roll out is slated to next couple of weeks.
To reiterate what have been mentioned earlier on this bug: this issue affects only apps targeting Android 13, so the apps won't break unless you bump targetSDK version to 33. In case if you want to start working on app compatibility for Android 13 behaviour changes, you could use
ms...@gmail.com
- The report is 2 months old
- Google chose to release Android 13 with that bug
- There's no mention of this bug on the documentation so you can totally bump your targetSdk without noticing it
So thank you guys for working on this but it's still not a valid excuse for taking that long for such an important issue. Now that being said, let us know when a fix is available
jb...@gmail.com
bi...@gmail.com
That must be some really intense testing as we are 10 days later and still nothing on sight. I don't want to be a P2 issue if that's what a P1 is.
zh...@google.com
mi...@sentry.io
mi...@sentry.io
ch...@google.com
ch...@google.com
je...@gmail.com
r....@altostratus.es
My bet is that Google still targets API 32 (or even lower) internally so they don't care and didn't even saw the issue before our report.
Description
What you would like to accomplish:
Scheduled Snapshots launched to BETA today:
In the process of enabling it for our VMs, I'd like to replicate our on-prem snapshot schedule, which is multi-tiered, e.g.
* Hourly with retention for 48 hours
* Daily with retention for 30 days
* Monthly with retention for 12 months
I was sad to discover that Cloud Console would only let me apply a single snapshot schedule to each disk, not multiple, so it wasn't possible to replicate the above schedule.
How this might work:
Ideally the selector for schedules against a disk would allow multiple to be chosen, applied against the disk separately.
If applicable, reasons why alternative solutions are not sufficient:
This was possible with the auto-snapshot scripts we were using previously, but going back to using those instead of the built-in schedule feature kind of defeats the object.