Fixed
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
si...@google.com
Please upload a sample project that reproduces this issue.
si...@google.com
si...@google.com
si...@google.com
There is no need. Just check DynamicGraphNavigator code and you will understand the problem with DynamicActivityNavigator.
Besides I pointed out to a class and made a screenshot of what is missing
Besides I pointed out to a class and made a screenshot of what is missing
si...@google.com
Also, making a sample project means testing in production, because dynamic feature modules are testable only after uploading to play market. We dont have any resources to do that
si...@google.com
Also check a screenshot please
si...@google.com
ap...@google.com
The way Dynamic Navigation has to handle activities is inherently different from other destinations so not returning there could possibly be intentional.
Is this something new that was caused by upgrading to 2.5.0? Or was it pre-existing?
si...@google.com
It is caused by upgrading from 2.3.0 to 2.5.0.
When we saw this issue we did a rollback to 2.3.5.
2.3.5 - the last version where this issue doesn't exist
When we saw this issue we did a rollback to 2.3.5.
2.3.5 - the last version where this issue doesn't exist
Description
CoreTextField(EditorValue, (EditorValue) -> Unit) (in ui.text)
TextField(EditorValue, (EditorValue) -> Unit) (in ui.foundation)
TextField(TextFieldValue, (TextFieldValue) -> Unit) (in ui.foundation)
FilledTextField(TextFieldValue, (TextFieldValue) -> Unit) (in ui.material)
FilledTextField(String, (String) -> Unit) (in ui.material)
EditorValue is the most powerful API, where every aspect of the text field is controllable, but also more cumbersome to use.
TextFieldValue is middle-weight, with only string value and selection controllable, but still a bit cumbersome to use
String is the least powerful API, but also the most convenient and powerful enough to satisfy the overwhelming majority of use cases.
My suggestion is to refactor these overloads to have each one fit into one of two overloads:
1. EditorValue-based (cumbersome, powerful)
2. String-based (convenient, useful)
The string-based variants would have an `onSelectionChanged: (Selection) -> Unit` parameter, but would not allow for a selection to be *controlled* (hence the past tense on the parameter name).
It seems to me like the need to control or listen to the selection state are both somewhat rare, but the need to control it is even more so. On the other hand, the need to control the text value is virtually 100% of the time. As a result, adding the overhead of the selection controllability in the common case feels wrong, since the times you might want to do that, the more powerful EditorValue API might be something you need to reach for anyway.
As a result, my proposal is to have the following APIs:
in ui.text:
fun CoreTextField(value: EditorValue, onValueChange: (EditorValue) -> Unit) (unchanged)
in ui.foundation:
fun TextField(EditorValue, (EditorValue) -> Unit) (unchanged)
fun TextField(value: String, onValueChange: (String) -> Unit, onSelectionChanged: (Selection) -> Unit)
in ui.material:
fun FilledTextField(EditorValue, (EditorValue) -> Unit)
fun FilledTextField(value: String, onValueChange: (String) -> Unit, onSelectionChanged: (Selection) -> Unit)