Fixed
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
du...@google.com
In SystemJobService, it can expect null, and able to tolerance null from WorkManagerImpl.getInstance, due to auto-backup reason.
@Override
public void onCreate() {
super.onCreate();
mWorkManagerImpl = WorkManagerImpl.getInstance(getApplicationContext());
if (mWorkManagerImpl == null) {
// This can occur if...
// 1. The app is performing an auto-backup. Prior to O, JobScheduler could erroneously
// try to send commands to JobService in this state (
// Application#onCreate nor ContentProviders have run, WorkManager won't be
// initialized. In this case, we should ignore all JobScheduler commands and tell it
// to retry.
But, current WorkManagerImpl.getInstance(Context context) implementation is that, it will never return null but throw IllegalStateException.
Isn't there's conflict among these 2 SystemJobService.onCreate logic, and WorkManagerImpl.getInstance logic?
@Override
public void onCreate() {
super.onCreate();
mWorkManagerImpl = WorkManagerImpl.getInstance(getApplicationContext());
if (mWorkManagerImpl == null) {
// This can occur if...
// 1. The app is performing an auto-backup. Prior to O, JobScheduler could erroneously
// try to send commands to JobService in this state (
// Application#onCreate nor ContentProviders have run, WorkManager won't be
// initialized. In this case, we should ignore all JobScheduler commands and tell it
// to retry.
But, current WorkManagerImpl.getInstance(Context context) implementation is that, it will never return null but throw IllegalStateException.
Isn't there's conflict among these 2 SystemJobService.onCreate logic, and WorkManagerImpl.getInstance logic?
du...@google.com
Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit e14104eb7008f82edd50b37e16bd119b307e0554
Author: Sumir Kataria <sumir@google.com>
Date: Mon Jun 24 10:50:57 2019
Fix for JobScheduler calls when backup is in progress.
The original fix (ag/Ia1604b7c4b98f6b31869e1161a0c1efce7fe46f2) relied
on a null-check, but the new version of WorkManager.getInstance(Context)
with the Context param doesn't return null; it throws an Exception. This
CL updates the three places where we explicitly check for the return value
internally:
1. SystemJobService (the main place where this would manifest)
2. RescheduleReceiver
3. WorkManagerTestInitHelper (for consistency)
Fixes: 135858602
Test: Ran existing tests
Change-Id: Ia232869712d0c78fd80e91d0a863b8c50a080400
M work/workmanager-testing/src/main/java/androidx/work/testing/WorkManagerTestInitHelper.java
M work/workmanager/src/main/java/androidx/work/impl/background/systemalarm/RescheduleReceiver.java
M work/workmanager/src/main/java/androidx/work/impl/background/systemjob/SystemJobService.java
https://android-review.googlesource.com/988026
https://goto.google.com/android-sha1/e14104eb7008f82edd50b37e16bd119b307e0554
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit e14104eb7008f82edd50b37e16bd119b307e0554
Author: Sumir Kataria <sumir@google.com>
Date: Mon Jun 24 10:50:57 2019
Fix for JobScheduler calls when backup is in progress.
The original fix (ag/Ia1604b7c4b98f6b31869e1161a0c1efce7fe46f2) relied
on a null-check, but the new version of WorkManager.getInstance(Context)
with the Context param doesn't return null; it throws an Exception. This
CL updates the three places where we explicitly check for the return value
internally:
1. SystemJobService (the main place where this would manifest)
2. RescheduleReceiver
3. WorkManagerTestInitHelper (for consistency)
Fixes: 135858602
Test: Ran existing tests
Change-Id: Ia232869712d0c78fd80e91d0a863b8c50a080400
M work/workmanager-testing/src/main/java/androidx/work/testing/WorkManagerTestInitHelper.java
M work/workmanager/src/main/java/androidx/work/impl/background/systemalarm/RescheduleReceiver.java
M work/workmanager/src/main/java/androidx/work/impl/background/systemjob/SystemJobService.java
ti...@chainels.com
Thanks you so much for the speedy fixed!
May I know when will it be ready for production? As, currently, this IllegalStateException is impacting our users.
May I know when will it be ready for production? As, currently, this IllegalStateException is impacting our users.
du...@google.com
Hello, please look for this later in the week. If you want to work around this bug specifically and don't need on-demand initialization, you can use the old (deprecated) WorkManager.getInstance() method for now.
du...@google.com
Hello. Thanks for respond. I surely will keep a pair of eye on the next release :)
Yes. We don't need on-demand initialization. May I know how does using old (deprecated) WorkManager.getInstance() in our app code, able to bypass this problem? Isn't the crash is origin from library internal SystemJobService?
We once thinking to bypass this problem, by switching back to Version 2.0.1 (The version just before WorkManager.getInstance(Context) is introduced). However, we notice Room version is being changed in between. Downgrading WorkManager version, might cause additional SQLite problem.
Yes. We don't need on-demand initialization. May I know how does using old (deprecated) WorkManager.getInstance() in our app code, able to bypass this problem? Isn't the crash is origin from library internal SystemJobService?
We once thinking to bypass this problem, by switching back to Version 2.0.1 (The version just before WorkManager.getInstance(Context) is introduced). However, we notice Room version is being changed in between. Downgrading WorkManager version, might cause additional SQLite problem.
ap...@google.com
Sorry, you are correct that moving to the deprecated method will not help you here. I would advise waiting for the release later this week. And thank you very much for finding this bug and doing the research to find the underlying issue.
I am curious: do you actually have reports of this bug on Android 9? It should've been fixed in the platform layer at that point. If possible, can you share any Android 9 specific logs/bugreports/stacktraces with device models?
I am curious: do you actually have reports of this bug on Android 9? It should've been fixed in the platform layer at that point. If possible, can you share any Android 9 specific logs/bugreports/stacktraces with device models?
Description
Component used: Paging
Version used: 3.0 alpha-04
Devices/Android versions reproduced on: n/a
Today (after many hours of debugging) I seem to have found a bug in latest alpha version of the Paging library. In my app I still have various lists that are not yet migrated to the new v3 API's, but since the documentation states it's backward compatible I figured that was okay.
Those lists use the database + remote pattern. One such list displayed strange behavior, it seemed to call all the boundary callbacks correctly, do the API call, and insert the new items in the database, however the items in the RecyclerView did not change.
The only difference that I could find between that list and other lists that were functioning correctly, is that it used a
mapfunction on theDatasource.Factoryreturned by RoomI think I found the underlying issue. The data source does not seem to be invalidated when using a map function.
DataSourcehas two variants ofaddOnValidationCallback. An open functionThe Kotlin version is actually called in
LegacyPagingSourceHowever when using a map/mapByPage function on the factory returned by room, the source is
WrappedDataSourceWrapperPositionalDataSourcefor example) only the non Kotlin version ofaddOnValidationCallbackis overridden, and thus if called with the Kotlin version,addOnValidationCallbackis never called on the source of the wrapper.I could see when debugging that indeed
onInvalidatedCallbacksis empty.Hopefully this is actually the cause of the behavior I'm seeing. The Paging code is quite complex so I could be missing something else.