Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
uc...@google.com
ku...@google.com
We’ve shared this request with development team and will continue to provide updates as more information becomes available.
di...@google.com
@3 Thank you.
The pushing of the data could be right during install time, so that it would either all succeed or all fail, and that we won't need to check if it succeeded and only then to copy the files.
It also avoids the need to have access to the "/Android/obb" folder, so in this case it won't matter if we have access to it or not.
The pushing of the data could be right during install time, so that it would either all succeed or all fail, and that we won't need to check if it succeeded and only then to copy the files.
It also avoids the need to have access to the "/Android/obb" folder, so in this case it won't matter if we have access to it or not.
ku...@google.com
Feedback from our development team:
Any app which has the REQUEST_INSTALL_PACKAGES appop should be able to write to Android/obb using native file APIs.
Pushing OBBs atomically with the APK sounds like a nice feature - unfortunately we do not have time to do this for Android 11, but will consider this for a future release. Thanks for reporting.
ku...@google.com
@5 Please offer to do it via the Android framework AND adb command, including split APKs install via adb .
Also please consider a new file format for splits APKs which includes OBB files. A standard one that will reduce the need to se any new formats, as there are already too many made up formats by apps out there (APKM, XAPK, APKS, SPLIT,...).
This can make it easier to handle the installation.
Such a file could include : all split APK files, OBB files, information file (to avoid parsing the files within), app-icon (again, to avoid parsing the APK files within). This file format should be open sourced and preferably ZIP-based.
Also please consider a new file format for splits APKs which includes OBB files. A standard one that will reduce the need to se any new formats, as there are already too many made up formats by apps out there (APKM, XAPK, APKS, SPLIT,...).
This can make it easier to handle the installation.
Such a file could include : all split APK files, OBB files, information file (to avoid parsing the files within), app-icon (again, to avoid parsing the APK files within). This file format should be open sourced and preferably ZIP-based.
ko...@google.com
da...@google.com
@6, please refer to the individual issues for updates regarding the requests:
https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/152120286 - Split APK file format
https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/155109632 - Split APKs install via adb
https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/155682996 - adb command to let specific apps reach "Android" folder
ko...@google.com
@8 Yes, I know. I wrote multiple requests, each in different direction to handle as much use-cases I can think of.
Why did you change to "won't fix" though? Those are not the same requests, and not the same as the current one.
You said you'd consider it for next versions after 11...
Why did you change to "won't fix" though? Those are not the same requests, and not the same as the current one.
You said you'd consider it for next versions after 11...
da...@google.com
Perhaps a “bug” is software behavior inconsistent with creator expectations. In this case the “creator” is a group of many people across years and continents; some of us may not expect this particular (lack of) behavior, but at the same time others of us do.
lo...@gmail.com
Maybe it's both a bug and a feature and depends on the continent and the year? 😁
Would be great for markdown writers (the gentle programmers/developers that document their projects, including library maintainers) that in early 2021 or earlier, the presence of Markdown preview becomes a feature we can rely on regardless of your continent 😀
Thanks in advance to whoever will reward these gentle developers! ♥️
al...@gmail.com
This is probably a duplicate of #159933628
JCEF is the new recommended way to show web content (any kind of HTML preview) on the JetBrains IDEA platform. See this blog post for details:https://blog.jetbrains.com/platform/2020/07/javafx-and-jcef-in-the-intellij-platform/
More plugins will depend on JCEF like the Markdown plugin does today.
I as the maintainer of the AsciiDoc plugin have the same problem. I recommend users to choose a runtime that bundles JCEF.
The current workaround for users (Tested with AS 4.2 Canary 14):
* Install the plugin “Choose Runtime” as described in the JetBrains knowledge base “Selecting the JDK version the IDE will run under”:https://intellij-support.jetbrains.com/hc/en-us/articles/206544879-Selecting-the-JDK-version-the-IDE-will-run-under
* Choose a runtime "jbrsdk-11_0_8-…-x64-b944.34.tar.gz" or later and install it. The IDE will restart.
I would be nice if Android Studio would ship with a pre-bundled JCEF in its runtime.
For proper Markdown support in AS 4.2 Canary 14 there is still the missing class org/owasp/html/Sanitizers; that would be the next issue to tackle.
JCEF is the new recommended way to show web content (any kind of HTML preview) on the JetBrains IDEA platform. See this blog post for details:
More plugins will depend on JCEF like the Markdown plugin does today.
I as the maintainer of the AsciiDoc plugin have the same problem. I recommend users to choose a runtime that bundles JCEF.
The current workaround for users (Tested with AS 4.2 Canary 14):
* Install the plugin “Choose Runtime” as described in the JetBrains knowledge base “Selecting the JDK version the IDE will run under”:
* Choose a runtime "jbrsdk-11_0_8-…-x64-b944.34.tar.gz" or later and install it. The IDE will restart.
I would be nice if Android Studio would ship with a pre-bundled JCEF in its runtime.
For proper Markdown support in AS 4.2 Canary 14 there is still the missing class org/owasp/html/Sanitizers; that would be the next issue to tackle.
Description
Hello, in IntelliJ IDEA, we have the markdown preview (you can have it in place of the editor, or side by side), but Android Studio 4.2 Canary 9 misses it. Can you please bring it back so we get the same feature set? Thank you!
IDE info: