Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
si...@google.com
1. Have you saw crash in real device or only in simulators?
2. Do you use dynamic feature for language ID?
tc...@google.com
Tested on Android 12 Emulator with custom executor, but cannot repro this issue.
si...@google.com
si...@google.com
si...@google.com
se...@google.com
ap...@google.com
-
Second crash in the description is from a real device. Experienced it myself on two different Xiaomi phones, plus lots of crashes from users in the Google Play console.
-
Dynamic features are not used in the application.
As a wild guess, I have downgraded build tools from 31.0.0 to 30.0.3, compileSdk from 31 to 30, and moved all work with Language ID to the service in a separate process (just to be sure that crash can kill secondary process instead of main). This combination is in beta for 2 days by now and I don't see any SIGSEGV crashes.
se...@google.com
se...@google.com
ap...@google.com
Hmm, I feel the crash might be something related to separate/secondary process.
I also changed compileSdk and targetSDK to 31 but still cannot repro this issue.
ap...@google.com
On the contrary, there was no separate process before, when crashes started.
In the new build (with the aforementioned changes) I can see SIGSEGV crash, but only one instead of dozens and it has a bit different backtrace:
signal 11 (SIGSEGV), code 1 (SEGV_MAPERR)
liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
backtrace:
#00 pc 000000000003c7c0 /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 000000000003b960 /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 000000000003bb48 /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 000000000003bafc /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 0000000000036c98 /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 0000000000032714 /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 0000000000031cac /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 0000000000057438 /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/oat/arm64/base.odex (offset 0x57000)
ap...@google.com
FYI, ML Kit launched a new language ID SDK in the latest release, which uses a new language ID model.
Could you try the new SDK version(17.0.0) to check if you can still repro this native crash? Thanks!
Description
Specifically, a user wanted to "close the software keyboard in onClick on a button", and Fudge's workaround was to capture the SoftwareKeyboardController in the onTextInputStarted callback and write it into a field in the parent. var controller by remember { mutableStateOf<SoftwareKeyboardController?> { null } } Button("Close", onClick={controller!!.hideSoftwareKeyboard()}) // Pray this doesn't crash (NPE) TextField(value=..., onClick=..., onTextInputStarted={c -> controller = c})
A better pattern would be to have the user create a SoftwareKeyboardController as-if it were a hoisted state object and pass it into the TextField. val controller by remember { SoftwareKeyboardController() } Button("Close", onClick={controller.hideSoftwareKeyboard()}) TextField(value=..., onClick=..., controller=controller)
We realize/expect this requires playing a bit of a trick with the internal implementation of the SoftwareKeyboardController, to make the hideSoftwareKeyboard() function capable of operating as if it were the source of truth, even though the actual source of truth doesn't exist until later when the TextField is initialized by Android, which is probably one reason why it didn't occur to the original author of this widget. But it results in a much cleaner declarative API with less reasoning about the flow of information.
Discussion in API Council back in August, but I don't think a bug ever got filed for this.