Status Update
Comments
mb...@google.com <mb...@google.com> #2
Thanks for the report. I will route this to the appropriate internal team and update this when I hear back from them.
sh...@google.com <sh...@google.com> #3
ka...@google.com <ka...@google.com> #4
mi...@google.com <mi...@google.com> #5
ja...@google.com <ja...@google.com> #6
+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
ch...@aexp.com <ch...@aexp.com> #7
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
mi...@telus.com <mi...@telus.com> #8
I'm really afraid Android 13 might get released as-is, breaking WearOS app communication 😨😨
ma...@google.com <ma...@google.com> #9
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.
ma...@7learnings.com <ma...@7learnings.com> #10
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!
Description
What you would like to accomplish:
Adding users to group will be easier that to choose users/service accounts individually
How this might work:
To support groups in the identities field of an ingress/egress from rule [1]
If applicable, reasons why alternative solutions are not sufficient:
Adding groups would be more efficient than adding users/service accounts individually
[1]https://cloud.google.com/vpc-service-controls/docs/ingress-egress-rules#unsupported_features