Fixed
Status Update
Comments
il...@google.com <il...@google.com>
ro...@sparkistic.com <ro...@sparkistic.com> #2
Yigit, do you have time to fix it?
reemission of the same liveData is racy
reemission of the same liveData is racy
cu...@pocketprep.com <cu...@pocketprep.com> #3
yea i'll take it.
al...@gmail.com <al...@gmail.com> #4
Thanks for the detailed analysis. This may not be an issue anymore since we've started using Main.immediate there but I' not sure; I'll try to create a test case.
al...@gmail.com <al...@gmail.com> #5
Comment has been deleted.
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #6
With 2.2.0-alpha04 (that use Main.immediate), the issue seems to be still there (I tested it by calling emitSource() twice, like your test case)
de...@gmail.com <de...@gmail.com> #7
yea sorry immediate does not fix it.
I actually have a WIP fix for it:
https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/frameworks/support/+/1112186
if your case is the one i found (emitting same LiveData multiple times, as shown in #5) you can work around it by adding a dummy transformation.
val subLiveData = MutableLiveData(1)
val subject = liveData(testScope.coroutineContext) {
emitSource(subLiveData.map {it })
emitSource(subLiveData.map {it} )
}
I actually have a WIP fix for it:
if your case is the one i found (emitting same LiveData multiple times, as shown in #5) you can work around it by adding a dummy transformation.
val subLiveData = MutableLiveData(1)
val subject = liveData(testScope.coroutineContext) {
emitSource(subLiveData.map {it })
emitSource(subLiveData.map {it} )
}
de...@gmail.com <de...@gmail.com> #8
Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit af12e75e6b4110f48e44ca121466943909de8f06
Author: Yigit Boyar <yboyar@google.com>
Date: Tue Sep 03 12:58:11 2019
Fix coroutine livedata race condition
This CL fixes a bug in liveData builder where emitting same
LiveData source twice would make it crash because the second
emission registry could possibly happen before first one is
removed as source.
We fix it by using a suspending dispose function. It does feel
a bit hacky but we cannot make DisposableHandle.dispose async
and we do not want to block there. This does not mean that there
is a problem if developer disposes it manually since our emit
functions take care of making sure it disposes (and there is
no other way to add source to the underlying MediatorLiveData)
Bug: 140249349
Test: BuildLiveDataTest#raceTest_*
Change-Id: I0b464c242a583da4669af195cf2504e2adc4de40
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/2.2.0-alpha05.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/current.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/public_plus_experimental_2.2.0-alpha05.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/public_plus_experimental_current.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/restricted_2.2.0-alpha05.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/restricted_current.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/src/main/java/androidx/lifecycle/CoroutineLiveData.kt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/src/test/java/androidx/lifecycle/BuildLiveDataTest.kt
https://android-review.googlesource.com/1112186
https://goto.google.com/android-sha1/af12e75e6b4110f48e44ca121466943909de8f06
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit af12e75e6b4110f48e44ca121466943909de8f06
Author: Yigit Boyar <yboyar@google.com>
Date: Tue Sep 03 12:58:11 2019
Fix coroutine livedata race condition
This CL fixes a bug in liveData builder where emitting same
LiveData source twice would make it crash because the second
emission registry could possibly happen before first one is
removed as source.
We fix it by using a suspending dispose function. It does feel
a bit hacky but we cannot make DisposableHandle.dispose async
and we do not want to block there. This does not mean that there
is a problem if developer disposes it manually since our emit
functions take care of making sure it disposes (and there is
no other way to add source to the underlying MediatorLiveData)
Bug: 140249349
Test: BuildLiveDataTest#raceTest_*
Change-Id: I0b464c242a583da4669af195cf2504e2adc4de40
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/2.2.0-alpha05.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/current.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/public_plus_experimental_2.2.0-alpha05.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/public_plus_experimental_current.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/restricted_2.2.0-alpha05.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/api/restricted_current.txt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/src/main/java/androidx/lifecycle/CoroutineLiveData.kt
M lifecycle/lifecycle-livedata-ktx/src/test/java/androidx/lifecycle/BuildLiveDataTest.kt
jb...@google.com <jb...@google.com> #9
This has been fixed internally and will be available in the Fragment 1.5.2
release.
de...@gmail.com <de...@gmail.com> #10
How about for fragment-ktx:1.6.0 ?
Description
Component used: Fragment
Version used: 1.3.0, 1.4.0. Does not reproduce on 1.2.5.
Devices/Android versions reproduced on: Android Emulator.
Issue description
Given the following navigation graph:
Expected result:
I expect the following transition for the action
action_fragmentB_to_fragmentC
:@anim/fadeout
@anim/fadein
See
expected.mp4
attachment.This is what actually happens with fragment:1.2.5, but is broken in 1.3.0 and 1.4.0.
Actual result
From fragment:1.3.0 onwards, what happens is that, when
app:popUpTo="A"
is used, and while A is in the backstack, the transition for the actionaction_fragmentB_to_fragmentC
is different:@anim/slide_out_to_left
- Unexpected!@anim/fadein
It seems that the navigation component uses the
exitAnim
transition from the previously executed action,@id/action_fragmentA_to_fragmentB
.Removing
app:popUpTo="A"
from the action resolves the issue.See
actual.mp4
attachment.Reproducer
Attached minimal reproducer project:
NavigationAnimationTest.zip
.For swapping fragment versions, comment/uncomment the following
app/build.gradle
lines: