Assigned
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
vi...@google.com
Same here. I have links in a local html file referencing file:///android_res/drawable/ and on all gradle build flavors using another applicationId (added suffix) the Webview only shows broken links.
This behaviour seems not to be connected solely to Android 5.0 since it occurs on Android 4.4.4 too (tested with current cyanogenmod 11 build).
This behaviour seems not to be connected solely to Android 5.0 since it occurs on Android 4.4.4 too (tested with current cyanogenmod 11 build).
wi...@gmail.com
As a hotfix I added the following code to the gradle buildscript, which generates an additional R.java with changed java package for every flavor. I don't like this solution though.
android.applicationVariants.all{ variant ->
variant.javaCompile.doFirst{
copy {
from "${buildDir}/generated/source/r/${variant.dirName}/com/example/application/R.java"
into "${buildDir}/generated/source/r/${variant.dirName}/com/example/application/${variant.buildType.name }/"
}
File rFile = file("${buildDir}/generated/source/r/${variant.dirName}/com/example/application/${variant.buildType.name }/R.java")
String content = rFile.getText('UTF-8')
String newPackageName = "com.example.application.${variant.buildType.name }";
content = content.replaceAll(/com.example.application/, newPackageName)
rFile.write(content, 'UTF-8')
}
}
android.applicationVariants.all{ variant ->
variant.javaCompile.doFirst{
copy {
from "${buildDir}/generated/source/r/${variant.dirName}/com/example/application/R.java"
into "${buildDir}/generated/source/r/${variant.dirName}/com/example/application/${
}
File rFile = file("${buildDir}/generated/source/r/${variant.dirName}/com/example/application/${
String content = rFile.getText('UTF-8')
String newPackageName = "com.example.application.${
content = content.replaceAll(/com.example.application/, newPackageName)
rFile.write(content, 'UTF-8')
}
}
Description
Over the years, Android has developed a sophisticate model for limiting the scope of access to the Storage Access Framework (SAF). My suggestion is to use an analogue concept for calendar storage.
My use case is a personal finance app that uses the calendar API for storing the plans for recurring transactions (monthly rent payments etc). At the moment, it needs to ask for the whole READ_CALENDAR and WRITE_CALENDAR permissions (similar to what was the case before the introduction of SAF with READ_EXTERNAL_STORAGE and WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE). For this use case only point 1 would be of great help, giving users the guarantee that calendar data outside the scope of one specific local calendar is not touched (intentionally or inadvertently).