Fixed
Status Update
Comments
jb...@google.com <jb...@google.com> #2
Yigit, do you have time to fix it?
reemission of the same liveData is racy
reemission of the same liveData is racy
il...@gmail.com <il...@gmail.com> #3
yea i'll take it.
il...@gmail.com <il...@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.
il...@gmail.com <il...@gmail.com> #5
just emitting same live data reproduces the issue.
@Test
fun raceTest() {
val subLiveData = MutableLiveData(1)
val subject = liveData(testScope.coroutineContext) {
emitSource(subLiveData)
emitSource(subLiveData) //crashes
}
subject.addObserver().apply {
testScope.advanceUntilIdle()
}
}
@Test
fun raceTest() {
val subLiveData = MutableLiveData(1)
val subject = liveData(testScope.coroutineContext) {
emitSource(subLiveData)
emitSource(subLiveData) //crashes
}
subject.addObserver().apply {
testScope.advanceUntilIdle()
}
}
jb...@google.com <jb...@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)
il...@gmail.com <il...@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} )
}
il...@google.com <il...@google.com>
ra...@gmail.com <ra...@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
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #9
Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-main
commit c5ff8b06a002ff7fcd89466b885f6ec930148d7f
Author: Jeremy Woods <jbwoods@google.com>
Date: Tue Mar 28 19:33:40 2023
Prevent accidentally removing active fragments
It is possible with saving and restoring state to accidentally make
fragment manager mark an active fragment as inactive.
This results in a failed restore after a config change.
We should only make FragmentStateManagers that are active inactive. This
ensures that active and inactive calls are 1 to 1.
RelNote: "Fixed a bug in FragmentManager where saving and restoring in
the same frame could cause a crash."
Test: Added FragmentManagerTest
Bug: 246519668
Change-Id: Ib36aff4a7263e10d7d795b4d8dbd6431d2552e5c
M fragment/fragment/src/androidTest/java/androidx/fragment/app/FragmentManagerTest.kt
M fragment/fragment/src/main/java/androidx/fragment/app/FragmentStore.java
https://android-review.googlesource.com/2512715
Branch: androidx-main
commit c5ff8b06a002ff7fcd89466b885f6ec930148d7f
Author: Jeremy Woods <jbwoods@google.com>
Date: Tue Mar 28 19:33:40 2023
Prevent accidentally removing active fragments
It is possible with saving and restoring state to accidentally make
fragment manager mark an active fragment as inactive.
This results in a failed restore after a config change.
We should only make FragmentStateManagers that are active inactive. This
ensures that active and inactive calls are 1 to 1.
RelNote: "Fixed a bug in FragmentManager where saving and restoring in
the same frame could cause a crash."
Test: Added FragmentManagerTest
Bug: 246519668
Change-Id: Ib36aff4a7263e10d7d795b4d8dbd6431d2552e5c
M fragment/fragment/src/androidTest/java/androidx/fragment/app/FragmentManagerTest.kt
M fragment/fragment/src/main/java/androidx/fragment/app/FragmentStore.java
jb...@google.com <jb...@google.com> #10
This has been fixed internally and will be available in the Fragment 1.6.0-alpha09
release.
na...@google.com <na...@google.com> #11
The following release(s) address this bug.It is possible this bug has only been partially addressed:
androidx.fragment:fragment:1.6.0-alpha09
rp...@gmail.com <rp...@gmail.com> #12
Comment has been deleted.
Description
Component used: Navigation Version used: 2.6.0-alpha01 Devices/Android versions reproduced on: Galaxy S21 5G
Hello! It seems like some users are facing very rare crashes with the following stack trace.
I'm unsure what the right direction would be to investigate and fix it. May it be somehow related to some rare Navigation framework internal issues?