processDebugUnitTestManifest is failing with manifest placeholders for test variants [266967487]

Fixed

Bug

Status Update

No update yet.

Description

ly...@gmail.com

created issue #1

Jan 28, 2023 11:49AM

DESCRIBE THE ISSUE IN DETAIL: Assume we have one module A, that declares permission with manifest placeholder:

...
<uses-permission android:name="foo.BAR${permissionSuffix}" />
...

Also we have another module B that have dependency on module A. This module has some unit tests and enabled android.testOptions.unitTests.includeAndroidResources = true in build.gradle. To run unit tests I need to declare manifest placeholder for test variants in module B in build.gradle:

android {
    testVariants.configureEach {
        mergedFlavor.manifestPlaceholders += [
                "permissionSuffix" : "test",
        ]
    }

    unitTestVariants.configureEach {
        mergedFlavor.manifestPlaceholders += [
                "permissionSuffix" : "test",
        ]
    }
}

When I'm trying to run unit tests in module B I'm getting the error:

> Task :another-dependency:processDebugUnitTestManifest FAILED
another-dependency/build/intermediates/tmp/manifest/test/debug/tempFile1ProcessTestManifest8712134807579346491.xml:7:5-98 Error:
        Attribute uses-permission#foo.BAR${permissionSuffix}@name at tempFile1ProcessTestManifest8712134807579346491.xml:7:5-98 requires a placeholder substitution but no value for <permissionSuffix> is provided.

See http://g.co/androidstudio/manifest-merger for more information about the manifest merger.


FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.

* What went wrong:
Execution failed for task ':another-dependency:processDebugUnitTestManifest'.
> Manifest merger failed : Attribute uses-permission#foo.BAR${permissionSuffix}@name at tempFile1ProcessTestManifest8712134807579346491.xml:7:5-98 requires a placeholder substitution but no value for <permissionSuffix> is provided.

But it works correctly with AGP 7.3.1.

Sample project to reproduce: https://github.com/bacecek/sample-checking-assistant-role/tree/broken-test-manifest-placeholders

Studio Build: Android Studio Electric Eel | 2022.1.1. Build #AI-221.6008.13.2211.9477386, built on January 11, 202 Version of Gradle Plugin: 7.4.0 Version of Gradle: 7.5.1 Version of Java: Temurin 17.0.5 OS: macOS 13.1

Comments

ly...@gmail.com <ly...@gmail.com> #2Jan 30, 2023 11:29AM

To give more color to this, every android related library or framework that I use is initialized by passing it a Context. This allows me to have a ContentProvider where I can do all my initialization. The benefits of this are:

1. Abstraction - my app module doesn't need to know about anything other than my internal modules and doesn't interface directly with libraries

2. An Application is built for each process, which means that we now have a CameraXConfig.Provider for secondary processes like a crash reporting process, etc... ContentProvider is only created once across all processes (and can be set to create one per process for apps that need to configure the camera across multiple processes, which I'm positive are very rare)

TL;DR the recent trend has been to move away from Application as a source of configuration for a variety of benefits

xo...@google.com <xo...@google.com> Jan 30, 2023 11:39AM

Assigned to an...@google.com.

je...@google.com <je...@google.com> Jan 30, 2023 06:57PM

Reassigned to am...@google.com.

am...@google.com <am...@google.com> #3Jan 30, 2023 11:18PM

Thank you for the feedback, we'll take a look and assess.

am...@google.com <am...@google.com> #4Jan 31, 2023 01:17AM

Status: Won't Fix (Obsolete)

Bugjuggler: http://b/146071458 is fixed

ly...@gmail.com <ly...@gmail.com> #5Jan 31, 2023 02:14AM

Hi. I've received your bug and will wait for

b/146071458

to be fixed and then assign the bug to trevormcguire@google.com.

je...@google.com <je...@google.com> #6Feb 3, 2023 05:00PM

Status: Assigned (reopened)

I also have a similar problem. I am using CameraX to build an Android library. So as a library developer, I have little access to the Application class and I cannot tell the consumers of my library to implement CameraXConfig.Provider. Really this is a bad API design and there should be an alternative ASAP. I am currently stuck at this point.

cm...@google.com <cm...@google.com> Feb 14, 2023 05:12PM

Reassigned to cm...@google.com.

am...@google.com <am...@google.com> #7Feb 14, 2023 05:26PM

Hi there,

We're actively looking at this and will provide another method to initialize.

cm...@google.com <cm...@google.com> #8Feb 14, 2023 06:11PM

Accepted by cm...@google.com.

Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-master-dev

commit 9015f3cff4053ad56b8b34b0708e3fe13945187c
Author: Trevor McGuire <trevormcguire@google.com>
Date: Thu Dec 05 18:21:19 2019

CameraX on-demand initialization through resources

Allows initializing CameraX without having to extend Application. A
default config provider can be specified through string resource or by
extending Application.

camera:camera-camera2 provides a default string resource which will be
included by default by the resource merger so users don't need to do
anything if they are ok with the default configuration.

Relnote: "Removed requirement that app must extend Application in order
to initialize CameraX. CameraX will now be initialized with a default
Camera2 configuration as long as the camera-camera2 artifact is included
in the application's build.gradle."

Bug: 146923574
Test: Integration tests are all successfully initialized and run
Change-Id: I58ff5c4440f9fec0afb3d9790f652dd91c2c84bd

A camera/camera-camera2/proguard-rules.pro
M camera/camera-camera2/src/main/AndroidManifest.xml
M camera/camera-camera2/src/main/java/androidx/camera/camera2/Camera2Config.java
A camera/camera-camera2/src/main/res/values/strings.xml
M camera/camera-core/src/main/java/androidx/camera/core/CameraX.java
A camera/camera-core/src/main/res/values/public.xml
A camera/camera-core/src/main/res/values/strings.xml
M camera/integration-tests/coretestapp/src/main/AndroidManifest.xml
D camera/integration-tests/coretestapp/src/main/java/androidx/camera/integration/core/CoreApplication.java
M camera/integration-tests/extensionstestapp/src/main/java/androidx/camera/integration/extensions/ExtensionsApplication.java
M camera/integration-tests/viewtestapp/src/main/AndroidManifest.xml
M camera/integration-tests/viewtestapp/src/main/java/androidx/camera/integration/view/ViewCameraXConfigProvider.java
M camera/integration-tests/viewtestapp/src/main/res/values/strings.xml

https://android-review.googlesource.com/1183436

sp...@google.com <sp...@google.com> #9Feb 15, 2023 10:55PM

Assigned to xa...@google.com.

Hi All,

This is merged and will be available in the next release. Please take a look and let us know what you think. Thanks.

xa...@google.com <xa...@google.com> #10Feb 15, 2023 11:05PM

Accepted by xa...@google.com.

Is this in alpha-09 or will it be in the next one?

cm...@google.com <cm...@google.com> #11Feb 16, 2023 12:28PM

Marked as fixed.

re:comment#10 - This will be in the next on - Alpha10. Thanks

ry...@gmail.com <ry...@gmail.com> #12Feb 23, 2023 05:17PM

I notices this issue now.
Well.. I also think this behavior is not so good.

What happens, if we want to use camerax in dynamic features module?
Is this really acceptable?

Rather, initialization using ContentProvider looks better.

Please re-consider on-demand initialization more. 🙇‍♂️