Fixed
Status Update
Comments
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #2
It could easy to reproduce when turning on "Don't keep activities".
ch...@google.com <ch...@google.com> #3
Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit ba0c19707915ff87d9cac2089fcd166bb5cca17d
Author: Ian Lake <ilake@google.com>
Date: Wed Nov 14 16:20:28 2018
Set the correct FragmentManager on active Fragments
All active Fragments should have the correct
FragmentManager set instead of always using the
Activity's FragmentManager.
While added Fragments have their FragmentManager
set correctly in moveToState(), active Fragments
weren't being set correctly, causing issues when
attempting to save the state of the FragmentManager.
Test: new FragmentLifecycleTest
BUG: 119256498
Change-Id: I830f729d93f00859509a0844fae19752342e6ccc
M fragment/src/androidTest/java/androidx/fragment/app/FragmentLifecycleTest.java
M fragment/src/main/java/androidx/fragment/app/FragmentManagerImpl.java
M fragment/src/main/java/androidx/fragment/app/FragmentState.java
https://android-review.googlesource.com/826954
https://goto.google.com/android-sha1/ba0c19707915ff87d9cac2089fcd166bb5cca17d
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit ba0c19707915ff87d9cac2089fcd166bb5cca17d
Author: Ian Lake <ilake@google.com>
Date: Wed Nov 14 16:20:28 2018
Set the correct FragmentManager on active Fragments
All active Fragments should have the correct
FragmentManager set instead of always using the
Activity's FragmentManager.
While added Fragments have their FragmentManager
set correctly in moveToState(), active Fragments
weren't being set correctly, causing issues when
attempting to save the state of the FragmentManager.
Test: new FragmentLifecycleTest
BUG: 119256498
Change-Id: I830f729d93f00859509a0844fae19752342e6ccc
M fragment/src/androidTest/java/androidx/fragment/app/FragmentLifecycleTest.java
M fragment/src/main/java/androidx/fragment/app/FragmentManagerImpl.java
M fragment/src/main/java/androidx/fragment/app/FragmentState.java
na...@google.com <na...@google.com> #4
Thanks Ian! Looking forward to a new alpha release ASAP rather than monthly release.😅
Description
We should look into the various places in the APIs where these surface to ensure that this is the API we want before going to beta.
For example, Cubic is constructed with PointF objects, which it exposes as vals. This is worth considering in several ways:
- Having the points available for inspection is good, but we don't want the data to be changed in the underlying cubics (which is possible since PointF is mutable)
- It might not make sense to even have a public constructor; Cubics are necessary for callers to be able to inspect a Polygon (and maybe render debug information for it). But the object is mostly an implementation detail of this API, so it seems unnecessary to expose the constructor(s).
- We might want to use Float internally, regardless of what is used to construct a Cubic. This might help with both performance/allocations internally and avoiding mutability from the PointFs that callers can see
- If we use Float internally, and opt to avoid public constructors, then we might as well use Floats to construct Cubics as well, to avoid allocating PointF objects just to construct a Cubic
- If PointF is only used as a way to return data from a Cubic to a caller, then we could lazily allocate those objects