Fixed
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
as...@google.com
ap...@google.com
> The Transition Kotlin extensions target the Framework Transition class which is a bit confusing
All extensions in 'core-ktx' target either 'core' or the framework types. This is working as expected. It sounds like this is a feature request for a transition-ktx with equivalent extensions for the androidx.transition types.
> as most framework classes are being deprecated in favor of their AndroidX counterparts, Fragments for example.
"Most"? This *dramatically* overstates what is actually happening. Fragments (and loaders) were added to the framework in a time where the Android team did not have external libraries for shipping features. Transition was added 5 years later.
All extensions in 'core-ktx' target either 'core' or the framework types. This is working as expected. It sounds like this is a feature request for a transition-ktx with equivalent extensions for the androidx.transition types.
> as most framework classes are being deprecated in favor of their AndroidX counterparts, Fragments for example.
"Most"? This *dramatically* overstates what is actually happening. Fragments (and loaders) were added to the framework in a time where the Android team did not have external libraries for shipping features. Transition was added 5 years later.
am...@gmail.com
Pardon my misunderstanding, I was under the belief that where possible, new features that could be developed outside the framework, would be under Androidx. Also it's a common refrain to use the Androidx libraries over the framework libraries where possible, as those ship update independently of platform releases. I wasn't attempting to be dramatic.
If the Transition api is unlikely to change, there is no need for a transition-ktx for androidx.transition types. If developers should use Androidx transitions over framework transitions where possible however, then it would be much appreciated.
I am well aware of the limitations that existed when Fragments and Loaders were created, and when the Transition api was introduced.
If the Transition api is unlikely to change, there is no need for a transition-ktx for androidx.transition types. If developers should use Androidx transitions over framework transitions where possible however, then it would be much appreciated.
I am well aware of the limitations that existed when Fragments and Loaders were created, and when the Transition api was introduced.
as...@google.com
Comment has been deleted.
as...@google.com
We don't take this path by default in Compose compiler 1.5.6, so it shouldn't affect apps unless intrinsic remember is disabled.
Description
Jetpack Compose compiler version: 1.5.4 Android Studio Build: #AI-223.8836.35.2231.11090377, built on November 13, 2023 Kotlin version: 1.9.20
The change introduced by commit
22421ef1f3aab2bb317e164845bf1630606a099cusescurrentFile.fileEntry.namefield to generate keys to be passed tostartReplaceableGroupcall. I discovered that this field contains the absolute file path, not just the part relative to the project root.In practice that results in binary different artifacts being produced for binary equivalent sources stored under different paths. E.g. builds under
/tmp/ci-build-42/will always produce binary equal artifacts for a given source code revision, but these artifacts will be different from the ones produced from the same revision under/tmp/ci-build-43/.Steps to Reproduce or Code Sample to Reproduce:
./gradlew clean build --no-daemon, store./app/build/intermediates/compile_app_classes_jar/release/classes.jarReproducerComposableKt.classwill be the only file different between the resulting jars. By applyingjavap -cand comparing the output for these classes, you'll see the only difference there is a value for a constant used instartReplaceableGroupcall.For your convenience I also provide projects for compiler versions 1.5.4 and 1.5.3 I used to verify my findings (see
reproducer.tgz). Also, thefileNamevalue I extracted with a debugger from 1.5.4 project looks like this: