Fixed
Status Update
Comments
da...@google.com <da...@google.com> #2
Hi. Thanks for reporting this. Fixed in alpha-04
el...@google.com <el...@google.com>
da...@google.com <da...@google.com>
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #3
Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-main
commit e782987543a9f8ccd485e970ddc74564b24378db
Author: Vighnesh Raut <vighnesh.raut13@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Jan 02 15:27:40 2023
fix: tab row crashes when only 1 tab is added
Bug: b/264018028
Test: Added unit test
Change-Id: I6381dbac304fc1d69d3708c6655f8b595668e93f
M tv/tv-material/src/androidTest/java/androidx/tv/material/TabRowTest.kt
M tv/tv-material/src/main/java/androidx/tv/material/TabRow.kt
https://android-review.googlesource.com/2373449
Branch: androidx-main
commit e782987543a9f8ccd485e970ddc74564b24378db
Author: Vighnesh Raut <vighnesh.raut13@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Jan 02 15:27:40 2023
fix: tab row crashes when only 1 tab is added
Bug:
Test: Added unit test
Change-Id: I6381dbac304fc1d69d3708c6655f8b595668e93f
M tv/tv-material/src/androidTest/java/androidx/tv/material/TabRowTest.kt
M tv/tv-material/src/main/java/androidx/tv/material/TabRow.kt
da...@google.com <da...@google.com>
pr...@google.com <pr...@google.com> #4
deleted
jo...@gmail.com <jo...@gmail.com> #5
The following release(s) address this bug.It is possible this bug has only been partially addressed:
androidx.tv:tv-material:1.0.0-alpha04
da...@google.com <da...@google.com> #6
Thats right, an explicit close()
call will make it so that Room won't re-open itself, and if it is attempted to do so to some other call it will cause a crash.
Description
Component useds: androidx.room:room-ktx, androidx.room:room-testing Version used: 2.6.1 Devices/Android versions reproduced on: Robolectric
The definition of
Room.inTransaction()
is:This opens the db even if it wasn't previously open and doesn't close it. This is almost always going to be fine in production, but in tests it can cause a db leak, which is especially painful since it's called by room-internal code.
Since it's
open
, in my project I simply overrode it to bewhich resolved the issue and is similar to a check that most, but not all, room-internal code does anyway.
Would be great to have this catch in the framework though, to prevent this issue for others