Fixed
Status Update
Comments
jb...@google.com <jb...@google.com>
cl...@google.com <cl...@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
mi...@gmail.com <mi...@gmail.com> #3
yea i'll take it.
do...@noteing.com <do...@noteing.com> #4
Comment has been deleted.
sa...@gmail.com <sa...@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()
}
}
be...@gmail.com <be...@gmail.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)
be...@gmail.com <be...@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} )
}
cl...@google.com <cl...@google.com>
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.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
cl...@google.com <cl...@google.com> #9
Fixed internally and will be available in navigation-2.8.0-rc01
jo...@hella.info <jo...@hella.info> #10
I have a lot of code like this:
```
val entry by navController.currentBackStackEntryAsState()
when (entry?.destination?.id) {
ScreenA.serializer().hashCode() -> R.string.example
...
}
```
Just to describe the current screen in a top bar. I used to do this with the `route` instead of the `id, and i have searched for quite a while for an alternative with type safe navigation and found this possibility.
I think this commit will break my code, right? And if so, what would be the correct way to determine the current type safe navigation route i am on?
```
val entry by navController.currentBackStackEntryAsState()
when (entry?.destination?.id) {
ScreenA.serializer().hashCode() -> R.string.example
...
}
```
Just to describe the current screen in a top bar. I used to do this with the `route` instead of the `id, and i have searched for quite a while for an alternative with type safe navigation and found this possibility.
I think this commit will break my code, right? And if so, what would be the correct way to determine the current type safe navigation route i am on?
cl...@google.com <cl...@google.com> #11
pr...@google.com <pr...@google.com> #12
The following release(s) address this bug.It is possible this bug has only been partially addressed:
androidx.navigation:navigation-common:2.8.0-beta04
androidx.navigation:navigation-runtime:2.8.0-beta04
ni...@gmail.com <ni...@gmail.com> #13
I am using version 2.8.0 and still get this error when the app has been in the background for a few hours when I reopen it. There is a hint in the previous comment that there are more parts to address. Is there anything more planned regarding this issue?
jb...@google.com <jb...@google.com> #14
Please file a separate bug with a minimal sample project that reproduces your issue.
Description
Component used: Navigation
Version used: 2.8.0-beta01
Devices/Android versions reproduced on: 24-33
Tested on emulators with android 24 and 33, and on a real device with android 24
To trigger system initiated process death, I set the background processes limit to 0
The following exception is thrown upon reopening the application:
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Restoring the Navigation back stack failed: destination 161177858 cannot be found from the current destination ComposeNavGraph(0x0) startDestination={Destination(0x8431a13) route=com.myk00l.test.B}