Status Update
Comments
ie...@google.com <ie...@google.com>
ch...@gmail.com <ch...@gmail.com> #2
Thanks for the report. I will route this to the appropriate internal team and update this when I hear back from them.
hu...@gmail.com <hu...@gmail.com> #3
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #6
+1, can confirm it doesn't work on Android 13:=
2022-07-15 11:26:15.023 589-5347 PackageManager pid-589 W Intent does not match component's intent filter: Intent { act=com.google.android.gms.wearable.BIND_LISTENER cmp=xxx/xxx.WatchMessageReceiver }
2022-07-15 11:26:15.023 589-5347 PackageManager pid-589 W Access blocked: ComponentInfo{xxx/xxx.WatchMessageReceiver}
2022-07-15 11:26:15.023 589-5347 ActivityManager pid-589 W Unable to start service Intent { act=com.google.android.gms.wearable.BIND_LISTENER cmp=xxx/xxx.WatchMessageReceiver } U=0: not found
dr...@celestica.com <dr...@celestica.com> #7
Note that I've been able to make it work by:
- Adding
<action android:name="com.google.android.gms.wearable.BIND_LISTENER" />
in the intent filter - Removing
<data android:scheme="wear" android:host="*" />
But I feel like this is not something we should do
cy...@celestica.com <cy...@celestica.com> #8
I'm really afraid Android 13 might get released as-is, breaking WearOS app communication 😨😨
he...@gmail.com <he...@gmail.com> #9
If you're not targeting API 33 you're not affected by the bug. So it's a big bug, and yes we of course expected more from Google, but you can always target the api level later when it's fixed.
But I agree this is kind of desperating that more than 1.5 month after the first report nothing has changed.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #10
As an interim update on this issue: we've been already working on the fix that should be available by Android 13 release. The fix requires thorough testing, I'll keep this bug updated as soon as we have more to share. Thanks!
ki...@sevenrooms.com <ki...@sevenrooms.com> #11
@
Thank you for the update @
an...@humblebundle.com <an...@humblebundle.com> #12
Android 13 is out today and we still have no patch unlike what you said a month ago
ie...@google.com <ie...@google.com>
ki...@sevenrooms.com <ki...@sevenrooms.com> #13
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #14
This issues has been already given high priority (updated external priority on this bug to reflect internal status). The fix is on the way and going through the final rounds of testing, so the roll out is slated to next couple of weeks.
To reiterate what have been mentioned earlier on this bug: this issue affects only apps targeting Android 13, so the apps won't break unless you bump targetSDK
version to 33
. In case if you want to start working on app compatibility for Android 13 behaviour changes, you could use
da...@google.com <da...@google.com> #15
- The report is 2 months old
- Google chose to release Android 13 with that bug
- There's no mention of this bug on the documentation so you can totally bump your targetSdk without noticing it
So thank you guys for working on this but it's still not a valid excuse for taking that long for such an important issue. Now that being said, let us know when a fix is available
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #16
lu...@gmail.com <lu...@gmail.com> #17
That must be some really intense testing as we are 10 days later and still nothing on sight. I don't want to be a P2 issue if that's what a P1 is.
Description
Backup/restore should be an integral part of all systems. App Engine protects live data very well with multiple replicas across multiple data centers. However, developer and user errors can still lead to an unrecoverable loss of data.
In App Engine, we should be able to specify our backup policies in a backup.yaml file in our root directory. See below for an example. Incremental backups can be supported using a similar under-the-hood technique that the HRD migration tool uses to perform incremental migrations. Google Storage "folders" should be possible using filename prefixes. Automatic deletion of old backups should be supported. Backups should be able to include specific Kinds and/or Namespaces, or exclude specific Kinds and/or Namespaces. I think Google Storage should be the only required storage location because (1) it is the most cost effective offering from Google, and (2) it has good tooling/interop.
When restoring, it is important to be able to include/exclude particular Kinds and/or include/exclude particular namespaces. You should be able to provide a Kind and/or Namespace mapping (e.g., suffix) so that Kinds/Namespaces can be restored to an alternate location (as opposed to fully overwriting live data). This allows the client to write code to do a more surgical restore of data (e.g., restore a particular account).
Sample backup.yaml:
backups:
- name: Daily Important
type: incremental # only add new data, except on a new snapshot
schedule: every day of month 01:00 # run nightly at 1.00a
snapshot_every: 7 # roll to a new snapshot every 7th backup
harvest_age: 90 # delete backups older than 90 days
bucket: my-backups # backup to this bucket on Google Storage
queue: backup # use this queue (and rate)
prefix: daily-important/ # use this file prefix on Google Storage (which is a 'folder' in this case)
exclude_kinds: # do _not_ backup these Kinds
- Audit
- VisitorLog
- name: Hourly Suspicious Audit
type: incremental # only add new data
schedule: every 1 hour synchronized # run hourly, on the hour
harvest_age: 2 # delete backups older than 2 days
bucket: suspicious # backup to this bucket on Google Storage
queue: backup # use this queue (and rate)
prefix: to-investigate/ # use this file prefix on Google Storage
namespaces: # only backup these namespaces, could alternatively specify exclude_namespaces
- suspicious-activity
kinds: # only backup these Kinds
- Audit
- VisitorLog
- name: Monthly Everything
type: full # every backup creates a full set of data
schedule: 1st day of month 02:00 # run on the first
harvest_age: 750 # keep two years worth of monthly backups
bucket: compliance # backup to this bucket on Google Storate
queue: backup # use this queue (and rate)