Assigned
Status Update
Comments
fa...@google.com <fa...@google.com> #2
Thanks for the report. I will route this to the appropriate internal team and update this when I hear back from them.
fa...@google.com <fa...@google.com> #3
One more detail, Data Layer event calls from the watch to the phone (running Android 13) do work on if the listener is in an Activity or Fragment.
fa...@google.com <fa...@google.com> #4
Also, I'm seeing this message in the Logcat:
"2022-06-12 18:47:15.156 1841-4562/? W/PackageManager: Intent does not match component's intent filter: Intent { act=com.google.android.gms.wearable.BIND_LISTENER"
"2022-06-12 18:47:15.156 1841-4562/? W/PackageManager: Intent does not match component's intent filter: Intent { act=com.google.android.gms.wearable.BIND_LISTENER"
ro...@gmail.com <ro...@gmail.com> #5
Experiencing the same issues, please see my other report for any useful logs:
https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/235673375
fa...@google.com <fa...@google.com> #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
fa...@google.com <fa...@google.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
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #8
I'm really afraid Android 13 might get released as-is, breaking WearOS app communication 😨😨
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #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.
Description
for such tasks since they do not require
random reads. Volume size and bandwidth are the key factors in this use case. Persistency is also irrelevant since such jobs write lots of temporary data during their run