Fixed
Status Update
Comments
da...@google.com <da...@google.com> #2
since these are in public API (:/) we need to do this in 1.2
m....@gmail.com <m....@gmail.com> #3
since it is already marked as deprecated, we can probably do it by now.
da...@google.com <da...@google.com> #4
Opening diff shortly
m....@gmail.com <m....@gmail.com> #5
Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit d576cbdc911cba16638a44fd8223391a90a07ef7
Author: Mike Nakhimovich <digitalbuddha@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Tue Aug 11 09:30:34 2020
[GH] Hide deprecated internal API.
## Proposed Changes
* `RoomDatabase.java` has protected `mCallbacks` field which is leaking in the API docs, we should @Hide it.
## Testing
Test: Ran unit tests locally
## Issues Fixed
Fixes: 76109329
This is an imported pull request fromhttps://github.com/androidx/androidx/pull/61 .
Resolves #61
Github-Pr-Head-Sha: 6440daa3a63752c7f9d5ba2a390248cd85bc634f
GitOrigin-RevId: fe92d8466a59b44b218b6ca3cbd57dcda17992f7
Change-Id: Id599cdf5b02b32bdae0166266fb7da967598fe92
A room/runtime/api/current.ignore
M room/runtime/api/current.txt
M room/runtime/api/public_plus_experimental_current.txt
M room/runtime/api/restricted_current.txt
M room/runtime/src/main/java/androidx/room/RoomDatabase.java
https://android-review.googlesource.com/1396827
Branch: androidx-master-dev
commit d576cbdc911cba16638a44fd8223391a90a07ef7
Author: Mike Nakhimovich <digitalbuddha@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Tue Aug 11 09:30:34 2020
[GH] Hide deprecated internal API.
## Proposed Changes
* `RoomDatabase.java` has protected `mCallbacks` field which is leaking in the API docs, we should @Hide it.
## Testing
Test: Ran unit tests locally
## Issues Fixed
Fixes: 76109329
This is an imported pull request from
Resolves #61
Github-Pr-Head-Sha: 6440daa3a63752c7f9d5ba2a390248cd85bc634f
GitOrigin-RevId: fe92d8466a59b44b218b6ca3cbd57dcda17992f7
Change-Id: Id599cdf5b02b32bdae0166266fb7da967598fe92
A room/runtime/api/current.ignore
M room/runtime/api/current.txt
M room/runtime/api/public_plus_experimental_current.txt
M room/runtime/api/restricted_current.txt
M room/runtime/src/main/java/androidx/room/RoomDatabase.java
da...@google.com <da...@google.com>
da...@google.com <da...@google.com>
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #6
Project: platform/frameworks/support
Branch: androidx-main
Author: Daniel Santiago Rivera <
Link:
Lazily load SQLite's native library when a connection is opened.
Expand for full commit details
Lazily load SQLite's native library when a connection is opened.
Moving the load call into an inner object effectively makes it so that the library is loaded lazily when the object's class is loaded, i.e. when instantiated and accessed during the open call.
Bug: 363985585
Test: BundledSQLiteDriverTest.kt
Change-Id: I72fa01618169cb3225ea9d5d5e9f9ae59c6d4b09
Files:
- M
sqlite/integration-tests/driver-conformance-test/src/androidInstrumentedTest/kotlin/androidx/sqlite/driver/test/BundledSQLiteDriverTest.kt
- M
sqlite/sqlite-bundled/src/jvmAndroidMain/kotlin/androidx/sqlite/driver/bundled/BundledSQLiteDriver.jvmAndroid.kt
Hash: 4f69d19088dae47b6a7bcf454ea22f7e2da78e92
Date: Tue Jan 21 17:51:32 2025
da...@google.com <da...@google.com>
na...@google.com <na...@google.com> #7
The following release(s) address this bug.It is possible this bug has only been partially addressed:
androidx.sqlite:sqlite-bundled:2.5.0-alpha13
androidx.sqlite:sqlite-bundled-android:2.5.0-alpha13
androidx.sqlite:sqlite-bundled-iosarm64:2.5.0-alpha13
androidx.sqlite:sqlite-bundled-iossimulatorarm64:2.5.0-alpha13
androidx.sqlite:sqlite-bundled-iosx64:2.5.0-alpha13
androidx.sqlite:sqlite-bundled-jvm:2.5.0-alpha13
androidx.sqlite:sqlite-bundled-linuxarm64:2.5.0-alpha13
androidx.sqlite:sqlite-bundled-linuxx64:2.5.0-alpha13
androidx.sqlite:sqlite-bundled-macosarm64:2.5.0-alpha13
androidx.sqlite:sqlite-bundled-macosx64:2.5.0-alpha13
Description
Following the steps outlined in the official KMP Room docs (https://developer.android.com/kotlin/multiplatform/room ) , I see 5 strict mode violations in my code.
They dont seem to cause any noticable lag but i was wondering if this violation is expected?