Infeasible
Status Update
Comments
vi...@google.com <vi...@google.com> #2
Surely this is something that the developer can handle themselves. If they just have a reference to the Marker then add a custom property to the marker and use that as the id, I don't think we need to start adding more info to Marker objects for everyone.
I would need more use cases where this is out of the developers hands before I would consider putting this in the API.
I would need more use cases where this is out of the developers hands before I would consider putting this in the API.
em...@gmail.com <em...@gmail.com> #3 Restricted
Restricted
Comment has been deleted.
em...@gmail.com <em...@gmail.com> #4 Restricted
Restricted
Comment has been deleted.
vi...@google.com <vi...@google.com> #5
I'll re-open the bug. I agree and I can see the utility.
In the past, I've used MVC properties (marker.set('id', 1)) to make sure my custom properties aren't compiled down to names that may conflict with internal properties. You could use 'data' as a generic property that holds a generic data object.
In the past, I've used MVC properties (marker.set('id', 1)) to make sure my custom properties aren't compiled down to names that may conflict with internal properties. You could use 'data' as a generic property that holds a generic data object.
vi...@google.com <vi...@google.com> #6
New developers tend to have a hard time using MVC property syntax. And while it's a great solution, it's not exactly obvious. Just to illustrate the point, your suggestion is the first time I'd even thought about solving the problem in that manner.
I think "data" is a great name for this.
I think "data" is a great name for this.
Description
Description
My wireless network uses WPA2-Enterprise security, with EAP-TLS authentication. I have configured my Puxel 9 Pro XL to connect to the network. Shortly after, my Pixel Watch arrived, which does not support WPA2-Enterprise. To allow it to connect, I have configured my network to allow WPA2-PSK authentication for that SSID for the watch alone, and issued it an individual passphrase. Both devices connected fine - the phone was using WPA2-Enterprise with EAP-TLS, and the watch was using WPA2-Personal with the passphrase. At one point I left home, and disabled Wi-Fi on my phone. After coming home, I re-enabled Wi-Fi on my phone, and the phone was prompting me for a password to connect to the network, despite it having configured WPA2-Enteprise credentials, and having previously used them. I checked my AP logs, and those credentials were not being rejected, in fact, no connection attempt was being made at all.
The network uses a hidden SSID. The EAP-TLS scheme uses a 2-tier self-signed CA. There is a Root CA, which issued a Wi-Fi CA certificate, which further issued a certificate for the RADIUS server and for the clients. So the scheme looks like this (not actual domain names):
The phone's Wi-Fi security is configured as such:
This particular issue occurs with a phone and a watch, but it should happen regardless of other device types.
Affected devices
Steps to reproduce
Expected result
Both devices connect to the network.
Actual result
The first device does not connect, and instead prompts for a password.
Workaround
Currently, I have worked around this issue by configuring the primary SSID to use WPA2-Enterprise security only, and created a separate SSID with WPA2-PSK security for the watch. This is a rather inconvenient setup, however.