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.
pi...@airasia.com <pi...@airasia.com> #3
jg...@netapp.com <jg...@netapp.com> #4
"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"
sa...@google.com <sa...@google.com> #5
cl...@devourlearning.com <cl...@devourlearning.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
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #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 😨😨
ng...@sph.com.sg <ng...@sph.com.sg> #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.
xc...@gmail.com <xc...@gmail.com> #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!
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #11
@
Thank you for the update @
pa...@gmail.com <pa...@gmail.com> #12
Android 13 is out today and we still have no patch unlike what you said a month ago
pa...@gmail.com <pa...@gmail.com> #13
al...@kw.com <al...@kw.com> #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
cr...@stanford.edu <cr...@stanford.edu> #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
or...@gmail.com <or...@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.
ro...@missionlane.com <ro...@missionlane.com> #18
nc...@gmail.com <nc...@gmail.com> #19
se...@scholarshipowl.com <se...@scholarshipowl.com> #20
ju...@gmail.com <ju...@gmail.com> #21
My bet is that Google still targets API 32 (or even lower) internally so they don't care and didn't even saw the issue before our report.
ca...@google.com <ca...@google.com> #22
rj...@google.com <rj...@google.com> #23
This issue is fixed. The fix has been rolled out via GMSCore and will also require using the latest com.google.android.gms:play-services-wearable:18.0.0
release.
Note that you don’t need to add BIND_LISTENER
manually, it has been deprecated for a long time and it continue to remain so (read more at
Appreciate all the feedback and patience.
li...@google.com <li...@google.com> #24
pr...@rtbhouse.com <pr...@rtbhouse.com> #25
Hey @com.google.android.gms:play-services-wearable:18.0.0
.
After 4 months of testing, it looks like it's broken.
vi...@google.com <vi...@google.com> #26
je...@gmail.com <je...@gmail.com> #27
Well that's possible but I've tested things carefully and targetting API 32 immediately fixes the behavior so I'm confident this is the root cause of the issue
ai...@gmail.com <ai...@gmail.com> #28
Can you share the configuration code you have for the affected service from your AndroidManifest.xml
file?
ra...@gmail.com <ra...@gmail.com> #30
su...@gmail.com <su...@gmail.com> #31
Are you 100% sure that the apk deployed was not an old one with the
old library version for example?
Since there's been some issues with that in past Android Studio versions
and AGP, and since I'm not sure if it's fully fixed and which versions did,
I'd try to run the clean Gradle task, and then run the install task from
command line, and also make sure you're not trying the wrong
buildType/variant.
Please keep us updated.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 3:56 PM <buganizer-system@google.com> wrote:
ja...@gmail.com <ja...@gmail.com> #32
I don't think it's that, it was installed from PlayStore so it's a release one built from command line with a version bump
Maybe there was something wrong but all I did between this build and the new one is roll back to targeting API 32 and things worked immediately so it's strange to me.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #33
As a reminder the fix require an update to Play Services on the device too.
ya...@gmail.com <ya...@gmail.com> #34
Indeed I can see PlayServices aren't updated on my device, like on a lot of Android devices right now auto-update of apps is broken.
I'll try again with up to date services and I'll let you know.
But that means it's far from production ready as we can't expect all of our users to be up to date right now so I'm glad I rollbacked to API 32 for now.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #35
Which Play Services version is supposed to fix it? We might add a check using PackageManager APIs to direct users to perform the update.
qu...@gmail.com <qu...@gmail.com> #36
ry...@mckesson.com <ry...@mckesson.com> #37
Have you taken into account the situation of Chinese devices? It's hard for them to upgrade the Play Service and there are no official solutions about this issue.
co...@abeam.com <co...@abeam.com> #38
na...@gmail.com <na...@gmail.com> #39
=======
"Status
You won't be able to release app updates (11 days away)
Date sent
Aug 10, 2023
Deadline
Aug 30, 2023
Violation
App must target Android 13 (API level 33) or higher"
cp...@minsait.com <cp...@minsait.com> #40
Issue is not yet solved, as we face the exact same problem still.
- Using
targetSdk=31
andcom.google.android.gms:play-services-wearable:18.1.0
: OK - Using
targetSdk=33
andcom.google.android.gms:play-services-wearable:18.1.0
: NOT OK
When using targetSdk 33, messages are no longer sent from the wearable to the phone (e.g. WearableListenerService.onMessageReceived()
) is no longer called.
f....@gmail.com <f....@gmail.com> #41
com.google.android.gms:play-services-wearable:18.1.0
fa...@minsait.com <fa...@minsait.com> #42
si...@fastretailing.com <si...@fastretailing.com> #43
You do not have the Arabic language. I am not fluent in English
ad...@google.com <ad...@google.com> #44
no...@gmail.com <no...@gmail.com> #45
1.1.5.2.5.2.5.1.5.4.4.2
au...@opscircle.io <au...@opscircle.io> #46
4 years has passed since the request has been create . pretty please ?
BTW : we can do IP-filtering on s3 bucket access
ja...@prime6brands.com <ja...@prime6brands.com> #47
wa...@google.com <wa...@google.com> #48
jd...@block.xyz <jd...@block.xyz> #49
aa...@na-telefonicadev.com <aa...@na-telefonicadev.com> #50
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #51
ru...@timbrasil.com.br <ru...@timbrasil.com.br> #52
ms...@nvidia.com <ms...@nvidia.com> #53
pl...@gmail.com <pl...@gmail.com> #54
vl...@vovka.de <vl...@vovka.de> #55
FOUR YEARS.
:facepalm.
ol...@skale-5.com <ol...@skale-5.com> #56
gu...@arquivei.com.br <gu...@arquivei.com.br> #57
ar...@pachama.com <ar...@pachama.com> #58
ch...@ucsb.edu <ch...@ucsb.edu> #59
ch...@mantl.com <ch...@mantl.com> #60
ju...@gmail.com <ju...@gmail.com> #61
bi...@gmail.com <bi...@gmail.com> #62
db...@gmail.com <db...@gmail.com> #63
di...@nos.pt <di...@nos.pt> #64
For the interconnect part we are attempting to use Private Service Connect.
For the internet part, since we want a ELB, the bucket must be made public.
This way, I wanted to make sure that the bucket would only be accessible from Google's ELB IP Range and the Private Service Connect IP Range.
For this use case, VPC SC seems way too "overkill".
Is there any feedback on this?
Thanks,
Diogo Teixeira
ph...@battelleecology.org <ph...@battelleecology.org> #65
iv...@gmail.com <iv...@gmail.com> #66
ch...@mantl.com <ch...@mantl.com> #67
bp...@google.com <bp...@google.com> #68
le...@google.com <le...@google.com> #69
ke...@carrefour.com <ke...@carrefour.com> #70
ja...@g.so.energy <ja...@g.so.energy> #71
Having recently moved to a company using GCP, I cannot believe they don't have this
la...@gmail.com <la...@gmail.com> #72
m....@gmail.com <m....@gmail.com> #73
> ip whitelist
> "write only" permission would be very2 helpful as well
di...@gmail.com <di...@gmail.com> #74
de...@groupm.com <de...@groupm.com> #75
za...@novlr.org <za...@novlr.org> #76
ro...@gmail.com <ro...@gmail.com> #77
bz...@google.com <bz...@google.com> #78
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #79
As GCP fans are we going to get at least an ETA for this feature?
ad...@deliveryhero.com <ad...@deliveryhero.com> #80
ph...@gmail.com <ph...@gmail.com> #81
vi...@offerfit.ai <vi...@offerfit.ai> #82
An...@hermesworld.com <An...@hermesworld.com> #83
Ch...@pttep.com <Ch...@pttep.com> #84
di...@fundment.com <di...@fundment.com> #85
os...@google.com <os...@google.com> #86
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #87
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #88
ma...@devoteam.com <ma...@devoteam.com> #89
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #90
av...@gmail.com <av...@gmail.com> #91
Can you update what the status of this request is?
At this phase, this feature will be released to the world when the Feature Request celebrates a bar mitzvah. (Only another 8 years)
be...@gmail.com <be...@gmail.com> #92
bo...@bobiskandar.com <bo...@bobiskandar.com> #93
wi...@airwallex.com <wi...@airwallex.com> #94
jg...@relias.com <jg...@relias.com> #95
br...@google.com <br...@google.com> #96
wa...@gmail.com <wa...@gmail.com> #97
yo...@rcibanque.com <yo...@rcibanque.com> #98
ev...@gmail.com <ev...@gmail.com> #99
cv...@gmail.com <cv...@gmail.com> #100
ch...@google.com <ch...@google.com> #101
tu...@google.com <tu...@google.com> #102
mi...@gmail.com <mi...@gmail.com> #103
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #104
cp...@google.com <cp...@google.com> #105
ua...@google.com <ua...@google.com> #106
ph...@battelleecology.org <ph...@battelleecology.org> #107
al...@google.com <al...@google.com>
be...@decathlon.com <be...@decathlon.com> #108
bc...@sephora.fr <bc...@sephora.fr> #109
or...@doubleverify.com <or...@doubleverify.com> #110
ks...@synerise.com <ks...@synerise.com> #111
sa...@google.com <sa...@google.com> #112
jo...@schrodinger.com <jo...@schrodinger.com> #113
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #114
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #115
pa...@experify.io <pa...@experify.io> #116
so...@zee.com <so...@zee.com> #117
mi...@human.health <mi...@human.health> #118
Any visibility here would be great, otherwise, the silence is quite concerning!
ja...@google.com <ja...@google.com> #119
cb...@google.com <cb...@google.com>
ba...@gmail.com <ba...@gmail.com> #120
ab...@google.com <ab...@google.com> #121
ji...@diminishedreality.com <ji...@diminishedreality.com> #122
al...@gmail.com <al...@gmail.com> #123
ar...@bytecorp.io <ar...@bytecorp.io> #124
li...@google.com <li...@google.com> #125
am...@lydia-app.com <am...@lydia-app.com> #126
jo...@woven-planet.global <jo...@woven-planet.global> #127
ma...@vtxsecurity.com <ma...@vtxsecurity.com> #128
ug...@matom.ai <ug...@matom.ai> #129
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #130
an...@rakuten.com <an...@rakuten.com> #131
an...@auctane.com <an...@auctane.com> #132
rm...@gmail.com <rm...@gmail.com> #133
Do you guys need help with it?
Let us know the status please, an workaround or something.
wi...@lab900.com <wi...@lab900.com> #134
mj...@google.com <mj...@google.com> #135
al...@gmail.com <al...@gmail.com> #136
vm...@bi4all.pt <vm...@bi4all.pt> #137
eo...@sonalake.com <eo...@sonalake.com> #138
fh...@attraction.ca <fh...@attraction.ca> #139
ky...@loreal.com <ky...@loreal.com> #140
je...@decathlon.com <je...@decathlon.com> #141
fe...@awe.gov.au <fe...@awe.gov.au> #142
mo...@atherenergy.com <mo...@atherenergy.com> #143
th...@ext.adeo.com <th...@ext.adeo.com> #144
ja...@gmail.com <ja...@gmail.com> #145
gl...@zoominfo.com <gl...@zoominfo.com> #146
ma...@zoominfo.com <ma...@zoominfo.com> #147
da...@morrisonsplc.co.uk <da...@morrisonsplc.co.uk> #148
ar...@bforbank.com <ar...@bforbank.com> #149
fl...@gmail.com <fl...@gmail.com> #150
Ridiculous that this has been an open ticket for almost 7 years
What are you even doing, Google?
ni...@google.com <ni...@google.com> #151
Exciting news! GCS Team is currently developing IP Filtering capabilities. This much-requested feature is targeted for release in Q2 2025 - Q1 2026. We'll provide more updates as development progresses.
ab...@google.com <ab...@google.com>
ch...@cloud-ace.jp <ch...@cloud-ace.jp> #152
There might be a bug in "Bypass bucket IP filtering rules".
Our co-worker find out storage.buckets.exemptFromIpFilter
does not do anything with the filter. (still blocked even using the bypass feature)
Hope any googler see this and have a look on it.
ka...@google.com <ka...@google.com> #153
ka...@google.com <ka...@google.com> #154
ma...@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> #155
w.r.t
Per
Bypassing bucket IP filtering rules exempts users or service accounts from IP filtering restrictions for creating, deleting, or configuring buckets, while still enforcing rules for others.
The for creating, deleting, or configuring buckets part is important. The storage.buckets.exemptFromIpFilter
permission allows you to update a bucket from an IP that is blocked, for example to update the blocked IPs if locked out. It does not exempt object get / put access from a blocked IP.
an...@backmarket.com <an...@backmarket.com> #156
Thanks for the feature, we were waiting for it for a long time.
Is it planned to grant more permission to the storage.buckets.exemptFromIpFilter
permission ? It would be really helpful to allow some users or service accounts to bypass the ip filter and to be able to get/put objects without having to deal with the ip filter.
Description
For example, we're building out technical documentation using a static website, and it's restricted to our VPN ip address. This is the only cloud application for which we have to default to Amazon, since their storage buckets let you restrict them by ip address and not just users. We'd love to keep everything in the Google Cloud ecosystem!