Status Update
Comments
gg...@google.com <gg...@google.com>
gg...@google.com <gg...@google.com> #2
This is a particularly hard device to come by - do you happen to have access to the device? If so could you provide us with the output of: adb shell dumpsys media.camera > info.txt
Thanks!
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #3
Stacktrace:
Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Can not get supported output size under supported maximum for the format: 34
at androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSupportedOutputSizes(SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:355)
at androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSuggestedResolutions(SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:197)
at androidx.camera.camera2.internal.Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.getSuggestedResolutions(Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.java:198)
at androidx.camera.core.CameraX.calculateSuggestedResolutions(CameraX.java:943)
at androidx.camera.core.CameraX.bindToLifecycle(CameraX.java:293)
at androidx.camera.lifecycle.ProcessCameraProvider.bindToLifecycle(ProcessCameraProvider.java:227)
Below are some findings based on our debugging
When Dex is connected
previewConfig.getMaxResolution() is returning "731x411" as maxSize.
Inside Preview.Builder.build() -> Default_MAX_resolution is set to "CameraX.getSurfaceManager().getPreviewSize()" which is 731x411
this is being picked as maxSize.
While rendering maxSize is 731x411 and minSize is 640x480 and below are available outputSizes
0 = {Size@11860} "4032x3024"
1 = {Size@11861} "3984x2988"
2 = {Size@11862} "4032x2268"
3 = {Size@11863} "3024x3024"
4 = {Size@11864} "2976x2976"
5 = {Size@11865} "3840x2160"
6 = {Size@11866} "3264x2448"
7 = {Size@11867} "4032x1960"
8 = {Size@11868} "2880x2160"
9 = {Size@11869} "3264x1836"
10 = {Size@11870} "2160x2160"
11 = {Size@11871} "2560x1440"
12 = {Size@11872} "2224x1080"
13 = {Size@11873} "2048x1152"
14 = {Size@11874} "1920x1080"
15 = {Size@11875} "1440x1080"
16 = {Size@11876} "1088x1088"
17 = {Size@11877} "1280x720"
18 = {Size@11878} "1024x768"
19 = {Size@11879} "1056x704"
20 = {Size@11880} "960x720"
21 = {Size@11881} "960x540"
22 = {Size@11882} "720x720"
23 = {Size@11883} "800x450"
24 = {Size@11884} "720x480"
25 = {Size@11885} "640x480"
26 = {Size@11886} "352x288"
27 = {Size@11887} "320x240"
28 = {Size@11888} "256x144"
29 = {Size@11889} "176x144"
and couldn't find any size in this range.
When Dex not connected
minsize = 640x480
maxsize = 1920x1080
0 = {Size@11836} "4032x3024"
1 = {Size@11837} "3984x2988"
2 = {Size@11838} "4032x2268"
3 = {Size@11839} "3024x3024"
4 = {Size@11840} "2976x2976"
5 = {Size@11841} "3840x2160"
6 = {Size@11842} "3264x2448"
7 = {Size@11843} "4032x1960"
8 = {Size@11844} "2880x2160"
9 = {Size@11845} "3264x1836"
10 = {Size@11846} "2160x2160"
11 = {Size@11847} "2560x1440"
12 = {Size@11848} "2224x1080"
13 = {Size@11849} "2048x1152"
14 = {Size@11850} "1920x1080"
15 = {Size@11851} "1440x1080"
16 = {Size@11852} "1088x1088"
17 = {Size@11853} "1280x720"
18 = {Size@11854} "1024x768"
19 = {Size@11855} "1056x704"
20 = {Size@11856} "960x720"
21 = {Size@11857} "960x540"
22 = {Size@11858} "720x720"
23 = {Size@11859} "800x450"
24 = {Size@11860} "720x480"
25 = {Size@11861} "640x480"
26 = {Size@11862} "352x288"
27 = {Size@11863} "320x240"
28 = {Size@11864} "256x144"
29 = {Size@11865} "176x144"
and we have 12 available sizes in this range
Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.java:: getPreviewSize()
mCameraSupportedSurfaceCombinationMap.get(cameraId).getSurfaceDefinition().getPreviewSize() = "1920x1080"
cameraId=0
ay...@blink22.com <ay...@blink22.com> #4
The issue root cause is that CameraX will default filter out sizes smaller than 640x480. For Preview, the max size will be limited to under display size. I checked the HW spec info for the issue related devices. Display size of FUJITSU F-04J/F-05J is 360x640. That will result int that no size exists in the conditions that is larger or equal to 640x480 and smaller or equal to 360x640.
A temporary workaround for this situation is to use Preview.Builder#setTargetResolution() to set a size smaller than 640x480 to bypass the problem.
For device FUJITSU arrowsM04, I checked its HW spec info and its display size I found is 1280x720. It seems that the problem should not exist in the device.
Could you confirm that the problem exist on arrowsM04 device? What will be the returned value when using Display#getRealSize to obtain the display size?
be...@gmail.com <be...@gmail.com> #5
> A temporary workaround for this situation is to use Preview.Builder#setTargetResolution() to set a size smaller than 640x480 to bypass the problem.
OK. I will try it.
> Could you confirm that the problem exist on arrowsM04 device?
We receive the crash report (Crashlytics) that this crash has occurred on arrowsM04.
We don't have this device so we can't confirm that the problem really exist on arrowsM04.
> What will be the returned value when using Display#getRealSize to obtain the display size?
We can't investigate it for the same reason.
Thank you.
so...@gmail.com <so...@gmail.com> #6
This issue happened on devices that the display size is smaller than 640x480. In original auto-resolution mechanism, supported sizes smaller than 640x480 will be default filter out.
The auto-resolution mechanism encodes the guaranteed configurations tables in CameraDevice#createCaptureSession(SessionConfiguration). It defines that the PREVIEW size is the small one of the device display size and 1080p. The PREVIEW size will be the maximal size limitation for Preview use case. The reason it limits the size to display size and 1080p is the stream output in display size or 1080p has been able to provide good enough preview quality. Therefore, auto-resolution mechanism will limit the selected size to be smaller than the small one of the device display size and 1080p.
With above two conditions, in this issue, all sizes smaller than 640x480 have been filter out, therefore, there is no size smaller than the display size 320x240 can be selected to use. And cause the exception.
Solution:
When the display size is smaller than 640x480, auto-resolution mechanism won't filter out those small sizes smaller than 640x480. This makes those small size be left and can be selected for the Preview use case on small display devices.
The solution has been merged and will be included in next CameraX release.
ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com> #7
Hello.
This crash still occurs.
- CAMERAX VERSION: 1.0.0-beta4
- ANDROID OS BUILD NUMBER: Android 7.1.1
- DEVICE NAME: FUJITSU F-02H
We receive following crash report from FUJITSU F-02H. So far We have received this crash report only from F-02H.
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException
Can not get supported output size under supported maximum for the format: 34
androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSupportedOutputSizes (SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:349)
androidx.camera.camera2.internal.SupportedSurfaceCombination.getSuggestedResolutions (SupportedSurfaceCombination.java:197)
androidx.camera.camera2.internal.Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.getSuggestedResolutions (Camera2DeviceSurfaceManager.java:198)
androidx.camera.core.CameraX.calculateSuggestedResolutions (CameraX.java:949)
androidx.camera.core.CameraX.bindToLifecycle (CameraX.java:351)
androidx.camera.lifecycle.ProcessCameraProvider.bindToLifecycle (ProcessCameraProvider.java:230)
(our application's package name).CameraFragment.bindCameraUseCases (CameraFragment.java:174)
nk...@google.com <nk...@google.com> #8
Could you help to provide the following information to clarify the issue?
1. Is the full name of the device Fujitsu Arrows NX F-02H that has a 1440x2560 display?
2. Please help to provide the supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE that is obtained by StreamConfigurationMap#getOutputSizes(int).
ay...@blink22.com <ay...@blink22.com> #9
- Is the full name of the device Fujitsu Arrows NX F-02H that has a 1440x2560 display?
Yes
- Please help to provide the supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE that is obtained by StreamConfigurationMap#getOutputSizes(int).
Since we don't have this device, we'll try to collect this information in the next version of our app. The next version will be released later this month.
nk...@google.com <nk...@google.com>
ju...@gmail.com <ju...@gmail.com> #10
Hello.
- Please help to provide the supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE that is obtained by StreamConfigurationMap#getOutputSizes(int).
We have collected the output of the device where the crash occurs.
Device1
- Model : arrows Be F-05J
- Android Version : 7.1.1
- Supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE
CameraId 0: 480x480
CameraId 1: 2048x1536 ,1920x1080 ,1280x720 ,960x720 ,640x480 ,320x240 ,176x144
Device2
- Model : Fujitsu arrows M04
- Android Version : 7.1.1
- Supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE
CameraId 0: 480x480
CameraId 1: 2048x1536 ,1920x1080 ,1280x720 ,960x720 ,640x480 ,320x240 ,176x144
Additional Information
CameraX version : 1.0.0-beta04
We collect the supported output sizes by following code.
val errorString = buildString {
append("The supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE: ")
(requireContext().getSystemService(Context.CAMERA_SERVICE) as CameraManager).apply {
cameraIdList.forEachIndexed { index, cameraId ->
val msg = if (VERSION.SDK_INT >= VERSION_CODES.M) {
val configurationMap =
getCameraCharacteristics(cameraId).get(CameraCharacteristics.SCALER_STREAM_CONFIGURATION_MAP)
val sizes = configurationMap?.getOutputSizes(ImageFormat.PRIVATE)
"CameraId $index: ${sizes?.joinToString(" ,")}"
} else {
"CameraId $index: This device version is under M."
}
append(msg)
}
}
}
nk...@google.com <nk...@google.com> #11
nk...@google.com <nk...@google.com> #12
I tried to find the device specs and both 720x1280
size display. For the camera id 0 device, it is a different case that the display size is larger than 640x480
but the device only supports a 480x480
size. The case also caused the same IllegalArgumentException and was also fixed by 1.0.0-beta04
release. Before 480x480
size would be filtered out and then caused the IllegalArgumentException. After it was merged, the 640x480
size threshold was removed and then the 480x480
size would be kept and selected to use.
It looks like 1.0.0-beta04
release had been used to collect the supported sizes information. But the issue should have been fixed by 1.0.0-beta04
release. Did you only check the device model name to collect the supported sizes information or collect the information when the IllegalArgumentException issue happens again?
CameraX's 1.0.0-beta04
version. Maybe you can also consider to upgrade to the latest 1.0.0-rc01
version for your application. Thanks.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #13
Did you only check the device model name to collect the supported sizes information or collect the information when the IllegalArgumentException issue happens again?
We collect informations only from the device on which IllegalArgumentException happened.
Our latest app uses CameraX version 1.0.0-beta10
and this issue still occurres.
However we don't receive crash report from Fujitsu arrows Be F-05J
or Fujitsu arrows M04
so far. (This doesn't mean this issue is fixed on these devices because our app is heavily rely on camera so these device's user wouldn't use our app anymore.)
Instead, we receive crash report from
- Model : Fujitsu F-03K
- Android Version : 7.1.2
- Supported output sizes of ImageFormat.PRIVATE
CameraId 0 : 480x480
CameraId 1 : 2048x1536 ,1920x1080 ,1280x720 ,960x720 ,640x480 ,320x240 ,176x144
nk...@google.com <nk...@google.com> #14
I missed some settings when I simulated the issue by robolectric test so that I was not able to reproduce it. Now, I can reproduce the issue if the device only supports one 480x480 resolution. I'm working on the solution and target to make it included in next release.
ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com>
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #15
Branch: androidx-main
commit 69d15dff7bb857ee33a0f643ff42a0f8bc475ab2
Author: charcoalchen <charcoalchen@google.com>
Date: Fri Jan 08 18:30:03 2021
Fixed IllegalArgumentException issue happened when all preview supported sizes are smaller than 640x480 and display size is larger than 640x480.
Do not filter out sizes smaller than 640x480 when all preview supported sizes are smaller than 640x480 and display size is larger than 640x480.
Relnote:"Fixed IllegalArgumentException issue happened when all preview supported sizes are smaller than 640x480 and display size is larger than 640x480."
Bug: 150506192
Test: SupportedSurfaceCombinationTest
Change-Id: I2a63ce8e2ad42a9cc060c8635ac3603bf440b1ec
M camera/camera-camera2/src/main/java/androidx/camera/camera2/internal/SupportedSurfaceCombination.java
M camera/camera-camera2/src/test/java/androidx/camera/camera2/internal/SupportedSurfaceCombinationTest.java
ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com> #16
ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com> #17
Fixed in ag/Ib7377ad308b266fb79c753a859c4bf75d43e029f
co...@gmail.com <co...@gmail.com> #18
---------------
static String addTestCoverageSupport(Bundle bundle, String str) {
if (!shouldRunCoverage(bundle) || !runsInIsolatedMode(bundle)) {
return null;
}
String string = bundle.getString("coverageFilePath");
if (string == null || string.isEmpty()) {
throw new IllegalStateException(String.format("The coverage path [%s] is either null or empty", new Object[]{string}));
} else if (bundle.getString("coverageFile") == null) {
return new StringBuilder((String.valueOf(string).length() + 3) + String.valueOf(str).length()).append(string).append(str).append(".ec").toString();
} else {
throw new IllegalStateException(String.format("Can't use a custom coverage file name [-e %s %s] when running through orchestrator in isolated mode. Since the generated coverage files will overwrite each other. Please consider using [%s] instead.", new Object[]{"coverageFile", bundle.getString("coverageFile"), "coverageFilePath"}));
}
}
---------------
Throws an ISE exception if it does not find the coverageFilePath. Is this caused by the fact that no such parameter is specified when executing:
---------------
V/ddms: execute: running CLASSPATH=$(pm path android.support.test.services) app_process / android.support.test.services.shellexecutor.ShellMain am instrument -r -w -e targetInstrumentation com.jpmorgan.am.ipbonline.instr.test/android.support.test.runner.AndroidJUnitRunner -e coverageFile /data/data/com.jpmorgan.am.ipbonline.instr/
---------------
I just want to confirm if this is the cause of the process crash 'Instrumentation run failed due to 'Process crashed'.'
sl...@google.com <sl...@google.com> #19
is...@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> #20
do...@gmail.com <do...@gmail.com> #21
So I changed the orchestrator to 1.0.2 (did not make any changes in the test cases). Gradle can sync but when I tried to generate the report with "createDebugAndroidTestCoverageReport" task, it said "com.android.builder.testing.ConnectedDevice > No tests found"
So in short, if I used an older version of orchestrator, the report returned wrong result
If i used a new version of orchestrator, it has error.
Does anyone have the similar issue? Is that orchestrator 1.0.2 still a little bit buggy or I missed something?
Thanks.
ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com> #22
do...@gmail.com <do...@gmail.com> #23
I cannot find a fix yet. Any other suggestions?
Thanks.
ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com> #24
do...@gmail.com <do...@gmail.com> #25
If I use orchestrator:1.0.1 (line 112), I can run the test cases with the tasks "createProductionDebugCoverageReport" (./gradlew createProductionDebugCoverageReport).
If I use orchestrator:1.0.2 without changing anything in the test cases, it throws me an error as I mentioned before.
Let me know if you need more information.
ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com> #26
do...@gmail.com <do...@gmail.com> #27
It fixed this problem but had a different problem. I will open a new post if I don't find a fix for that.
Thanks man.
sh...@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> #28
I have used: gradle: 3.2.0-alpha17, test:runner: 1.0.2
distributionUrl=https\://
testInstrumentationRunnerArguments clearPackageData: 'true'
execution 'ANDROID_TEST_ORCHESTRATOR'
androidTestUtil 'com.android.support.test:orchestrator:1.0.1'
Jacaoco setup -
task jacocoTestReport(type: JacocoReport, dependsOn: ['testDebugUnitTest', 'createDebugCoverageReport']) {
reports {
xml.enabled = true
html.enabled = true
}
fileFilter ="***"
def debugTree = fileTree(dir: "${buildDir}/intermediates/classes/debug", excludes: fileFilter)
def mainSrc = "${project.projectDir}/src/main/java"
sourceDirectories = files([mainSrc])
classDirectories = files([debugTree])
executionData = fileTree(dir: "$buildDir", includes: [
"jacoco/testDebugUnitTest.exec",
"outputs/code-coverage/connected/*
----
allprojects {
apply plugin: "jacoco"
jacoco {
toolVersion = "0.8.0"
}
-----
dependencies {
classpath 'com.android.tools.build:gradle:3.2.0-alpha17'
classpath "org.jacoco:org.jacoco.core:0.8.0"
-----
I am getting the Following Error
C:\Development\Projects\BreathMapper\Workspace\Source\BreatheMapper\app\libs\adobeMobileLibrary-4.13.5.jar
Warning:Type `com.google.android.gms.wearable.PutDataMapRequest` was not found, it is required for default or static interface methods desugaring of `void com.adobe.mobile.ConfigSynchronizer.syncData(java.lang.String, com.google.android.gms.wearable.DataMap)`
Warning:Type `com.google.android.gms.wearable.DataMapItem` was not found, it is required for default or static interface methods desugaring of `void com.adobe.mobile.ConfigSynchronizer.restoreConfig(com.google.android.gms.wearable.DataItem)`
Warning:Type `com.google.android.gms.wearable.PutDataMapRequest` was not found, it is required for default or static interface methods desugaring of `com.adobe.mobile.WearableDataResponse com.adobe.mobile.WearableDataConnection.send(com.adobe.mobile.WearableDataRequest)`
Warning:Type `com.google.android.gms.wearable.DataMapItem` was not found, it is required for default or static interface methods desugaring of `void com.adobe.mobile.WearableDataConnection.onDataChanged(com.google.android.gms.wearable.DataEventBuffer)`
Warning:Type `com.google.android.gms.wearable.Asset` was not found, it is required for default or static interface methods desugaring of `com.google.android.gms.wearable.DataMap com.adobe.mobile.WearableDataRequest$Cache.handle(android.content.Context)`
Warning:Interface `com.google.android.gms.common.api.GoogleApiClient$OnConnectionFailedListener` not found. It's needed to make sure desugaring of `com.adobe.mobile.WearableDataConnection` is correct. Desugaring will assume that this interface has no default method.
Warning:Interface `com.google.android.gms.wearable.DataApi$DataListener` not found. It's needed to make sure desugaring of `com.adobe.mobile.WearableDataConnection` is correct. Desugaring will assume that this interface has no default method.
C:\Users\xx\.gradle\caches\transforms-1\files-1.1\runtime-1.1.1.aar\be15bb0ad7b260a4de5c6f23e94be8e7\jars\classes.jar
Warning:Type `android.arch.paging.PositionalDataSource` was not found, it is required for default or static interface methods desugaring of `boolean android.arch.persistence.room.paging.LimitOffsetDataSource.isInvalid()`
C:\Users\xx\.gradle\caches\transforms-1\files-1.1\espresso-core-3.0.2.aar\f93273e747e9ce9e35d6f1173bb60539\jars\classes.jar
Warning:Type `sun.misc.Unsafe` was not found, it is required for default or static interface methods desugaring of `sun.misc.Unsafe android.support.test.espresso.core.internal.deps.guava.cache.Striped64.getUnsafe()`
Warning:Type `sun.misc.Unsafe` was not found, it is required for default or static interface methods desugaring of `void android.support.test.espresso.core.internal.deps.guava.util.concurrent.AbstractFuture$UnsafeAtomicHelper.<clinit>()`
Error:
Note: Some input files use or override a deprecated API.
Note: Recompile with -Xlint:deprecation for details.
Note: Some input files use unchecked or unsafe operations.
Note: Recompile with -Xlint:unchecked for details.
1 warning
Note: Some input files use or override a deprecated API.
Note: Recompile with -Xlint:deprecation for details.
FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.
* What went wrong:
Execution failed for task ':app:createDebugAndroidTestCoverageReport'.
> java.io.IOException: No coverage data to process in directory 'C:\Development\Projects\BreathMapper\Workspace\Source\BreatheMapper\app\build\outputs\code-coverage\connected'
* Try:
Run with --stacktrace option to get the stack trace. Run with --info or --debug option to get more log output. Run with --scan to get full insights.
* Get more help at
BUILD FAILED in 4m 56s
ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com> #29
Can you please file a new issue, and upload a sample project that reproduces it?
sh...@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> #30
Full Error log
C:\Development\Projects\MyTest\Workspace\Source\MyTest\app\build\outputs\androidTest-results\connected\TEST-Galaxy_Nexus_API_26(AVD) - 8.0.0-app-.xml. Total tests 48, passed 48,
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute 'CLASSPATH=$(pm path android.support.test.services) app_process / android.support.test.services.shellexecutor.ShellMain am instrument -r -w -e targetInstrumentation com.vn.test.test/android.support.test.runner.AndroidJUnitRunner --no_window_animation -e coverageFilePath /data/data/com.vn.test/coverage_data/ -e coverage true android.support.test.orchestrator/android.support.test.orchestrator.AndroidTestOrchestrator' on 'emulator-5556' : EOF hit. Read: -1
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute: returning
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute: running echo 'for i in $(run-as com.vn.test ls /data/data/com.vn.test/coverage_data/); do run-as com.vn.test cat /data/data/com.vn.test/coverage_data/$i > /data/local/tmp/com.vn.test-coverage_data/$i; done' > /data/local/tmp/com.vn.test-coverage_data/copyFromUser.sh
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute 'echo 'for i in $(run-as com.vn.test ls /data/data/com.vn.test/coverage_data/); do run-as com.vn.test cat /data/data/com.vn.test/coverage_data/$i > /data/local/tmp/com.vn.test-coverage_data/$i; done' > /data/local/tmp/com.vn.test-coverage_data/copyFromUser.sh' on 'emulator-5556' : EOF hit. Read: -1
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute: returning
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute: running sh /data/local/tmp/com.vn.test-coverage_data/copyFromUser.sh
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute 'sh /data/local/tmp/com.vn.test-coverage_data/copyFromUser.sh' on 'emulator-5556' : EOF hit. Read: -1
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute: returning
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute: running ls /data/local/tmp/com.vn.test-coverage_data > /data/local/tmp/com.vn.test-coverage_data/paths.txt
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute 'ls /data/local/tmp/com.vn.test-coverage_data > /data/local/tmp/com.vn.test-coverage_data/paths.txt' on 'emulator-5556' : EOF hit. Read: -1
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute: returning
06:04:55 D/paths.txt: Downloading paths.txt from device 'emulator-5556'
06:04:55 D/Device: Downloading file from device 'emulator-5556'
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute: running rm -r /data/local/tmp/com.vn.test-coverage_data
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute 'rm -r /data/local/tmp/com.vn.test-coverage_data' on 'emulator-5556' : EOF hit. Read: -1
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute: returning
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute: running pm uninstall com.vn.test.test
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute 'pm uninstall com.vn.test.test' on 'emulator-5556' : EOF hit. Read: -1
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute: returning
06:04:55 V/ddms: execute: running pm uninstall com.vn.test
06:04:56 V/ddms: execute 'pm uninstall com.vn.test' on 'emulator-5556' : EOF hit. Read: -1
06:04:56 V/ddms: execute: returning
:app:createDebugAndroidTestCoverageReport FAILED
FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.
* What went wrong:
Execution failed for task ':app:createDebugAndroidTestCoverageReport'.
> java.io.IOException: No coverage data to process in directory 'C:\Development\Projects\MyTest\Workspace\Source\Test\app\build\outputs\code-coverage\connected'
* Try:
Run with --stacktrace option to get the stack trace. Run with --info or --debug option to get more log output. Run with --scan to get full insights.
* Get more help at
BUILD FAILED in 3m 14s
sh...@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> #31
I have uploaded some more log detail.
sh...@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> #32
My setup was working fine with earlier gradle plugin 3.1.2 . with distributionUrl=gradle-4.4-all.zip (.ec file was generating but only coverage data is incomplete ).
But I tried to implement the solution provided in #20
gradle plugin - gradle:3.2.0-alpha17' with distributionUrl=gradle-4.6-all.zip But getting #30 error an .ec file not generating
ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com> #33
ba...@gmail.com <ba...@gmail.com> #35
How to test the private methods and greendao database CRUD operations in android robolectric test case.
How to get private method code coverage in android jacoco library using
sl...@gmail.com <sl...@gmail.com> #36
> java.io.IOException: No coverage data to process in directories [[/Users/msh/git/wine-scanner-android/app/build/outputs/code_coverage/worldDebugAndroidTest/connected]]
Only happens when enabling ANDROIDX_TEST_ORCHESTRATOR
ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com> #37
Can you please share a project the reproduces the issue?
sl...@gmail.com <sl...@gmail.com> #38
I've tried trouble shooting most of the day and so far no luck. I really have no idea where to start looking.
Not sure if it will help but the complete output when running ./gradlew createWorldDebugCoverageReport is attached.
I've tried against an emulator (genymotion) as well as a real device - same result.
I guess the next logical step is to setup a basic project and see if that has the same problem...
ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com> #39
bi...@gmail.com <bi...@gmail.com> #40
Still error
Execution failed for task ':app:createDebugAndroidTestCoverageReport'.
> java.io.IOException: No coverage data to process in directories /app/build/outputs/code_coverage/debugAndroidTest/connected
sl...@gmail.com <sl...@gmail.com> #41
az...@gmail.com <az...@gmail.com> #42
> Caused by: org.gradle.api.UncheckedIOException: java.io.IOException: No coverage data to process in directories [[/Users/azizbekian/Projects/XXX/XXX/app/build/outputs/code_coverage/devDebugAndroidTest/connected]]
Using `androidTestUtil androidx.test:orchestrator:1.2.0`
AGP version 3.4.2
Gradle version 5.5
Have specified `testInstrumentationRunnerArguments clearPackageData: 'true'` in `defaultConfig` DSL
Have specified `execution 'ANDROIDX_TEST_ORCHESTRATOR'` in testOptions DSL
Problem is, that I cannot see `
an...@gmail.com <an...@gmail.com> #43
bj...@googlemail.com <bj...@googlemail.com> #44
ma...@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> #45
Running tests and having coverage data is a basic scenario for every developer that has some self-respect.
sc...@gmail.com <sc...@gmail.com> #46
eu...@rbs.co.uk <eu...@rbs.co.uk> #47
wi...@gmail.com <wi...@gmail.com> #48
ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com> #49
The root cause of this issue has been fixed, and you are almost certainly hitting another issue. Please open a new bug to help us track issues in a better way.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #50
ga...@google.com <ga...@google.com> #51
Please read all comments before posting, as
Description
Enabling test orchestration causes incorrect coverage report statistics. Only the last run test will have coverage data correctly reported, all other test coverage data is lost when looking at the report.
I have attached a vanilla app created by android studio that has coverage enabled, test orchestrator enabled, and two tests that test two methods in the main activity.
Running the generated task 'createDebugAndroidTestCoverageReport' and checking the report will show only the last executed test has correct coverage data.
Libraries used: Espresso:3.0.1, Runner:1.0.1
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Create a vanilla app from the android studio prompt.
2. Enable test coverage in the debug buildtype (testCoverageEnabled = true)
2b. Enable test orchestration in testOptions (execution 'ANDROID_TEST_ORCHESTRATOR')
3. Create two test methods in the main activity (they can be static)
4. Create two tests in androidTest to test those methods.
5. Run the 'createDebugAndroidTestCoverageReport'
6. Open the report index: /build/reports/coverage/index.html
7. Navigate to the MainActivity and check the coverage for the two test methods.
EXPECTED: Both test methods are reported as covered.
ACTUAL: Only the last run test subject (method under test) has coverage reported.
How are you running your tests (via Android Studio, Gradle, adb, etc.)?
Gradle / Android Studio Gradle Projects Window using the 'createDebugAndroidTestCoverageReport'
What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Code Coverage reports all methods have coverage.