Status Update
Comments
yb...@google.com <yb...@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!
va...@gmail.com <va...@gmail.com> #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
ya...@gmail.com <ya...@gmail.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?
ya...@gmail.com <ya...@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.
zh...@gmail.com <zh...@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.
zt...@gmail.com <zt...@gmail.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)
ma...@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.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).
el...@gmail.com <el...@gmail.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.
ma...@gmail.com <ma...@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)
}
}
}
yb...@google.com <yb...@google.com> #11
ma...@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.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.
va...@gmail.com <va...@gmail.com> #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
ya...@gmail.com <ya...@gmail.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.
yb...@google.com <yb...@google.com> #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
va...@gmail.com <va...@gmail.com> #16
ma...@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> #17
Ultimately, my recommendation (until I get to work on various projects that are fully utilizing this architecture as advertised) is to keep RX java around, for live data’s benefit (tied to Lifecycle) can have unwanted side-effects. I did run the sample project and I was surprised to see the double notification. It’s the kind of thing why you (google) added the “ContentLoadingProgressBar”, so if the whole “retrieve my data” thing took less than 500ms, you’d not display the “Spinner”. Even tho it lived for over 2 years with a very annoying bug that prevented it from being used.
Google can also argue that this is a complicated / very specific scenario and as such, a fix would break or compromise other parts of the architecture. In the end, I’ll keep an eye open and see whether this becomes a thing or, like many other things, nobody really cares too much and the workarounds become part of the implementation.
Thank you both for your time to report (op!) and “yb@google” for replying and the patience to explain the issue and Google’s point of view.
an...@gmail.com <an...@gmail.com> #19
** DON'T DO THIS **
override fun onViewCreated(view: View, savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
myLiveData.observe(this, .....)
}
** DO THIS **
override fun onCreate(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
myLiveData.observe(this, .....)
}
** OR THIS **
override fun onViewCreated(view: View, savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
myLiveData.observe(viewLifecycleOwner, .....)
}
be...@gmail.com <be...@gmail.com> #20
yb...@google.com <yb...@google.com> #21
be...@gmail.com <be...@gmail.com> #22
Opening a new issue.
yb...@google.com <yb...@google.com> #23
When your activity is created, it is the first time it is observing the data, hence it will receive the value, and any other value after that.
If you want to use it for events, don't because it is not designed for events. It is a data holder, you don't hold events.
There are possible implementations like SingleLiveEvent doing that, but it has some gotchas.
Or you can do the more proper way of having values that can be handled, as done in the GithubBrowserSample
be...@gmail.com <be...@gmail.com> #24
Hey Yigit, you have not understood the problem. Adding an observer does receive the existing value but this has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is that when you observe, the callback installed is called twice every time the data changes programmatically.
The example shows this by showing a toast, however what the code does inside the observer has nothing to do with the fact that it is called twice for every programmatic change. Change the toast to something different, and the problem that it is called twice still exists.
As for not holding events, I agree, LiveData holds data. Sure, but again, what does that have to do with the code that responds? Why have an observer if the code that listens isn't allowed to do anything? I assume I can do something in that code, but if there are restrictions, then what are those restrictions? Are the restrictions that I can't have any UI behavior? No changing any other LiveData? What exactly is allowed or not allowed inside an observer?
Without a description, I think it is fair to assume everything is allowed and programmers will assume they can do what they want. If there are severe restrictions, then LiveData is probably not useful for many programmers. Programmers are your customer and I think you should be respectful of your customers and at the very least explain any restrictions in observers.
I've already added a new issue just in case this original issue has nothing to do with the additional information I provided in my original comment on this issue.
I will take a look at the GithubBrowserSample , but I've never been able to get any other samples from that repo to work, so I'm not holding out much hope.
yb...@google.com <yb...@google.com> #25
If you replace editTextContent with this:
@Bindable
val editTextContent = object : MutableLiveData<String>() {
override fun setValue(value: String?) {
super.setValue(value)
}
}
and put a break point to setValue, you'll notice that it is called twice when you hit that button.
It happens because when you change the value, data binding triggers and goes and updates the EditText's value, which, then goes back and re-updates the value of the LiveData (due to two way binding).
android:text="@={viewmodel.editTextContent}"
So this has nothing to do w/ LiveData, it is a tricky situation in two way binding where it does not settle until cycle completes.
I'll talk to the two way owner to see if the two way handling could detect the case.
In an app, if you want to avoid duplicates, you can
: depend on
implementation 'androidx.lifecycle:lifecycle-livedata-ktx:2.1.0-alpha03'
and change your activity code as follows:
mainViewModel.editTextContent.distinctUntilChanged().observe(this, Observer {
Toast.makeText(this, it, Toast.LENGTH_SHORT).show()
})
va...@gmail.com <va...@gmail.com> #26
ra...@gmail.com <ra...@gmail.com> #27
zh...@gmail.com <zh...@gmail.com> #28
il...@google.com <il...@google.com> #30
The issue mentioned in
The rest of this issue is working as intended as per the comments by
Description
Version used: 1.1.1
Devices/Android versions reproduced on: emulator Nexus 5 API 21
The bug was first reported in this StackOverflow thread:
Repo:
Steps to reproduce:
1. Ensure that REPRODUCE_BUG is set to true in MainFragment
2. Install the app
3. Click on "add trashed note" button
4. Switch to TrashFragment
5. Note that there was just one notification form LiveData with correct value
6. Switch to MainFragment
7. Click on "add trashed note" button
8. Switch to TrashFragment
9. Note that there were two notifications from LiveData, the first one with incorrect value
Note that if you set REPRODUCE_BUG to false then the bug doesn't reproduce. It demonstrates that subscription to LiveData in MainFragment changed the behavior in TrashFragment.
Expected result:
Just one notification with correct value in any case. No change in behavior due to previous subscriptions.
More info:
I looked at the sources a bit, and it looks like notifications being triggered due to both LiveData activation and new Observer subscription.
Might be related to the way ComputableLiveData offloads onActive() computation to Executor.