My previous change was api-compatible, but some of the incidental data
in the API file (like parameter names) changed. It looks like there
were probably a couple other similar changes too, that hadn't
previously been propagated to the API file; all I did to generate this
change was say "make update-api".
Change-Id: I427a9ceb51212fde515df007613b8687b7228ce7
In two places involving locking, reordered the code so that the lock
acquisition is performed outside of the `try` block and everything
else that needs to run while the lock is locked *within* the `try`
block.
Change-Id: I3dad2c4bbf60b219fc6db2aa35e2ed296cb39128
The Javadoc comment for class `android.content.UriMatcher` had four issues:
1. The example calls to `addURI` should not be using a leading forward slash in
the path parameter (reported by Ester Ytterbrink).
2. The sample code to construct a `UriMatcher` was incorrect because the
`UriMatcher` constructor takes a parameter (reported by Ross Light).
3. The code example for using `match` was incorrect because it showed two
parameters being passed, when `match` only takes one (reported by
Ross Light).
4. The sample `getType` implementations were incorrect because `getType` takes
a `Uri` object, not an array of `String`s.
Change-Id: I560bff6f021c13cabf736f40ff0f47a205074291
Adding more detail to the output logging to help track down issues, fixing some
download completed notification counter flakiness and making reboot test more
robust, and reducing the number of concurrent downloads in testMultipleDownloads()
to 10. After talking with Vasu, this is probably more appropriate as it is
closer to typical usage scenarios, and as a side effect should trim some
time from the test runs. Large numbers of downloads will be left for stress
testing.
Change-Id: Ie337cfe9b8d27299d70553e39c60e241ff3afe66
* commit '1112632a41462c5dd34c7af9f67b88188a520517':
docs: revise javadocs for sip add a package description, revise class descriptions and edit some method docs
We were telling the app, but we weren't saving the data for ourselves.
This also tells them to re-scroll when there's a new size.
Bug: 3144373
Change-Id: I9d12b714119ff02dd7d7f1cfa997d8a44475b9e9
We are leaving enough API so that you can see when any Tag is discovered,
get its ID, and get its NDEF messages.
But for advanced use - creating tag connections and writing messages - we have
2 problems. Firstly a lot of the code is untested
(RawTagConnection.transceive()), or in some cases known not to work
(NdefTagConnection.write()). Secondly, there is still debate about how to
best expose information about Tags.
The set of data/methods exposed for a Tag changes completely depending on the
tag technology. There may be multiple sets of technology implemented in a
single tag. Tag A may have technology X and Y, Tag B may have technology Y
and Z. Furthermore, some NFC controllers will be not be able to use all
technologies, and so Android Device 1 may see technology X and Y on Tag A but
Android device 2 may only see technology X. So we have a pretty challenging
set of constraints to work under, and we are not convinced the current Tag and
NdefTag class is the best approach going forwards.
The Tag application should be able to remain unbundled, since it just needs to
get incoming NDEF Messages.
Change-Id: Ic09f094f33794e10f8d730fffe011c9a5957e0ac
Signed-off-by: Nick Pelly <npelly@google.com>
