Fixed LeakCanary #5784
Fixed LeakCanary #5784
Conversation
grzesiek2010
force-pushed
the
COLLECT-5782
branch
from
7368df9 to
e716552
Compare
| @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | |||
| <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> | |||
| <resources> | |||
| <string name="leak_canary_test_class_name" translatable="false">assertk.Assert</string> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you explain how this fixes things? Might be worth a comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This enables LeakCanary. It was disabled with this message: LeakCanary is currently disabled: test class org.junit.Test was found in classpath and according to https://square.github.io/leakcanary/changelog/#api-breaking-bettering-changes this is how we need to fix it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've added a comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right. Not sure I get why we're using assertk.Assert as the test class to detect though? We don't use assertk as far as I'm aware.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By default, LeakCanary will look for the org.junit.Test class in your classpath and if found, will disable itself to avoid running in tests. However, some apps may ship JUnit in their debug classpaths (for example, when using OkHttp's MockWebServer) so we offer a way to customise the class that is used to determine that the app is running in a test environment.
My understanding is that by default it looks for org.junit.Test and in our case it was found and LeakCanary was disabled.
With this line, it will look for assertk.Assert that does not exist so LeakCanary will be enabled.
That's how I understand it but the documentation is poor and I'm not the only one complaining about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With this line, it will look for
assertk.Assertthat does not exist so LeakCanary will be enabled.
Right. But that will mean it also runs during tests right? My interpretation of those docs is that we should set leak_canary_test_class_name to a class that will only be present in tests (which would be the original intention of org.junit.Test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, I used androidx.test.ext.junit.runners.AndroidJUnit4 instead.
grzesiek2010
force-pushed
the
COLLECT-5782
branch
from
30d43be to
3d9e06c
Compare
Closes #5782
Why is this the best possible solution? Were any other approaches considered?
Nothing to discuss here. I've just fixed LeakCanary so that it works well for us.
How does this change affect users? Describe intentional changes to behavior and behavior that could have accidentally been affected by code changes. In other words, what are the regression risks?
It doesn't require testing.
Do we need any specific form for testing your changes? If so, please attach one.
No.
Does this change require updates to documentation? If so, please file an issue here and include the link below.
No.
Before submitting this PR, please make sure you have:
./gradlew checkAlland confirmed all checks still pass OR confirm CircleCI build passes and run./gradlew connectedDebugAndroidTestlocally.