Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
Also, apologies, my local copy of |
mCodex
approved these changes
Jun 27, 2021
Owner
mCodex
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Many thanks!!!
Don't worry about prettier stuff, I'll update the example code.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Found while researching some odd behavior on customer's phones:
When writing the encrypted value to the user's shared preferences, it appears that currently the change is written using
.apply. Based on the nature of the data being written, it seems like the more correct method to use here is.commit. Given that, for a number of reasons, the value may fail to actually be written to the disk, the caller would likely want to know if it failed, as well as to not perform any future computation until the write has definitely either failed or succeeded.I had some trouble actually exercising the failure paths here when trying to force
setItemto fail ( I tried, in the emulator, marking preference XML files as0400, corrupting them, etc. ) but it seems that SharedPreferences just overwrites the files at boot up. If you have any ideas on how to better test this, would be helpful. In any case, I think the semantics change here is the correct one, even if it will reduce performance usingsetItem.