On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Roman Mazur <[email protected]> wrote:
> Currently 'ValidFragment' check produces an error if default fragment > constructor in implicit. > To be honest, I'm not satisfied with such a behaviour because it makes me > add an empty constructor explicitly to a bunch of classes... > That's a bug. I discovered it myself yesterday and fixed it: https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/c/93424/ The reason this happened is that I've recently rewritten a bunch of lint checks which *used* to analyze the bytecode to instead analyze the parse tree of the source files itself. That has a number of advantages - more accurate source positions, works inside Studio/IntelliJ without compiled sources, etc. But in this case it had an unexpected regression: When you have a class which doesn't specify a constructor, the compiler will automatically insert one, so it's always there -- and the lint check didn't have to worry about that scenario. When I rewrote it to an AST check I didn't think about that, and there was no unit test covering that scenario. The above fix has already been cherrypicked for the next 0.10.x release of the Android Gradle plugin. -- Tor > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "adt-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adt-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
