Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Release/1.20.1 #1682

Merged
merged 23 commits into from
Oct 7, 2024
Merged

Release/1.20.1 #1682

merged 23 commits into from
Oct 7, 2024

Conversation

ThomasSession
Copy link
Collaborator

v1.20.1

Fixing some strings related crashes
Upgraded to the latest Compose via the latest BOM
Fixed a long press issue that crept back in

ThomasSession and others added 21 commits September 11, 2024 11:11
Fix ItemButton padding for downstate
Making sure an approved message request sets the contact as visible. They could have been set to hidden if the contact had previously sent another message request which was then declined.
Upon sending another one we need to make sure the contact is set to visible once that request is approved.
@ThomasSession ThomasSession marked this pull request as ready for review October 4, 2024 04:24
@SessionHero01 SessionHero01 self-requested a review October 4, 2024 04:39
}
catch (Exception e){} // the above can throw a null exception
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we address the NPE rather than catching it? Like getName() != null as part of the condition

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@SessionHero01 Ideally yes but I couldn't be sure which part was returning null here.
Are we sure it is getName()?
The store seem to think it was here:

lastMessage.getRecipient().getAddress().serialize().equals(
                        TextSecurePreferences.getLocalNumber(context)))

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You are right there's no clear indication which one is null

Copy link
Collaborator

@AL-Session AL-Session left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM - just potential additions of qaTag elements if they'll be required, call it as you see fit.

text = stringResource(R.string.recoveryPasswordHidePermanentlyDescription2),
buttons = listOf(
DialogButtonModel(
GetString(R.string.yes),
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add button text as qaTag if req'd?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The qaTag is applied automatically in the AlertDialog base class implementation. It is set to the text of the button there, on all buttons. Is that what you meant?

text = stringResource(R.string.recoveryPasswordHidePermanentlyDescription1),
buttons = listOf(
DialogButtonModel(
GetString(R.string.theContinue),
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add button text as qaTag if req'd?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The qaTag is applied automatically in the AlertDialog base class implementation. It is set to the text of the button there, on all buttons. Is that what you meant?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, I didn't know it got applied from the base. Just querying whether it was something we needed or wanted to add.

Cleaned up the variant outputs for the huawei build
Added local signing configs
Made sure the output names were formatted properly
@ThomasSession ThomasSession merged commit cc67ea1 into master Oct 7, 2024
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants