detekt reports zero findings and there is no baseline, no @Suppress and no
tools:ignore anywhere -- so the static-analysis gate is green and honest, and
it is not where the defects are. They are in the Android-framework edge the
linters cannot see into: OutputPublisher, both ViewModels, both Workers and
MainActivity, which between them have no JVM unit tests at all and account for
most of the ~31% coverage figure.
Sixteen entries. Each records what is wrong, how confident we are that it is
wrong, how to provoke it, and what a fix would have to decide. The confidence
labels are load-bearing: four entries were driven on a physical Pixel 10 Pro XL
running API 37, and they are marked differently from the ones that are still
inspection only.
The device pass earned its keep by contradicting us. D1 -- the one defect that
was already known and deferred, the UsableSpace lint finding -- did not
reproduce. getAllocatableBytes measured 500 MiB SMALLER than usableSpace, and
writing 3 GB into the app's own cache moved both numbers identically, so no
cache counted as reclaimable at 66% free. The entry keeps the falsified
prediction next to the measurement that killed it, because that is the useful
part.
Two entries, D15 and D16, were found while fixing others and are recorded
rather than folded in silently. D16 is the one worth reading: two individually
correct fixes compose into a gap neither of them owns.
Entry bodies describe each defect as found and are deliberately not rewritten
as fixes land. This is the record of what was wrong, not a changelog; the
summary table carries the fix status.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The doc reasoned that the WorkManager and lateinit failures in CI were
downstream of the broken framework rather than real defects, but said so as
inference and flagged that only a healthy API 37 device could settle it.
One was available. The full instrumented suite runs green on a Pixel 10 Pro XL
on Android 17 -- a release build, not a preview -- with 40 tests, 0 failures,
2 skipped, both skips being benchmarks that assume sample files present.
ConversionWorkerTest and ConcatWorkerTest drive a real WorkManager round trip
and are among the tests that failed that way in CI; they pass on hardware.
So the bug is confined to the emulator image, and the gap left by the missing
matrix row is automated coverage rather than confidence in the app. Noted that
the suite should be run on a physical API 37 device before each release while
the row is absent.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The android-37.0 emulator image crash-loops surfaceflinger inside its own
gralloc mapper: RegionSamplingThread calls GraphicBuffer::lock, which reaches
GoldfishMapper::readFromHost, which asserts that the host has not negotiated
ReadColorBufferDma. It has, so surfaceflinger aborts, restarts, and aborts
again. Nothing this app does can survive that, and it reproduces on a GitHub
runner under swiftshader_indirect and on a workstation under -gpu host alike.
There is no ATD image at android-37.0 to fall back to, and -feature -GLDMA is
accepted by the emulator but does not prevent the assertion.
Correcting the previous commit, which is already pushed so its message stands:
ram-size was not the cause of that failure. Setting it did move the job from
failing at install to failing during the test run, which is how the real
crash became visible, but at 2560M the guest had 1.5 GB free when it died.
The setting is kept because the emulator's own floor varies by API level --
2048M at 33, 2560M at 34 to 36 -- and pinning it makes the matrix uniform.
Also corrected: a comment claiming this could not be reproduced locally. It
can, and the local crash was the same one all along.
Dropped the dmesg probe. adb shell is not root, so klogctl is denied and it
only ever printed a permission error -- which a later reader would reasonably
misread as "no OOM kills".
docs/api-37-emulator-crash.md carries the evidence, the ruled-out fixes, the
reproduction, and how to file it upstream, so re-adding the row later starts
from what is already known rather than from scratch.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
JMR-devandClaude Opus 5