I am developing an accessibility service for Android. The service calls an app, and that app has a RecyclerView. Then I want to click on an element of the RecyclerView with performAction(AccessibilityNodeInfo.ACTION_CLICK) but it is not working. I know there are a few similar questions but none of them works for me. Also I checked the official documentation for the class of the performAction method https://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/accessibility/AccessibilityNodeInfo
This is my code:
#Override
public void onAccessibilityEvent(Accessibility event){
AccessibilityNodeInfo source = event.getSource();
if(source != null){
List<AccessibilityNodeInfo> list = source.findAccessibilityNOdeInfosByText("mystring");
list.get(0).performAction(AccessibilityNodeInfo.ACTION_CLICK);
}
}
This is my configuration xml file:
<accessibility-srvice xmlns...
android:accessibilityFeedbackType = "feedbackGeneric"
android:AccessibilityFlags = "flagDefault"
android:canPerformGestures = "true"
android:canRetrieveWIndowCOntent = "true"
I think I misunderstood something, but i don't know what can be. Any help is appreciated.
The simple answer is that while finding the node by text is fine, that particular node was not the node with the desired onClick event. The solution is to call
list.get(0).getParent().performAction(AccessibilityNodeInfo.ACTION_CLICK)
The clarifying discussion is below
I think .performAction(AccessibilityNodeInfo.ACTION_CLICK) is right, but there might be some other concerns. Sorry for posting as an answer but a comment is too small.
Are you sure the onAccessibilityEvent is being called? I don't think that is the right event, but I can't be sure. Maybe put a log in there to ensure it's calling the event when you expect it to be called.
Also, looking at the source might restrict your search, maybe instead of event.getSource() try using rootInActiveWindow (I use Kotlin so it might have a method, see https://developer.android.com/reference/android/accessibilityservice/AccessibilityService#getRootInActiveWindow(int))
EDIT: 28 March 2022
I have run this code on my own accessibility service and it does click the button. But it's very prone to overflow.
var ranOnce = false // prevent overflow
override fun onAccessibilityEvent(event: AccessibilityEvent?) {
if (event == null) return
if (event.eventType == TYPE_WINDOW_STATE_CHANGED) return
if (event.source != null && !ranOnce) {
val nodeList = rootInActiveWindow.findAccessibilityNodeInfosByText("Menu")
//event.source.findAccessibilityNodeInfosByText("Menu") // <-- always nothing in list
Log.d("onAccessibilityEvent", "List of nodes: $nodeList")
if (nodeList.size > 0) {
android.util.Log.d("onAccessibilityEvent", "Node info: ${nodeList[0]}")
ranOnce = true
nodeList[0].performAction(AccessibilityNodeInfo.ACTION_CLICK) //<-- caused an infinite loop!
} else {
Log.d("onAccessibilityEvent", "No nodes found")
}
} else {
Log.d("onAccessibilityEvent", "event.source is null!")
}
}
Related
I have a MutableLiveData variable in my AppRepository which is updated and contains my data. This I have no issues with. I also have the following observable to trigger a UI update with the data it holds in my onCreateView function:
viewModel.projectWithContent.observe(viewLifecycleOwner, {
pwc = it
counterList = it.counterList
})
When I tap either to increase or decrease the counter count and then try to push the update to my Room database, it skips it. I have the following check currently:
if(counterList != null) {
try {
for(counter: Counter in counterList!!) {
if(counter.counter_count != pwc?.counterList!![
pwc?.counterList!!.indexOf(counter)
].counter_count) {
Log.i(LOG_TAG, "Hello")
} else {
Log.i(LOG_TAG, "Goodbye")
}
}
} catch(e: IndexOutOfBoundsException) {
e.printStackTrace()
}
}
It'll always go to Goodbye.
Now. If I put the following just below try
Log.i(LOG_TAG, "PWC: ${pwc?.counterList!![0].counter_count}, " +
"CPWC: ${counterList!![0].counter_count}," +
"VMPWC: ${viewModel.projectWithContent.value?.counterList!![0].counter_count}")
It provides the following output:
PWC: 70, CPWC: 70,VMPWC: 70
Is this a side effect of what I'm doing or?
Thanks
Like #Tenfour04 says, your condition is actually checking they don't match, so "Goodbye" is the output when they do match.
If you don't mind (this is a little long), I just want to recommend some stuff because I feel like you're making life hard for yourself with all the null-checking that's going on - the logic of the code was really hard to read, and I'm guessing that's why you didn't notice the flipped logic too!
First: the ? null safety stuff (and !! which is the opposite of safe, never use it unless you know you have good reason) is there because you have nullable variable types. Normally the IDE would smart cast them to non-null once you've done a null check (like on your first line) - but because they're vars, they can be changed at any time.
That means that a variable that wasn't null before could be now, so you're forced to null-check every single time you access it. But even if the types weren't nullable, because they're vars, they can still change, and the thing you were looking at a moment ago is something different now.
The simple solution is to just make a new variable:
val counters = counterList
if (counters != null) {
...
}
// or if you want to use one of kotlin's scope functions
counterList?.let { counters ->
...
}
Because that new one is a val, it's not going to change what it's pointing at! Once it's null-checked, it's always going to be non-null, so you don't need to use ? anymore.
You have a couple of variables to make - you want to make sure pwc isn't null, and also their counterLists. A quick way to do that is with pwc?.counterList - if pwc is null, it will return null. Otherwise it will move to the next step, and return counterList, which may be null. (Using !! is saying that it definitely never will be null, in which case it shouldn't be nullable at all!)
And you don't actually care about pwc anyway - you're just comparing its counterList to the other, so why don't we pare it back to just those?
val counters = counterList
val pwcCounters = pwc?.counterList
if (counters != null && pwcCounters != null) {
try {
for(counter: Counter in counters) {
if(counter.counter_count != pwcCounters[
pwcCounters.indexOf(counter)
].counter_count) {
Log.i(LOG_TAG, "Hello")
} else {
Log.i(LOG_TAG, "Goodbye")
}
}
} catch(e: IndexOutOfBoundsException) {
e.printStackTrace()
}
}
There's more we could do here, but just by cleaning up those nulls and using the specific variables we want to work with, does that feel easier to read? And more importantly, easier to understand what's happening and what could happen?
Might be worth throwing it in a function too, stops the call site getting cluttered with these temp variables:
fun doThing(counters: List<Counter>?, pwcCounters: List<Counter>?) {
if (counters == null || pwcCounters == null) return
// do the stuff
}
// when you want to do the thing:
doThing(counterList, pwc?.counterList)
So all your null checking is out of the way, your "temp variables" are the fixed parameters passed to the function, it's all nice and neat.
I know this is a long post for such a short bit of code, but it's a good habit to get into - if you're writing code where you're working with nullable vars and you're wrestling with the null safety system, or you keep repeating yourself to access a particular variable nested inside another object, you can make things a lot easier for yourself! You can imagine how wild this could all get for more complex code.
Also if you care, this is how I'd personally write it, if it helps!
fun doThing(counters: List<Counter>?, pwcCounters: List<Counter>?) {
if (counters == null || pwcCounters == null) return
// for (counter in Counters) is fine too I just like this version
counters.forEach { counter ->
// find returns the first item that matches the condition, or null if nothing matches,
// so no need to handle any exceptions, just handle the potential null!
// (this is a really common Kotlin pattern, lots of functions have a "returns null on failure" version)
val pwcCounter = pwcCounters.find { it == counter }
// remember pwcCounter can be null, so we have to use ? to access its count safely.
// If it evaluates to null, the match just fails
if (counter.count == pwcCounter?.count) Log.i(LOG_TAG, "Hello")
else Log.i(LOG_TAG, "Goodbye")
}
}
I also renamed counter_count to just count since it's a property on a Counter anyway. I feel like counter.count is easier to read than counter.counter_count, y'know? It's the little things
This would be the first time I post a question since I couldn't find the answer to this. Something really weird is happening with my if/else statements. My code was working perfectly for the past week, but recently it kept on telling me that a statement is always true?
My code is the following:
int checking = 1;
#Override
protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
setContentView(R.layout.activity_main);
if (checking != 1) {
speaker.setChecked(true);
} else if (checking == 1) {
speaker.setChecked(false);
}
}
This says checking == 1 is always true which makes sense, but if I switch it around to:
if (checking == 1) {
speaker.setChecked(true);
} else if (checking != 1) {
speaker.setChecked(false);
}
This says that checking != 1 is always true as well. Can someone help?
It's just a logic of editor. In first if statement, you check checking == 1 and the second if statement, you negative the statement. The editor will understand the second if statement alway true
I think you should replace else if to else. Sorry my bad English.
The reason why you are seeing this warning is:
You have set int checking = 1 and you are either checking:
if (checking != 1) which is always true
Or checking == 1 which is also always true
Due to this other else if condition will not be executed at all.
The warning will be only removed if you try to change value of checking either at runtime or using some conditions at compile time.
If your intention is just to set the speaker.setChecked() you can do following:
speaker.setChecked(checking == 1)
Note: This will not remove the warning
Try this
int checking = 1;
boolean isChecked = false;
isChecked = ((checking == 1) ? true : false)
speaker.setChecked(isChecked)
I am using 'ion-infinite-scroll' in html to load more items from server for this i am using below code
<ion-infinite-scroll immediate-check="false" on-infinite="getListOfAreas()" distance="1%">
</ion-infinite-scroll>
Here, getListOfAreas() function is called when I scroll screen to bottom and it fetches data from server.This is getListOfAreas() function defined on controller
$scope.getListOfAreas = function (shoudlShowLoader) {
AreaBusiness.getAreasListing(shoudlShowLoader, function(serviceResponse) {
$scope.$broadcast('scroll.infiniteScrollComplete');
if (serviceResponse != null) {
var isSuccess = serviceResponse.Success;
if (isSuccess) {
}
}
}
}
On browser, i have debugged some how
$scope.$broadcast('scroll.infiniteScrollComplete');
above line of code keeps calling and spinner keep rotating.I don't know the reason. Am I missing anything?
$scope.$broadcast('scroll.infiniteScrollComplete'); only lets ionic know that the current page of data has been fetched and that it's safe to now fetch the next page. This does not indicate that all data has finished loading.
Looks like the official recommendation is to add an ng-if to the scroll delegate and remove it from dom once there is not more data to load.
Example:
<ion-infinite-scroll
ng-if="moreDataCanBeLoaded()"
icon="ion-loading-c"
on-infinite="loadMoreData()">
</ion-infinite-scroll>
Source: https://ionicframework.com/docs/api/directive/ionInfiniteScroll/
I have resolved the issue, after spending sometime. The issue which I found, I was not adding those elements into the list which were to be shown on UI. So, list was not being updated on controller that is why it kept calling.So I updated my code and added those fetched items from service to list associated to ui as mentioned in my below code
$scope.$broadcast('scroll.infiniteScrollComplete');
if (serviceResponse != null) {
var isSuccess = serviceResponse.Success;
if (isSuccess) {
if ($scope.areas != undefined && $scope.areas.length > 0) {
pushDataToPOIList(serviceResponse.PointOfInterestData);
} else {
$scope.areas = serviceResponse.PointOfInterestData;
}
pushDataToVehiclesList() method I added that is pushing new data into list to update list and on UI as well. This helped me to sort out the problem.
I am having a method, handling the correct/incorrect answers entered in a quiz game:
public void answerButtonClickHandler(View v)
{
Answer answer = myAnswers.get(v.getId());
if (answer != null)
{
myQuestionsAnswered++;
if (answer.isCorrect())
{
myCorrectlyAnswered++;
v.setBackgroundResource(R.drawable.answer_button_correct);
}
else
{
v.setBackgroundResource(R.drawable.answer_button_incorrect);
}
}
What it is doing so far is to check if the answer is correct or not (this part works fine) and sets a corresponding template. What I'd want to add as functionality is when the wrong answer is marked, the correct one to be marked as well. I was trying to keep the state of the vies (v) in a new View variable, in both of the states, but have not done the trick so far. Thanks you!
I have a small code sample that returns some data from api or from database, depending on with one from above contains any data.
Now I want to add another condition based on Network status. I use ReactiveNetwork library for this but I can't make it work, this is what I tried:
#Override public Observable<List<Tactic>> getTactics(boolean forceRefresh) {
Observable<List<Tactic>> diskObservable =
disk.get().getTactics().compose(RxDataUtils.applyLog(SourceType.DISK));
Observable<List<Tactic>> apiObservable = api.get()
.getTactics()
.doOnNext(tactics -> disk.get().save(tactics))
.compose(RxDataUtils.applyLog(SourceType.API));
Subscription connectivityStatusSubscription = new ReactiveNetwork().observeConnectivity(context)
.compose(RxUtils.applyStandardSchedulers())
.subscribe(connectivityStatus -> {
isNetworkAvailable = RxDataUtils.isConnected(connectivityStatus);
Timber.v("ConnectivityChanged: " + isNetworkAvailable);
});
if (isNetworkAvailable) return forceRefresh ?
apiObservable : Observable.concat(diskObservable, apiObservable).first(
tactics -> (tactics != null && tactics.size() > 0));
return diskObservable;
}
It didn't log anything at all
You should be combining the status stream with the others, not creating two separate subscriptions - otherwise it doesn't really react to the network connectivity.
What you probably want to use is switchMap. Every time the network connectivity changes it can update which stream you're using.
In broad strokes, it'd go something like this:
connectivityObservable.switchMap(isConnected -> {
if (isConnected) {
return networkObservable;
}
return diskObservable;
}
(It looks like yours would be a bit more complex, I just want to lay out the general idea here.)