In the book Pro Android 4 By Satya Komatineni , Dave MacLean I've found:
Android acquires a partial wake lock when invoking a broadcast service and releases it when it returns from the service in the main thread
Does it mean that the Android OS ensures that the device will wake up for the time of going through onReceive of BroadcastReceiver? In my case the BroadcastReceiver should get an intent from Google Play Services (GoogleLocationServices and to be precise Geofences api).
Where is it documented?
EDIT: I've also found it here:
because it is guaranteed that the BroadcastReceiver.onReceive() will be always fully executed before the CPU goes to sleep
There is no such thing as a "broadcast service".
Also, you need to read the entire post containing your second quote, as that is only for a broadcast triggered by AlarmManager. It is AlarmManager, not the broadcast Intent mechanism, that holds the WakeLock. Also, as noted in that blog post, Dianne Hackborn had confirmed this behavior, and she's a core Android engineer.
Does it mean that Adnroid OS ensures that the device will wake up for the time of going thru onReceive of BroadcastReceiver?
Not generally.
In my case the BroadcastReceiver should get intent from Google Play Services (GoogleLocationServices and to be precise Geofences api).
If the Google Play Services documentation does not make any claims regarding the behavior of your receiver with respect to wakefulness, you should assume that you are not inside of a WakeLock. If the work is something that will take 1-2ms, and therefore is probably safe to do in onReceive() anyway, you're welcome to take the risk and skip a WakeLock and hope for the best.
But usually a broadcast like this triggers more work, involving disk I/O and/or network I/O, and you need to get that work off of the main application thread. Frequently, you do that by delegating to an IntentService, as it gives you a background thread with a marker service to let the OS know that you're still doing some work here. And, to ensure that the device will stay awake for that work to complete, use WakefulBroadcastReceiver or my WakefulIntentService, to hold a WakeLock from early in onReceive() until the completion of the work in onHandleIntent().
Where is it documented?
AFAIK, it isn't. Get used to it, as for complex systems, usually only a tiny fraction of the system's behavior winds up being documented.
Related
My goal
Get user location updates for quite long time (e.g. 8 hours) with quite high frequency (e.g. every 30 seconds) even when the application is not running in foreground (meaning the activity where the location tracking was started might be destroyed).
Issue
I've found many articles regarding location tracking in Android apps.
The newer ones usually explain how to use Google Play Services' location APIs.
The problem is that in most cases, they demonstrate getting location updates in co-operation with Activity and LocationListener. For example in Google's tutorial. It's obvious this is not what I need. The only approach for long-running background location updates was based on periodical starting (via AlarmManager) of a service that run until it got accurate enough location update. However, this approach doesn't seem right for the frequency I need.
So, I ended up with custom idea how to solve the topic, but your critique would be welcomed. Here it is:
Idea of a possible solution
MainActivity - used just for starting/stopping the tracking by starting/stopping the MonitoringService
MonitoringService - a foreground service, where the whole connecting to LocationServices from Google Play services happens. Also, once connected a requestLocationUpdates method is called, but its variant with PendingIntent object. The pending intent contains intent invoking MyWakefulBroadcastReceiver class. Also, the service holds a partial wake_lock to prevent the device going to sleep and interrupting receiving of the location updates. Here, I'm not sure if holding the wake lock really helps.
MyWakefulBroadcastReceiver - extends WakefulBroadcastReceiver, just starts LocationProcessingIntentService via the startWakefulService
LocationProcessingIntentService - processes the location update passed via intent to it. Network communication performed here. Therefore, it is done in separate service and not directly in the MonitoringService
Currently, I have the solution described above implemented without acquiring the partial wake lock in the MonitoringService. When connected to debugger in Android Studio, I see the processing of the location updates work. However, I'm not sure what it will do after e.g. 4 hours of running without being connected to laptop (like it is for the debugging purposes)
Questions
Is this approach OK from architecture/performance/battery life point of view?
Should I use the wake lock for being sure the device won't go to sleep?
If answer to 2. is yes, do I still need to use WakefulBroadcastReceiver for starting the IntentService processing the location updates?
Any other recommendations?
What you have is mostly fine. You don't need the MonitoringService. The PendingIntent will wake your BroadcastReceiver, regardless of the state of your app. You don't need a permanent wake-lock. Just use the PendingIntent in your setup Activity to requestLocationUpdates.
Remember that the location services are already running in the background (as long as the user has enabled location services), so you don't need to run your permanent wake-lock service also (you can wake-lock after BroadcastReceiver#onReceive(), but don't forget to release the wake-lock after processing).
The only time you might have to worry about the PendingIntent not waking your BroadcastReceiver is if the user force-stops your app. In that case, you could choose to respect the user's decision. You can also explore using intent.addFlags(Intent.FLAG_INCLUDE_STOPPED_PACKAGES); which should wake your BroadcastReceiver from the stopped state, but I haven't tested this flag in this scenario.
I'm not quite sure how to interpret this sentences in the GCM Client documentation:
The android.permission.WAKE_LOCK permission so the application can keep the processor from sleeping when a message is received. Optional—use only if the app wants to keep the device from sleeping.
.
If you don't hold a wake lock while transitioning the work to a service, you are effectively allowing the device to go back to sleep before the work completes. The net result is that the app might not finish processing the GCM message until some arbitrary point in the future, which is not what you want.
and
Using WakefulBroadcastReceiver is not a requirement. If you have a relatively simple app that doesn't require a service, you can intercept the GCM message in a regular BroadcastReceiver and do your processing there.
I'm not quite sure if my app needs to hold a wakelock or not (or if it requires a service).
The Push Notification part is quite important to the app and it should not be delayed for more than a few minutes. Is there a chance that the BroadcastReceiver gets suspended before receiving all the data?
Is there a chance that the BroadcastReceiver gets suspended before receiving all the data?
No. You will not get control until the entire 4K-or-less payload has been downloaded and is available to you.
However, onReceive() is called on the main application thread, and so if your work will take more than a millisecond or so, you should use WakefulBroadcastReceiver and an IntentService for that work. Or, if you prefer, use my WakefulIntentService and a regular BroadcastReceiver.
Why is it suggested generally to pass a pending intent for an Intent Service when using alarm manager? The same thing can be done in the onreceive() function of the broadcast receiver called by the alarmmanager. What is the advantage with using a service(Intent Service)?
If everything that you need done can be completed in onReceive of a BroadcastReceiver, then you should use that, not an IntentService.
If you want to do anything after the BroadcastReceiver, then you should use the IntentService. For example, if you want your BroadcastReceiver to start a Service, and you want the service to gain a WakeLock, then you should be using an IntentService instead.
The reason is that AlarmManager only guarantees that the onReceive of a BroadcastReceiver will be run, even if you use RTC_WAKEUP. So, it is slightly possible that if you use the BroadcastReceiver/Service combination, then the CPU will fall asleep before the Service can acquire the WakeLock - this is, unless you acquire a WakeLock in the BroadcastReceiver and you acquire one in the service, perhaps via a static WakeLock. But this is... messy, I suppose.
Btw, I have never implemented an IntentService. I just use the BroadcastReceiver and Service combo and have never had a problem reported. All the information I provided are things I read from other SO posts (primarily from CommonsWare)
EDIT:
The 50ms time frame I read from something CommonsWare posted on StackOverflow, and CommonsWare seems to be a rather reliable source of knowledge for Android.
I looked it up and, The docs do say:
(there is a timeout of 10 seconds that the system allows before
considering the receiver to be blocked and a candidate to be killed).
And they also say:
If this BroadcastReceiver was launched through a tag, then the object is no
longer alive after returning from this function.
You should not do anything that takes close to 10 seconds, just to be safe.
If you do anything that has to wait for a response, the BroadcastReceiver will die because the onReceive will likely finish running before you get the response back.
Though, I suppose the reason for the 50ms time frame is so you don't risk causing an ANR or any lag. Because if you use a Service, then you can start a new Thread, and it will not block. You would not be able to start a new Thread in a BroadcastReceiver because the code after the thread would continue to run, the BroadcastReceiver would die, and then the Thread would die, too.
I'm developing an app designed to transform an android phone into a remote device running without user action. At the time the app is made by an Activity that sets AlarmManager to execute a service (class inside project) every X minutes.
All this works OK, but occasionally after 5-6 DAYS continuosly running the application crashes (currently I don't know why, because i can't get the phone now). It isn't a connection problem (I know) and the phone is still running (plugged into AC). The only thing that i can suppose is that the application is down.
I don't think that this is due to a bug, because the prew debugging doesn't give me any errors.
So I must suppose that android has killed the activity (system needs more memory?) and as the image explain there is no way to back it up.
But I have a doubt: in my application the activity doesn't matter, because all the work is done by the service. The service itself is called by an Alarm Manager and in the time between two calls the service is terminated by StopSelf().
In my case the system may kill my alarm manager service schedule?
What can I do to have the service start up by Alarm Manager forever?
(ATTENTION: currently there is yet a WAKE LOCK but this consider only the execution of the service! I hope that you have understand that the service is called each x minutes by alarm manager and than terminated...i want to perform this operations for an indefinite time)
[I haven't posted the source code because is too long]
Lork,
After wrestling with a similar issues myself, I may have some pointers for you. I assume that you are using your Android device as a sort of remote ‘embedded controller’, which performs its functions with minimum user interaction. I believe that you are 95% there and just need to make some slight architectural changes. As you have not provided code, I’ll just explain in abstract terms rather than give code examples.
CommonsWare is correct that you need to use AlarmManager, but I suspect you already knew that.
A couple of background comments first, just to make sure that everything is understandable.
Alarms created by AlarmManager exist at the system level, that is they can exist beyond the lifecycle of the activity and application that created them. If you set an alarm but don’t want it to go off if your app changes state (for example after it has been destroyed), then you can cancel it using alarmManager.cancel(pendingIntent) – just create the intents and alarm manager with the same parameters and Android will match the alarm).
Similarly, BroadcastReceivers are registered at the system level (at least if they are declared in manifest.xml) and can exist beyond the lifecycle of the activity and application that created them. Again if you want to ensure that a BroadcastReceiver does not fire in response to an event occurring after your app has changed state (for example after it has been destroyed), you need to explicitly unregister in it code. If it was registered programmatically then use context.unregisterReceiver(broadcastReceiver); if it was registered statically in the Manifest its not so easy – you will have to retrieve the receiver using PackageManager and ComponentName (see: Android - how to unregister a receiver created in the manifest? ) - and remember that you will need to re-enable the receiver if you need it again.
You say you have already set up your alarm. Make sure you specify ELAPSED_REALTIME_WAKEUP or RTC_WAKUP for the alarm Type to ensure that it runs even when the phone is in ‘sleep’ mode.
You also say you have already created the associated BroadcastReceiver to handle to alarm event. The BroadcastReceiver should do a minimum of work, so you should handle any processing in a separate thread or by launching a Service. You opted to launch a Service and terminate it using stopSelf() when it has finished, so that it doesn’t use up system resources. So far so good.
This is fine when the app is running, however as you require something that runs reliably for an indefinite period, you need to ensure that you manage the 'exception' situations where it has paused, the device is ‘sleeping’, the app has crashed/terminated, or the device has rebooted (and any other exception scenarios you may think of). Here are the issues I have identified that you need to address:
First: WakeLock is only guaranteed for the duration of the onReceive() method of the BroadcastReceiver. After it has terminated, the device could go back to ‘sleep’ even if your Service has not started or even completed, so you need to create a WakeLock, pass it to the Service and release it before you stop the Service. (Note: for your application, you require a PARTIAL_WAKE_LOCK). Be very careful using WakeLocks – make sure you only hold a WakeLock for the minimum required time and ensure you release it, as it’s use can lead to excessive battery drain). See http://www.netmite.com/android/mydroid/development/pdk/docs/power_management.html for an example of using WakeLocks.
Second: If you reset your alarm in code (rather than defining an automatically repeating one), do this in the OnReceive() method of the BroadcastReceiver or as the first thing in the Service you have launched – this will ensure that the alarm repeats, irrespective of the state of the application or device.
Third: Make sure that any Contexts you use are going to be non-null values. You can dynamically fetch the context in the Service using getApplicationContext(). Otherwise this can be achieved by EXPLICITLY passing the Context from your application to the alarm and make sure it is passed all the way through the BroadcastReceiver, and associated threads and Services. If you have statically stored Context in your application so you can retrieve it anywhere, then this will return a null value if the application has terminated. If you use the Context (for example to retrieve a resource, access a database etc), and it is null, it will cause a null pointer exception and the Service or BroadcastReceiver will crash. I believe this is the most likely reason for your Broadcast receivers not to be working when your app has terminated.
Fourth: You may wish to make references to ResourceIDs (e.g. R.drawable.icon) in your Service or BroadcastReceiver fully qualified (. R.drawable.icon) or generated from the passed Context. I haven’t yet found this to be necessary, but I suspect it may be prudent.
Fifth: Implement a separate BroadcastReceiver to handle a device reboot scenario (ON_BOOT_COMPLETE event). You could get this receiver to re-launch the app if appropriate or it could launch a service to check that your app is supposed to be active, set up any required parameters and set up the relevant alarms, then terminate it using stopSelf(), or just set the alarm again and let that receiver handle it all. Remember to ensure the service has a WakeLock for its duration and to release the WakeLock when it is complete. If you don’t just relaunch the app, or a Service (declared as part of your application) then you should also statically store the correct Context as a class attribute in your BroadcastReceiver, if you need it, so that it is available to access resources.
A couple of other things you may wish to consider:
As your set up is remote, I would seriously consider storing any persistent data in SQLite database tables. This will ensure that data is recoverable between application terminations and device reboots, without having to regenerate it.
If your application communicates with a server service, consider using push notifications for server initiated communication, rather than have the app periodically poll. Push Notifications can also be used to ‘wake up and launch services and apps’, so could be used as part of a remote mechanism to query the status of the device and your application. This approach is also more power efficient and timely.
Post information to LogCat at key points in your code for debugging. If the application terminates, then adb stops tracking the source code running for the receiver and service, but LogCat continues to function, so can be used to check the path through the code and variable values.
Other people may have better ways to address these issues or some other pointers (I would certainly be very happy to see other input), but I hope these ideas are helpful and good luck!
The point behind using AlarmManager with a service is to start up a service that will run briefly, then the service goes away (e.g., an IntentService). If you are going to try to have an everlasting service, you do not need AlarmManager, and your service will be shut down by Android after some period of time.
If you rewrite your app to not need an everlasting service, but rather use AlarmManager as it was intended, you should have better survivability.
I believe that what Lork wants to achieve is similar to something I am also wrestling with.
He wants the alarm manager to trigger a broadcast receiver that will handle the alarm, even when the application it is part of, has been terminated (for example by the Android OS).
For example: The application sets an alarm, with a type of ELAPSED_REALTIME_WAKEUP or RTC_WAKUP and has a Broadcast Receiver to handle it when it fires, via an Intent which references the application context and the Broadcast receiver class. The receiver is declared as a in the application manifest.
Under normal circumstances, when the application is running or paused, when the alarm goes off, the Broadcast Receiver is triggered, waking up the device and resuming the application as necessary, and the alarm in handled.
However, if the application has been killed (for example by the OS), then the alarm will still go off (as it is still registered) but the Broadcast Receiver will not be triggered and LogCat shows a null pointer exception, (I assume because the reference to the application is no longer in memory). This will occur, even if the Context has been passed.
Am I (and I assume Lork) missing an easy strategy here? Or is it not possible? Can a broadcast receiver exist on its own and trigger the app if necessary?
One, imperfect strategy I have been toying with, is to move all the app data access into a Content Provider, and have a separate low profile app which just implements the broadcast receiver – triggering a service to do the work and accessing the application data it requires via the Content Provider. This would still be subject to being terminated by the OS, but would be less likely.
I'm looking at using the Alarm Manager, and read this in the developer docs, which I don't really understand.
"If your alarm receiver called Context.startService(),
it is possible that the phone will sleep before the
requested service is launched. To prevent this, your
BroadcastReceiver and Service will need to implement a
separate wake lock policy to ensure that the phone
continues running until the service becomes available."
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/AlarmManager.html
I am specifically asking for which situations it could possible that the phone will sleep before the service is launched (as this is the part I don't comprehend)? Is it dependent on how fast the phone can execute statements? ie. it calls startService() which opens another thread and so the original thread could complete its work before the service has been made available?
Thanks
If you're starting the service from a BroadcastReceiver, you're only guaranteed that the device will not sleep during the receiver's onReceive(). According to this question, startService() is asynchronous, which means it will not block onReceive() from finishing while the service is being started. So if you need to make sure that the service starts, you have to implement your own WakeLock.