Develop Reference

Get last fragment by tag

I add fragments to back stack. For instance: A, B, C, A, D. Then from D I want to update the second A.
If I use supportFragmentManager.findFragmentByTag("A"), I have a reference to the first A, that is in a bottom of the back stack.
I tried to search through fragments collection, getBackStackEntryAt(i), but with no success.

Sorry, looking at get the latest fragment in backstack I understood that findFragmentByTag(tag) finds the last fragment with required tag. In my case after adding many fragments it sometimes found not last fragment with tag, but a previous to last (with the same tag). Maybe there is a bug in my code, I don't know, why is that.
First I tried to use callbacks, then tried to use parentFragment and childFragmentManager, see getParentFragment returning null. In fragment D I called parentFragment and accessed to methods of A and could update the last A fragment. This solution has two problems.
1) Child fragment (D) inherits a toolbar from parent (A) and adds own buttons. And after clicking Back button we return not to a parent, but even quit parent (A).
2) If we want to update not previous fragment (so that between A and D are also 3 fragments), it seems to be impossible.
So, I cancelled that solution and changed the application behaviour. I clear a backstack where it is possible. So that we cannot have two A fragments in backstack. I use supportFragmentManager.popBackStack(null, FragmentManager.POP_BACK_STACK_INCLUSIVE). Yes, that's a workaround, but I don't know, how to deal with that bug.

Initial Fragment not rendered when popping entire FragmentManager BackStack

Actual problem / TL;DR: Except when using one way I consider a hack, I can't pop the activity's entire backstack to return to my initial state with a single fragment added during onCreate(). The Fragment is present in the Activity State Manager dump, but is not visible, leaving me with an empty screen.
I have encountered this issue today and am mostly trying to understand whether this is caused by a bug or by my misunderstanding of the FragmentManager's BackStack. I want to make sure I'm not misusing Fragments or building on shaky API foundations.
I have an activity which essentially offers a descending "tree" navigation as a grid of buttons where each button opens either a sub-grid (e.g. sub-category with more buttons) or some custom form. The content of the forms is irrelevant, but users are expected to repetitively fill them in various orders.
I use Fragments from the support library (support-v4:25.1.1) and whenever a new "screen" is required (either for a form or a sub-grid) it will be added using a transaction on the activity's FragmentManager similar to:
/* adding a new screen, going further down our nav tree */
fragmentManager
.beginTransaction()
.addToBackStack("...")
.replace(R.id.container, newFragment)
.commit();
Every transaction looks like that except the setup of the initial state of my activity, which adds the initial "root grid" fragment without adding the transaction to the backstate.
/* adding the initial fragment during the first execution of activity's onCreate(). */
fragmentManager
.beginTransaction()
.replace(R.id.container, rootFragment)
.commit();
The reason I'm posting here is that I encountered a very strange behaviour when attempting to pop the entire BackStack, which is supposed to bring the user back to the initial state of the activity which has the root grid (the one added in the code above). Almost every technique I tried effectively clears the backstack, but leaves an empty screen instead of my initial main-menu grid. After looking around on multiple questions here and the docs, I tried multiple solutions and only this hack-looking one has worked:
int remainingEntries = fragmentManager.getBackStackEntryCount();
while (remainingEntries-- > 0) {
fragmentManager.popBackStackImmediate();
}
I say this seems like a hack because it requires me to immediately (synchronously) pop an arbitrary number of backstack entries to reach the root, whereas from my understanding it should be possible to do that with a single asynchronous method call:
fragmentManager.popBackStackImmediate(null, FragmentManager.POP_BACK_STACK_INCLUSIVE);
or as I've also seen posted around here:
int id = fragmentManager.getBackStackEntryAt(0).getId();
fragmentManager.popBackStack(id, FragmentManager.POP_BACK_STACK_INCLUSIVE);
This is only an issue with the root fragment, probably because the transaction which adds it to the view is not added to the backstack, since that would cause an extra empty screen to be shown when the user presses the back button to close the activity.
More details:
According to the Activity State Manager dump my fragment still has its view, but has both mFragmentId and mContainerId set to #0.
I do add another fragment I haven't discussed here which retains its instance, but it is only used to hold some data and has no view whatsoever.

There is a PopBackStackImmediate bug in support library version 25.1.0 and above.
Since this issue has been reported either you have to wait for solution, Or you can downgrade the support library version to 25.0.1 and get the expected behavior.
UPDATE
Looks like this bug has been resolved in support library version 25.3.1. Update your library to version 25.3.1.

Android FragmentManagerImpl.dispatchResume() resuming fragments out of order

I am hitting a very strange problem in Android and I can't figure out why it's happening or how to code around it. I truly believe this to be an Android bug.
I have a MainActivity which contains a FrameLayout named main_container (its height and width are both match_parent as each fragment should be the only fragment "showing" to the user). From MainActivity, I add Fragment A like so:
mFragmentManager.beginTransaction()
.replace(R.id.main_container, frag, fragTag)
.commit();
From there, Fragment A, upon a user's click of a view, will add Fragment B like so ("frag" and "fragTag" are different values than the above code snippet):
mFragmentManager.beginTransaction()
.setCustomAnimations(R.anim.slide_in_right, 0, 0, R.anim.slide_out_right)
.add(R.id.main_container, frag, fragTag)
.addToBackStack(null)
.commit();
And from here, Fragment B will add Fragment C like so (again, "frag" and "fragTag" are different values than the previous two snippets):
mFragmentManager.beginTransaction()
.setCustomAnimations(R.anim.slide_in_right, 0, 0, R.anim.slide_out_right)
.add(R.id.main_container, frag, fragTag)
.addToBackStack(null)
.commit();
So at this point, in the backstack, we should have Fragment A -> Fragment B -> Fragment C.
Fragment C invokes the MediaPicker upon the user's click of a view. Doing so calls all fragments' onPause methods and the app is put in the background. Now when the user selects an image, the application is resumed but here's where the bug happens... it resumes in this order, as proven with breakpoints in each fragments' onResume method:
Fragment A -> Fragment C -> Fragment B
This causes all sorts of issues because each of my fragments registers itself as a listener in the MainActivity to handle back button clicks. This logic relies on that ordering being correct. For some reason, it's still showing Fragment C on top, but onResume was definitely called out of order.
Perhaps even worse though... rather than clicking for MediaPicker, you can simply rotate the phone to cause a config change. This exhibits the same behavior of reordering to A -> C -> B but in this case it DOES actually show the wrong fragment on top. It SHOWS Fragment B on top.
Is it a design point that you can't rely on Android to resume fragments in the same order you added them to the backstack and I'm supposed to code around it? Or am I doing something wrong? Or is this really an Android bug? I am by far not a newbie to Android development, but this one has me stumped.
EDIT:
I've pinpointed what is going on and apparently it's by design. It seems pretty crazy to me and I disagree with the logic behind it. I may be able to fix this with reflection, but I don't like doing that. Anyways, on to the problem.
The problem is with the way FragmentManagerImpl keeps track of active fragments. It has an ArrayList to keep track of active fragments and when everything is paused (such as in my case where I'm starting an intent to get a photo from media gallery, thus it's leaving my app), upon resuming back into my app, it moves the fragments back to active in the same order they're in that ArrayList. Sounds great, eh?
Well here's my problem. When things are taken OUT of that ArrayList, they don't remove() the item, they just set it to null and then have logic to reuse that empty "slot" (line 1168 in the github link) when the next fragment comes along. In my case, the transient fragment that leaves a hole in the ArrayList is a DialogFragment. Putting it back into terms of my original report, Fragment A shows a DialogFragment... clicking a certain button in that DialogFragment brings up Fragment B. Clicking another view in Fragment B brings up Fragment C. But here's what happens to the ArrayList FragmentManagerImpl keeps track of after clicking the button in the DialogFragment:
{ FragA, null (used to be DialogFragment), FragB }
So apparently DialogFragment was moved out of active state after FragB was moved to active, thus leaving a hole. So now we click the view in FragB to bring up FragC and the ArrayList looks like so:
{ FragA, FragC (reused DialogFragment's slot), FragB }
We go off to the media picker, come back, and voila the fragments are resumed out of order with respect to how I instantiated them in the first place. This makes no sense to me and if you don't step into OS code with breakpoints, you never figure out why Android is not behaving the way you told it to. Seems like it would have been easier to just do an ArrayList.remove() of the fragment you removed, thus leaving no holes.
Like I said, I can probably get around this with reflection... but I'm leery of that because there is also this mIndex variable in all Fragments that corresponds to the index of it's slot in that ArrayList (mActive). So I'd have to be sure to keep those in sync... and now I have a dependency on knowing how the OS code works. :(

This is a known issue. Google "android fragment reordering" and you will get a whole page of links on the subject including some solutions.

How to keep only first added Fragment in back stack (fragment overlapping)?

Scenario what i'm trying to achieve:
Loading activity with two frame containers (for list of items and for details).
At the app launch time add listFragment in listFrame and some initial infoFragment in detailsFrame containers.
Navigating through list items without adding each detail transaction to back stack (want to keep only infoFragment in stack).
As soon as user hit back button (navigate back) he falls back to intial infoFragment what was added in launch time.
If sequential back navigation fallows then apps exit.
My code:
protected override void OnCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState)
{
...
var listFrag = new ListFragment();
var infoFrag = new InfoFragment();
var trans = FragmentManager.BeginTransaction();
trans.Add(Resource.Id.listFrame, listFrag);
trans.Add(Resource.Id.detailsFrame, infoFrag);
trans.Commit();
...
}
public void OnItemSelected(int id)
{
var detailsFrag = DetailFragment.NewInstance(id);
var trans = FragmentManager.BeginTransaction();
trans.Replace(Resource.Id.detailsFrame, detailsFrag);
if (FragmentManager.BackStackEntryCount == 0)
{
trans.AddToBackStack(null);
}
trans.Commit();
}
My problem:
After back button has been hit, infoFrag is overlapped with previous detailFrag! Why?

You can do this:
if (getSupportFragmentManager().getBackStackEntryCount() > 0) {
getSupportFragmentManager().popBackStack(getSupportFragmentManager().getBackStackEntryAt(0).getId(), getSupportFragmentManager().POP_BACK_STACK_INCLUSIVE);
} else {
super.onBackPressed();}
In your activity, so you to keep first fragment.
You shouldn't have, in your first fragment, the addToBackStack. But, in the rest, yes.

Very nice explanation by Budius. I read his advice and implemented similar navigation, which I would like to share with others.
Instead of replacing fragments like this:
Transaction.remove(detail1).add(detail2)
Transaction.remove(detail2).add(detail3)
Transaction.remove(detail3).add(detail4)
I added a fragment container layout in the activity layout file. It can be either LinearLayout, RelativeLayot or FrameLayout etc.. So in the activity on create I had this:
transaction.replace(R.id.HomeInputFragment, mainHomeFragment).commit();
mainHomeFragment is the fragment I want to get back to when pressing the back button, like infoFrag. Then, before EVERY NEXT transaction I put:
fragmentManager.popBackStackImmediate();
transaction.replace(R.id.HomeInputFragment, frag2).addToBackStack(null).commit();
or
fragmentManager.popBackStackImmediate();
transaction.replace(R.id.HomeInputFragment, frag3).addToBackStack(null).commit();
That way you don't have to keep track of which fragment is currenty showing.

The problem is that the transaction that you're backing from have two steps:
remove infoFrag
add detailsFrag (that is the first1 detail container that was added)
(we know that because the documentation This is essentially the same as calling remove(Fragment) for all currently added fragments that were added with the same containerViewId and then add(int, Fragment, String) with the same arguments given here. )
So whenever the system is reverting that one transaction is reverting exactly those 2 steps, and it say nothing about the last detailFrag that was added to it, so it doesn't do anything with it.
There're two possible work arounds I can think on your case:
Keep a reference on your activity to the last detailsFrag used and use the BackStackChange listener to whenever the value change from 1 to 0 (you'll have to keep track of previous values) you also remove that one remaining fragment
on every click listener you'll have to popBackStackImmediatly() (to remove the previous transaction) and addToBackStack() on all transactions. On this workaround you can also use some setCustomAnimation magic to make sure it all looks nice on the screen (e.g. use a alpha animation from 0 to 0 duration 1 to avoid previous fragment appearing and disappearing again.
ps. I agree that the fragment manager/transaction should be a bit more clever to the way it handles back stack on .replace() actions, but that's the way it does it.
edit:
what is happening is like this (I'm adding numbers to the details to make it more clear).
Remember that .replace() = .remove().add()
Transaction.remove(info).add(detail1).addToBackStack(null) // 1st time
Transaction.remove(detail1).add(detail2) // 2nd time
Transaction.remove(detail2).add(detail3) // 3rd time
Transaction.remove(detail3).add(detail4) // 4th time
so now we have detail4 on the layout:
< Press back button >
System pops the back stack and find the following back entry to be reversed
remove(info).add(detail1);
so the system makes that transaction backward.
tries to remove detail1 (is not there, so it ignores)
re-add(info) // OVERLAP !!!
so the problem is that the system doesn't realise that there's a detail4 and that the transaction was .replace() that it was supposed to replace whatever is in there.

You could just override onBackPressed and commit a transaction to the initial fragment.

I'm guessing but:
You've added the transaction to replace infoFrag with 1st detailsFrag into the backstack.
But then you replace 1st detailsFrag with 2nd detailsFrag.
At this point when you click back, the fragment manager cannot cleanly replace 1st detailsFrag with infoFrag as 1st detailsFrag has already been removed and replaced.
Whether the overlapping behaviour is expected or not I don't know.
I would suggest debugging the Android core code to see what it is doing.
I'm not sure whether you can achieve without say overriding Activity::onBackPressed() and doing the pops yourself having added all transactions to the backstack.

How to pop back stack for Activity with multiple Fragments?

Assume I have an Activity which contains two FrameLayouts (let's call them FrameA and FrameB) which in turn each contain a Fragment (let's call them FragmentA1 and FragmentB1 respectively). Now, I commit a series of individual fragment transactions using code similar to the following...
getFragmentManager()
.beginTransaction()
.replace(frameId, fragment)
.addToBackStack(null)
.commit();
... such that I replace FragmentA1 in FrameA with FragmentA2, then I replace FragmentB1 in FrameB with FragmentB2, then I replace FragmentA2 in FrameA with FragmentA3, then I replace FragmentB2 in Frame2 with FragmentB3, and the final state looks like the picture above (where only FragmentA3 and FragmentB3 are visible).
If I understood correctly how the back stack works, pressing 'back' will interleave popping of the Fragments between FrameA and FrameB (reflecting how I added them).
Does anyone know if it is possible to pop the last transaction on FrameA or FrameB selectively? (i.e. if I pressed 'Pop FrameA' then FrameA would be transitioned back from FragmentA3 to FragmentA2 and, instead, if I pressed 'Pop FrameB' then FrameB would be transitioned back from FragmentB3 to FragmentB2)
Supplement: I know I can get the Fragment last added to a given FrameLayout using the FragmentManager.findFragmentById(int framelayoutId) method, but calling FragmentTransaction.remove(fragment).commit() only removes the Fragment from the View and does not transition the View back to the Fragment it previously displayed.

Basically, no, there is only one back stack for an activity.
You will just need to implement your own separate back stacks.
As of Android 4.0 (and the associated support library) there are APIs that should make this relatively easy -- FragmentTransaction.detach(Fragment) lets you put a fragment into the same state it is when in the back stack, and FragmentManager.saveFragmentInstanceState(Fragment) lets you go further and completely throw away the Fragment object. Not coincidentally, these are used to implement ViewPager's FragmentPagerAdapter and FragmentStatePagerAdapter, respectively, so you could look at the code for these as an example of how to use them.

FragmentManager.popBackStack(String name, FragmentManager.POP_BACK_STACK_INCLUSIVE)
Here is the simplest answer, and the explanation is very clear: Well there are a few ways to go about this depending on the intended behavior, but this link should give you all the best solutions and not surprisingly is from Dianne Hackborn...