I have an app setup that uses fragments in various place, in one case a fragment exists and upon pressing a button another replaces it using replace() all normal so far, however when the user presses the android back button and the new fragment is removed/popped (whatever the system uses) and the app returns to the first fragment there is no event being fired that i can override to perform an action.
is this normal?, the docs seem to suggest that onResume should be fired in this instance, other sites don't, and my app doesn't, if anyone has any clue if this is normal behaviour or not that be great and if it is what event can i hook into?
Edit: i forgot that all of this is occuring as nested fragments, the first fragment is the child of another so is added using a child fragment manager the second replaces the first using its regular fragment manager, besides the issue im describing this is working great
how the first fragment is originally put in place
Menu_Fragment menufragment = new Menu_Fragment();
getChildFragmentManager().beginTransaction().replace(R.id.menu_container, menufragment, "_menu_fragment").commit();
How the second fragment is "added"
Google_Map_Container_Fragment mapcontainerfrag = new Google_Map_Container_Fragment();
getFragmentManager().beginTransaction().replace(R.id.menu_container, mapcontainerfrag, "addedmap").addToBackStack(null).commit();
Related
I have an app with a Home screen that has 2 fragments (for now) and a navigation drawer. Currently I load the fragment A (Explore) on startup and load fragment B when clicked. From then on, I show and hide fragments. It's faster than recreating fragments on every click and my fragment A takes some time to load.
I've noticed that when I go to fragment B and go to another activity (let's call it activity 2) from there and leave the app and wait for it to be killed (or do something crazy like change the device language), and then come back to the same activity, it's still there. When I press back to go back to fragment B, sometimes (50% of times) the fragment B is drawn over fragment A. On clicking fragment A in the drawer, fragment A appears fine, but on clicking fragment B, there's another instance of fragment A and on top of that fragment B.
I've spent more than 2 days on this problem and got nowhere.
Here's my code for selecting the fragment:
private void selectItem(int position, boolean addExploreFragment) {
Log.d(tag, "selectItem: " + position);
FragmentTransaction fragmentTransaction = getSupportFragmentManager().beginTransaction();
fragmentTransaction.setTransition(FragmentTransaction.TRANSIT_FRAGMENT_OPEN);
//add explore fragment - this is called on app startup, but also when the app is killed and resumed which results in 2 explore fragments
if (addExploreFragment){
fragmentTransaction.replace(R.id.content_frame, mExploreFragment, EXPLORE_FRAGMENT_TAG);
Log.d(tag, "Replaced frame and added "+ mFragmentTags[position]);
} else {
//add fragment for the first time
if (getSupportFragmentManager().findFragmentByTag(mFragmentTags[position]) == null && position != 0) {
fragmentTransaction.add(R.id.content_frame, mFragments[position], mFragmentTags[position]);
Log.d(tag, "Added Fragment: "+ mFragmentTags[position]);
}
//shows and hides fragments
for (int i = 0; i < mFragments.length; i++) {
if (i == position) {
fragmentTransaction.show(mFragments[i]);
Log.d(tag, "Showing Fragment: "+ mFragmentTags[i]);
} else {
if (getSupportFragmentManager().findFragmentByTag(mFragmentTags[i]) != null) {
fragmentTransaction.hide(mFragments[i]);
Log.d(tag, "Hid Fragment: "+ mFragmentTags[i]);
}
}
}
}
fragmentTransaction.commit();
//not null check for calling selectItem(0) before loading the drawer
if (mDrawerList != null){
mDrawerList.setItemChecked(position, true);
}
}
I know for sure, the explore fragment is getting created twice and the two instances behave independently of each other (just sharing).
I'm lost what to do next. This is an issue which can be reproduced very easily on low end devices but on a device like Nexus 4 (my test device), the issue can be reproduced by changing the device language.
Has anyone got any ideas about this? Basically if the addExploreFragment block doesn't get called when there is already an exploreFragment, this issue could be solved, I think, but I've been unable to do so. Also, I tried removing all the fragments and then adding the exploreFragment but same thing happens (50% of times).
Thanks! and sorry for the long post, I felt I should share all the details.
Update: When I change the device language and come back to the app on Activity 2 and go back to Home activity, it has the fragment B open which is good, but fragment A get recreated because it's a heavy fragment and the system probably removed it from memory. Again, that's ok that it gets recreated IF it got removed by the system but why does it get recreated when it's not removed. I believe it's something with my code, on every 2nd attempt (without closing the app) this happens, 2 instances of the heavy fragment A. Out of ideas.
But shouldn't fragmentTransaction.replace remove all the previously added fragments and then add exploreFragment. It's not working like that. Neither fragment A nor Fragment B are getting removed.
I found out something new and rather odd to me. When you use fragmentTransaction.add, the listeners you have, like DrawerItemClickListener, on the previous fragment, are still active. And this is even if you use fragmentTransaction.commit.
So...I suspect when the add method is used, you actually clicked on another hidden button or hidden UI that has an event listener on the previous fragment. I don't like this of course and the effect may be very confusing. Yes, this happened to me and I didn't understand why for a while.
For now, I think the easiest code fix would be to use the replace method instead of add. The replace() makes listeners inactive. If it works, then you can make a better/elegant fix.
Let me know what happens....
I started to notice your post
when I go to fragment B and go to another activity
When you interact or start another Activity, you start a new set of Fragments. Look at this Google webpage # Fragments Lifecycle.
For clarification of my claim, there is a quote saying
A fragment must always be embedded in an activity and the fragment's
lifecycle is directly affected by the host activity's lifecycle.
You might as well read few paragraphs of it, at least.
I am not sure what your solution should be. Perhaps make the fragments distinctive, different and clear between the two Activities you have.
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.
Just a general question about working with Fragments and Activitys for android development: where does the business end of the functional code go for Fragments loaded into an Activity dynamically? (i.e. a fragment's OnClickListeners, OnCheckedChangedListeners, button logic methods...)
Do they go in the Fragment class, or the Activity class?
All the GUI logic for views attached to a fragment should be contained inside the fragment itself.
Thus a fragment should be as self contained as possible.
You can, though, if necessary do callbacks to your activity based on fragment GUI interaction. This can easily be done like this inside the fragment:
#Override
public void onAttach(Activity activity) {
if (!(activity instanceof SherlockFragmentActivity)) {
throw new IllegalStateException(getClass().getSimpleName()
+ " must be attached to a SherlockFragmentActivity.");
}
mActivity = (SherlockFragmentActivity) activity;
super.onAttach(activity);
}
In this specific case the reason for gaining a reference to SherlockFragmentActivity is to gain access to the support menu inflater mActivity.getSupportMenuInflater(), hence the construction can of course also serve to gain information from the underlying activity.
This probably depends on how much the Fragment's functionalities have in common, and how many, let's say Buttons, have to be handled.
I personally (and it's probably most common practice) handle onClick(...) events separately for each Fragment, meaning that I let each Fragment implement it's own OnClickListener.
Furthermore, when handling everything through the Activity, probably not all the components that react to click-events are in memory at all times and can be reached via findViewById(...), depending on which Fragment is currently displayed and how your user-interface is built up in general.
they always in fragment class because fragment is one type of component in android which we can reuse it. if we put onclick and oncheckchanged in activity then what meaning of reusing that component??
for more information about please go through following step:
Link 1 for basic level of information about fragment and how to handle them
Link 2 for dealing with multi pane fragment
Standard site for fragment
It depends:
If fragment can handle logic which is self sufficient(complete) then that code can be handled by fragment. e.g. on click call phone number.
If fragment have UI whose action is activity specific, then you want to add listener in activity.
e.g. master detail view like email client, on tablet user click on title fragment1 which have list of email titles, then handler on click in activity can show detail fragment2 in activity.
In all you want to keep fragment reusable.
In the main part of my application I have 2 fragments open at once. Only one is shown at once though.
The second fragment is being created from the onCreateView method of the first fragment, as the second fragment is used to control the first fragment.
Bundle args = new Bundle();
args.putInt(ReferenceSelectorFragment.ARG_TAB_INDEX, Tab.BOOK.position);
mReferenceSelectorFragment.setArguments(args);
fm.beginTransaction()
.add(container.getId(), mReferenceSelectorFragment, FRAGMENT_TAGS[0])
.hide(mReferenceSelectorFragment)
.commit();
I'm properly hiding and showing the fragments using a fragment transaction:
getActivity().getSupportFragmentManager().beginTransaction()
.setCustomAnimations(R.anim.up_in, R.anim.up_out, R.anim.down_in, R.anim.down_out)
.hide(ReaderFragment.this)
.show(mReferenceSelectorFragment)
.addToBackStack(null)
.commit();
This works wonderfully, as expected, except for one tiny flaw. When the application is minimized for a while and the OS closes the process, when the application is opened again, trying to restore the previous state, both fragments are restored on top of each other. Meaning both are seen at the same time on top of each other. (This can be replicated by pressing the home button on the app, and then using DDMS to kill the running process).
I've tried everything to detect this and fix this, but it's proven very difficult to programmatically distinguish between a rotation and the application being restored after the process has been exited. What is the proper way to deal with the lifecycle of showing and hiding fragments?
This might help you out: https://stackoverflow.com/a/13306633/969325
Basically you could pass a null bundle in your activities super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); or only create new fragments when they doesn't already exists. I suspect that is your issue.
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...