Skip to content

Conversation

tylerjroach
Copy link
Member

Issue #, if available:

Description of changes:

How did you test these changes?
(Please add a line here how the changes were tested)

Documentation update required?

  • No
  • Yes (Please include a PR link for the documentation update)

General Checklist

  • Added Unit Tests
  • Added Integration Tests
  • Security oriented best practices and standards are followed (e.g. using input sanitization, principle of least privilege, etc)
  • Ensure commit message has the appropriate scope (e.g fix(liveness): message, fix(authenticator): message, fix(all): message)

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

@tylerjroach tylerjroach requested review from a team as code owners August 6, 2025 13:44
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 6, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 32.58%. Comparing base (2dcec64) to head (6a9e24a).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #255      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   32.59%   32.58%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         100      100              
  Lines        4608     4609       +1     
  Branches      583      584       +1     
==========================================
  Hits         1502     1502              
- Misses       2950     2951       +1     
  Partials      156      156              
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

if (mAdditionalContext != 0) {
setWindowSurface(mAdditionalContext, null);
} else if (DEBUG) {
Log.d(TAG, "!!! mAdditionalContext null during detachPreviewSurface");
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the impact of this value being 0? Should this log be at a higher level?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This files a bit weird as far as logging goes. All logs are debug level and the DEBUG flag can only be set at development. This is primarily because liveness doesn't have a logger that can be used.

As far as mAdditionalContext being 0. Its initial value is 0. The value is supposed to be set when attachPreviewSurface is called. It appears that that has failed and the value is never set when the surface is destroyed.

This is an edge case failure by what appears to be a manufacturer/hardware bug based on reports. The liveness challenge is likely to fail because it appears the surface isn't getting set properly. But this should hopefully allow the liveness flow to present an onError failure rather than an app force close.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants