Fix conflicting resources merging order #273
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
pswaminathan
added a commit
to pswaminathan/rules_android
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 14, 2025
That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't care about. From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272): > Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently > hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third > party library, which contains an android resource with the same name > as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old > APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in > the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'. > The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins. > > The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines > resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly (or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name. > In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib. > > This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as, > even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change > or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined > in top level target. > > The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.
pswaminathan
added a commit
to pswaminathan/rules_android
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2025
That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't care about. From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272): > Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently > hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third > party library, which contains an android resource with the same name > as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old > APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in > the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'. > The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins. > > The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines > resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly (or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name. > In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib. > > This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as, > even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change > or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined > in top level target. > > The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.
pswaminathan
added a commit
to pswaminathan/rules_android
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 27, 2025
That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't care about. From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272): > Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently > hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third > party library, which contains an android resource with the same name > as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old > APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in > the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'. > The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins. > > The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines > resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly (or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name. > In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib. > > This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as, > even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change > or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined > in top level target. > > The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.
pswaminathan
added a commit
to pswaminathan/rules_android
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 13, 2025
That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't care about. From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272): > Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently > hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third > party library, which contains an android resource with the same name > as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old > APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in > the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'. > The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins. > > The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines > resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly (or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name. > In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib. > > This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as, > even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change > or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined > in top level target. > > The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.
pswaminathan
added a commit
to pswaminathan/rules_android
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 13, 2025
That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't care about. From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272): > Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently > hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third > party library, which contains an android resource with the same name > as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old > APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in > the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'. > The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins. > > The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines > resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly (or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name. > In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib. > > This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as, > even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change > or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined > in top level target. > > The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.
pswaminathan
added a commit
to pswaminathan/rules_android
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 27, 2025
That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't care about. From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272): > Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently > hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third > party library, which contains an android resource with the same name > as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old > APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in > the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'. > The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins. > > The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines > resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly (or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name. > In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib. > > This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as, > even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change > or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined > in top level target. > > The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.
pswaminathan
added a commit
to pswaminathan/rules_android
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2025
That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't care about. From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272): > Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently > hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third > party library, which contains an android resource with the same name > as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old > APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in > the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'. > The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins. > > The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines > resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly (or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name. > In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib. > > This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as, > even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change > or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined > in top level target. > > The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.
pswaminathan
added a commit
to pswaminathan/rules_android
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 3, 2025
That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't care about. From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272): > Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently > hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third > party library, which contains an android resource with the same name > as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old > APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in > the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'. > The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins. > > The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines > resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly (or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name. > In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib. > > This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as, > even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change > or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined > in top level target. > > The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #272
Use flag to restore legacy behavior, if needed.