I'm seeing the following behavior, wondering why i...
# decomposed
doubov
02/08/2023, 11:28 PMI'm seeing the following behavior, wondering why it could be happening:
1. Start with Child A
2. Modify Child A state
3. Navigate to Child B
4. Rotate the device
5. Go back to Child A
6. The state is lost
The state gets retained properly if we rotate the device on Child A. Setting
backStackCreateDepth👀 1
doubov
02/08/2023, 11:38 PMLooking at the backstack while on Child B:
when Child B is launched, backstack consists of a single Created(ChildA)
when device is rotated, backstack consists of a single Destroyed(ChildA)
Since ChildA is destroyed, I'm assuming all instances that it kept inside of
InstanceKeeperbackStackCreateDepthInt.MAXdoubov
02/08/2023, 11:43 PMfrom the documentation, that seems to be the expected behavior:
Copy code
Child Stack automatically preserves the stack when a configuration change or process death occurs. By default, only the active component is recreated, components in the back stack remain destroyed and are created on demand.InstanceKeeper.Instancea
Arkadii Ivanov
02/09/2023, 10:34 AMAs you mentioned, this is indeed by design. Retained instances are destroyed when the hosting component is destroyed and not automatically recreated. Use
backStackCreateDepthArkadii Ivanov
02/09/2023, 10:37 AMNow I'm wondering, maybe we should always recreate components in the back stack? I remember that Android fragments were not recreated automatically in the back stack, but now they are.
This would also simplify the API, e.g. child type in the back stack would always be
Child.CreatedArkadii Ivanov
02/09/2023, 4:37 PMd
doubov
02/09/2023, 4:39 PM👍 That behavior makes the most intuitive sense to me
a
Arkadii Ivanov
02/09/2023, 4:41 PMPlease vote in the issue. This however would likely require API changes, so maybe in
v2.0.0Arkadii Ivanov
02/09/2023, 4:42 PMI will see if there is a way to avoid breaking changes.
19 Views