Summary:
Ship responsibility for most View creation logic to ViewManager, where it already largely lies, and simplify code in Fabric and non-Fabric mounting layers.
Notably, some of this work was *already* being duplicated so we can expect an extremely tiny perf gain here.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D26742711
fbshipit-source-id: 4213766d4cd366bc69cd47d4654f7b269bb9e7f4
Summary:
https://github.com/facebook/react-native/issues/31051
When trying to create custom viewmanagers, we don't have props, I have a use case where I want to create views on the basis of provided react prop from react native.
## Changelog
<!-- Help reviewers and the release process by writing your own changelog entry. For an example, see:
https://github.com/facebook/react-native/wiki/Changelog
-->
[Android] [Changed] - pass initial props to ViewManager createViewInstance method in non-Fabric
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/31053
Test Plan:
Tested Manually.
(Facebook - see D26719538, which should land first)
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D26719510
Pulled By: JoshuaGross
fbshipit-source-id: ced78aa919e6b433e22ddb7c9eccc3e3e91950e9
Summary:
This diff refactors the createViewInstance method in order to ensure that viewID is set before props are updated in the view.
This is necessary because there are components that deliver events at the same time their props are set. This means that some components might not have their viewId set correctly when events are delivered.
Since viewId is used to determine if a view belongs to Fabric or Paper, there are cases when the events are not delivered to the right renderer
changelog: [internal]
Reviewed By: JoshuaGross
Differential Revision: D25667987
fbshipit-source-id: 4acfa8f80d66e9e59514354481957d7d3b571248
Summary:
Fixes a NPE in debug mode. This will only impact developers who have explicitly turned this debug flag on, so it's a very low-pri fix.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: makovkastar
Differential Revision: D24410825
fbshipit-source-id: 08c8a0c6d0e0fb7c132725ad6af9460b91a7edf3
Summary:
Similar to D21756178, we cannot rely on childCount since it can return zero when there are actually valid children. This both causes more exceptions than necessary when the operation would work, and pollutes error messages since the information is not strictly reliable.
Instead, we just try to get a View and thrown an exception when it's null, or in loops, loop until we hit a null child. `getChildAt` doesn't throw exceptions, it just returns null when we're out-of-bounds.
This can impact custom ViewGroups like BottomSheets, and other ViewGroups that might do interesting/weird things with children, including ReactClippingViewManager.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D22035569
fbshipit-source-id: 43e98d81178faaf720face98fc84e78743f292c3
Summary:
On Android, when using split-screen mode, the Window-relative position of a native View is not calculated properly when the app is running on the right (or bottom) half of the screen. The coordinates are currently calculated only based on View.getLocationOnScreen() with subtracting status bar height. Scenarios, where the window does not fill the entire screen (such as split-screen mode) are not supported.
We need to use a more general solution to subtract the actual position of the window from position of the view within the screen. This PR fixes the issue by subtracting coordinates of the Window retrieved from View.getWindowVisibleDisplayFrame(), which covers all scenarios when Window can be in a different position than the screen (incl. status bar offset).
## Changelog
[Android] [Fixed] - Calculating view position within the window in split-screen mode
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/28449
Test Plan:
1. Run an app in split-screen mode on the right half of the screen
2. Call UIManagerModule.measureInWindow() from JS to fetch a position of a View within a Window
3. Observe the wrong coordinates returned
4. Try the same with the fix
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D21246297
Pulled By: shergin
fbshipit-source-id: 1f54b1a5d6610be17bf05521200304db2ba263ab
Summary:
Changelog: [Internal]
Removing historic layout animations index adjustment (D20323928) broke the Dating Secret Crush screen.
Since flushing animations (D20319824) had to be reverted due to issues with Saved + Privacy Shortcuts (https://fburl.com/tasks/eijtmifu) we need to track pending deletions across `manageChildren` operations.
Reviewed By: JoshuaGross
Differential Revision: D20601079
fbshipit-source-id: c6f116683750e97abe7f988cf361d2a6449e90e6
Summary:
Instead of just blindly retrying all ViewCommands if they fail - which could be dangerous, since it's arbitrary imperative commands we'd be executing twice, potentially with bad app state - we only retry if the ViewCommand throws a "RetryableMountingLayerException".
Changelog: [Internal] Optimization to ViewCommands
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D20529985
fbshipit-source-id: 0217b43f4bf92442bcc7ca48c8ae2b9a9e543dc9
Summary:
Original commit changeset: b594d0e6e9b6
D20319824 introduced a problem in LayoutAnimations, which makes surfaced as the problem in T63911344. This diff reverts D20319824.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: lunaleaps
Differential Revision: D20541918
fbshipit-source-id: ff72b839f57d39051122920a38b2632cbb5ec362
Summary:
Patch for T63997094.
Will still crash in debug mode, and log soft errors, so as not to entirely hide errors.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D20473855
fbshipit-source-id: 8b052b1ae3c886f83d6a7922feb158172cdcd33d
Summary:
Changelog: [Internal]
This solves the problem of viewToAdd indices being invalid if the deletes are asynchronous within the scope of one `manageChildren` call.
Since deletions are performed first, we keep a set of tags being deleted.
During view insertion, we iterate through and filter those tags out of our count.
Reviewed By: JoshuaGross
Differential Revision: D20324643
fbshipit-source-id: 150230428fcd65b8c43cc1f2331e9ce02d31fff9
Summary:
Changelog: [Internal]
Track delete animations and when `manageChildren` is called on a certain view tag, finish all pending deletion animations before manipulating children
Reviewed By: JoshuaGross
Differential Revision: D20319824
fbshipit-source-id: b594d0e6e9b6fecc5eca2938f284be631494e55c
Summary:
Changelog: [Internal]
# Context Timeline
* ~March 2019 landed D14529038 (I'll be referring to this as "index adjustment fix")
which attempted to fix a reproducible issue with layout animations: P127130177, see Spencer's diff for more context: D14245985
* May 2019 I realized that "index adjustment fix" has a bug in it and attempted to fix with D15485132, but was eventually reverted because of other crashes
* Just recently have been getting tasks related to crashes that are attempting to either remove or add a view that is out of bounds which is caused by invalid index because of the "index adjustment fix".
# What is this diff doing?
I'm removing the "index adjustment fix" because I found that the original layout animation repro, P127130177, no longer repros on latest master with the "index adjustment fix" reverted.
Additionally, I've found a consistent crash in (RN bookmark > Sample Integration App > Relay Sample Friends) of a bad view deletion because of the "index adjustment fix"
Removing the index adjustment fix may have effects elsewhere but it seems better to remove this and go back to what layout animations was doing a year ago than to continue on in this half-baked state.
Reviewed By: JoshuaGross
Differential Revision: D20323928
fbshipit-source-id: ba4a222915add00e98a9936ba2a8efc4006fb8e3
Summary:
This diff migrates the usages Nullable and NonNull annotations to AndroidX instead of javax.
The purpose of this change is to bring consistency in the annotations used by the core of RN
Reviewed By: makovkastar
Differential Revision: D16054504
fbshipit-source-id: 21d888854da088d2a14615a90d4dc058e5286b91
Summary: I've been analyzing some issue in RN Android code and I noticed some warnings to clean up
Reviewed By: ejanzer
Differential Revision: D16060522
fbshipit-source-id: 327fa86c24c7dd67ac2376bbd2f0ca4339f106d1
Summary: After we ran google-java-format D16071725, some Javadocs which weren't properly written broke. This includes putting unordered and ordered lists not using <ul> and <ol>, putting code blocks and pseudo-graphics not using <pre>. I ran through all the changed classes and tried to fix the broken Javadocs.
Reviewed By: cpojer
Differential Revision: D16090087
fbshipit-source-id: f31971cbc0e367a04814ff90bbfb2192751d5e16
Summary:
This diff formats the Java class files inside xplat/js/react-native-github. Since google-java-format was enabled in D16071401 we want to codemode the existing code so that users don't have to deal with formatter lint noise at diff-time.
```arc f --paths-cmd 'hg files -I "**/*.java"'```
drop-conflicts
Reviewed By: cpojer
Differential Revision: D16071725
fbshipit-source-id: fc6e3852e45742c109f0c5ac4065d64201c74204
Summary:
Right now JS triggers a view manager command with the following code:
```
UIManager.dispatchViewManagerCommand(
ReactNative.findNodeHandle(this),
UIManager.getViewManagerConfig('RCTView').Commands.hotspotUpdate,
[destX || 0, destY || 0],
);
```
As we want to get rid of calls to UIManager, we need to stop looking for the integer defined in native from JavaScript. We will be changing methods like this to be:
```
UIManager.dispatchViewManagerCommand(
ReactNative.findNodeHandle(this),
'hotspotUpdate',
[destX || 0, destY || 0],
);
```
We need to support ints and Strings to be backwards compatible, but ints will be deprecated.
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D15955444
fbshipit-source-id: d1c488975ae03404f8f851a7035b58a90ed34163
Summary:
Modify the wrong word in the comment of NativeViewHierarchyManager.java.
Fix the explanation of the code to avoid misunderstanding.
## Changelog
[Android] [Fixed] - Fix the explanation of the code to avoid misunderstanding.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/25235
Differential Revision: D15779249
Pulled By: cpojer
fbshipit-source-id: d4e7baa9ea9be5551feed8f643fe9774b3226bd8
Summary:
[Android][Fix] - Fix how we normalize indices
Before, we were incorrectly normalizing indices given pending view deletion in the view hierarchy (namely, using LayoutAnimations)
What we had before (that was wrong):
* Maintained a pendingIndices sparse array for each tag
* For each pendingIndices sparse array we'd keep track of how many views we deleted at each abstract index
* Given an abstract index to delete a view at, we'd consult `pendingIndices` array to sum how many pending deletes we had for indices equal or smaller than and add to abstract index
^ Above algorithm is wrong and you can follow along with the following example to see how.
## The correct approach
Given these operations in this order:
1. {tagsToDelete: [123], indicesToDelete [2]}
2. {tagsToDelete: [124], indicesToDelete [1]}
3. {tagsToDelete: [125], indicesToDelete [2]}
4. {tagsToDelete: [126], indicesToDelete [1]}
The approach we want to be using to calculate normalized indices:
### Step 1: Delete tag 124 at index 2
|Views:|122|123|124|125|126|127|
|Actual Indices:|0|1|2|3|4|5|
|Abstract Indices:|0|1|2|3|4|5|
=> simple, we just mark the view at 2
### Step 2: Delete tag 123 at index 1
View tags and indices:
|Views|122|123|~~124~~|125|126|127|
|Actual indices|0|1|~~2~~|3|4|5|
|Abstract Indices|0|1||2|3|4|
=> again, simple, we can just use the normalized index 1 because no pending deletes affect this operation
### Step 3: Delete tag 126 at index 2
View tags and indices:
|Views|122|~~123~~|~~124~~|125|126|127|
|Actual Indices|0|~~1~~|~~2~~|3|4|5|
|Abstract Indices|0|||1|2|3|
=> Here we want to normalize this index to 4 because we need to account the 2 views that should be skipped
### Step 4: Delete tag 125 at index 1
View tags and indices:
|Views|122|~~123~~|~~124~~|125|~~126~~|127|
|Actual Indices|0|~~1~~|~~2~~|3|~~4~~|5|
|Abstract Indices|0|||1||2|
=> The normalized index should be 3.
This diff updates the function `normalizeIndex` to do the above algorithm by repurposing `pendingIndicesToDelete` to instead be a sparse int array that holds [normalizedIndex]=[tag] pairs
It's required that `pendingIndicesToDelete` is ordered by the normalizedIndex.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D15485132
fbshipit-source-id: 43e57dffa807e8ea50fa1650c5dec13a6fded624
Summary: As of D14529038, LayoutAnimations can sometimes throw an exception due to the view being null. This can happen when elements are removed/added and is not fixable in product code. This is a temporary fix - the root cause for this issue will be fixed soon.
Reviewed By: lunaleaps
Differential Revision: D15428791
fbshipit-source-id: 41200e572ed7d5d470754792c5576a0ea23fe946
Summary:
For some components, we will have state as soon as the ShadowNode is created that may be meaningful. In those cases, ViewManagers should be able to use State to create or preallocate views.
FB: This will be used in following diffs for Litho support.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D15343702
fbshipit-source-id: 8fd672251cb88dea662b5cae5a9efc96877d28a9
Summary:
We are getting errors where views are being dropped twice.
This is following from logic that viewManagers are only removed from `mTagsToViewManagers` from `dropView`.
This log will hopefully identify if we are getting improper operations because we shouldn't be re-using tags
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D15152869
fbshipit-source-id: 914ee9c1772fa066adefde0753075ecba6377a0c
Summary:
[General] [Fix] - Reorder operations of native view hierarchy
When we update the native view hierarchy in `manageChildren` we:
1. iterate through all views we plan to remove and remove them from the native hierarchy
2. iterate through all views we plan to add and add them to the native hierarchy
3. iterate through all views we plan to delete and delete them (remove them from memory)
This covers these cases:
a. A view is moved from one place to another -- handled by steps 1 & 2
b. A view is added -- handled by step 2
c. A view is deleted -- handled by step 1 & 3
> Note the difference between remove and delete
Everything above sounds fine! But...
The important bit:
**A view that is going to be deleted asynchronously (by a layout animation) is NOT removed in step 1. It is removed and deleted all in step 3.** See: https://fburl.com/ryxp626i
If the reader may recall we solved a similar problem in D14529038 where we introduced the `pendingIndicesToDelete` data structure to keep track of views that were marked for deletion but had not yet been deleted. An example of an order of operations that we would've solved with D14529038 is:
* we "delete" the view asynchronously (view A) in one operation
* we add a view B that shares a parent with view A in subsequent operation
* view A finally calls its callback after the animation is complete and removes itself from the native view hierarchy
A case that D14529038 would not fix:
1. we add a view B in one operation
2. we delete a view A in the same operation asynchronously because it's in a layout animation
3. ... etc.
What we must remember is that the index we use to add view B in step 1 is based on the indices assuming that all deletions are synchronous as this [comment notes](https://fburl.com/j9uillje): removals (both deletions and moveFroms) use the indices of the current order of the views and are assumed independent of each other. Whereas additions are indexed on the updated order (after deletions!)
This diff re-arranges the order in how we act upon the operations to update the native view hierarchy -- similar to how UIImplementation does its operations on the shadow tree here: https://fburl.com/j9uillje
By doing the removals and deletions first, we know that the addAt indices will be correct because either the view is removed from the native view hierarchy or `pendingIndicesToDelete` should be tracking an async delete already so the addAt index will be normalized
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D15112664
fbshipit-source-id: 85d4b21211ac802183ca2f0fd28fc4437d312100
Summary:
Closes: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/issues/24016
React Native 0.57 introduced cross-platform `accessibilityRole` and `accessibilityStates` props in order to replace `accessibilityComponentType` (for android) and `accessibilityTraits` (for iOS). With #24095 `accessibilityRole` and `accessibilityStates` will increase, receiving more options, which seems to be a good moment to remove deprecated props.
Remove deprecated `accessibilityComponentType` and `accessibilityTraits` props.
[General] [Removed] - Remove accessibilityComponentType and accessibilityTraits props
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/24344
Reviewed By: rickhanlonii
Differential Revision: D14842214
Pulled By: cpojer
fbshipit-source-id: 279945e503d8a23bfee7a49d42f5db490c5f6069
Summary: Create views with props in one call instead of two. Backwards-compatible.
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D14846424
fbshipit-source-id: cb53225579089f7e51d4e9d1fc9fc2e331a994c1
Summary:
In #20288, we solved `com.facebook.react.uimanager.NativeViewHierarchyManager.dropView (NativeViewHierarchyManager.java:536)` by adding codes that prevent to run method on `view` object when `view.getId()` is null.
But if `view` is null, `view.getId()` can make error about NullPointerException. So, I think `dropView` method needs to check if `view` is null.
If you need more information, Please read #24346.
[Android] [Fixed] - Ignore dropView method when view is null.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/24347
Differential Revision: D14833822
Pulled By: cpojer
fbshipit-source-id: 88b6a05090ea8e8d6737c1f10b40e93649fab151
Summary: We've identified a couple of remaining issues that need to be re-tested before we can ship this more broadly.
Reviewed By: fred2028
Differential Revision: D14775730
fbshipit-source-id: 22402149066c5fbe72c36fcf7f547d63feaf5241
Summary: All animations are scheduled by the UIManager while it processes a batch of changes, so we can just wait to see what the longest animation is and cancel+reschedule the callback.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D14656733
fbshipit-source-id: 4cbbb7e741219cd43f511f2ce750c53c30e2b2ca
Summary: This code was shipped as part of the initial open-source release but was never used.
Reviewed By: sahrens
Differential Revision: D14649389
fbshipit-source-id: 0c068ca69b91d275008f4a7af77a23a4f1470c18
Summary:
Potential breaking change: The signature of ReactShadowNode's onBeforeLayout method was changed
- Before: public void onBeforeLayout()
- After: public void onBeforeLayout(NativeViewHierarchyOptimizer nativeViewHierarchyOptimizer)
Implements same feature as this iOS PR: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/7304
Previously, only Text and Image could be nested within Text. Now, any view can be nested within Text. One restriction of this feature is that developers must give inline views a width and a height via the style prop.
Previously, inline Images were supported via FrescoBasedReactTextInlineImageSpan. To get support for nesting views within Text, we create one special kind of span per inline view. This span is called TextInlineViewPlaceholderSpan. It is the same size as the inline view. Its job is just to occupy space -- it doesn't render any visual. After the text is rendered, we query the Android Layout object associated with the TextView to find out where it has positioned each TextInlineViewPlaceholderSpan. We then position the views to be at those locations.
One tricky aspect of the implementation is that the Text component needs to be able to render native children (the inline views) but the Android TextView cannot have children. This is solved by having the native parent of the ReactTextView also host the inline views. Implementation-wise, this was accomplished by extending the NativeViewHierarchyOptimizer to handle this case. The optimizer now handles these cases:
- Node is not in the native tree. An ancestor must host its children.
- Node is in the native tree and it can host its own children.
- (new) Node is in the native tree but it cannot host its own children. An ancestor must host both this node and its children.
I added the `onInlineViewLayout` event which is useful for writing tests for verifying that the inline views are positioned properly.
Limitation: Clipping
----------
If Text's height/width is small such that an inline view doesn't completely fit, the inline view may still be fully visible due to hoisting (the inline view isn't actually parented to the Text which has the limited size. It is parented to an ancestor which may have a different clipping rectangle.). Prior to this change, layout-only views had a similar limitation.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/23195
Differential Revision: D14014668
Pulled By: shergin
fbshipit-source-id: d46130f3d19cc83ac7ddf423adcc9e23988245d3
Summary:
[Android] [Fixed] - LayoutAnimations cause invalid view operations
The dating team has found a consistent repro where following an order of steps will get you the following exception:
https://lookaside.facebook.com/intern/pixelcloudnew/asset/?id=2113362972287761
The exception is due to the fact that the following operation
`delete child tag 17 from parent tag 481 which is located at index 2`
cannot be performed because parent tag 481 only has 2 children.. and they also happen to not have the tag 17 as a child. Somehow the operations and the tree they act upon are out of sync.
RN receives operations from React via the native module `UIManagerModule`. The operations use tags (an identifier for a view) and indices to determine what view is updated. These operations (grouped together as a batch) are then passed to the UI thread where we perform them on the platform views.
LayoutAnimations are implemented per batch in RN. When LayoutAnimations are on, qualified view updates are animated. Because the delete operation is animated, RN doesn't remove the view from the platform view hierarchy immediately but asynchronously -- after the animation is complete. This is problematic for other view operations that rely on an index on where to insert or delete a view because during the creation of those operations, it was assumed all prior operations were performed synchronously.
This is what was occurring in the repro and there were silent view errors occurring before the exception was thrown.
This diff proposes a solution to track all pending delete operations across operations.
We introduce a map that is keyed on view tags and has a value of a sparse array that represents child index -> count of views that are pending deletion.
`{11: [0=1], 481: [2=1]}` where this would be interpreted as for index 0 under view tag 11, there is one async view deletion that has not completed and under tag 481 there is one async view deletion at index 2.
We use the map to adjust indices on add / delete operations. We also update the count when the deletion animation is complete and remove the tag from the map when it is deleted.
Regarding worst case sizing of the map => O(# of platform views rendered)
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D14529038
fbshipit-source-id: 86d8982845e25a2b23d6d89ce27852fd77dbb060
Summary: SizeMonitoringFrameLayout was used to set layout contraints on the root shadow node when the native view's size changes. Since then, we introduced ways for the root node to use proper layout contraints using the root view's measure specs, which provides more accurate constraints for the root node, so SizeMonitoringFrameLayout is no longer needed. This ends up making a lot of UIManagerModule's method signatures cleaner
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D9565720
fbshipit-source-id: c569cd15991a09987cc01e89612dc9193ad99b45
Summary:
React Native's minSdkVersion is 16, or we support Android versions 16 (Jelly Bean) and above. But in the code we have many checks if Android is Jelly Bean or newer, which are unnecessary. This PR removes unnecessary Android version checks, also uses Android version names instead of numbers.
[Android] [Changes] - remove unnecessary Android version checks
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/23277
Differential Revision: D13955909
Pulled By: cpojer
fbshipit-source-id: 6b1caa5ef4fe42273d3c69a6617fff140a697b5c
Summary: It was pointed out to me in https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/22508 by raphael-liu that the error message refers to the wrong tag. I didn't merge the PR because I don't have good insight into the effects it could cause, but we should at least fix the error message.
Reviewed By: TheSavior
Differential Revision: D13564266
fbshipit-source-id: fa76f0888364df329d052dbcc2050f906d39dcef
Summary: If a children of a root node is being removed and the Root Node is empty, it was likely already removed and cleaned previously, likely due to a race condition caused by RN's async nature. In those cases, let's avoid crashing the app and instead silently ignore the root view removal.
Reviewed By: fkgozali
Differential Revision: D13405817
fbshipit-source-id: 0179d10a88a2d19f1db5ea35b48cb83d9d7429a6
Summary: There are cases where we're trying to drop a view that is not associated with a ViewManager. This is likely caused by race conditions that can occur if we're dropping a view from JS (when it's no longer used) but at the same time dropping it from native (when layout animation ends, when the rootview gets unmounted). In either of those cases, it should be safe to ignore the drop operation because the view was likely dropped already.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D13036643
fbshipit-source-id: 260ffb56d32a0d670ad08f449b8df165b2533195
Summary: Alternative to D10499861. If an app does not have an exception handler, context.handleException will still hard crash. Since this error is just saying that we're reusing an unexpected RootView, it might be safe to continue execution. Let's remove the exception for now while we investigate further
Reviewed By: mmmulani
Differential Revision: D10560413
fbshipit-source-id: 6c08a16cd250a019d2aef5afcaf3ba61534d29f7
Summary:
This is a bandaid fix to address a crash with a stack trace involving
```
com.facebook.react.uimanager.IllegalViewOperationException: Trying to add a root view with an explicit id already set. React Native uses the id field to track react tags and will overwrite this field. If that is fine, explicitly overwrite the id field to View.NO_ID before calling addRootView.
0+com.facebook.react.uimanager.NativeViewHierarchyManager.addRootViewGroup(NativeViewHierarchyManager.java:546) [inlined]
1+com.facebook.react.uimanager.NativeViewHierarchyManager.addRootView(NativeViewHierarchyManager.java:538) [inlined]
2+com.facebook.react.uimanager.UIViewOperationQueue.addRootView(UIViewOperationQueue.java:678) [inlined]
3+com.facebook.react.uimanager.UIImplementation.registerRootView(UIImplementation.java:216) [inlined]
4+com.facebook.react.uimanager.UIManagerModule.addRootView(UIManagerModule.java:355)
5+com.facebook.react.ReactInstanceManager.attachRootViewToInstance(ReactInstanceManager.java:1032)
6+com.facebook.react.ReactInstanceManager.attachRootView(ReactInstanceManager.java:726) [inlined]
7+com.facebook.react.ReactRootView.attachToReactInstanceManager(ReactRootView.java:524)
8+com.facebook.react.ReactRootView.startReactApplication(ReactRootView.java:377)
```
This crash seems to be happening because the root view's id is set to a non NO_ID value, but further up in the stack trace, UIManager.addRootView() is called which always sets the root view's id to NO_ID. It's not clear how this error is happening, but in this code path it's expected that addRootView should always ensure that the id is always reset. In order to avoid crashing for this, let's remove the exception and log the issue instead.
In the future, we should not be overloading the android view id field with these types of react native implementation details. The react tag should be stored as a view tag instead.
Reviewed By: mmmulani
Differential Revision: D10499861
fbshipit-source-id: 4dffedab4e7a34eee7f64bb43ec8209699521c73
Joshua Gross
Gaurav Gupta
David Vacca
Lulu Wu
Jakub Kinst
Luna Wei
Ramanpreet Nara
Andres Suarez
Florian Cargoët
Oleksandr Melnykov
Eli White
Charley
Blair Vanderhoof
Estevão Lucas
landon
Pieter De Baets
Adam Comella
Dulmandakh
Christoph Nakazawa
Andrew Chen (Eng)
