Be a little more concise about when we need to run migration for v64.
Before it is not apparant that the migration introduced for v64 is associated with that particular version. This is because the guard condition used to bail out from the upgrade is more closely related to a previous migration.
This is due to a flaw with the desigh of `resetTransient()`, whereby it always resets the database to the schema _of the current F-Droid version being run_, not of the tables as they stood at the time of the particular migration being introduced.
This clarifies the guard condition for v64 by allowing it to query whether the schema has been created fresh or not during this particular invocation of `onUpgrade()`
**Note:** this is less to do with the v64 migration, but rather I came across the exact same issue while working on category table related changes. At that point I realised I made a slight mistake with the `resetTransient()` method.
**Also:** I'm happy to entertain other designs if anybody is that interested. One other approach is to change the guard condition to:
```
if (version >= 64 || fieldExists(db, ApkTable.NAME, "...")) {
... add field ....
}
```
However that suffers a little bit when the migration is a little more complex and checking if a field exists may not be enough.
See merge request !408
For some reason, the existing approach of "select * and then see if the
column of interest is in the results set" didn't work as expected under
tests. Perhaps SQLite is caching the list of columns for the purpose of
`select *` even after running an `alter table add column` query?
Either way, I couldn't figure out why it wasn't working as expected.
This left us with two options:
* Try to `select columnToCheck` and see if it throws an exception
* Query columns using `PRAGMA table_info.
The exception thrown when a column doesn't exist is not specific enough
for our code to check that this is the exact exception that occured. It
is not possible to say: `try { ... } catch (SQLiteColumnNotFound e) { ...}`
unfotunately. Also, there is a cost associated with unwinding the stack
to process an exception, which means exceptions probably shouldn't be
used in unexceptional circumstances such as this.
This change instead uses `PRAGMA table_info(tableOfInterest)` and then
iterates over the cursor looking for the relevant column. Even if the
performance is worse than the stack unwinding of an exception, it is
more concise and less hacky.
The fact there are arbitrary migrations at the top of the file (between
`onCreate()` and `onUpdate()` makes it harder to scan this file.
This changeset moves these methods verbatim, without changing any of
the method bodies or signatures.
Before it is not apparant that the migration introduced for v64 is
associated with that particular version. This is because the guard
condition used to bail out from the upgrade is more closely related
to a previous migration.
This is due to a flaw with the desigh of `resetTransient()`, whereby
it always resets the database to the schema _of the current F-Droid
version being run_, not of the tables as they stood at the time of
the particular migration being introduced.
This clarifies the guard condition for v64 by instead explicitly asking
if the columns of interest exist yet in this particular invocation of
`onUpgrade()`.
This wouldn'tve actually found the problem in the previous commit,
due to the null happening before checking permissions while logging perms.
However, still seems like a nice test to have so that the method itself
handles nulls correctly.
Improved category tests
In preparation for implementing the [new category UI](https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroidclient/uploads/01d865e65604c41b0a472f0d39e7f1a7/Categories.png) I will be refactoring the database so that categories get their own table. In preparation for that, this MR improves the categories tests so that they also test the ability to query apps based on their categories.
See merge request !406
The previous category tests only checked that certain categories
would indeed find their way into the database if certain app metadata
is saved. It didn't check the other direction, using these categories
in queries.
<uses-permissions/> tags can have min and max SDK to take effect. This is
not supported currently, and it necessary especially with the privileged
installer so it can properly represent the permissions that an APK is
requesting.
For example:
<uses-permission
android:name="android.permission.MANAGE_ACCOUNTS"
android:maxSdkVersion="22" />
<uses-permission-sdk-23
android:name="android.permission.CAMERA" />
<uses-permission-sdk-23
android:name="android.permission.CALL_PHONE"
android:maxSdkVersion="23" />
android.content.pm.PackageInfo is the Android class for representing data
about an APK/package. Since Apk.permission is the same thing, we should
use the same name.
Android won't protect us from other apps sending other Intents to these
receivers, so at least check that the action string matches what its
looking for. This is based on a lint recommendation.
The migration resulted in a query being run which was broken. The query
was broken because it was dynamically generated by Java code. This Java
code resulted in a valid migration when until very recently when the
query was refactored to deal with a new DB structure. Now the query is
no longer suitable to be run against a DB_VERSION 49 database.
To resolve this, the migration now hard codes the query to a string
which is executable when the DB_VERSION is 49.
It was a little arbitrary to choose this date. However it was when the database
looked quite close to what it looks like now and it is from well over two years
ago. Going into the future, this test may as well always start out at 42 forever
more to ensure that database migrations from that point continue to work for
all future database migrations.
For upgrades from DB version earlier than 63, the whole table is recreated
by resetTransient() in migrateToPackageTable() so the upgrade method for
the OBB tables only needs to run when the database is at exactly version 63
This was mistakenly added to cd9582c9902dd4ac9218acfd69872f3eebcd3d93 when
it was rebased on !375.
If a user clicks install, then uninstall on AppDetails, then there was not
yet a chance to refresh the App instance, and therefore app.installedApk
will still be null. This is really just a workaround for now, because
AppDetails needs a full refactoring.
This implements the APK Extension Files spec for finding, downloading, and
installing OBB files that are extension packs for APKs.
This needs WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE since "installing" OBB files is just
copying them to a specific path on the external storage.
https://developer.android.com/google/play/expansion-files.html
This takes the APK file hash checker and turns it into a generic static
utility method for checking that a given file matches a given hash. This
will be needed as F-Droid handles other file types, like OBB and media.
By sending an Intent to F-Droid, it will reply with the full download URL
to the OBB file, if one exists for the currently installed version of the
requesting app.
This makes it easier to track the relationship between the index XML and
the database tables where that data is ultimately stored and used. There
are a few mismatches between the XML tag and database column names, so
those are just marked with a comment.
This makes it much easier to find all the spots in the code that need
changing when adding new columns/data to the APK table, like the OBB stuff.
In Android Studio, just Ctrl-Click on any table constant definition, and
then it lists all the places its used. Any new data will need to be added
in all of those locations.
OBB files are used in apps that need more than 100 megs to work well. This
is apps like MAPS.ME or games that put map info, media, etc. into the OBB
file. Also, OBB files provide a mechanism to deliver large data blobs that
do not need to be part of the APK. For example, a game's assets do not
need to change often, so they can be shipped as an OBB, then APK updates do
not need to include all those assets for each update.
https://developer.android.com/google/play/expansion-files.html
Many times in the past, we would ask for an apk based on its package name
and its version code. However multiple repositories provide apks with the
same package name and version code, and such queries would (seemingly)
nondeterministically choose one of these matching apks. This clarifies the
wording in the code around when we explicitly ask for a given apk, and
when we kind of guess which one we want.
Most the time we have an `App` handy, which has a specific repo associated
with it. This allows us to be more specific about requesting `Apk`s.
The times we are kind of guessing is when we rely on the "suggested version
code" of an apk by clicking the misc "Install" or "Upgrade" button in
app details. In the future, we'll need to clear this up so that a more
specific apk is chosen when touching these buttons.
The query which dynamically figured out the preferred metadata based on
repo priority ended up being quite slow (although it did work). On lower
end devices, it has the potential to make F-Droid quite sluggish. By
optimistically precalculating the preferred metadata where possible, we
don't need to ask the question during the usual usage of F-Droid, only
when:
* Repo priorities are changed (there is not currently a UI for this, but
there are tests)
* Repos are enabled/disabled
* Repo updates are performed
Includes:
* One of the functions querying for apps did not correctly specify
the repository the repos came from.
* Fix deletion code which refered to incorrect field.
* Cleanup code style in some places.
Two repositories can (and always could) end up with the same exact .apk file.
If that .apk is the "suggested version", then we should eliminate the idea of
"suggested version code" and instead have a "suggested apk" (which implicitly
includes the repository it comes from, so we choose the one with the better
priority). Right now, we kind of assume that it doesn't matter which repo
provides the suggested apk, as long as one of them has an .apk with the correct
version code and signing key.
It shouldn't _particularly_ matter from a security perspective, because
a malicious repo wont be able to trick a user into installing an apk with a
different signing key, but it would be good to iron this out.
This commit adds a TODO explaining this for th ebenefit of any CRer.
