Generate "keep" rules for actionProviderClass and actionViewClass
Apps commonly use the versions of the attributes from AndroidX, which
will be unqualified.
Bug: 30888677
Change-Id: Id7cb32b28edb1cd1b8113a8c9a7ee29107a1b67e
Tested: aapt2_tests
diff --git a/tools/aapt2/java/ProguardRules.cpp b/tools/aapt2/java/ProguardRules.cpp
index 05ba8f0..49f1b3c 100644
--- a/tools/aapt2/java/ProguardRules.cpp
+++ b/tools/aapt2/java/ProguardRules.cpp
@@ -160,13 +160,19 @@
void Visit(xml::Element* node) override {
if (node->namespace_uri.empty() && node->name == "item") {
for (const auto& attr : node->attributes) {
- if (attr.namespace_uri == xml::kSchemaAndroid) {
- if ((attr.name == "actionViewClass" || attr.name == "actionProviderClass") &&
- util::IsJavaClassName(attr.value)) {
- AddClass(node->line_number, attr.value, "android.content.Context");
- } else if (attr.name == "onClick") {
- AddMethod(node->line_number, attr.value, "android.view.MenuItem");
- }
+ // AppCompat-v7 defines its own versions of Android attributes if
+ // they're defined after SDK 7 (the below are from 11 and 14,
+ // respectively), so don't bother checking the XML namespace.
+ //
+ // Given the names of the containing XML files and the attribute
+ // names, it's unlikely that keeping these classes would be wrong.
+ if ((attr.name == "actionViewClass" || attr.name == "actionProviderClass") &&
+ util::IsJavaClassName(attr.value)) {
+ AddClass(node->line_number, attr.value, "android.content.Context");
+ }
+
+ if (attr.namespace_uri == xml::kSchemaAndroid && attr.name == "onClick") {
+ AddMethod(node->line_number, attr.value, "android.view.MenuItem");
}
}
}
