Add an explicit dependency on OkHttp 4.9.0. Or whatever is newest at the time you read this.

This bug is embarrassing but it&#39;s been fixed for so long that you shouldn’t be encountering it in new code.

Just Add the Dependency `implementation &#39;com.squareup.okhttp3:okhttp:4.9.2&#39; 
`

PS - Check the latest version here before you add the dependency https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.squareup.okhttp3/okhttp

Add `implementation &#39;com.squareup.okhttp3:okhttp:4.9.2&#39;` inside `android\app\build.gradle`

    dependencies {
        ........
        implementation &#39;com.google.code.gson:gson:2.8.6&#39;
        implementation &#39;com.android.support:multidex:1.0.3&#39;   
        implementation &#39;com.squareup.okhttp3:okhttp:4.9.2&#39; 
        ..........
    }

I have updated Android Studio to 4.1 in Macbook but not able to run app after updating. It is giving following error 

    Execution failed for task &#39;:app:stripDebugDebugSymbols&#39;.
    NDK at ~/Library/Android/sdk/ndk-bundle did not have a source.properties file

NDK at ~/Library/Android/sdk/ndk-bundle did not have a source.properties file

If I have a list say `l = [1, 8, 8, 8, 1, 3, 3, 8]` and it&#39;s guaranteed that every element occurs an even number of times, how do I make a list with all elements of `l` now occurring `n/2` times. So since `1` occurred `2` times, it should now occur once. Since `8` occurs `4` times, it should now occur twice. Since `3` occurred twice, it should occur once.

So the new list will be something like `k=[1,8,8,3]`

What is the fastest way to do this?
I did `list.count()` for every element but it was very slow.

Efficient way to remove half of the duplicate items in a list

How is it possible that I get this message? It does not make any sense. 
I&#39;m using `com.squareup.retrofit2:retrofit:2.9.0`

         Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Expected Android API level 21+ but was 30
        at okhttp3.internal.platform.AndroidPlatform$Companion.buildIfSupported(AndroidPlatform.kt:370)
        at okhttp3.internal.platform.Platform$Companion.findPlatform(Platform.kt:204)
        at okhttp3.internal.platform.Platform$Companion.access$findPlatform(Platform.kt:178)
        2020-09-16 12:37:07.645 6480-6480/lv.ltt.gasogmp.dev_v3 E/AndroidRuntime:     at 
        okhttp3.internal.platform.Platform.&lt;clinit&gt;(Platform.kt:179)

Expected Android API level 21+ but was 30

How is it possible that I get this message? It does not make any sense.
I'm using <code>com.squareup.retrofit2:retrofit:2.9.0</code>
<pre><code class="hljs language-php"> Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Expected Android API level 21+ but was 30
 at okhttp3.internal.platform.AndroidPlatform$Companion.buildIfSupported(AndroidPlatform.kt:370)
 at okhttp3.internal.platform.Platform$Companion.findPlatform(Platform.kt:204)
 at okhttp3.internal.platform.Platform$Companion.access$findPlatform(Platform.kt:178)
 2020-09-16 12:37:07.645 6480-6480/lv.ltt.gasogmp.dev_v3 E/AndroidRuntime: at 
 okhttp3.internal.platform.Platform.&#x3C;clinit>(Platform.kt:179)
</code></pre>

In same cases Android studio displays warning message when I call `observe` method of `LiveData` object

    viewModel.emailValidationResult.observe(viewLifecycleOwner, {onEmailChanged(it)})

&gt; Candidate resolution will be changed soon, please use fully qualified
&gt; name to invoke the following closer candidate explicitly: 
&gt; 
&gt; **public open**
&gt; **fun** observe(owner: LifecycleOwner, observer: Observer&lt;in Int?&gt;): Unit
&gt; defined in androidx.lifecycle.LiveData

As I understand it&#39;s happened after updating kotlin 1.4
**What does it actually mean ?**

Live Data: Candidate resolution will be changed soon

I was fiddling in Compiler Explorer, and I found that the order of arguments passed to std::min changes the emitted assembly.

 [Here&#39;s the example on Godbolt Compiler Explorer](https://godbolt.org/#g:!((g:!((g:!((h:codeEditor,i:(fontScale:14,j:5,lang:c%2B%2B,selection:(endColumn:2,endLineNumber:1,positionColumn:2,positionLineNumber:1,selectionStartColumn:2,selectionStartLineNumber:1,startColumn:2,startLineNumber:1),source:&#39;%23include+%3Calgorithm%3E%0A%0Adouble+std_min_xy(double+x,+double+y)+%7B%0A++++return+std::min(x,+y)%3B%0A%7D%0A%0Adouble+std_min_yx(double+x,+double+y)+%7B%0A++++return+std::min(y,+x)%3B%0A%7D&#39;),l:&#39;5&#39;,n:&#39;0&#39;,o:&#39;C%2B%2B+source+%235&#39;,t:&#39;0&#39;)),k:50,l:&#39;4&#39;,n:&#39;0&#39;,o:&#39;&#39;,s:0,t:&#39;0&#39;),(g:!((h:compiler,i:(compiler:clang900,filters:(b:&#39;0&#39;,binary:&#39;1&#39;,commentOnly:&#39;0&#39;,demangle:&#39;0&#39;,directives:&#39;0&#39;,execute:&#39;1&#39;,intel:&#39;0&#39;,libraryCode:&#39;1&#39;,trim:&#39;1&#39;),fontScale:14,j:1,lang:c%2B%2B,libs:!(),options:&#39;-O3&#39;,selection:(endColumn:1,endLineNumber:1,positionColumn:1,positionLineNumber:1,selectionStartColumn:1,selectionStartLineNumber:1,startColumn:1,startLineNumber:1),source:5),l:&#39;5&#39;,n:&#39;0&#39;,o:&#39;x86-64+clang+9.0.0+(Editor+%235,+Compiler+%231)+C%2B%2B&#39;,t:&#39;0&#39;)),header:(),k:50,l:&#39;4&#39;,n:&#39;0&#39;,o:&#39;&#39;,s:0,t:&#39;0&#39;)),l:&#39;2&#39;,n:&#39;0&#39;,o:&#39;&#39;,t:&#39;0&#39;)),version:4)

```
double std_min_xy(double x, double y) {
    return std::min(x, y);
}

double std_min_yx(double x, double y) {
    return std::min(y, x);
}
```

This is compiled (with -O3 on clang 9.0.0, for example), to:

```
std_min_xy(double, double):                       # @std_min_xy(double, double)
        minsd   xmm1, xmm0
        movapd  xmm0, xmm1
        ret
std_min_yx(double, double):                       # @std_min_yx(double, double)
        minsd   xmm0, xmm1
        ret
```
This persists if I change the std::min to an old-school ternary operator. It also persists across all the modern compilers I tried out (clang, gcc, icc).

The underlying instruction is `minsd`. Reading the documentation, the first argument of `minsd` is also the destination for the answer. Apparently xmm0 is where my function is supposed to put its return value, so if xmm0 is used as the first argument, there is no `movapd` needed. But if xmm0 is the second argument, then it has to `movapd xmm0, xmm1` to get the value into xmm0.  (editor&#39;s note: yes, [x86-64 System V][1] passes FP args in xmm0, xmm1, etc., and returns in xmm0.)

My question: why doesn&#39;t the compiler switch the order of the arguments itself, so that this `movapd` isn&#39;t necessary? It surely must know that the order of arguments to minsd does not change the answer? Is there some side-effect that I&#39;m not appreciating?


  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions#System_V_AMD64_ABI

Argument order to std::min changes compiler output for floating-point

When I try to upload my Android App Bundle to the Google Play Console, I get this generic error message saying &quot;Couldn&#39;t upload. Try again.&quot;.

I&#39;ve already tried:

 - making sure my `versionName` and `versionCode` are unique among all uploaded artifacts
 - making sure that the `.aab`/`.apk` is signed with the proper key
 - re-uploading the `.AAB` file
 - re-uploading the `.APK` file
 - [checking status of google services](https://www.reddit.com/r/androiddev/comments/id6s7g/outage_cant_release_new_app_release_on_google/g277et9?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x&amp;context=3) to make sure that there isn&#39;t a mass outage
 - asking my senior Android dev what&#39;s up

How do I resolve this error and upload my `.AAB` or `.APK`?

[![When I try to upload my Android App Bundle to the Google Play Console, I get this generic error message: Couldn&#39;t upload. Try again.][1]][1]


  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wbwIW.png

&quot;Couldn&#39;t upload. Try again.&quot; error on Google Play Console

We have an app with some million users. Over the past week we have gotten around 30 &quot;velocity alerts&quot; from Firebase Crashlytics from older versions of the app with error messages like this:

    Fatal Exception: java.lang.SecurityException
    GoogleCertificatesRslt: not allowed: pkg=com.example.app, sha1=&lt;sha1 redacted&gt;, atk=false, ver=203914019.true (go/gsrlt)
    android.os.Parcel.readException (Parcel.java:1959)
    android.os.Parcel.readException (Parcel.java:1905)
    com.google.android.gms.common.internal.s.r (s.java:37)
    com.google.android.gms.common.internal.W.u (W.java:90)
    com.google.android.gms.common.api.internal.At.q (At.java:17)
    com.google.android.gms.common.api.internal.rt.run (rt.java:5)
    java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call (Executors.java:457)
    java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run (FutureTask.java:266)
    java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker (ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1162)
    java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run (ThreadPoolExecutor.java:636)
    com.google.android.gms.internal.ef.run (ef.java:6)
    java.lang.Thread.run (Thread.java:764)

It isn&#39;t impacting that many users, maybe a few hundreds to a thousand. Normally we wouldn&#39;t really notice that small a problem, but because it seems to happen over and over again for those users we have gotten all those velocity alerts - making it more apparent.

Why is this happening? The stacktraces varies a bit, but it does look like it&#39;s related to Google&#39;s GMS. 

Is there anything we or our users can do to avoid it?

The issue seem to be spread out among Android versions and device vendors.


SecurityException - GoogleCertificatesRslt: not allowed

There is a lint warning in AS with regards to `android.permission.WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE`. The warning says that the permission will no longer provide write access when targeting Android 10 and above. Removal of the said permission can still write in internal storage folder `Pictures/MY_APP_NAME` to save images, but it only works on Android 10 (SDK 29) and/or above (haven&#39;t tested yet on Android R). When I tested it again on lower version such as Android M (SDK 23), saving images stop working so I decided to return the `android.permission.WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE` thus the warning shows up again. Is it possible that the lint is just false positive that incorrectly diagnosed the problem on different cases? Because currently my support SDK starts with 21 up to the latest which is 30 but the lint only point out that it is no longer needed when targeting Android 10 (SDK 29) and did not consider looking back at the project&#39;s minimum SDK support.

WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE when targeting Android 10

Stetho and Google Chrome DevTools have become unusable after a macOS update (I doubt that macOS update is the origin of this bug, but I prefer to mention it).

Here is the appearance of DevTools after the open of &quot;inspect mode&quot; on a device (provided by Facebook Stetho library for Android &amp; OKHttp).

![DevTools window](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8AK7W.png)


There are no longer &quot;CSS&quot; stylesheets on the page and fonts have changed.
Many tab pages aren&#39;t displayed (i.e. Network Requests), I only have access to some error messages :

```
There were 84 bytes that were not consumed while processing request 4
There were 84 bytes that were not consumed while processing request 5
There were 84 bytes that were not consumed while processing request 6
Failed to clear temp storage: undefined
```

I followed instructions on this issue : https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31358446/failed-to-clear-temp-storage/35172470 and this one : https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36850053/failed-to-clear-temp-storage-securityerror-in-chrome?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1 but I haven&#39;t been able to fix the problem. 

Here is what I tried :
 - Uninstall and reinstall Chrome with AppCleaner
 - Remove chrome cache from disk
 - Remove chrome profiles from `~/Library/Application\ Support/Google/Chrome`
 - Create and use a new Chrome profile
 - Try to connect on Firefox distant debug (unfonctionnal)
 - Restart system

Have any of you ever encountered this problem ?
Thanks !



Content Type	Original Author	Original Content on Stackoverflow
Question	Oridadedles	View Question on Stackoverflow
Solution 1 - Android	Jesse Wilson	View Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 2 - Android	Hitesh Kushwah	View Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 3 - Android	Moumit	View Answer on Stackoverflow

Expected Android API level 21+ but was 30

Android Problem Overview

Android Solutions

Solution 1 - Android

Solution 2 - Android

Solution 3 - Android

Efficient way to remove half of the duplicate items in a list

NDK at ~/Library/Android/sdk/ndk-bundle did not have a source.properties file

Attributions