Please notify user after having moved a corrupt database [has-patch]

[cos]

As mentioned in Clarification on wiped database-post, AntennaPod crashed on me three times during the start of this week. The first two times, I restored my listening history from the latest backup. Since AntennaPod has frequent automatic backups now, it was doable to manually alter the state of a handful of episodes. Not until the third crash did I go to the forum, learn about CorruptedDatabaseBackup.db and all of that.

While this should likely not happen to me again, and if it does I am now better informed, I wish the next poor victim of this bug will get the correct information already on their first crash.

Thus on git.netizen.se/AntennaPod/, fix/inform_on_db_moved there is a fix.

As noted in the commit message, I did take notice of issue #6212. Given the age of the ticket, and conversation in it, I understand that issue to be about making a perfect fix.

One can definitely improve on this, but what I have pushed is intended to more-or-less be immediately usable. And frankly, a huge improvement over suddenly and unexpectedly seeing the app in it’s freshly installed state.

The branch merely has a single commit, changing 1 line and adding 59 lines. I stacked the branch on another unrelated fix/import_isnt_export branch, which is trivial enough. Please pick and choose as you see fit.

I see that changes are requested to go through GitHub, but sincerely hope that bug fixes might be accepted through this channel also.

My changes validates with checkstyle and the the unit tests (gradlew test) all pass.

I must admit that neither Java nor android development are my fields of expertise. Let me know if anything looks odd, missing or wrong.

[ByteHamster]

Thanks for working on this. Could you please create a pull request on GitHub? Then it is easier to discuss the changes.

[cos]

Could we please stick to this thread? I would argue that to be easier, since Discourse is a platform primarily intended for discussion. While GitHub is intended for…? I honestly struggle to understand that. One still can’t even comment on commits there, right? Since I’m bad at solving impossible captchas the creation of a PR would need to start with me spending a couple of hours just to create an account.

I’m thinking the code contribution should be the important thing, not the choice of channel delivering it. Would you not agree? One could make a parallel to the Central and distributed models page in the documentation. Please help me see why an app choosing the distributed model must be developed using a centralized approach. If you manage to convince with arguments, I’ll open the PR straight away!

[ByteHamster]

@cos

One still can’t even comment on commits there, right?

One can comment on individual source code lines. That’s why it is a lot easier than discussing in this forum, completely decoupled from the source code

[cos]

Microsoft will likely remove the ability to comment on source code lines soon, I’m sure.

I’m wishing to find a better way than through a badly coupled web ui.

When developing professionally, I almost exclusively perform and get code reviews through sharing revised branches. A method which arguably is the most productive one. Fully coupled with the code! It of course requires a certain level of skill, but I’ve gotten the impression you have that.

Such a workflow usually revolves around rebasing interactively with heavy use of git commit --fixup along the way.

Would you be anywhere close to open for trying out that process for this branch?

[ByteHamster]

To be honest, I would still prefer GitHub because I need to open a PR there anyway. I’m taking too long to review stuff anyway, and if I have to move between different locations for each discussion every time, it is easier to lose track. The PR list on GitHub is a great way to have all todo items in one place

[cos]

I see your point. Let me think a bit about it.