F# support is broken in Xamarin.Android #12640
Comments
|
Duplicate of #10837, xamarin/Xamarin.Android.FSharp.ResourceProvider#9, and dotnet/android#6404 |
|
In general, the state of mobile development with F# is a real mess right now. Just to name a few:
Sorry for hijacking this issue and venting my frustration, but we could really use some help from Microsoft on the F# + Mobile front. :) |
I have successfully ported our F# mobile app to net6.0-ios. It seems most of code works without any issues. I also successfully ran sample app on net6.0-android (but without using android resources). |
|
@TimLariviere These things tend to happen people move to different companies and departments and were never replaced, things enter maintenance mode and are forgotten etc. A lot of the F# integration used to be open source, but Im not sure if parts were made internal after the acquisition. I think the F# droid stuff was internal to be honest, now I think back to when I was there. |
|
The type provider could be replaces by Myriad too to make it easier to maintain in the future and open source. |
|
Xamarin.Android.FSharp.ResourceProvider was originally written by myself because of issues with the F# and CodeDOM provider that came before it that couldn't easily be fixed (F# doesn't support public static fields and Xamarin.Android required these). The problem was that I was never supposed to work on that as I was always part of the VSMac team not Xamarin.Android. I later moved to the Codespaces team which meant that I was even further removed from Xamarin.Android work. At the time that I moved, I handed over Xamarin.Android.FSharp.ResourceProvider for maintenance to the XA team but it seems like bitrot set in pretty quickly. I've since returned to the VSMac team, but now that VSMac shares much of the same codebase as Visual Studio, there is no longer any need for dedicated F# staff on the Mac side of things so I mostly work on other areas such as the debugger but have spent a lot of time recently porting parts of the UI to Cocoa. I could work on the type provider in my spare time, but I have very little of it. It is open source though so anyone could work on it if they wanted to. I enquired about the state of play with MAUI and net6.0-android. The plan is to ditch the C# code generation completely (which the F# type provider uses in the background) and use IL generation instead which at least in theory should work for all dotnet languages. See comment by @dellis1972 This should make the type provider completely redundant. |
|
Thanks for the replies
I was not asking for you or anyone to work on their spare time, especially if it's not even your day job. The message I wanted to convey was more like it would be really appreciated if Microsoft as a whole would consider .NET to not be only C#, and put on the roadmap some F# to get some basic support on everything labeled Such an example is More than 3 years ago, I tried to submit a PR to fix that but most of what was required was not open-source and the response I got was "Won't do it. Wait for Xamarin to move to sdk-style". Sure, we could stay with It's that kind of experience that makes it so frustrating.
I'll try to fix my main issues. Just hoping getting reviewed, merged and released won't take months since ownership is from teams at Microsoft... @nosami Could I ping you if I happen to be stuck on non open-source stuff, so you could try to relay the message internally to the right people?
@Dolfik1 Would you happen to have an empty I tried on my own to convert from C# to F#, but got inflate errors... |
The generated resource file also contains
We can try to fix type provider on our own. I think the main problem is the wrong type provider's project configuration.
I am agree with @TimLariviere. F# reduces development time and provides the ability to write more compact and reusable code. But at the moment we have to spend a lot of time solving tooling/mono/AOT problems instead of solving business problems. At the moment we want to migrate to .Net 6 because some of our problems seem to be solved.
I will attach sample app but it is incomplete without type provider.
I also wrote a migration script from an old-style project. This script is not perfect but mostly works with few manual changes. (this script does not support packages.config, only Paket is supported) |
|
Thanks! This will be helpful to package them for I'll take a look at the issue with the Android Type Provider as well. |
Sure! You can email me at I think personally I would stay with F# 5 and Mono until MAUI comes out. This issue should be resolved automatically. |
@TimLariviere Hey, could you create issue in your repository? I'll take a look. |
|
"F# support is broken in Xamarin.Android" suggests that creating Xamarin.Android apps using F# has problems. The issue is much smaller, that creating a Xamarin.Android platform project in F# has problems. Simplest solution is for Platform head projects are very tooling-dependent and F# projects are always going to be in a cycle of breaking and being fixed and lagging or non-existent tooling. (Unless sdk-style projects fix all problems?) |
We used FSharp.Core 4.7.2 for a long time due to AOT issues on iOS. Last month we updated FSharp.Core to version 6.0.2 and it seems that most of the issues have been fixed. But we got new issues with VTable setup on Android in System.Text.Json library (I still don not fully understand what happened, but it looks like the problem is that 6.0.2 supports netstandard2.1 while 4.7.2 does not). It looks like it has been fixed somehow in .Net 6. Moreover, I do not really believe that all problems will be fixed on MAUI release. |
KevinRansom
added
the
Impact-Low
I actually agree with this. It has always been a losing fight to attempt to have the more exotic platform headed by F# projects. For example, the iOS and Android platform heads took forever to move to .NET SDK, for example (have they moved now?) which made it impossible to maintain them. It's up to the F# community, but there is wisdom in following @charlesroddie's advice here and consider the F# platform head projects for Android and iOS deprecated in favour of focusing on the incorporation of F# libraries and component code into C#-project-headed Android and iOS apps (that is, solutions headed by relatively minimal C# projects for packaging and delivery). There are almost certainly more important things to advocate, and it's a realistic, stable position. |
|
Even though I understand the reasoning behind this, I feel it's unfair to abandon F# heads because Microsoft will always only focus on C#. We're actually extremely close to have something fully working. iOS head already work, Other issues are not related to the F# heads, but to F# as a whole. And I fear this "give-up" will only lead in the future to an abandonment of F# support à la .NET Native; blocking all apps with F# libs from being published to the Windows Store because of tail-recursion. ("Too hard to implement and nobody uses F#, so we don't care")
Yes, with .NET 6.0. |
The Android head |
|
@dellis1972 That's a wonderful news. Would you have an estimation when this would be available? |
I am really sorry to hear that. We are developing a mobile application on F# for a few years. During this time we have contributed to F# on our own (Fabulous, Paket, Fantomas, FSharp.Core, LiteDb.FSharp, XF, Xamarin.Android, Xamarin.iOS etc). We are actively involved in the Russian F# community and hiring engage people. We made a Fabulous fork and develop it separateley but sharing experience with @TimLariviere to include this in the main repository. We also developed Fabulous.Android/Fabulous.iOS. This allows you to build Android/iOS apps with native UI on F# and it works pretty fine. We also have plans to make them open source. During this time we have included many people in the development on F# (we have retrained several people from Kotlin/Swift/Obj-C/C# to F#). Our application, in addition to business logic, also includes a very complex UI. It's the reason why we do not want to C#-project-headed Android and iOS apps. For the same reason, we refused Xamarin.Forms. It is very painful to write a complex UI with Xamarin.Forms. If you are interested, I can give you more details about our app and our architecture in PM. |
Not at this time, there are still some issues around design time build we need to figure out. I'm trying to get this in as soon as I can because there are some app size and app speed benifits around this new method which should help both C# and F# users. |
|
@dellis1972 That's great news @Dolfik1 This is very valuable feedback - it's really important to understand the breadth of usage and all sceanrios being impacted
Just to check, you're saying it's not possible to write this as a set of F# Android/iOS libraries implementing the complex UI, with a very thin C# head for resources, packaging etc? I'm actually not taking any specific opinion here, and will leave the quetion of head-support to various teams who have that responsibility - just agreeing with @charlesroddie's general point that historically they've been difficult. |
In short, you can't. In Android development resources are used for access to bundeled images/audio/fonts and to specify styles for widgets. For example: View.TextInputLayout(
style = Resources.Style.Widget_MaterialComponents_TextInputLayout_OutlinedBox
)Theoretically you can access to images/audio/fonts with other methods but it is difficult and overheaded. However, you cannot access style resources in the same way. But in general, I would like to note that the problem is not only in the resource provider specifically. The problem is weak F# support in Xamarin/Mono and weak support by Microsoft generally. As @TimLariviere noted above:
About a year ago we were forced to have our own compiled version of the F# compiler because Mono didn't update it. (/mono/mono/issues/16763) I hope it gets better with the migration to Net 6.0, but it looks like .Net/VS team is not very interested in F# support. |
|
Well, it would be good to get issues raised in the correct repos - literally none of the above is implemented in this repo, so this is just not the right place to be discussing this. The product owners for Xamarin.Android etc. are ultimately responsible here and you need to be talking with them. |
@nosami Do we have a canonical issue link for this?
Anyone have a link to any specific outstanding issues on this?
Anyone got any links to this? TBH I'm not too surprised by this given the old templates used the old project format, and were VS-only, and I think actually only VS-for-Windows (or was it VS-for-mac?). They'd need to be replaced by command line |
Not as far as I know. Mono is being superceded by .Net Core. There are no plans to support F# 6 in Mono. I'm currently getting F# 6 working in VS Mac, but that's a separate issue. |
Right, I think that's part of the issue here - it's been hard to justify the udpate when Mono is being replaced within Xamarin stack. So much chicken and egg.
❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ |
The main problem at this moment it is the type provider. I have created an issue at November 12 but still no solution. For this reason, I decided to create an issue in this repository to draw more attention to the problem.
This is not possible at the moment (at least for android) due to type provider issues. So we first need to solve type provider problem. I really like what @dellis1972 does but I am afraid at the moment this cannot be a solution, since it is not known how soon it will be released. For this reason, I think we still need to solve the problem with the type provider. However at the moment, nothing prevents you from create templates for iOS. |
What if you just don't use the type provider and address the resources by string? i.e. the generated code that the type provider produces? |
instead of This way is also unsafe because you can make a typo in resource name. It is also more difficult to refactor. |
Yes, but it works and unblocks. TBH I was always skeptical about putting a type provider into the main path of such a corner case of the Xamarin build story. I would have absolutely no problem with ripping it out of any defaults and making it a community-provided optional add-on that the community maintains - we don't bake in type providers like FSharp.Configuration into .NET Core projects even though they are also useful. If we expect the Xamarin team to maintain F# support we need things to be really simple for them. |
You are absolutely right. But for now, we have what we have. There is good news about IL generated assembly for resources but still we need some temporary solution. At the moment @TimLariviere is trying to revive the type provider but there are some difficulties. |
|
FYI: I abandoned trying to revive the type provider (too many issues with it) and did a small MSBuild target to build the C# designer file as part of the build. https://github.com/fabulousfx/FSharp.Android.Resource A little rough for the moment, but it works with both .NET Framework and .NET 6.0! Should be good enough until we get dotnet/android#6427 |
|
That's a very simple solution @TimLariviere one wonders why the original impl didn't just do this? Looking forward to the IL generation though. |
It should have, a type provider wasn't the right solution for this case, especially in retrospect. |
|
Closing as the workaround is to use the community alternative here: #12640 (comment) |
…6427) Fixes: #6310 Context: dotnet/runtime@60d9b98 Context: dotnet/fsharp#12640 Context: 103b5a7 Optimize ResourceIdManager.UpdateIdValues() invocations Context: 9e6ce03 Adds $(AndroidLinkResource) Context: 522d7fb Context: 9c04378 (AndroidEnablePreloadAssemblies crash) Context: d521ac0 (Styleables array values) Replace the existing `Resource.designer.cs` generation code with a new system that relies on Reference Assemblies. This results in smaller apps and faster startup. ~~ Bind `@(AndroidResource)` values as fields ~~ The original approach to binding `@(AndroidResource)` values was to Do What Java Does™: there are two "styles" of `Resource.designer.cs` files, one for Library projects, and one for App projects. `Resource.designer.cs` for Library projects involves mutable read/write fields: [assembly: Android.Runtime.ResourceDesignerAttribute ("ExampleLib.Resource", IsApplication=false)] namespace ExampleLib; partial class Resource { partial class String { public static int app_name = 2130771968; static String() { global::Android.Runtime.ResourceIdManager.UpdateIdValues(); } } partial class Styleable { public static int[] MyLibraryWidget = new int[]{…}; static Styleable() { global::Android.Runtime.ResourceIdManager.UpdateIdValues(); } } } `Resource.designer.cs` for App projects involves *`const`* fields: [assembly: Android.Runtime.ResourceDesignerAttribute ("App.Resource", IsApplication=true)] namespace App; partial class Resource { partial class String { public const int app_name = 2130968576; static String() { global::Android.Runtime.ResourceIdManager.UpdateIdValues(); } } partial class Styleable { public static int[] MyLibraryWidget = new int[]{…}; // still read+write, not const static Styleable() { global::Android.Runtime.ResourceIdManager.UpdateIdValues(); } } } There is a field each Android `resource` in the project *and* any `resource`s declared in a referenced assembly or `.aar` files. This can result in 1000's of fields ending up in each `Resource` class. Because we only know the final `Id` values at app packaging time, library projects could not know those values at build time. This meant that we needed to update those library values at startup with the ones that were compiled into the final application project. This is handled by the `Resource.UpdateIdValues()` method. This method is called by reflection on app startup and contains code to set the read/write fields for *all* `Resource` types from *all referenced assemblies*: partial class Resource { public static void UpdateIdValues() { global::ExampleLib.Resource.String.app_name = String.app_name; // plus all other resources } } **Pros**: * It's a "known good" construct, as it's what Java does! (Or *did*, circa 12 years ago…) **Cons**: * There is a semantic difference between the use of the `Resource` types between Library and App projects: in an App project, you can use Resource IDs in switch `case`s, e.g. `case Resource.String.app_name: …`. This is not possible in Library projects. * As the App `Resource.UpdateIdValues()` method references *all* fields from all referenced libraries, the linker is not able to remove any of the fields. This pattern is linker hostile. This results in larger `.apk` sizes, though this can be optimized via [`$(AndroidLinkResources)`][0] (9e6ce03, d521ac0). * As the App `Resource.UpdateIdValues()` method references *all* fields from all referenced libraries, the method can be *huge*; it depends on how many resources the App and all dependencies pull in. We have seen cases where the size of `Resource.UpdateIdValues()` would cause the interpreter to crash, breaking certain Hot Reload scenarios. (Fixed in dotnet/runtime@60d9b989). * The `Resource.UpdateIdValues()` method needs to be invoked during process startup, *before* any assemblies try to use their `Resource.…` values, and the method is looked up via *Reflection*. This means System.Reflection is part of the app startup path, which has overheads. (This overhead is also removed via `$(AndroidLinkResources)`.) ~~ Bind `@(AndroidRoesource)` values as properties ~~ Replace the "bind resources as fields" approach with a new system with significant differences: 1. Android resource ids are bound as read-only *properties*, and 2. The `Resource` class is placed into a *separate assembly*, `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll`. The new `$(AndroidUseDesignerAssembly)` MSBuild property controls which Android resource approach is used; if True -- the default for .NET 8 -- then `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll` will be used. If False, then the previous "bind resource ids as fields" approach will be used. This property is only valid for Library projects; App projects must use the property-oriented approach. This new approach takes advantage of [Reference Assemblies][1]. Reference Assemblies are designed to be replaced at runtime, and are generally used to provide placeholder API's which can be swapped out later. Library projects will generate a Reference Assembly for `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll` which contains read-only properties for each `@(AndroidResource)` within the project and all dependencies. This is otherwise identical to the "fields" approach, *except* that the namespace is predefined, its a new assembly, and properties are used instead of fields, *as if* it contained: // _Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll for Library project [assembly: System.Runtime.CompilerServices.ReferenceAssemblyAttribute] namespace Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer; public partial class Resource { public partial class String { public static int app_name => 0; } public partial class Styleable { public static int[] MyLibraryWidget => nullptr; } } Also note that `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll` is produced *with Mono.Cecil* as a pre-build action; no C# source is generated. The Library assembly references the generated `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll`. The generated `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll` should ***NOT*** be shipped with NuGet packages. App projects will generate the "real" `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll`, also as a pre-build step, and the "real" assembly will contain actual values for resource ids. The App-built `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll` will also have `[assembly:InternalsVisibleToAttribute]` to the App assembly: // _Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll for App project [assembly: System.Runtime.CompilerServices.InternalsVisibleToAttribute ("App…")] namespace Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer; public partial class Resource { public partial class String { public static int app_name => 2130968576; } public partial class Styleable { static int[] MyLibraryWidget = new[]{…}; public static int[] MyLibraryWidget => MyLibraryWidget; } } This approach has a number of benefits 1. All the property declarations are in one place and are not duplicated (-ish… more on that later). As a result the size of the app will be reduced. 2. Because we no longer need the `Resource.UpdateIdValues()` method, start up time will be reduced. 3. The linker can now do its job and properly link out unused properties. This further reduces application size. 4. F# is now fully supported. See also: dotnet/fsharp#12640. ~~ Styleable Arrays ~~ Styleable resources may be arrays; see e.g. d521ac0. Via the power of Cecil (and not using C# as an intermediate codegen), the binding of styleable arrays in the "Bind `@(AndroidRoesource)` values as properties" world order involves a static field containing the array data, and a public property which returns the private field, which has the same name: public partial class Resource { public partial class Styleable { static int[] MyLibraryWidget = new[]{…}; public static int[] MyLibraryWidget => MyLibraryWidget; } } CIL-wise, *yes*, the field and the property have the same name (?!), but because properties actually have `get_` method prefix, there will actually be a `MyLibraryWidget` field and a `get_MyLibraryWidget()` method, so there are no name collisions. *Note*: ***The styleable array is not copied***. This means it is global mutable data, i.e. one can do this: Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.Resource.Styleable.MyLibraryWidget[0] = 42; ***DO NOT DO THIS***. It will introduce runtime errors. The e.g. `Resource.Styleable.MyLibraryWidget` property must be an `int[]` in order to maintain compatibility, as these are often passed to methods which take `int[]` as the parameter type. We thus cannot instead use e.g. `IEnumeragble<int>` as the property type. Additionally, the array isn't copied for performance reasons. We do not think that this will be a problem in practice, as the previous "Bind `@(AndroidRoesource)` values as fields" strategy *also* had mutable `int[]` fields, and suffers from the same safety concerns, and the world hasn't ended… ~~ Source Compatibility ~~ In the "bind resource ids as fields" approach, the `Resource` class was in the default namespace for the Library project, set via the [`$(RootNamespace)`][2] MSBuild property. In order to maintain source compatibility, Library projects will have a generated `__Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.cs` file which contains a new `Resource` declaration which *inherits* from the `Resource` type in `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll`: // Generated __Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.cs in Library projects namespace ExampleLib; public class Resource : Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.Resource { } This allows existing code such as `ExampleLib.Resource.String.app_name` to continue to compile. App projects also expect a `Resource` class in `$(RootNamespace)`, *and* expect the values to be `const`. To support this, the generated `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll` *actually* has two sets of `Resource` types, one with properties, and an *`internal`* `ResourceConstant` type: // _Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll for Library project [assembly: System.Runtime.CompilerServices.InternalsVisibleToAttribute ("App…")] namespace Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer; internal partial class ResourceConstant { public partial class String { public const int app_name = 2130968576; } } public partial class Resource { public partial class String { public static int app_name => ResourceConstant.String.app_name; } } App projects *also* have a generated `__Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.cs`, which has a `Resource` type which inherits from `ResourceConstant`. This is why the App-built `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll` needs `[assembly: InternalsVisibleToAttribute]`: // Generated __Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.cs in App projects namespace App; public class Resource : Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.ResourceConstant { } This allows existing App code to use `App.Resource.String.app_name` in `case` statements. ~~ Binary Compatibility ~~ Binary compatibility is maintained via a new `MonoDroid.Tuner.FixLegacyResourceDesignerStep` linker step. `FixLegacyResourceDesignerStep` rewrites Library assemblies to replace `Resource.…` field access with property access to `Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.Resource.…` in `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll`. Much of this code overlaps with the existing logic of `$(AndroidLinkResources)`, and allows existing Library assemblies to participate in the property- oriented system. ~~ Internals ~~ The new build system introduces a number of new Tasks and Targets to bring this all together. It also unify's some code between the field- oriented and property-oriented approaches which would otherwise be duplicated. The field-oriented system will be maintained for now for backward compatibility, however the property-oriented system will be enabled by default for .net 8. The property-oriented system is mostly contained in `Xamarin.Android.Resource.Designer.targets`. The entry point for this set of targets is `_BuildResourceDesigner`, which will only be run if the `$(AndroidUseDesignerAssembly)` MSBuild property is `True`, as it will be for .NET 8+. New tasks are as follows. - `<GenerateRtxt/>` is responsible for scanning the resource directory and generating an `aapt2`-compatible `R.txt` file. This will be used by `<GenerateResourceDesignerAssembly/>`. - `<GenerateResourceCaseMap/>` is responsible for generating a `casemap.txt` file which will map the all lower case android resources to the casing required for the C# code. Android requires ALL resources be lower case, but our system allows the user to define the case using any system then want. This task handles generating this mapping between what the android system needs and what the user is expecting. Its output is used by the `<GenerateResourceDesignerAssembly/>` task when generating the IL in `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll`. It is also used by the old system to generate the same file. - `<GenerateResourceDesignerIntermediateClass/>` is responsible for generating the `__Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.cs` file in `$(IntermediateOutputPath)`. - `<GenerateResourceDesignerAssembly/>` is the key to the whole property-oriented approach. This task will read the `R.xt` file and generate a `_Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.dll` assembly in `$(IntermediateOutputPath)`. This task is called in two places. The first is in `_GenerateResourceDesignerAssembly`, this is called as part of the build which happens just before `CoreCompile` and only for design time builds. It is also called in `_UpdateAndroidResgen` which happens as part of the build and runs just after `aapt2` is called. This ensures we always use the most up to date version of `R.txt` to generate the new assembly. Because we are using the `R.txt` file to drive the generation of the new assembly, we needed some way for that to work when `aapt2` was not being run. This usually happens on a first time design time build. The field-oriented approach has a `<GenerateResourceDesigner/>` task which is responsible for both scanning the resources and generating a design time `Resource.designer.cs` file. While we could have duplicated the code it made more sense to split out the resource scanner into its own class. We now have a new `<GenerateRtxt/>` task which is responsible for scanning the resources and generating an `R.txt` file. This is only used when we are not doing a full build with `aapt2`. This new task lets us generate the needed `R.txt` which can then be used by both the old and new system to generate their respective outputs. As part of this we have two other classes: `RtxtReader` and `RtxtWriter`. The `RtxtReader` unify's the code which was used to read the values of the `R.txt` into one class which can be used by both approaches. The `RtxtWriter` is responsible for writing the `R.txt` file for design time builds. Again it will be used by both the old and new system. The `_AddResourceDesignerFiles` target is responsible for ensuring that the new assembly and `__Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.cs` get added to the correct item groups. These are `@(ReferencePath)` for the assembly and `@(Compile)` for the source file. In the case of F# the `__Microsoft.Android.Resource.Designer.fs` file which gets generated has to be added to the `@(CompileBefore)` ItemGroup, this is so that the types are resolved in the correct order. To ensure that the new assembly is added to the final application we have to introduce the `_AddResourceDesignerToPublishFiles` target. This target makes sure that the new assembly is added to the `@(ResolvedFileToPublish)` ItemGroup. It also adds the require MetaData items such as `%(IsTrimmable)` and `%(PostprocessAssembly)` which are required to get the assembly linked correctly. ~~ Results ~~ Results are most visible when lots of Android Resources are used. For a [Sample app][3] app which uses lots of resources, we see the following improvements to the **ActivityTaskManager: Displayed** time: | Before (ms) | After (ms) | Δ (%) | Notes | | ----------: | ----------: | --------: | ------------------------------------ | | 340.500 | 313.250 | -8.00% ✓ | defaults; 64-bit build | | 341.950 | 316.200 | -7.53% ✓ | defaults; profiled AOT; 64-bit build | | 345.950 | 324.600 | -6.17% ✓ | defaults; 32-bit build | | 341.000 | 323.050 | -5.26% ✓ | defaults; profiled AOT; 32-bit build | [0]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/xamarin/android/deploy-test/building-apps/build-properties#androidlinkresources [1]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/assembly/reference-assemblies [2]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/msbuild/common-msbuild-project-properties?view=vs-2022 [3]: https://github.com/dellis1972/DotNetAndroidTest
Repro steps
Provide the steps required to reproduce the problem:
Install Visual Studio or Visual Studio for Mac and enable both Xamarin and .NET Core support, these are listed as ‘Mobile development with .NET’ and ‘.NET Core Cross-platform development’ respectively.
Open a command prompt window and install the template pack by entering:
dotnet new -i Fabulous.XamarinForms.TemplatesNavigate to a folder in the command prompt window where your new app can be created and enter:
dotnet new fabulous-xf-app -n SqueakyAppBuild and run SqueakyApp.Android on device.
Expected behavior
The app build and run successfully
Actual behavior
These errors are due to Xamarin.Android.FSharp.ResourceProvider does not compile and does not load Resources library:
type Resources = SqueakyApp2.Android.ResourceKnown workarounds
Use Paket instead of NuGet. Looks like Paket in a magical way works with this.
But Paket does not support MonoAndroid11 and MonoAndroid12 (link1, link2)
I also found out that there is no way to add back Xamarin.Android.FSharp.ResourceProvider 1.0.0.28 after remove:
I tried to install
Xamarin.Android.FSharp.ResourceProvider 1.0.1and it is installed successfully but this version does not work (link1, link2) and I getting the same error as above with warning:Related information
Provide any related information (optional):
cc @dsyme @vzarytovskii @nosami
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: