Fix conditional keep rules for new semantics
New conditional syntax is a logical AND, not OR. This means if a
resource should be conditionally kept by multiple ids, we need to
generate a separate rule for each condition (which will be interpreted
as OR).
Test: unit tests
Bug: 69341430
Change-Id: I0786c65561d36fbf43d181a2dfd0c7eaf1d96b8c
diff --git a/tools/aapt2/java/ProguardRules.cpp b/tools/aapt2/java/ProguardRules.cpp
index 132b234..ffcef89 100644
--- a/tools/aapt2/java/ProguardRules.cpp
+++ b/tools/aapt2/java/ProguardRules.cpp
@@ -346,22 +346,20 @@
can_be_conditional &= CollectLocations(location, keep_set, &locations);
}
- for (const UsageLocation& location : entry.second) {
- printer.Print("# Referenced at ").Println(location.source.to_string());
- }
if (keep_set.conditional_keep_rules_ && can_be_conditional) {
- printer.Println("-if class **.R$layout {");
- printer.Indent();
for (const UsageLocation& location : locations) {
- printer.Print("int ")
+ printer.Print("# Referenced at ").Println(location.source.to_string());
+ printer.Print("-if class **.R$layout { int ")
.Print(JavaClassGenerator::TransformToFieldName(location.name.entry))
- .Println(";");
+ .Println("; }");
+ printer.Print("-keep class ").Print(entry.first).Println(" { <init>(...); }");
}
- printer.Undent();
- printer.Println("}");
- printer.Println();
+ } else {
+ for (const UsageLocation& location : entry.second) {
+ printer.Print("# Referenced at ").Println(location.source.to_string());
+ }
+ printer.Print("-keep class ").Print(entry.first).Println(" { <init>(...); }");
}
- printer.Print("-keep class ").Print(entry.first).Println(" { <init>(...); }");
printer.Println();
}