When replying or fowarding an HTML message, we now send both plain text and
HTML bodies as a multi-part mime message. We take special care to ensure the
message bodies are in their own multi-part block and do not interfere with
any additional attachments to the message.
bug 3060920
Backport-Of: I2fc3cb4e1f65bcc28486a62731b44b0ee0a99719
Change-Id: I89ec2795b55ceb7472a8ee3db2dc8f50cf537d9c
The new class EmailAsyncTask might look overkill, but
this is what I've been wanting for long time.
In many activities we store all AsyncTasks we start to member fields
so that we can cancel them in onDestroy(). (e.g.
MessageViewFragmentBase.mLoadMessageTask and mReloadMessageTask)
With EmailAsyncTask these fields will no longer be necessary.
We'll be able to just fire up as many AsyncTasks as we want, and clean them
up in onDestroy() with just cancellAllInterrupt().
Bug 3480136
Backport of Id8aa1ba1500eee58cfab8b562b95e9ed852b3e29
Change-Id: I2d2966ff878862a5246c031d1d4e221da5a7e81a
The new class EmailAsyncTask might look overkill, but
this is what I've been wanting for long time.
In many activities we store all AsyncTasks we start to member fields
so that we can cancel them in onDestroy(). (e.g.
MessageViewFragmentBase.mLoadMessageTask and mReloadMessageTask)
With EmailAsyncTask these fields will no longer be necessary.
We'll be able to just fire up as many AsyncTasks as we want, and clean them
up in onDestroy() with just cancellAllInterrupt().
Bug 3480136
Change-Id: Id8aa1ba1500eee58cfab8b562b95e9ed852b3e29
When replying or fowarding an HTML message, we now send both plain text and
HTML bodies as a multi-part mime message. We take special care to ensure the
message bodies are in their own multi-part block and do not interfere with
any additional attachments to the message.
bug 3060920
Change-Id: I2fc3cb4e1f65bcc28486a62731b44b0ee0a99719
* This is is a minimal implementation that only supports the external
encryption policy when there is no physical/removable storage, and
the emulated external storage is located within an encrypted backing
store.
Bug: 3351426
Change-Id: Id96e9277f810beeebf816a914acd3d733eb713ea
If the account supports smart-forward. The old code assumed
attachments are not removable if the account supports smart-forward,
which is not true. Locally-added attachments should still be removable.
Bug 3505684
Change-Id: Ie6703551800c617dd224957a098311f0c279b3f1
The problem was:
- MessageFileViewFragment.clearContent (A) is called in onDestroy
- MessageFileViewFragment.openMessageSync (B) is called in a bg thread
to load an eml file
- And both try to hold the same lock. (mLock)
- If EML is large enough, B takes _seconds_. If you press back during this,
onDestroy gets blocked trying to lock mLock.
- This could also cause a crash, because the task that runs openMessageSync
won't get cancelled in this case, because that's done in clearContent.
Because of this, the task's onPostExecute tries to touch a UI element
when the fragment is actually being destroyed.
The lock was introduced to protect mFileEmailUri, only to keep the same
semantics for openMessage() as MessageViewFragment. i.e. openMessage can be
called multiple times for the same instance of the fragment.
However, in practice, this won't happen. Unlike the regular message view,
we never reuse MessageFileViewFragment. MessageFileViewFragment instances
are created per message. This lock was just reminiscence from the early
developmen stage.
So, fix is simple -- just remove the lock.
Bug 3500487
Change-Id: If2b22a683666de535454bb1293563796fa7acfd7
For now it only enables it for the main process. I've added a flag
to EmailServiceProxy for EAS, but it's not used in the exchange side.
Bug 3500292
Change-Id: I5b27c69fe7cc995a430e9def54b2463076032c78
Slight API change to make it more clear what the method parameter is for.
Also add some additonal test conditions to the Rfc822Output tests.
Reapply changes in CL https://android-git.corp.google.com/g/#change,99090
Change-Id: I7a48c9544e48cbdf44b14f4b1f8d92fe01f7861e
* When a connectivity wait was added to processQueue, I neglected
to consider that a lock was held during this time
* The fix is to move the check for connectivity out of processQueue
Bug: 3500702
Change-Id: I646cf899ff895d9838612e89b15b66f1084840b1
Slight API change to make it more clear what the method parameter is for.
Also add some additonal test conditions to the Rfc822Output tests.
Change-Id: I8888d6201e79136fa3420aa9d5f921772f374e56
