Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Better Proguard Rules #54

Closed
MichaelEvans opened this issue Jun 9, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

Better Proguard Rules #54

MichaelEvans opened this issue Jun 9, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@MichaelEvans
Copy link

MichaelEvans commented Jun 9, 2016

In 1.13.3 you added consumer proguard rules - but they aren't really good ones. Rules like -keep class com.appboy.** { *; } keeps everything in the com.appboy namespace - which means that features that might not be used cannot be stripped by proguard.

@Bucimis
Copy link
Collaborator

Bucimis commented Jun 9, 2016

Hi @MichaelEvans,

Thanks for pointing this out. Our blanket keep rules are intended to ensure that client stack traces are readable by us at the cost of a small amount of optimization (~40kB for a typical APK). We've previously considered this tradeoff worthwhile but agree that doing so may not make sense in all cases, particularly for advanced customers who are responsible enough to store their release mapping files in source control :)

Because of that we'll investigate removing our automated keep statement scope in a future release and will keep you posted.

Thanks,
Appboy Android Team

@Bucimis
Copy link
Collaborator

Bucimis commented Aug 3, 2016

Hi @MichaelEvans,

Our most recent release 1.14.0 removes the keep statements from our automatic Proguard configuration. Check out https://github.com/Appboy/appboy-android-sdk/blob/master/android-sdk-ui/appboy-proguard-rules.pro for the latest configuration.

Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention!

Cheers,
Appboy Android Team

@briancaw
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @MichaelEvans

If you have any further comments/questions regarding this issue, please feel free to update or re-open this issue. Thanks again for raising this issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants