Now that Standup Timer has a few releases under its belt, I thought it would be a good time to reflect on my experience with the Android SDK, and Android development in general. But before I begin, I should mention a few points about my background, to help you understand my perspective.
First, Standup Timer was my first mobile app. Aside from a very small amount of time I’ve spent playing around with the Blackberry development kit (really too small to even mention), I have had no prior experience developing software for a mobile device. My background is largely web development and distributed applications development. Second, I have been doing Java development for quite some time, so I am very comfortable working in Java. Third, if you’re not familiar with Standup Timer, it is a very simple application. It only interacts with a few components of the Android platform, and only consists of a few screens. No GPS, no web, no multi-touch, etc. So, my tour of the Android SDK was far from complete.
Dealing with multiple devices
Supporting multiple screen sizes
The topic of supporting multiple screen sizes has been a popular one, especially when comparing Android development to iPhone development. Supporting multiple screen sizes in your application does add a little complexity to the development process, but for my app (and I’d imagine most apps), it is very manageable.
This issue did not take Google by surprise. They knew that if Android was to be successful, it would need support devices with a wide range of physical characteristics, including screen size. So, from the beginning, they made it possible for applications to support multiple screen sizes with little effort. The Android platform contains many features to help with this, including the ability to pre-scale images for phones with different resolutions, allowing you to specify your screen component sizes in density independent pixels (dips), and allowing you to easily center and stretch your components to fill the screen. These features, along with a set of best practices for supporting multiple screen sizes, are documented very well at http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html.
For applications that do not use the standard Android view components, or do custom graphics, it may be a different story. I have read blog posts from some Android game developers saying it is a larger issue, and some who say it is not. So, I’m not sure. However, for the vast majority of applications, the standard view components work just fine, making supporting multiple screen sizes a very manageable issue.
One thing that did bite me regarding multiple screen sizes is the fact that views will not scroll by default if they happen to flow off the screen. You need to anticipate this, and wrap any views that may flow off the screen with a
ScrollView to enable scrolling behavior.
Supporting multiple devices
To me, this issue is much larger than the multiple screen size issue. Android is an open source project, which gives anybody the ability to modify the code however they wish. Google prevents carriers and cell phone manufacturers from abusing this by holding back a few key applications from the open source release, including the Android Market application. Without the Android Market application, phones would not have access to the 20,000 apps currently available for the Android platform.
However, phone manufacturers do tweak the platform to work for their specific hardware. Android 2.1 on one device is not necessarily the same as Android 2.1 on another device. For an example of this, compare 2.1 on the Motorola DROID with 2.1 on the Nexus One. These seemingly minor modifications can be very troublesome for application developers. The web has been flooded with reports of developers growing frustrated with the complexity matrix of Android versions and the exploding number of phones running them, all potentially containing their own tweaks to the platform. Browsing through the change logs of applications I have installed on my Motorola DROID, I can see that several apps have made changes to fix issues on specific devices.
This issue is forcing developers to not only test on every device they plan on supporting, but also to write device specific code to work around any known issues for a device. As Android continues to grow, this level of support will be unsustainable. Developing for a common platform should mean that your application will run fine on any device running that platform. But, because of these device specific tweaks, this is quickly turning out not to be the case for Android. I worry that if Google doesn’t find some way to control this, developers will continue to abandon the platform.
I have even run into what appear to be device related issues with Standup Timer, which is miniscule compared to the size and complexity some of the other apps available in the Android Market. Standup Timer uses an Android API that prevents the user’s screen from blacking out while a timer is in progress, letting you always see how much time is remaining for a meeting. Just the other day somebody left a comment in the Market indicating that this was not working on their device. So far, all of the other reviews have been positive, leading me to believe that this could be an issue with that user’s particular device. The commentator didn’t provide any information about the device they were using, or how they could be contacted. So, I’m not sure if I’ll ever be able to track down this issue. Even if I knew the device experiencing the issue, I’m not sure I would be able to help. Unless you have access the device in question, reproducing these issues is practically impossible. The Android simulator tool is great, but you cannot create a simulator for a specific Android device, running that device’s flavor of Android. You can only create simulators running the “generic” version of an Android release.
Application life cycle
The Android platform primarily communicates with an application through a series of life cycle events. The platform will let the application know when an activity (a screen) has been created, paused (lost focus), resumed (regained focus), etc. The life cycle events are easy to understand, and are specific enough so that I never need to examine the state of my application or the platform within one of these callbacks. The fact that a specific life cycle method was called tells you what state your application is in.
My largest complaint about how the platform manages an application is how it destroys and re-creates the activity (the object that backs the screen) when the phone rotates from portrait mode to landscape mode, or visa versa. It seems to me that this would best be handled by making the appropriate life cycle callbacks to the same activity instance, giving it a chance to redraw the screen. Instead, you are forced to save all of your activity’s state, and then reload it when the new activity instance takes over. Forgetting to save the state of a particular variable means that value will be lost when the phone is rotated. This was the source of several bugs when writing Standup Timer.
I have no major issues with the Android APIs. They seem complete (for what I needed), and most importantly, behaved as expected. The database API seems a bit archaic, especially in today’s age of sophisticated O/R mapping tools. But, at least I didn’t have to catch
SQLException after each operation, like the JDBC API.
However, the lack of decent documentation for some of the APIs is a problem. There were a few instances where I was forced into using trial and error to determine the purpose of a method parameter. I feel this level of unclarity is unacceptable for a public API.
The Android SDK offers developers two methods for creating UI screens: programatically using Java code or declaratively using XML. I did not attempt the programatic approach, as it brought back too many nightmares of building UIs for Java applets. The XML approach to creating screen layouts, which is the recommended approach, is very straight forward. Java developers, especially those working in the “enterprise”, have grown to hate XML over the past few years, due to its verbosity and proliferation. But, I think Android’s use of it is very tasteful. At no point did I consider myself to be in XML-hell. Looking back on the final XML that declares my user interface, it doesn’t seem overly verbose or complicated.
I did however struggle at times to figure out how to get the UI to look exactly the way I wanted it. Again, this seems to be the result of poor documentation of the XML elements and their corresponding attributes. Some more complex examples in the sample code included in the SDK would have also helped.
If you keep your screens simple, and don’t display too much information on any given screen, then you shouldn’t have much trouble dealing with how that screen looks in portrait or landscape mode. Screens with a list of items, for example, will usually look just fine when viewed in either portrait or landscape mode. When in landscape mode, the user will just see a little more blank space in the list. For more complicated screens, the Android platform allows you to specify an alternate UI layout for landscape mode. This allows you to completely restructure the elements on a screen to deal with the the wider, shorter screen size without affecting how the screen looks in portrait mode. Given how I struggled to get the views to look exactly the way I wanted, I tried my best to avoid the need to specify an alternate layout file for landscape views. Only two of the screens in Standup Timer actually needed a landscape specific layout file.
The Android Debug Bridge (adb) is a nifty little tool that allows you to interact with an Android device or simulator from the command line. You can install/uninstall applications, interact with files on the device, or run a shell on the device. It also provides a series of commands that allow you to more easily create scripts to run on the device. Not only is this tool useful by itself, but it also enables the creation of sophisticated tools for Android development. Learning how to use adb is a wise investment of your time.
The Eclipse plugin
The Eclipse plugin for Android development is great. It provides tight integration between Eclipse and the Android SDK. Code completion is available for the Android APIs as well as the different types of XML files used by the Android platform. It has great support for Android resource files. You can easily start your application on a simulator with the click of a button, and running your tests is a breeze. I would not attempt to write an Android application without this plugin, or a similar plugin for a different IDE.
However, I did run into a few issues regarding how Eclipse interacts with the Android simulators. On more than a few occasions, when starting the application or running the tests, the Eclipse plugin started a simulator running a version of the Android platform that did not match my project settings (although, I have not completely ruled out user error here :) ). Also, the Eclipse plugin seems to have a few bugs around interacting with multiple simulators. adb allows you to specify the target device or simulator when issuing a command, which is useful when you have more than one simulator running at a time (which is almost always the case given the current state of the Android platform). However, the Eclipse plugin doesn’t always utilize this capability. Sometimes it will detect multiple simulators running, and ask you which one you’d like to target. Other times it will not. In addition to the simulator interaction issues, there are a few areas that could benefit from a bit of polish. The UI builders, for example, are difficult to work with. It became obvious very quickly that I would be better hand coding the XML for the UI than attempting to use the builders.
Simulators are awesome
The Android simulators are awesome. Once you have the proper versions of the SDK installed, it is trivial to create simulators with different screen sizes, different amounts of available storage, running different versions of the Android platform. And, as previously mentioned, adb is great for interacting with the simulators. While not perfect (you should always test your app on a real device before publishing it), they are pretty darn close.
The only thing missing, and I’m not sure how feasible this is, is the ability to create a simulator for a specific device. For example, if I know that my app is crashing on the Nexus One for some reason, I’d love to be able to create a Nexus One simulator, so I can find and fix the issue. Currently, debugging and fixing device specific issues is not possible without access to the device in question. I know some large mobile shops purchase the devices they plan on supporting, for testing purposes. And, services like Device Anywhere allow you virtual access to a physical device, which would satisfy this need. But these options, especially the first one, are expensive. A developer trying to fix a device specific issue in their free, non ad subsidized application will not have the resources for either of these options.
Automated (unit and functional) Testing
Automated testing on the Android platform is PAINFUL. It’s hard to decide where to even begin. First off, the tests provided with the sample applications in the SDK are very bare bones. Most of them simply assert that an activity has been created, and that’s it. If there was sufficient documentation describing how to write tests for you application, this wouldn’t be that big of a deal. But, there isn’t. Luckily, guys like Diego Torres Milano are writing blog posts and giving presentations in an attempt to fill this gaping hole in documentation. The slides from Diego’s presentation at Droidcon 2009 are a great place to start. Standup Timer, which is open source, also has a complete set of unit and functional tests for you to check out if you so desire.
Another pain point regarding automated tests for Android applications is that the tests cannot be run inside a standard Java Virtual Machine. The implementation of the APIs in the android.jar file provided with the SDK simply throw exceptions. That jar file is only meant for building your application, not running it. So, all tests must be run on the device (or in a simulator). This dramatically slows down the execution of the tests. One alternative proposed by a non-Android group inside of Google is to mock out all of the Android components using a mocking library, enabling the execution of the tests in a standard virtual machine. Although this would speed up the test execution, it comes with its own drawbacks. Mainly, you end up having to mock out a TON of stuff. I think that mocking out too many components significantly reduces the value of your tests. If you mock out everything, what are you really testing?
The SDK contains a few base classes that you can extend for certain types of tests. In particular, the SDK provides support for functional tests (the testing of a particular activity, or screen) and unit tests (the testing of some underlying support code). Writing unit tests is pretty straight forward. With a little bit of investigation and some trial and error, I was able to create a set of tests for my database layer, which will execute against a test version of the application’s database.
Functional tests were much more problematic. In addition to executing much slower than unit tests, they are also more difficult to write. For functional tests, you write code to perform the operations a user would be performing on their phone (entering text, pressing buttons, etc). The problem is that it is not very straight forward to perform these operations via code. It took me quite some time to figure out how to simply enter some text in a text area and press a button via code. Even when I thought I had functional testing figured out, there was still a use case I was unable to write a test for. Most of the issues revolve around gaining access to the components you wish to interact with. For a simple text box or button, it is very easy. You can simply fetch the view by its id, the same way you do in your application. However, once you start nesting components, it becomes much more complicated. I tried several different ways to invoke the context menu (the long press menu) of a list item, inside of a list, which is inside of a tab. None of them worked.
Instead of writing functional tests for activities, I found it much easier to test activities using the
ActivityUnitTestCase class with a mocked out instance of the activity. Test classes that extend
ActivityUnitTestCase don’t have as much as access to the platform as functional tests. Several API methods will throw exceptions if called from within a
ActivityUnitTestCase, and other API methods simply do nothing. However, this can be addressed with some simple tools that should be in every developers toolbox: mocking and stubbing. It is trivial to contain a method call that would throw an exception during testing within a method of its own. This method can then be overridden by a mock implementation of the activity. The mock can then optionally set a flag when the method is called, so the test can verify that some action was performed. One place I do this is where the activity under test tries to start another activity. Calling
startActivity from within a
ActivityUnitTestCase does nothing. So, I placed the call to
startActivity by itself in a protected method, overrode that method in the mock activity class, set a flag in the mock method implementation, and checked to see if that flag was set in the test case to verify that the activity was started.
Publishing to the Android Market
Publishing an application to the Android market could not be any easier. The process is very well documented on the Android developers website, and the Eclipse plugin makes creating and signing an installation package a point and click operation.
A fee of $25 is required to create a Android Developers account. This account gives you the ability to upload your application to the Android Market using the Android Developers website. Once published, the application can immediately be found in the Android Market. There is no approval process. Updating your application is just as easy. Simply upload the new version of your application, and it is available in the Android Market immediately.
It should be noted that there is no fee to install the application on your phone.
Android is a great platform. It is feature rich, and developer friendly. The devices that run it are powerful and easy to use. I also love the fact that it is built on open source technology, and that Google, for the most part, has continued this tradition of openness.
But, the platform is not without problems. Most of my complaints here are minor, and are very addressable. Android is still a young platform, so there is plenty of room to improve. What worries me most about the future of the Android platform is the complexity matrix I talk about in the Supporting Multiple Devices section.
Android was created to be a common platform for mobile application development. A platform where application developers could write a single application capable of running on numerous devices. However, this dream is at risk of becoming just that, a dream. Unless Google can find a way to minimize the impact of device specific issues, it risks losing more and more Android developers. Last year it was already known that 2010 was going to be a big year for Android. With several new devices slated to hit the market, industry analysts are expecting its market share to jump considerably. However, if each new device that hits the market brings with it its own set of device specific quirks, this could also cause the Android development community to quickly erode. Applications are a very large part of the mobile experience today, and they will continue to be in the future. But, without a development community, there will be no applications.
I really hope Google finds a way to address this very serious issue.