CIQ apps update issue

We identified a bug that would cause apps to be deleted from a device if there is an app ID "collision" on the device. This means if there is an app on the device with ID X, and a second app is loaded to the device that also has ID X, any other apps on the device may be deleted from the device. So, while the duplicate app ID technique that ActiFace is using is technically allowed, it may potentially cause problems on devices until this bug is addressed.

....So, while the duplicate app ID technique that ActiFace is using is technically allowed.....

You say duplicate app ID is technically allowed, do you mean duplicate app Name?

I think he's talking about the ID in the manifest file.

In this case the unique app id is being abused to circumvent a perceived shortcoming in the environment.

But is it? In post #9 I see mention of same app name, but no mention of same ID other than from Brandon.

I checked the manifest file of both ActiFace apps, and it's identical for both packages. The bug we found is related to the app ID being the same, not the app name. Our app store does not currently validate the app ID in the manifest to ensure that it's unique, so I'm checking to see whether we need to change this. The app ID is not the same thing as the store ID, which is a separate unique number assigned to each app that is uploaded to the store. Having the same app ID will not cause an app to replace another app on the store or anything like that. The main repercussion is that if two developers uploaded separate apps that happened to share the same app ID, the device would only have the last one installed available on the device.

So if we are providing an update of our own app, should we use the same app ID? I had thought that you needed to use the same ID, so that you could access the older versions saved object store, which is why I find the term "technically allowed" a little alarming, because I think it implies something other that "correct practice". Perhaps you should make it clear that we shouldn't post any updates while this bug is present.

for the same app, I'd guess use the same ID. For different versions of the same thing (different colors or whatever), use different IDs. Sound like this was a case where multiple versions of the same app were in the store but they all had the same ID in the manifest file.

So if you have a watch face where you add a new function, same ID is ok. If your watch face is pink, and you want to add a blue version (not replace - add) to the store, use a different ID for each

The point I'm trying to highlight jim, is that we can't currently update an app on the 920 without wiping all other apps. And that the wording "technically allowed" could be considered misleading, considering it should be "correct practice". I sure hope someone can't hijack my object store simply by creating an app of the same name, because it is not the store id that identifies an app on the device.