[HN Gopher] Google Camera randomly changes some QR code URLs on ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Google Camera randomly changes some QR code URLs on Android 12
        
       Author : csnweb
       Score  : 65 points
       Date   : 2022-01-20 22:06 UTC (54 minutes ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.androidpolice.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.androidpolice.com)
        
       | duxup wrote:
       | How does this not fail when tested?
       | 
       | Or how do you start manipulating urls and not just realize this
       | is inevitable / words have these strings inside them...?
        
       | Naga wrote:
       | This link is behind a Google account wall so I can't access it.
       | Is there a summary available, or an alternative link?
        
         | quercusa wrote:
         | The camera app in Google Pixels running Android 12 tries to
         | "fix" some URLs encoded QR codes, resulting in wrong URLs being
         | shown and opened by the browser if the user clicks on the
         | suggested link.
        
           | bentcorner wrote:
           | More specifically, it appears to truncate new generic TLDs to
           | two characters.
           | 
           | From the issue tracker:
           | 
           |  _It also affects the newer generic TLDs. Some examples:
           | 
           | .apple becomes .ap
           | 
           | .amex becomes .am
           | 
           | .army, .arte, .art, and .arab become .ar
           | 
           | .audi, .audio., .auto, .and autos become .au
           | 
           | .bet and .beer become .be_
        
         | johannes1234321 wrote:
         | This German it site has a story on it. Probably a translation
         | service does a good enough job on it
         | 
         | https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Googles-Kamera-verfaelscht-...
        
         | dang wrote:
         | We've changed to a third party article about what I presume is
         | the same issue. The submitted URL was https://accounts.google.c
         | om/ServiceLogin?passive=1209600&osi....
        
         | mcescalante wrote:
         | Here is a screenshot of the issue as of time of posting.
         | Forgive the zoom, the UI has a iframe scroll which isn't very
         | capture friendly. https://i.imgur.com/hS8jBzw.png
        
       | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
        
         | dang wrote:
         | Please omit swipes and snark from your comments here. It's
         | against the site guidelines because it leads to dumber, nastier
         | threads. Your comment would be fine without that last bit.
         | 
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        
       | paxys wrote:
       | Perfect case of optimization where no optimization is needed. A
       | developer encodes a URL, a user scans it. What is the rate of
       | errors in this scenario? Is it really large enough to warrant
       | "fixing" the end result in any way?
        
       | WolfRazu wrote:
       | Direct link to the issue:
       | https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/215215744?pli=1
        
         | sneak wrote:
         | This immediately redirects to a sign-in page. Note that you
         | can't get a Google account without a phone number that can
         | receive SMS, so this is effectively paywalled.
        
       | akersten wrote:
       | What a horrible response by the dev investigator. The thread has
       | all the info you need: the QR scanning functionality truncates
       | TLDs to 2 characters. And provides a list of a dozen examples.
       | 
       | The dev replies with "hi, thanks for the bug report, please
       | provide a memory dump and a screen recording." How about they
       | just try it out? Do they not have phones?
        
         | tialaramex wrote:
         | That's probably what they're incentivised to do. Chances are
         | that "clearing" a dozen bugs that amount to "I am a fool and
         | pressed A when I meant B, but I raised a ticket about it" is
         | worth far more to an L1 queue monkey than correctly diagnosing
         | a real bug that should have been caught during QA by somebody
         | way up the ladder, and can be done quicker too.
         | 
         | Also, you ask if they don't "have phones" but to see this they
         | need Android 12, if you bought a _new_ high-end Android phone
         | it might have Android 12. If you bought one last year, _maybe_
         | it 's qualified to upgrade to Android 12 but clearly this
         | brings some bugs as illustrated. If your phone was _not_ top of
         | the line and you bought it say, before the pandemic, chances
         | are you can 't run Android 12 at least not today and perhaps
         | ever.
         | 
         | Now, L1 support monkeys aren't flipping burgers or cleaning
         | hotel rooms, I'm sure they do own phones, but there's no reason
         | they own a _good phone_ on whatever they 're earning and if
         | they do maybe it's an iPhone, which of course can't run Android
         | 12.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | _jal wrote:
         | That's when I tell them I'm dumping their product.
         | 
         | Seriously. I sit on the other side of this a lot of the time,
         | and bullshit like this makes everyone's troubleshooting harder.
         | I'm happy to work with someone to troubleshoot a problem, but
         | blindly ask me to waste my time, and I'll usually walk away.
         | Someone else can dance for your pleasure.
         | 
         | I have gotten a lot shorter with this sort of thing, but that's
         | because I've been burned being patient. Push all the effort and
         | costs on to me and you won't have me as a customer.
         | 
         | (I am neither Google customer nor product.)
        
         | CobrastanJorji wrote:
         | We both saw a request for more information met with the reply
         | of "get over yourself," but we came to different conclusions
         | about whose response was horrible.
        
           | gambiting wrote:
           | If I describe an issue exactly and the company goes "yeah
           | that's great, can you just do all these extra steps for us
           | first before we can even accept a bug report" then sorry, I'm
           | not going to. Your loss.
        
         | notyourday wrote:
         | Google engineers are good at white boarding and terrible at
         | coding.
        
         | readams wrote:
         | That's not a dev; that's just someone assigned to triage the
         | queue and get more information from users.
        
           | akersten wrote:
           | I assumed it was a developer because in my experience with
           | issue trackers, it's always been developers who get assigned
           | to fix things. And this looks more like an issue tracker than
           | a tier 1 support site. But if that's the case, my point
           | stands - it was the wrong canned response for the support
           | representative to use.
           | 
           | I can't tell one way or the other from that interface the
           | roles of all involved. But I'm not sure it matters.
        
         | kahrl wrote:
         | It is insulting the the reporter who spent time and energy
         | detailing this issue in written form.
        
         | darknavi wrote:
         | > How about they just try it out? Do they not have phones?
         | 
         | Not sure what this has to do with Diablo Immortal /s
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | mkl95 wrote:
         | Well, it may not be up to the dev. I bet some manager created
         | some "process" to control how devs interact with people.
        
           | gambiting wrote:
           | Sure. And that process is stupid in that case, and should be
           | called stupid. If Google refuses to create a bug report
           | themselves even though the issue is clearly described, then
           | they can get lost.
        
         | ohgodplsno wrote:
         | Par for the course for Google's "issue tracker". Bugs get
         | ignored in triage for years, Google doesn't take external
         | patches for Android, issues are left without update or closed
         | because they did not respond.
        
         | johnny-fun-time wrote:
         | This is almost certainly a scripted/automated comment (source -
         | triaged external bug reports as a Google eng for several
         | years).
         | 
         | Difficult to use human touch when dealing with >>> thousands of
         | bug reports.
        
           | akersten wrote:
           | I get it's a canned message, but surely part of that external
           | triage would be "is there enough info here that we could
           | reasonably just assign this to an intern to try out before
           | needing to even ask for a crash dump [and insert
           | corresponding "we're looking into it" message]." Unless it's
           | a purposeful barrier to entry, which I also cynically
           | understand.
        
           | nikanj wrote:
           | Makes sense. Google goes to incredible lengths to avoid
           | having one person do a job well, when a microservices-based
           | machine-learning hyperscale blockamothing can do it
           | incredibly poorly.
        
       | titzer wrote:
       | Looks like it is hooking up AI-powered suggestions to something
       | that doesn't need it.
       | 
       | One super-annoying thing I hit often: the Contacts app on a
       | Samsung phone suggests autocompletes of phone numbers in the
       | _edit /add contact flow_. Do I now need to explain to stupid
       | computer that I am _entering_ a new number that it does not yet
       | know, ffs?
       | 
       | I mean, seriously, something deep in the OS just sees "oh a phone
       | number goes here? Let me supply one from Contacts...". It's
       | trying to be smart, but in a completely oblivious and counter
       | productive way. It's been like that for _years_. Does no one use
       | these apps?
        
         | teruakohatu wrote:
         | Along those lines a friend was complaining about Samsung's
         | contacts app search results.
         | 
         | I took a look and soon deduced it was searching on "sounds
         | like" rather than the actual string, so an exact match is way
         | down the list of partial matches that sound like the search
         | string.
         | 
         | It is madness, like Google refusing to do exact matches only
         | worse.
        
         | lockyc wrote:
         | The contacts situation from everyone is abysmal, only really
         | good for light personal use. As soon as you are trying to keep
         | your contacts organised or light work use everything turns to
         | shit
        
       | oh_sigh wrote:
       | Ah...I thought this was going to be a "camera turned my QR code
       | into a different QR code" like the fake-news "iPhone camera made
       | my friends face a leaf" story. But in fact it just seems like
       | after the QR code is converted to a URL, the app tries to
       | normalize the URL and isn't familiar with a bunch of new TLDs, so
       | it truncates them(for some reason).
        
       | gsich wrote:
       | Googles pet peeve with URLs in full effect.
        
       | awinter-py wrote:
       | I turned off web services in google photos on a droid phone and
       | 'lens' (their image scanning app) died, along with QR code
       | scanning
       | 
       | fennec (f-droid firefox) has a QR code button if you tap the URL
       | bar
        
       | floatingatoll wrote:
       | OP, I can't view this. Can you post a copy of the page to
       | archive.xyzzy or whatever their current URL is?
        
         | sodality2 wrote:
         | https://notes.matthew.science/share/pixel-qr-error
        
         | dang wrote:
         | We've changed to a third party article about what I presume is
         | the same issue. The submitted URL was https://accounts.google.c
         | om/ServiceLogin?passive=1209600&osi....
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-01-20 23:00 UTC)