That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't
care about.

From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272):

> Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently
> hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third
> party library, which contains an android resource with the same name
> as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old
> APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in
> the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'.
> The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins.
>
> The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines
> resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly
(or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name.
> In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib.
>
> This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as,
> even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change
> or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined
> in top level target.
>
> The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.

That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't
care about.

From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272):

> Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently
> hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third
> party library, which contains an android resource with the same name
> as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old
> APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in
> the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'.
> The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins.
>
> The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines
> resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly
(or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name.
> In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib.
>
> This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as,
> even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change
> or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined
> in top level target.
>
> The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.

That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't
care about.

From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272):

> Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently
> hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third
> party library, which contains an android resource with the same name
> as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old
> APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in
> the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'.
> The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins.
>
> The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines
> resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly
(or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name.
> In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib.
>
> This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as,
> even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change
> or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined
> in top level target.
>
> The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.

That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't
care about.

From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272):

> Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently
> hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third
> party library, which contains an android resource with the same name
> as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old
> APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in
> the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'.
> The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins.
>
> The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines
> resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly
(or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name.
> In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib.
>
> This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as,
> even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change
> or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined
> in top level target.
>
> The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.

That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't
care about.

From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272):

> Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently
> hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third
> party library, which contains an android resource with the same name
> as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old
> APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in
> the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'.
> The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins.
>
> The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines
> resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly
(or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name.
> In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib.
>
> This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as,
> even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change
> or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined
> in top level target.
>
> The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.

That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't
care about.

From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272):

> Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently
> hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third
> party library, which contains an android resource with the same name
> as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old
> APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in
> the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'.
> The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins.
>
> The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines
> resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly
(or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name.
> In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib.
>
> This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as,
> even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change
> or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined
> in top level target.
>
> The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.

That PR includes a flag to use the original behavior, which we don't
care about.

From [the originating issue](bazelbuild#272):

> Our large project include duplicated android resources. We recently
> hit a bug when our developers introduced a dependency to a new third
> party library, which contains an android resource with the same name
> as one used in our top-level target. This is due to the fact the old
> APPT1 behavior is currently preserved, and the defined resources in
> the list provided to Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction 'wins'.
> The expectation is that the closest value defined from the app wins.
>
> The project below exemplify this (bogus) behavior: app defines
> resource app_name and app_name2 (with same value), depends directly
(or transitively) on library lib, which defines also app_name.
> In the final APK, app_name has the value from lib.
>
> This is problematic for projects tolerating duplicated resource, as,
> even with warnings, breaks can easily be introduced as any code change
> or third party library bump could possibly overwrite the value defined
> in top level target.
>
> The workaround we're using is to reverse the input order in Aapt2ResourcePackagingAction.