The danger of using getSimpleName() as TAG for Fragment

Aug 18, 2016 · 2 min read

When we want to add a Fragment into a container of an Activity, we’ll normally use a TAG as it’s ID.

.add(containerResource, fragment, fragmentTAG).commit()

What’s a good TAG name we could use? It’s the class name itself. To simplify thing, maybe just use the simple name of the class, given we knew we never name any of our class the same name ever, even if they are in different packages.

public static final String TAG =         

Cool. When we debug and run, everything is good. Even in released proguard mode, they are fine without issue… until…

The Danger…

fragment = getFragmentManager().findFragmentByTag(tag);

After some investigation, apparently the fragment loaded is a wrong fragment. How could that be?


I have two fragments. After proguard, my fragments name changed to

com.mypackage.FragmentA → com.mypackage.c.a

com.mypackage.FragmentB → com.mypackage.c.a.a

That’s the post proguard full name. How about their short simple name i.e. getSimpleName()?

com.mypackage.FragmentA → a

com.mypackage.FragmentB → a

Wo! Wo! Wo!… The same name. No wonder when I try to find my fragment, it could potentially retrieve a wrong fragment…. when we are really really fortunate to have Proguard give the same simpleName for it.

Lesson Learned

  • the full name
  • canonical name
  • a constant explicitly defined


Written by


Learning and Sharing Android and iOS Development