You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I mentioned this already on xda but I figured it would be best to open an issue for this.
The "Wipe" description of the patched TWRP is incorrect as it definitely wipes internal storage. This is mentioned in your OP at xda.
"Note that wiping Data WILL also wipe internal storage, contrary to normal behavior. [...] A side effect is that wiping "Data" will also wipe internal storage".
I suggest just dropping the "not" from the current string resulting in "Wipes Data, Cache, and Dalvik (including internal storage)".
This would result in a consistent and accurate user interface and less frustrated users. TWRP had/has a problem you fixed but many users did not exactly complain about missing functionality but about misleading UI resulting in wrong expectations as can be seen here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'll look into the possibility of adding (incl. storage) to the Advanced Wipe entry, but this might be harder than expected because I can't modify the length of anything with binary patching. That'd require extracting the ramdisk temporarily to perform patches.
I mentioned this already on xda but I figured it would be best to open an issue for this.
The "Wipe" description of the patched TWRP is incorrect as it definitely wipes internal storage. This is mentioned in your OP at xda.
I suggest just dropping the "not" from the current string resulting in "Wipes Data, Cache, and Dalvik (including internal storage)".
As for the "Advanced Wipe" description I would suggest "Data (incl. storage)" like seen here.
This would result in a consistent and accurate user interface and less frustrated users. TWRP had/has a problem you fixed but many users did not exactly complain about missing functionality but about misleading UI resulting in wrong expectations as can be seen here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: