feat(Mi Fitness): Add Force English locale and Fix login patch

[pisek]

Added patches for MiFitness to get Mi Band CN version to use english language without changing the phone locale to EN

[oSumAtrIX]

Are you sure parameter 2 is never gonna change?

[pisek]

Well, no i am not sure as i am not the owner of the original app;)
Any proposal of how to do it in a better way?
It is a constructor fingerprint that takes boolean as second param. This param, if false, disables Android phone account login and enables login/password login

[oSumAtrIX]

If this parameter is used somewhere in the code, you can obtain it from one of the instructions. If the compiled code updates the register count, the parameter 2 shifts accordingly, but since you'd obtain it from an existing instruction, you'd correctly reference the necessary register.

[oSumAtrIX]

@pisek The parameter seems still to be hardcoded

[pisek]

@oSumAtrIX , what do you mean?
I have changed XiaomiAccountManagerConstructorFingerprint to point directly to the param that i need.

package app.revanced.patches.mifitness.misc.login.fingerprints

import app.revanced.patcher.extensions.or
import app.revanced.patcher.fingerprint.MethodFingerprint
import com.android.tools.smali.dexlib2.AccessFlags

internal object XiaomiAccountManagerConstructorFingerprint : MethodFingerprint(
    accessFlags = AccessFlags.PRIVATE or AccessFlags.CONSTRUCTOR,
    customFingerprint = { methodDef, _ ->
        methodDef.definingClass == "Lcom/xiaomi/passport/accountmanager/XiaomiAccountManager;"
    },
    parameters = listOf(
        "Landroid/content/Context;",
        "Z",
    ),
)

So in this case i will always use 2nd param - boolean.

The instruction that uses p2 is if-nez p2, :cond_0

What do you propose?

[oSumAtrIX]

In this case, the fingerprint could fail to resolve, which is about as fatal as the parameter changing because the patch would stop working in both cases. Instead, if you obtain the register from an existing instruction, the failure would be reduced down to the instruction shifting changing or moving. For now this is fine.

[pisek]

Ok, i have updated the code to get the reg from instruction. Could you re-review?

[oSumAtrIX]

If this parameter is used somewhere in the code, you can obtain it from one of the instructions. If the compiled code updates the register count, the parameter 2 shifts accordingly, but since you'd obtain it from an existing instruction, you'd correctly reference the necessary register.

[pisek]

Could anyone of you guy take a look at what is wrong with the build?
Error: Input required and not supplied: gpg_private_key
I am not sure what to do with it...

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

Try rebasing off dev branch (or merge dev and accept dev branch for the conflicts)

[oSumAtrIX]

The GPG key is necessary for the publication tasks; this is not relevant in the build task:

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

Could anyone of you guy take a look at what is wrong with the build? Error: Input required and not supplied: gpg_private_key I am not sure what to do with it...

The error is only on your GitHub branch because you don't have a publishing key setup to create GitHub releases. You can ignore the error.

This PR branch is building locally for me without any issues.

[pisek]

Ok, so as I understand, it is ready to be merged :)

[oSumAtrIX]

@pisek The parameter seems still to be hardcoded

[welcome]

Thank you for contributing to ReVanced. Join us on Discord to receive a role for your contribution.