Bugzilla

 [:jonalmeida] sure. We were updated how doWork() calls async funcs based on the doc in Worker.doWork() 
> This method is called on a background thread - you are required to synchronously do your work and return the ListenableWorker.Result from this method.

 [:jonalmeida] sure. We updated how the MessageNotificationWorker doWork() calls async funcs based on the doc in Worker.doWork() 
> This method is called on a background thread - you are required to synchronously do your work and return the ListenableWorker.Result from this method.

 [:jonalmeida] sure. We updated how the MessageNotificationWorker doWork() calls async funcs based on the doc in Worker.doWork() 
> This method is called on a background thread - you are required to synchronously do your work and return the ListenableWorker.Result from this method.
There were multiple causes to the original intermittent failure of the notification being triggered - it's possible our use of IO scope was one of them

 [:jonalmeida] sure. We updated how the MessageNotificationWorker doWork() calls async funcs based on the doc in Worker.doWork() 
> This method is called on a background thread - you are required to synchronously do your work and return the ListenableWorker.Result from this method.


There were multiple causes to the original intermittent failure of the notification being triggered - it's possible our use of IO scope was one of them

 [:jonalmeida] sure. We updated how the MessageNotificationWorker doWork() calls async funcs based on the doc in Worker.doWork() 
> This method is called on a background thread - you are required to synchronously do your work and return the ListenableWorker.Result from this method.


There were multiple causes to the original intermittent failure of the notification being triggered - Although not explicitly tested in isolation, it's possible our use of IO scope was one of them.