Why is this a draft?

Do you want to (first) create a PR in pd-for-android that uses this commit?

Why is this a draft

First, I wanted we discuss and decide which way is better.

Also, I wanted to test some other additions, mainly getter and setter for buffersize, latency and xruns.
I'm almost done for the latter, so I'll finalize it and remove the Draft flag.

Then I'll prepare a PR for updating pd-for-android.

So I've added a getter for runtime info from the audio implementation. With Oboe, this can be used to detect xruns, or query the latency, for example for abl_link fine tuning purpose.

The PR for pd-for-android is ready (libpd/pd-for-android#173).

I think that's enough for me now, ready for review!

Looks good to me. The only detail I can think of is perhaps naming "inputDeviceId" / "outputDeviceId" without the "id" naming ala "inputDevice" but I assume this is a convention used by Oboe / Android and, if so, let's keep it.

yes, the naming in Oboe is deviceId, as in:

AudioStreamBuilder * oboe::AudioStreamBuilder::setDeviceId (int32_t deviceId)

(see https://google.github.io/oboe/classoboe_1_1_audio_stream_builder.html#a69c0a23e7ef57bced029ef2193cfe741)
and in Android Java we get the id with:

AudioDeviceInfo.getId(); // The internal device ID.

(see https://developer.android.com/reference/android/media/AudioDeviceInfo#getId())

Ping @joebowbeer

Re. naming, if the single parameter is an 'id' then the method name should be an 'id'

I don't see any red flags, so LGTM.

I do wish there were more automated checks in this repo: build everything incl. Java, lint, unit test, smoke test (e2e). That would give me more confidence as a reviewer. I also suggest protecting the master branch.

I do wish there were more automated checks in this repo: build everything incl. Java, lint, unit test, smoke test (e2e). That would give me more confidence as a reviewer. I also suggest protecting the master branch.

I am pretty behind with any CI stuff. Feel free to make a PR to the yaml.