Feat: Add UnifiedPush support by p1gp1g · Pull Request #16526 · nextcloud/android

p1gp1g · 2026-02-16T22:13:47Z

Following web push support in nextcloud/notifications, we can add UnifiedPush support to the Android application*, to get push notifications even without the Play Services.

The implementation follows this guide: https://unifiedpush.org/developers/ux/

During startup:
- The GPlay flavor (and the others) uses FCM by default
- The generic flavor uses UnifiedPush by default, and will use it if a distributor (= an application that can be used as a Push Service) is available
- With the generic flavor, if the user has many distributors and hasn't selected a default yet (nearly never the case - the default is a OS wide default), a dialog is shown to introduce the OS screen.
Settings:
- On the 2 flavors, if a distributor is available, you have a new setting that allows to enable/disable UnifiedPush
- If the user has many distributors (nearly never the case - but that means the user knows what UnifiedPush is!), a 2nd setting is offered, to change the distributor

This feature also gives the possibility to get Push Notifications with the Play Services, without the proxy (Nextcloud servers directly push to Google FCM servers), and without a proprietary library. So this is an accepted way to use FCM for application in F-Droid. => This is in a 2nd PR, already ready.

Fix #11898
Fix #5510
Fix #8684
Fix #3333 (with the 2nd PR)

* We could add it to the Linux app too, but I haven't, at least yet.

🖼️ Screenshots

Coming, I will update this description

🏚️ Before	🏡 After

🏁 Checklist

Tests written, or not not needed : I don't know what can be done

p1gp1g · 2026-02-16T22:15:11Z

And I'll start by fixing some conflicts 👍

p1gp1g · 2026-02-17T08:15:04Z

+    private fun appTypes(): List<String> = context.packageManager
+        .getLaunchIntentForPackage(APP_NEXTCLOUD_TALK)?.let {
+            listOf("all", "-talk")
+        } ?: listOf("all")


That is to get all notifications, except talk ones if talk is installed. But:

We can decide to never receive talk notifications (if a user wants talk notif, they probably use Talk app)

And it would be better to list the applications we want to receive notifications from

What about talk notifications? Is it expected that the talk app will independently handle unifiedpush notifications too?

I'm cleaning up the code to open the pull request

p1gp1g · 2026-02-18T09:30:29Z

+    @JvmStatic
+    fun registerCurrentPushConfiguration(activity: Activity, accountManager: UserAccountManager, preferences: AppPreferences) {
+        if (
+            (!preferences.isPushInitialized && BuildConfig.DEFAULT_PUSH_UNIFIEDPUSH)


Instead of using a BuildConfig, we could add a function isPlayServiceAvailable to PushUtils (Implemented per flavor, dedicated to FCM and proxy-push) to check if the Play Services are available.

That way, a user using the gplay flavor on a phone without the Play Services can use by default UnifiedPush.

But it introduces a bit more change, and it is a bit less readable. As you want

github-actions · 2026-03-03T02:12:58Z

Hello there,
Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to create a pull request to our Nextcloud project.

We hope that the review process is going smooth and is helpful for you. We want to ensure your pull request is reviewed to your satisfaction. If you have a moment, our community management team would very much appreciate your feedback on your experience with this PR review process.

Your feedback is valuable to us as we continuously strive to improve our community developer experience. Please take a moment to complete our short survey by clicking on the following link: https://cloud.nextcloud.com/apps/forms/s/i9Ago4EQRZ7TWxjfmeEpPkf6

Thank you for contributing to Nextcloud and we hope to hear from you soon!

(If you believe you should not receive this message, you can add yourself to the blocklist.)

alperozturk96 · 2026-07-02T09:32:40Z

Hi! Thanks for your contribution.

Could you please resolve conflict? Then we can review.

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

The capability doesn't have an accountName, and therefore doesn't update the user cache Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

…e message Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

…ilable Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

To catch easily when we do UnifiedPush or Common push tasks Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

… a distributor Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

…nregistration Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

p1gp1g · 2026-07-02T10:03:03Z

I'm doing it

p1gp1g · 2026-07-02T10:26:14Z

BTW, we need this PR too: nextcloud/android-library#1949

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

p1gp1g · 2026-07-02T12:53:47Z

The PR is rebased, and conflict free 👍

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

Fuseteam · 2026-07-03T12:23:49Z

hmmm github still complains about conflicts 🤔 or is the webui out of date?

alperozturk96 · 2026-07-08T06:23:48Z

    public String deviceIdentifierSignature;
    public String userPublicKey;
    public boolean shouldBeDeleted;
+    public boolean shouldBeDisabled = false;


Why do we need two boolean flag?

The first one, shouldBeDisabled informs the next push notification worker to disable (proxy) push (where disabled will be set to true)

the second one disabled when we have successfully disabled (proxy) push notifications

It works like with shouldBeDeleted:

shouldBeDeleted inform the next push notification worker to delete push notification data (where accountPushData will be wiped)

once deleted (accountPushData == null), it can't be used

alperozturk96 · 2026-07-08T06:25:45Z


-            if (remoteOperationResult.getHttpCode() == HttpStatus.SC_ACCEPTED) {
+            int status = remoteOperationResult.getHttpCode();
+            if (deleteLocalData && status == HttpStatus.SC_ACCEPTED) {


Why deleteLocalData needs to be true for UnregisterAccountDeviceForProxyOperation.

deleteLocalData may not be the best name. It describes "delete user public key, and unsubscribe from the proxy".

The idea is that we can unregister for proxy push notifications in 3 cases:

When we delete an account

When we disable proxy-push

When we hard-reset push subscriptions (and rotate encryption keys)

In the first and last case, we want either to wipe our current keys, and unregister on the proxy. In the 2nd case, that may simply be temporary, we don't need/want to unsubscribe

alperozturk96 · 2026-07-08T06:43:28Z

+            ){
+            tryUseUnifiedPush(activity, accountManager, preferences) {}
+        } else {
+            CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO).launch {


Please use lifecycle scope of passed activity.

I think it's better to not be tied to the activity lifecycle for that. Is it OK for you if I set a private val scope = CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO) like we have for FileUploadHelper ?

This function will be triggered with class TokenPushEvent Eventbus. And it is called from FileDisplayActivity.onStart.initFile and onRequestPermissionsResult.PermissionUtil.PERMISSIONS_EXTERNAL_STORAGE

Why it is not better to tied to the activity lifecycle?

FileUploadHelper.ioScope should also have cancellation function. We want to avoid this in new PRs.

This job makes a request that isn't made for its response (which would have been used for the UI), but to change the state on the server. We don't want the job to finish if the user changes the activity

Okay then so tied to the termination of the app?

Assign to a job current implementation and expose via cancel function then call cancel function termination of the app from MainApp.java

Internally add a mechanism to cancellation after n minutes and reassessing if its triggered.

What do you think?

I'm thinking about a scope that forces the job to be run in a timeout. I'm pushing something to show, let me know what you think about after that

Here it is: 3e31982 what do you think ?

alperozturk96 · 2026-07-08T06:46:59Z

+        accountManager: UserAccountManager,
+        account: OwnCloudAccount
+    ) {
+        CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO).launch {


Creates an unmanaged scope. Every call creates a new independent CoroutineScope that isn't tied to any lifecycle. If the Activity is destroyed or the operation should be cancelled, these coroutines keep running.

alperozturk96 · 2026-07-08T06:48:04Z

+    ) {
+        CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO).launch {
+            val jobs = accountManager.accounts.map { account ->
+                CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO).launch {


Nested scopes are unnecessary and also needs to be managed scope.

There is the jobs.joinAll() later, that's to avoid sending requests sequentially

If registerUnifiedPushForAccount throws for one account rest will be affected as well.

You can use supervisorScope and also please handle cancelation of the scope (CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO)).

Documentation supervisorScope

CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO).launch { supervisorScope { val jobs = accountManager.accounts.map { account -> launch { try { val ocAccount = OwnCloudAccount(account, context) val res = registerUnifiedPushForAccount(context, accountManager, ocAccount) if (res) { PushUtils.setRegistrationForAccountEnabled(account, false) } } catch (e: Exception) { Log_OC.e(TAG, "Failed to register push for ${account.name}", e) } } } jobs.joinAll() } proxyPushToken?.let { PushUtils.pushRegistrationToServer(accountManager, it) } }

Thanks. I'm pushing the change, and I'll use the scope within timeout

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

p1gp1g

Thanks for the review. I'm pushing a few commits.

I tried to answer some of your comments. Do you have a matrix account, or anywhere to communicate directly ? It will be easier to discuss a few points.

p1gp1g · 2026-07-08T14:05:22Z


-            if (remoteOperationResult.getHttpCode() == HttpStatus.SC_ACCEPTED) {
+            int status = remoteOperationResult.getHttpCode();
+            if (deleteLocalData && status == HttpStatus.SC_ACCEPTED) {


deleteLocalData may not be the best name. It describes "delete user public key, and unsubscribe from the proxy".

The idea is that we can unregister for proxy push notifications in 3 cases:

When we delete an account

When we disable proxy-push

When we hard-reset push subscriptions (and rotate encryption keys)

In the first and last case, we want either to wipe our current keys, and unregister on the proxy. In the 2nd case, that may simply be temporary, we don't need/want to unsubscribe

p1gp1g · 2026-07-08T14:45:38Z

    public String deviceIdentifierSignature;
    public String userPublicKey;
    public boolean shouldBeDeleted;
+    public boolean shouldBeDisabled = false;


The first one, shouldBeDisabled informs the next push notification worker to disable (proxy) push (where disabled will be set to true)

the second one disabled when we have successfully disabled (proxy) push notifications

It works like with shouldBeDeleted:

shouldBeDeleted inform the next push notification worker to delete push notification data (where accountPushData will be wiped)

once deleted (accountPushData == null), it can't be used

p1gp1g · 2026-07-08T14:56:41Z

+            ){
+            tryUseUnifiedPush(activity, accountManager, preferences) {}
+        } else {
+            CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO).launch {


I think it's better to not be tied to the activity lifecycle for that. Is it OK for you if I set a private val scope = CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO) like we have for FileUploadHelper ?

p1gp1g · 2026-07-08T14:59:11Z

+    ) {
+        CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO).launch {
+            val jobs = accountManager.accounts.map { account ->
+                CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO).launch {


There is the jobs.joinAll() later, that's to avoid sending requests sequentially

alperozturk96 · 2026-07-09T07:39:31Z

+    ) {
+        CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO).launch {
+            val jobs = accountManager.accounts.map { account ->
+                CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO).launch {


If registerUnifiedPushForAccount throws for one account rest will be affected as well.

You can use supervisorScope and also please handle cancelation of the scope (CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO)).

Documentation supervisorScope

CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO).launch { supervisorScope { val jobs = accountManager.accounts.map { account -> launch { try { val ocAccount = OwnCloudAccount(account, context) val res = registerUnifiedPushForAccount(context, accountManager, ocAccount) if (res) { PushUtils.setRegistrationForAccountEnabled(account, false) } } catch (e: Exception) { Log_OC.e(TAG, "Failed to register push for ${account.name}", e) } } } jobs.joinAll() } proxyPushToken?.let { PushUtils.pushRegistrationToServer(accountManager, it) } }

alperozturk96 · 2026-07-09T07:45:30Z

    fun startNotificationJob(subject: String, signature: String)
+    fun startDecryptedNotificationJob(accountName: String, message: String)
+
+    sealed class WebPushJobData() {


Please put WebPushJobData in owncloud/android/datamodel package.

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

AndyScherzinger requested review from alperozturk96 and tobiasKaminsky February 16, 2026 22:21

AndyScherzinger added 3. to review enhancement labels Feb 16, 2026

p1gp1g force-pushed the feat/unifiedpush branch 2 times, most recently from 5cf0a27 to 84bf56d Compare February 17, 2026 08:11

p1gp1g commented Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

This was referenced Feb 17, 2026

Draft: Add Push Notification with Play Service on generic flavor (full FLOSS) #16528

Open

Feat: Add Unifiedpush support nextcloud/talk-android#5883

Merged

p1gp1g changed the title ~~Feat/unifiedpush~~ Feat: Add UnifiedPush support Feb 18, 2026

p1gp1g commented Feb 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Sign in to view

github-actions Bot added the feedback-requested label Mar 3, 2026

p1gp1g added 10 commits July 2, 2026 11:43

chore(deps): Restrict jitpack content

3374962

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

chore: Fix capability update

c70655d

The capability doesn't have an accountName, and therefore doesn't update the user cache Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

chore(notif): Support delete-multiple use dedicated function to handl…

a4dc493

…e message Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Add UnifiedPush service

02e0c65

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Add settings to enable UnifiedPush

126f9bb

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Register web push and proxy push on startup

9bed2fe

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Unregister UnifiedPush/web push when needed

eb2a814

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Do not register for talk notif if installed

9c5e10a

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Allow selecting another distrib

e02820b

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Show UnifiedPush settings only if a service is ava…

2d6c8ed

…ilable Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

p1gp1g added 8 commits July 2, 2026 11:54

feat(unifiedpush): Clarify object and function names

622b06d

To catch easily when we do UnifiedPush or Common push tasks Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Fix preference when dismissed

244be55

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Show introduction dialog if the user needs to pick…

51f7d57

… a distributor Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Enable UnifiedPush by default for generic flavor

49d293e

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Use worker to process UnifiedPush events

447a785

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Fix dialog by running in the UI thread

116688e

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Show notification to ask user to open the app on u…

8489d3d

…nregistration Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

feat(unifiedpush): Fix missing nextcloud talk pkg name

68e6013

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

Update gradle-verification

8ac264a

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

p1gp1g force-pushed the feat/unifiedpush branch from 84bf56d to 8ac264a Compare July 2, 2026 11:45

Lint

03662fa

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

alperozturk96 requested changes Jul 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

p1gp1g added 2 commits July 8, 2026 16:28

Fix SPDX headers

630d3da

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

Use a single function to register/activate/unregister Web Push

8e52bc8

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

p1gp1g commented Jul 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

alperozturk96 requested changes Jul 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

p1gp1g added 5 commits July 9, 2026 11:27

Use when to clarify handlePushMessage

0296495

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

Move WebPushJobData to its own file

de4ff8c

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

Use push parallel jobs within superviserScope

0928c31

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

Use TimeoutScope to avoid resource leak

df811e5

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

Logs with Log_OC on push event

5960917

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

p1gp1g force-pushed the feat/unifiedpush branch from 1cef5e2 to 5960917 Compare July 9, 2026 09:27

Move Settings' push category to its own file

3eb072a

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

p1gp1g force-pushed the feat/unifiedpush branch from de05ddb to 3eb072a Compare July 9, 2026 09:33

Add function to get NextcloudClient

2f1feb2

Signed-off-by: sim <git@sgougeon.fr>

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

p1gp1g commented Feb 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🖼️ Screenshots

🏁 Checklist

Uh oh!

p1gp1g commented Feb 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

github-actions Bot commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

alperozturk96 commented Jul 2, 2026

Uh oh!

p1gp1g commented Jul 2, 2026

Uh oh!

p1gp1g commented Jul 2, 2026

Uh oh!

p1gp1g commented Jul 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Fuseteam commented Jul 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

p1gp1g left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

p1gp1g commented Feb 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading