A scrolling widget such as a `ScrollView` should not contain any nested scrolling widgets since this has various usability issues

A scrolling widget such as a `ScrollView` should not contain any nested scrolling widgets since this has various usability issues

A scrolling widget such as a `ScrollView` should not contain any nested scrolling widgets since this has various usability issues

A scrolling widget such as a `ScrollView` should not contain any nested scrolling widgets since this has various usability issues

A scrolling widget such as a `ScrollView` should not contain any nested scrolling widgets since this has various usability issues

A scrolling widget such as a `ScrollView` should not contain any nested scrolling widgets since this has various usability issues

A scrolling widget such as a `ScrollView` should not contain any nested scrolling widgets since this has various usability issues

A scrolling widget such as a `ScrollView` should not contain any nested scrolling widgets since this has various usability issues

A scrolling widget such as a `ScrollView` should not contain any nested scrolling widgets since this has various usability issues

ScrollView children must set their `layout_width` or `layout_height` attributes to `wrap_content` rather than `fill_parent` or `match_parent` in the scrolling dimension

ScrollView children must set their `layout_width` or `layout_height` attributes to `wrap_content` rather than `fill_parent` or `match_parent` in the scrolling dimension

ScrollView children must set their `layout_width` or `layout_height` attributes to `wrap_content` rather than `fill_parent` or `match_parent` in the scrolling dimension

ScrollView children must set their `layout_width` or `layout_height` attributes to `wrap_content` rather than `fill_parent` or `match_parent` in the scrolling dimension

Using a `<TextView>` to input text is generally an error, you should be using `<EditText>` instead.  `EditText` is a subclass of `TextView`, and some of the editing support is provided by `TextView`, so it's possible to set some input-related properties on a `TextView`. However, using a `TextView` along with input attributes is usually a cut & paste error. To input text you should be using `<EditText>`.

This check also checks subclasses of `TextView`, such as `Button` and `CheckBox`, since these have the same issue: they should not be used with editable attributes.

This lint check looks for cases where you have cut & pasted calls to `findViewById` but have forgotten to update the R.id field. It's possible that your code is simply (redundantly) looking up the field repeatedly, but lint cannot distinguish that from a case where you for example want to initialize fields `prev` and `next` and you cut & pasted `findViewById(R.id.prev)` and forgot to update the second initialization to `R.id.next`.

This lint check looks for cases where you have cut & pasted calls to `findViewById` but have forgotten to update the R.id field. It's possible that your code is simply (redundantly) looking up the field repeatedly, but lint cannot distinguish that from a case where you for example want to initialize fields `prev` and `next` and you cut & pasted `findViewById(R.id.prev)` and forgot to update the second initialization to `R.id.next`.

This lint check looks for cases where you have cut & pasted calls to `findViewById` but have forgotten to update the R.id field. It's possible that your code is simply (redundantly) looking up the field repeatedly, but lint cannot distinguish that from a case where you for example want to initialize fields `prev` and `next` and you cut & pasted `findViewById(R.id.prev)` and forgot to update the second initialization to `R.id.next`.

This lint check looks for cases where you have cut & pasted calls to `findViewById` but have forgotten to update the R.id field. It's possible that your code is simply (redundantly) looking up the field repeatedly, but lint cannot distinguish that from a case where you for example want to initialize fields `prev` and `next` and you cut & pasted `findViewById(R.id.prev)` and forgot to update the second initialization to `R.id.next`.

This lint check looks for cases where you have cut & pasted calls to `findViewById` but have forgotten to update the R.id field. It's possible that your code is simply (redundantly) looking up the field repeatedly, but lint cannot distinguish that from a case where you for example want to initialize fields `prev` and `next` and you cut & pasted `findViewById(R.id.prev)` and forgot to update the second initialization to `R.id.next`.

This lint check looks for cases where you have cut & pasted calls to `findViewById` but have forgotten to update the R.id field. It's possible that your code is simply (redundantly) looking up the field repeatedly, but lint cannot distinguish that from a case where you for example want to initialize fields `prev` and `next` and you cut & pasted `findViewById(R.id.prev)` and forgot to update the second initialization to `R.id.next`.

This lint check looks for cases where you have cut & pasted calls to `findViewById` but have forgotten to update the R.id field. It's possible that your code is simply (redundantly) looking up the field repeatedly, but lint cannot distinguish that from a case where you for example want to initialize fields `prev` and `next` and you cut & pasted `findViewById(R.id.prev)` and forgot to update the second initialization to `R.id.next`.

This lint check looks for cases where you have cut & pasted calls to `findViewById` but have forgotten to update the R.id field. It's possible that your code is simply (redundantly) looking up the field repeatedly, but lint cannot distinguish that from a case where you for example want to initialize fields `prev` and `next` and you cut & pasted `findViewById(R.id.prev)` and forgot to update the second initialization to `R.id.next`.

This lint check looks for cases where you have cut & pasted calls to `findViewById` but have forgotten to update the R.id field. It's possible that your code is simply (redundantly) looking up the field repeatedly, but lint cannot distinguish that from a case where you for example want to initialize fields `prev` and `next` and you cut & pasted `findViewById(R.id.prev)` and forgot to update the second initialization to `R.id.next`.

This lint check looks for cases where you have cut & pasted calls to `findViewById` but have forgotten to update the R.id field. It's possible that your code is simply (redundantly) looking up the field repeatedly, but lint cannot distinguish that from a case where you for example want to initialize fields `prev` and `next` and you cut & pasted `findViewById(R.id.prev)` and forgot to update the second initialization to `R.id.next`.

This lint check looks for cases where you have cut & pasted calls to `findViewById` but have forgotten to update the R.id field. It's possible that your code is simply (redundantly) looking up the field repeatedly, but lint cannot distinguish that from a case where you for example want to initialize fields `prev` and `next` and you cut & pasted `findViewById(R.id.prev)` and forgot to update the second initialization to `R.id.next`.