API 101 is needed with LSPosed

[yashasvi9199]

Error logs
pluginName='MainFeatures[Critical]'
moduleVersion='1.5.3-DEV (75094D8)'
whatsAppVersion='2.26.8.72'
Message=Bridge Failed: Enable System Framework in Lsposed and reboot device
error='[com.wmods.wppenhacer.xposed.core.WppCore.initBridge(WppCore.java:206), com.wmods.wppenhacer.xposed.core.WppCore.Initialize(WppCore.java:144), com.wmods.wppenhacer.xposed.core.FeatureLoader.initComponents(FeatureLoader.java:242), com.wmods.wppenhacer.xposed.core.FeatureLoader.-$$Nest$sminitComponents(FeatureLoader.java:0), com.wmods.wppenhacer.xposed.core.FeatureLoader$1.beforeHookedMethod(FeatureLoader.java:171), lmTNF.Vk.YmRhAsq.A.HiU.XC_MethodHook.callBeforeHookedMethod(r8-map-id-87f7ef7d5131f3f034ed0570c0cd4793bc323c8c9fd6d726ce3564ec3714766f:1), p.intercept(r8-map-id-87f7ef7d5131f3f034ed0570c0cd4793bc323c8c9fd6d726ce3564ec3714766f:33), i.proceed(r8-map-id-87f7ef7d5131f3f034ed0570c0cd4793bc323c8c9fd6d726ce3564ec3714766f:33), java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Native Method)]'

[Dev4Mod]

WAE is not compatible with API 101 and will not be ported.

[gavdoc38]

Is it definitely incompatible? I thought that LSPosed IT was only incompatible with modules that specifically targeted 100 (it simply disables them). But I thought that "legacy" modules that work with a lower API are fine. Certainly most of my modules are working fine (many quite old and definitely below 100) and WAE is working fine too. Though I am in lite mode and don't know if bridge mode requires 100?

[Dev4Mod]

It's not an incompatibility with the API itself; the issue is that I'm using the legacy LSPosed API, and it would be necessary to refactor all the code to switch to API 101. I don't see the need to do that.

[Dev4Mod]

But his error has nothing to do with the API; perhaps he's using Hide My App and hiding the app from WhatsApp.

[gavdoc38]

Yes, sorry, I'm in agreement with you. I meant that I didn't think this issue was API related because if the module was on API 100 then it would simply be disabled; thus I guessed it must target a lower API and so the problem is unrelated. Agree, I don't see any reason for a huge refactor when it's not needed 😊