hey @EddyVerbruggen -- I might be missing something but I don't think the proposed addition changes the logic of the conditional statement. If actionId was IME_ACTION_UNSPECIFIED the conditional would have been truthy because of the 2nd row in the statement so if we progressed till the end we already know it is not IME_ACTION_UNSPECIFIED and we do not need to check for it explicitly:

            if (actionId === android.view.inputmethod.EditorInfo.IME_NULL ||
                actionId === android.view.inputmethod.EditorInfo.IME_ACTION_UNSPECIFIED ||
                actionId === android.view.inputmethod.EditorInfo.IME_ACTION_DONE ||
                actionId === android.view.inputmethod.EditorInfo.IME_ACTION_GO ||
                actionId === android.view.inputmethod.EditorInfo.IME_ACTION_SEARCH ||
                actionId === android.view.inputmethod.EditorInfo.IME_ACTION_SEND ||
                (actionId !== android.view.inputmethod.EditorInfo.IME_ACTION_UNSPECIFIED && event && event.getKeyCode() === android.view.KeyEvent.KEYCODE_ENTER)) {
                // If it is TextField, close the keyboard. If it is TextView, do not close it since the TextView is multiline
                // https://github.com/NativeScript/NativeScript/issues/3111
                if (textView.getMaxLines() === 1) {
                    owner.dismissSoftInput();
                }

                owner._onReturnPress();
            }

@manoldonev That's a very valid point. I tested this change with the 3.4 version of code modules where the actionId === android.view.inputmethod.EditorInfo.IME_NULL || actionId === android.view.inputmethod.EditorInfo.IME_ACTION_UNSPECIFIED || lines weren't present (both those static properties resolve to 0 btw) so that worked as expected. In the 4.0 branch this change doesn't make sense anymore as you pointed out.

@manoldonev I wonder why we need those first 2 lines anyway, because there doesn't seem to be a returnPress event being fired on a TextView anyway.

I mean, this is the implementation on TextField, and there's no implemenation on TextView, and the superclass implementation is empty.

So I think we could remove those 2 lines from the if statement and this will work. Thoughts?

@EddyVerbruggen @hshristov added those lines to fix #5121 (new lines with Japanese IME).

I wonder now whether we can remove the IME_ACTION_GO, IME_ACTION_SEARCH, and IME_ACTION_SEND explicit checks as it seems each of them gets a complementary IME_ACTION_UNSPECIFIED that we will handle -- have to check this.

New PR proposal for this issue here: #5727