store: Ensure sole ownership of MessageListView#1340
Merged
gnprice merged 4 commits intozulip:mainfrom Feb 13, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #1358.
PerAccountStore shouldn't be an owner of the MessageListView elements.
Its relationship to MessageListView is similar to that of AutocompleteViewManager to MentionAutocompleteView (#645).
With two owners, the MessageListView can be disposed twice:
before the frame is rendered,
removeAccountdisposes thePerAccountStoreWidget, which disposes theMessageListView;_MessageListStateis not yet disposed;during build, because
storeis set tonull,PerAccountStoreWidgetgets rebuilt._MessageListState, a descendent of it, is no longer in the render tree;during finalization,
_MessageListStatetries to dispose theMessageListView.This removes regression tests added for #810, because
MessageStoreImpl.disposeno longer exists.MessageListViewdoes not get disposed unless there is a_MessageListStateowner.For reproduction, I created a testing branch with #1183 stacked on top of this, but has the fix reverted:
MessageListPageYou should see the following error:
CZO discussion