[BUGFIX] Fix willDestroy on class helpers
#18837
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Can you update this to |
rwjblue
reviewed
Mar 25, 2020
Class based helpers were having `willDestroy` be called twice, once by the Glimmer VM's built-in destroyables implementation, and once scheduled by `destroy` (which is the correct destruction). This is because we were registering the class itself directly as the destroyable, and Glimmer VM detected the `willDestroy` function on it and called it eagerly. This fix creates an intermediate destructor object with a `destroy()` hook, but long term we need to finish the refactors to destroyables in the VM and make it so these types of collisions can't happen again. Added a basic lifecycle test for helpers to prevent this specific issue from reoccuring.
pzuraq
force-pushed
the
bugfix/fix-will-destroy-on-helpers
branch
from
de1d1b5 to
ed1f64b
Compare
rwjblue
approved these changes
Mar 26, 2020
rwjblue
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 26, 2020
Class based helpers were having `willDestroy` be called twice, once by the Glimmer VM's built-in destroyables implementation, and once scheduled by `destroy` (which is the correct destruction). This is because we were registering the class itself directly as the destroyable, and Glimmer VM detected the `willDestroy` function on it and called it eagerly. This fix creates an intermediate destructor object with a `destroy()` hook, but long term we need to finish the refactors to destroyables in the VM and make it so these types of collisions can't happen again. Added a basic lifecycle test for helpers to prevent this specific issue from reoccuring. (cherry picked from commit ed1f64b)
rwjblue
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 26, 2020
Class based helpers were having `willDestroy` be called twice, once by the Glimmer VM's built-in destroyables implementation, and once scheduled by `destroy` (which is the correct destruction). This is because we were registering the class itself directly as the destroyable, and Glimmer VM detected the `willDestroy` function on it and called it eagerly. This fix creates an intermediate destructor object with a `destroy()` hook, but long term we need to finish the refactors to destroyables in the VM and make it so these types of collisions can't happen again. Added a basic lifecycle test for helpers to prevent this specific issue from reoccuring. (cherry picked from commit ed1f64b)
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.
Class based helpers were having
willDestroybe called twice, once bythe Glimmer VM's built-in destroyables implementation, and once
scheduled by
destroy(which is the correct destruction). This isbecause we were registering the class itself directly as the
destroyable, and Glimmer VM detected the
willDestroyfunction on itand called it eagerly.
This fix creates an intermediate destructor object with a
destroy()hook, but long term we need to finish the refactors to destroyables in
the VM and make it so these types of collisions can't happen again.
Added a basic lifecycle test for helpers to prevent this specific issue
from reoccuring.
Fixes #18830