fix: avoid activating a window that was/is being destroyed

[mmstick]

@masip85 Check if this fixes the issue

Closes #1572

[jacobgkau]

Regression testing passed: shell-pr1537-jammy.txt

[Arcitec]

@mmstick Hi, just checking if there's a typo in this part of the patch:

    actor_exists(): boolean {
        return this.meta.get_compositor_private() !== null || this.destroying;
    }

So this thing says that the actor exists "if the actor has a non-null compositor assignment, or if it LACKS a compositor assignment BUT the actor window is currently being destroyed".

Is that intentional? Or should it have said the following instead:

    actor_exists(): boolean {
        // compositor exists and window is not currently in the process of being destroyed
        return this.meta.get_compositor_private() !== null && !this.destroying;
    }

Logically the latter seems to make more sense, at a glance. But there could be some reason for the "weird" logic that I'm totally missing!

[mmstick]

Yeah, should be !destroying.

[Arcitec]

@mmstick Sweet, I see that the fix has been committed:

a08804d#diff-9e13cab61f6b4bbb06ef29422f0dc0251bcdfd15a9f139008b491f7d1a78e981R129-R131

I'm just curious about one thing to make sure: Is it proper to treat a window actor as "existing" even if it lacks a compositor? The || confuses me, since I had thought && might make more sense there?

But I suppose that an actor can exist, not be in a destructing state, and not be assigned to any compositor, but still be a valid actor? In that case, yeah the final || makes sense there. :) 👍