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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refactor to ComposeLifecycleOwner for Better Lifecycle Synchronization #1234
Refactor to ComposeLifecycleOwner for Better Lifecycle Synchronization #1234
Changes from all commits
bf97796
0b62bcc
00b3e2c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One behavior change this introduces that we might not want is that it will destroy the child lifecycle before sending a new one, if the parent lifecycle instance changes. I don't think the parent instance should ever change though, unless
movableContentOf
is used or something, so it's probably not gonna be an issue immediately.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Interesting, i guess that means we can just not key off parent lifecycle on the remember call
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I made the update to ensure this behavior didn't change since i'd hope it would work with
movableContentOf
& wrote a test for it tooThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm guessing you didn't push that yet? It doesn't look changed to me. This should push this code to be even more similar to the View one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah i removed
parentLifecycle
from the remember key. check out: https://github.com/square/workflow-kotlin/pull/1234/files#diff-be84e80fcb3d58b96b21bf4311c0bcdc15c6f2d0d90b6628ce1f220bd012301eR76it will retain the same instance of
LifecycleOwner
regardless of parent lifecycle changing.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, that's also incorrect because if the parent changes then we'll be syncing to the wrong one. You need to add some code so the remember function can update the
parentLifecycle
on this new class, and make sure we remove/add observers correctly when that happens (without necessarily destroying the child).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i think i got what you mean now: 953e2ab