Skip to content
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

fix #480, use scheduleOnce instead of run #481

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 2, 2017

Conversation

olivierchatry
Copy link
Contributor

@olivierchatry olivierchatry commented Feb 2, 2017

Description

Use scheduleOnce instead of firing as soon as we receive a value change message. Had to set ember-data to 2.10 for test to pass. This avoid entering in a long loop that make ember think we are infinite looping.

@googlebot
Copy link

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request), but were unable to find agreements for the commit author(s). If you authored these, maybe you used a different email address in the git commits than was used to sign the CLA (login here to double check)? If these were authored by someone else, then they will need to sign a CLA as well, and confirm that they're okay with these being contributed to Google.

1 similar comment
@googlebot
Copy link

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request), but were unable to find agreements for the commit author(s). If you authored these, maybe you used a different email address in the git commits than was used to sign the CLA (login here to double check)? If these were authored by someone else, then they will need to sign a CLA as well, and confirm that they're okay with these being contributed to Google.

@googlebot
Copy link

CLAs look good, thanks!

1 similar comment
@googlebot
Copy link

CLAs look good, thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

@jamesdaniels jamesdaniels left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@jamesdaniels jamesdaniels merged commit f9077c8 into FirebaseExtended:master Feb 2, 2017
@tsubik
Copy link
Contributor

tsubik commented Apr 10, 2017

@olivierchatry looks like this PR has introduced regression with acceptance tests, #484. scheduleOnce relies on run loop autorun which is disabled in testing environment. We should find some other way to fix original issue cc @jamesdaniels

@olivierchatry
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yep, seems like it, I'm not sure what to do there. And also, seems like emberfire is slowly dying :/

@olivierchatry
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tsubik
Copy link
Contributor

tsubik commented Apr 10, 2017

Wrapping in Ember.run could be a way, as normally if there is no open run loop it would create one, but does it resolve the original problem with Ember data. I would have to reproduce this problem.

@olivierchatry
Copy link
Contributor Author

olivierchatry commented Apr 10, 2017 via email

@tsubik
Copy link
Contributor

tsubik commented Apr 12, 2017

@olivierchatry do you have some repo to reproduce the original problem with infinite loop? I tried to reproduce that on my side project but without success.

@olivierchatry
Copy link
Contributor Author

olivierchatry commented Apr 12, 2017 via email

@tsubik
Copy link
Contributor

tsubik commented Apr 13, 2017

@olivierchatry I'm not an expert in run loop. I had to refresh my memory about it as I'm no longer working in Ember full-time :/, but I think just one scheduleOnce action does not make sense with Ember.run wrap. It should work the same way as just wrapping resolve, reject in simple Ember.run, which means simple revert of this PR will suffice. That's why I was asking about the repo to reproduce the original problem because I could be wrong :P. And yes, either wrap or revert to previous code solves problems with acceptance testing.

@olivierchatry
Copy link
Contributor Author

olivierchatry commented Apr 13, 2017 via email

@tsubik
Copy link
Contributor

tsubik commented Apr 13, 2017

Thanks @olivierchatry 👍

@olivierchatry
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yeah I was not able to reproduce the bug, but I did not try that hard either. Anyway, we can probably revert this PR if it a bother for a lot of people ( even if I think it is better to not fire up immediately the change ) .

@olivierchatry
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jamesdaniels anyway you can do that ? and also maybe release a new version ?

@tsubik
Copy link
Contributor

tsubik commented Apr 13, 2017

I've added PR for that :)

@jamesdaniels
Copy link
Contributor

@olivierchatry done.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants