Attempt to fix match leaks #110
Open
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
Attempts to correct logic to intended behaviour. That is, check existing property `match` on `this._matchRules` instead of `this._matchRules` on `match`.
|
Bump :) Any feedback? |
|
Bump! |
This was referenced Jun 5, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hello,
I got notices of "matches" accumulating while using another library [1] using this library for dbus communication. Traced it until
MessageBus._addMatch/MessageBus._removeMatchwhich seems to get called properly. However, the dbus messagesAddMatchandRemoveMatchdoes not. That is, I could not observe aRemoveMatchmessage for everyAddMatchmessage.This PR attempts to correct the property check on the counter. Should be the same as
this._matchRules.hasOwnProperty(match)as far as I can see.For my test case the proper
RemoveMatchmessages get sent as well after this change.I didn't have a deeper look at the logic. If not the proper solution, maybe it can serve as a description of the issue :)
[1] chrvadala/node-ble#36