As per the previous change, an object that had weak locations set may
need to lock again the weak locations mutex during qdata cleanup, but
we can avoid this when we know we're removing the last location, by
removing the qdata entry and freeing the data.
In case a new location is needed for the same object, new data will be
added.
However, by doing this the weak locations during dispose may be
invalidated once the weak locations lock is passed, so check again if
this is the case while removing them.
It can happen that a GWeakRef is added to an object while it's disposing
(or even during finalizing) and this may happen in a thread that (weak)
references an object while the disposal isn't completed yet or when
using toggle references and switching to GWeakRef on notification (as
the API suggests).
In such scenario the weak locations are not cleaned up when the object
is finalized, and will point to a free'd area.
So, during finalization and when we're sure that the object will be
destroyed for sure, check again if there are new weak locations and
unset them if any as part of the qdata destruction.
Do this adding a new utility function so that we can avoid duplicating
code to free the weak locations.
Added various tests simulating this case.
Fixes: #2390
Instead of calling xterm when it clearly does not exist and causes a silent error,
inform the user that the launch failed so they can take the right action.
If the first power-profile installed test fails (for example, because
xdg-desktop-portal isn’t available), correctly tear down the dbusmock
object, or it will cause setUp() to fail when the next test in the suite
is run.
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <pwithnall@endlessos.org>
Helps: #2481
When first creating the monitor, correctly set its property value to the
value from the portal, rather than waiting for the portal value to
change to set it.
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <pwithnall@endlessos.org>
Fixes: #2481
We were lucky that this worked in some cases (the test is racy), but we
should actually run the condition check each loop, rather than when the
function is called.
Spotted by Martin Pitt:
96a8c02d24 (r54773831)
The previous test was racy: it assumed that not all queued thread pool
jobs would start to be executed before `g_thread_pool_free()` was
called, whereas actually on some systems (particularly BSD ones), they
would all start (or even finish) being executed, and hence the free
function might never be called.
Rewrite the test to:
• Synchronise the test function and worker thread functions more
closely.
• Not bother about ordering the shared and exclusive variants of the
test differently. That seems to be a hangover from another test
above.
• Limit the number of worker threads to 1, rather than 2, since this
makes the test easier to control.
This has been tested with `--repeat 10000` on Linux, and it succeeds all
of those runs whereas previously it failed quite reliably.
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <pwithnall@endlessos.org>
Fixes: #2456
