GDBusConnection recently changed to dispatching its GDestroyNotify calls
from an idle instead of on-the-spot. Under the previous regime, we
would destroy-notify the action group export of a GtkApplicationWindow
at the point it was removed from the application (ie: slightly before
being disposed).
With the destroy notify now deferred to an idle, the window has already
been disposed, so the signal handlers have already been disconnected.
Avoid the problem by dropping our use of signal IDs and just do
g_signal_handlers_disconnect_by_func(), which doesn't complain if there
is no connection.
This was causing the following critical when running bloatpad twice:
GLib-CRITICAL **: g_hash_table_insert_internal: assertion `hash_table != NULL' failed
Clean up the docs for GApplication and related classes.
I'm no longer writing documentation for the structure type of classes
and interfaces. See https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=665926
for discussin on the correct way forward on this point.
Also: stop putting gtk-doc comments in installed headers.
Have one simple _get() API that returns the group immediately, in an
empty state. The group is initialised on the first attempt to interact
with it.
Leave a secret 'back door' for GApplication to do a blocking
initialisation.
GDBusConnection now dispatches GDestroyNotify calls back to the
mainloop. Adding an idle to the mainloop is O(n) in the number of idles
already there. We therefore need to periodically empty the mainloop to
avoid quadratic behaviour with a very large 'n'.
Exporting can only be done relative to a particular given main context
and all interaction with the action group must be on that same context.
Fix up the implementation so that the user can specify that context with
the normal (thread default) mechanism and document the limitation on the
API.
Adjust the testcase to adhere to the documentation limitations. It
passes now.
Sometimes randa and randb end up having the same state, causing them to
return the same stream of 'random numbers'. This is a problem for the
testcase that is looping to find unequal menus.
If we find ourselves in this state, throw one of the random generators
away and recreate it so we have a better chance of getting some unequal
menus.
