refactor(Tag Tracking+): Improve loop edge cases, misc cleanup - #2385
Open
marcustyphoon wants to merge 5 commits into
Open
marcustyphoon wants to merge 5 commits into
marcustyphoon wants to merge 5 commits into
Conversation
marcustyphoon
commented
Sep 9, 2026
This reverts commit 2fce56060244b40bd76ec962ea6814d048e5c78e.
marcustyphoon
force-pushed
the
marcustyphoon/tag-tracking-misc-cleanup
branch
from
September 9, 2026 09:13
d642322 to
273785d
Compare
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description
Note: every change in this PR is included in/superseded by #2375. It only makes sense to review this if not imminently merging that one (which: extremely reasonable position)... or, in theory, to reduce the diff of that PR, but actually this implementation differs more from it than I hoped, so it doesn't really do that.
This:
onStorageChangedin Tag Tracking+, this doesn't happen on preference changes, so it only happens on manual feature disable; yes this is entirely pointless. There might be edge cases where this rewrite also improves loop timing consistency, as it no longer has a setInterval call that's up to 50 minutes in duration, but I can't think of a situation where the old code would actually misbehave. Putting the device to sleep? Nah, should be fine.Screenshots
n/a
Testing steps