"Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'update' of null" when calling set in an event after destroy

[btakita]

This manifests when using an evented object that has a listener that destroys the Component & a subsequent listener that sets a value on the Component.

https://svelte.technology/repl?version=1.27.0&gist=16c53dce350c0a67c6bb1ff8db61ab88

[snuggs]

@btakita what should the intended behaviour be? And what's up man lol.

[Rich-Harris]

Would a dev mode error like this solve the problem?

You cannot call .set(...) on a component that has been destroyed

[btakita]

I'd rather it not throw an error.

Right now, I shimmed a method that checks to see if the component is "active" before calling set.

export function set__svelte(C, ...rest) {
  return C._fragment ? C.set(...rest) : C
}
export const set = set__svelte

[Rich-Harris]

What's the situation in which set is being called after destroy? Just wondering if there's a different way of getting at this, without adding a this._destroyed check for each set call (which certainly isn't the worst thing in the world, but good to avoid it if it's masking a separate problem)

[btakita]

It's difficult to avoid this issue using events that are ordered by definition, as previously defined events may triggers destroy before a later defined event triggers set.

Here are three areas where the logic could be handled:

• Event handler ordering - imposes difficult & otherwise unnecessary constraints on the programmer
• Guard clause in the event handler - Which is what I'm doing right now. It creates an otherwise unnecessary helper function, though it's relatively painless & could be a useful "seam" later on
• console.warn
• this._destroyed guard clause in svelte

I'm ok with console.warn, even though it would still encourage me to have a helper function. Letting it throw an error would require debugging for somebody unfamiliar with the problem. Maybe put a link to this ticket, or a section in the Readme to resolve?

I would slightly prefer the this._destroyed guard but now that there's a helper function, it's not that big of a deal.

[TehShrike]

I debounce some method calls to the next animation frame, and in those methods I've been forced to check for this._destroyed before continuing.

[Rich-Harris]

@TehShrike @btakita #755 fixes this by replacing the set and destroy methods with noop when you first call destroy. Does that seem like a good solution? I ask because of this...

I've been forced to check for this._destroyed before continuing

...which will no longer be possible, because (I think) there's no longer a need for the _destroyed flag.

[TehShrike]

that sounds like the perfect solution.

Could all user-defined methods also be replaced with noop on destroy?