Skip to content

fix: Desktop wallet bugs#2968

Open
Blazebrain wants to merge 7 commits intonew-designfrom
desktop-wallet-issues
Open

fix: Desktop wallet bugs#2968
Blazebrain wants to merge 7 commits intonew-designfrom
desktop-wallet-issues

Conversation

@Blazebrain
Copy link
Contributor

  • repeated wallets post migration
  • newly created wallets not showing up
  • extra large components on desktop, needed maxwidth

Issue Number (if Applicable): Fixes #

Description

Please include a summary of the changes and which issue is fixed / feature is added.

Pull Request - Checklist

  • Initial Manual Tests Passed
  • Double check modified code and verify it with the feature/task requirements
  • Format code
  • Look for code duplication
  • Clear naming for variables and methods
  • Manual tests in accessibility mode (TalkBack on Android) passed

- repeated wallets post migration
- newly created wallets not showing up
- extra large components on desktop, needed maxwidth
@Blazebrain Blazebrain self-assigned this Feb 25, 2026
@MrCyjaneK MrCyjaneK mentioned this pull request Feb 25, 2026
6 tasks
Copy link
Contributor

@OmarHatem28 OmarHatem28 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I merged Czarek's PR, it handles the duplicate wallets with a better approach, so please remove the workaround for it.
everything else looks good

@Blazebrain Blazebrain requested a review from OmarHatem28 March 4, 2026 06:09
bool _needsUpdate = false;

@action
Future<void> updateList() async {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe use mutex here instead of recursively calling itself? Something may await it in future/now, and this flow is confusing when we consider function signature.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, that's a better approach

I've switched it to a Future based mutex, so each caller would wait for the previous update call to finish, and then runs, removing the recursion.

@Blazebrain Blazebrain requested a review from MrCyjaneK March 5, 2026 05:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants