A second, new Query observer should be notified immediately.
Description
When a second (or greater) observer is added to a Query, that observer should be treated exactly as is the first observer: It should, immediately, receive the results of running the query.
I am not positive that the code doesn't do this. It may. If it does, by all means, just close this ticket.
I am labeling this as critical, because moving to LiteCore QueryObservers will cause current dev-tests to fail, on all platforms. We can comment them out / @Ignore them so it is not actually blocking implementation...
Build couchbase-lite-net-3.1.0-17 contains couchbase-lite-core commit 0ea7325 with commit message: : Notify the second+ observers the current result (#1277)
CB robot October 29, 2021 at 9:52 PM
Build couchbase-lite-java-3.1.0-28 contains couchbase-lite-core commit 0ea7325 with commit message: : Notify the second+ observers the current result (#1277)
CB robot October 29, 2021 at 9:50 PM
Build couchbase-lite-android-3.1.0-31 contains couchbase-lite-core commit 0ea7325 with commit message: : Notify the second+ observers the current result (#1277)
CB robot October 29, 2021 at 7:36 PM
Build couchbase-lite-c-3.1.0-45 contains couchbase-lite-core commit 0ea7325 with commit message: : Notify the second+ observers the current result (#1277)
CB robot October 27, 2021 at 2:40 PM
Build couchbase-lite-ios-3.1.0-44 contains couchbase-lite-core commit 0ea7325 with commit message: : Notify the second+ observers the current result (#1277)
Fixed
Pinned fields
Click on the next to a field label to start pinning.
When a second (or greater) observer is added to a Query, that observer should be treated exactly as is the first observer: It should, immediately, receive the results of running the query.
I am not positive that the code doesn't do this. It may. If it does, by all means, just close this ticket.
I am labeling this as critical, because moving to LiteCore QueryObservers will cause current dev-tests to fail, on all platforms. We can comment them out / @Ignore them so it is not actually blocking implementation...