Error executing vim.schedule lua callback

[Shatur]

After 0d02acf I have the following errors:

|| Error executing vim.schedule lua callback: ...ins/start/nvim-notify/lua/notify/service/buffer/init.lua:75: Invalid buffer id: 3
|| stack traceback:
|| 	[C]: in function 'nvim_buf_delete'
|| 	...ins/start/nvim-notify/lua/notify/service/buffer/init.lua:75: in function <...ins/start/nvim-notify/lua/notify/service/buffer/init.lua:68>
|| Error executing vim.schedule lua callback: ...ins/start/nvim-notify/lua/notify/service/buffer/init.lua:75: Invalid buffer id: 2
|| stack traceback:
|| 	[C]: in function 'nvim_buf_delete'
|| 	...ins/start/nvim-notify/lua/notify/service/buffer/init.lua:75: in function <...ins/start/nvim-notify/lua/notify/service/buffer/init.lua:68>

I use a plugin that closes all currently opened buffers and sources session: https://github.com/Shatur/neovim-session-manager
And if on startup I have some notifications - they will be removed with the error above because of this line:

nvim-notify/lua/notify/service/buffer/init.lua

Line 75 in 486d6ad

api.nvim_buf_delete(self._buffer, { force = true })

Could you use nvim_buf_is_valid before calling this to ensure that other plugins or user didn't touch the buffer?

[rcarriga]

Wrapped it in pcall so should work fine now 😄

[Shatur]

It's a bad idea. I would highly recommend you to use nvim_buf_is_valid.

[rcarriga]

Why is it a bad idea?

[Shatur]

Because it's slower and nvim_buf_is_valid was designed exactly for this case.

[rcarriga]

it's slower

For something that is run occasionally I don't think that is at all a concern
I'd rather just have the single line of code instead of a conditional

[Shatur]

For something that is run occasionally I don't think that is at all a concern

In my case it slowdowns my startup if I have any notification.

I'd rather just have the single line of code instead of a conditional

As to me passing a function into a function is less clear that a regular check, especially if this check is used to prevent specific kind of error you trying to avoid.

But as you say.