Issue 9508

[bridiver]

Submitter Checklist:

• Submitted a ticket for my issue if one did not already exist.
• Used Github auto-closing keywords in the commit message.
• Added/updated tests for this change (for new code or code which already has tests).
• Ran git rebase -i to squash commits (if needed).
• Tagged reviewers and labelled the pull request as needed.

Test Plan:

Reviewer Checklist:

Tests

• Adequate test coverage exists to prevent regressions
• Tests should be independent and work correctly when run individually or as a suite ref
• New files have MPL2 license header

[NejcZdovc]

Is this something that we need to pull in 0.17 or is it ok to land in 0.19?

[bsclifton]

@bridiver have you manually tested this? or rather, do you have some recommended steps to test? As a reviewer, I want to make sure tab is set and that IsDestroyed() exists / is safe to call. Otherwise, changes look great 😄

[bridiver]

well, I saw this happen and changed the code, but it's not easy to repro. It definitely doesn't break anything

[bsclifton]

Per comments from @bridiver, ++

[bsclifton]

Moving to 0.18.x after noticing this patch has dependencies

[bridiver]

there are no dependencies

[bsclifton]

I pulled c1effd9 into 0.17.x after experiencing the null frame issue:

[luixxiul]

Is it acceptable for 0.17 series then :-?