Check scope active for awaiting player

[brocollie08]

Change Type (required)

Indicate the type of change your pull request is:

• patch
• minor
• major
• N/A

Does your PR have any documentation updates?

• Updated docs
• No Update needed
• Unable to update docs

📦 Published PR as canary version: 0.10.2--canary.578.19394

Try this version out locally by upgrading relevant packages to 0.10.2--canary.578.19394

[brocollie08]

/canary

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.76%. Comparing base (2766c6b) to head (61080b0).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #578   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   89.76%   89.76%           
=======================================
  Files         331      331           
  Lines       19840    19840           
  Branches     1949     1949           
=======================================
  Hits        17809    17809           
  Misses       2017     2017           
  Partials       14       14           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[sugarmanz]

1. Can we do the check outside the runBlocking to avoid the perf overhead of creating coroutines and blocking the thread on that coroutine context?

2. If the scope that deferredPlayer executes in changes, this check would need to be updated to. It'd probably be better to do deferredPlayer.isActive if that's possible to check "activeness" explicitly against the Deferred we're trying to access.

[brocollie08]

moved to release so no longer needed to check and return or throw here

[sugarmanz]

Do you think this might swallow real IllegalAccessErrors? Can/should we be more targeted with what we're wrapping in try/catch, or maybe even not throw anything at all? i.e.:

    public fun release() {
        if (deferredPlayer.isCompleted) {
            player.release()
        }
    }