Motivation

I'm listening to a state onEnter event to perform some database changes when a transition happens.

I noticed that this event was triggered also just after the stm.start(initialState); line.

To cope with this event and ignore this first initial transition I checked the source code and found that this event has a stub __none__ state.

So in my code I ended up with this:

state.onEnter((change) {
  if (change.from.name != '__none__') {
    // do something
  }
});

I think this is not the best approach as I'm relying on some internal representation.
That's why I'm exposing this State.isNone getter.

Changes

• State.isNone getter added
• StateChange.isInitial

Release Notes

Exposed State.isNone and StateChange.isInitial to distinguish initial state change events.

Review

See CONTRIBUTING.md for more details on review types (+1 / QA +1 / +10) and code review process.

Please review:

QA Checklist

• Tests were updated and provide good coverage of the changeset and other affected code
• Manual testing was performed if needed
  • Steps from PR author:
  • Anything falling under manual testing criteria outlined in CONTRIBUTING.md

Merge Checklist

While we perform many automated checks before auto-merging, some manual checks are needed:

• A Client Platform member has reviewed these changes
• There are no unaddressed comments - this check can be automated if reviewers use the "Request Changes" feature
• For release PRs - Version metadata in Rosie comment is correct