Approved since you are throwing errors before creating new timeout but storing two different timeouts in the same property is a bad practice (line 162 and 172 `lib/services/refresh-scheduler.js`). You can create a method like this: ```js #setTimer(interval) { this.stop(); this.timerSourceTag = GLib.timeout_add_seconds( GLib.PRIORITY_DEFAULT, interval, () => this.doRefresh() ); } ``` Now, you can call that method instead of creating two different timeouts with the same property.

Thanks for approving, but to be honest I don't know what to make of this review. From my point of view, I'm not "storing two different timeouts in the same property"; I'm storing one, which just happens to have an irregular interval 🤔. As such, I'm afraid I have to admit that I'm disinclined to refactor this part of the code, as I'd rather prefer to spend my time adding a few features which I think are still missing 🙂 Also, I'm not sure how this level of detail still fits within the scope of reviews as set in the first paragraph of the review guidelines at https://gjs.guide/extensions/review-guidelines/review-guidelines.html which suggests that extensions are supposed to be "reviewed carefully for malicious code, malware and security risks, but not for bugs", which in my understanding precludes issues of code style, architecture, and structure from reviews, perhaps to the extent that they don't make review excessively difficult.

We review the diff, so when you remove something like line 84-87, 166-173, we may miss the other timeout not getting removed.