Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into merge-124-tmp

Two accuracy fixes to notes the earlier commits left behind.

The test KDocs carried "roughly 1-in-130" and a 400-leg-attempt denominator.
Both come from earlier comments on #49 that its own census later replaced --
that ticket has three recorded corrections to its rate claims, and a
superseded figure in a permanent comment is the exact thing its author kept
having to fix. What survives the corrections is the count and the spread:
four occurrences, API 33, 35 and 36, every one on attempt 1 and green on
re-run.

The save exemption described a real defect with nowhere to look it up. It is
#123 now, so the KDoc names a number instead of trailing off.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

app/src/main/java/org/libremediaconverter/convert/ConversionViewModel.kt

@@ -193,6 +193,25 @@ class ConversionViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
     private var observer: Job? = null
     private var activeWorkId: UUID? = null
 
+    /**
+     * Who is allowed to write to this screen — see [ScreenOwnership] for the rule and why
+     * cancelling the superseded coroutine is not one.
+     *
+     * Every write below that lands after a suspension point is guarded by it: the two in
+     * [onInputPicked] and the one in [observe].
+     *
+     * [save] is the one left out, deliberately — and not because it is safe in both directions.
+     * Nothing can overwrite what it writes: it is reachable only from [ConversionState.Converted]
+     * or a [ConversionState.Failed] carrying its file, so the only observation that could belongs
+     * to a job already in a terminal state, which will not emit again. What it can still do is
+     * land on top of a [reset] taken while its copy was in flight, putting `Saved` on a screen the
+     * user has just cleared. Guarding it would drop that write instead, reporting nothing for a
+     * file that may genuinely have reached the user's destination. Which of those two is right is
+     * a question about what the screen should offer during a save, not about this race, so it is
+     * filed as issue #123 rather than decided here in passing.
+     */
+    private val ownership = ScreenOwnership()
+
     /**
      * The staged output this ViewModel is responsible for deleting.
      *
@@ -244,6 +263,10 @@ class ConversionViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
      * `Data` — see [ConversionState.Converted].
      */
     private fun reattach() {
+        // Read before the launch, and before the query it is about to suspend in. This is the
+        // claim the answer will belong to: anything the user does from here on supersedes it, and
+        // reading it on the far side of the query would read whatever superseded it instead.
+        val token = ownership.current
         viewModelScope.launch {
             val reattachment = Reattachment.choose(
                 workManager.jobSnapshots(
@@ -254,8 +277,17 @@ class ConversionViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
 
             // The query suspends, so by now the user may have picked a file or started a
             // conversion of their own. Either owns the screen; reattaching over it would throw
-            // away what they just did. Both this check and the assignment below run on the main
-            // dispatcher with no suspension point between them, so nothing can interleave.
+            // away what they just did.
+            //
+            // This catches a pick that has already *landed*, and only that. It used to claim that
+            // "both this check and the assignment below run on the main dispatcher with no
+            // suspension point between them, so nothing can interleave" — which was the exact
+            // opposite of what happens. There is no assignment below. There is observe(), which
+            // launches a *separate* coroutine that must suspend on `collect` before it can write
+            // anything, so the check happens at one moment and the write lands at another with a
+            // whole pick able to fit in between. That was issue #49, and believing this comment is
+            // why it read as flaky CI for two days. What actually holds the line is the token
+            // observe() carries: see [ScreenOwnership].
             if (_state.value !is ConversionState.Idle || activeWorkId != null) return@launch
 
             // Only a job that is the sole explanation for its staged file gets to name the input.
@@ -281,7 +313,7 @@ class ConversionViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
             activeWorkId = reattachment.job.id
             // No initial state of our own: the flow's first emission carries the job's real
             // state, so observe() maps it exactly as it would for a conversion started here.
-            observe(reattachment.job.id, input, cancelled = ConversionState.Idle)
+            observe(reattachment.job.id, input, cancelled = ConversionState.Idle, token = token)
         }
     }
 
@@ -297,25 +329,34 @@ class ConversionViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
     fun setQuality(quality: QualityTier) = _settings.update { it.copy(quality = quality) }
     fun setEnginePreference(preference: EnginePreference) = _settings.update { it.copy(enginePreference = preference) }
 
+    /**
+     * The tap is the claim, which is why [ScreenOwnership.claim] is called here and not inside the
+     * `launch`. A claim made in the coroutine would only be immediate for as long as
+     * `Dispatchers.Main.immediate` happened to run it inline, and a deferred claim leaves the same
+     * gap this closes: it is the difference between the user owning the screen from the moment
+     * they tapped and owning it from whenever their coroutine got around to running.
+     */
     fun onInputPicked(uri: Uri) {
+        val token = ownership.claim()
         viewModelScope.launch {
             // Both the metadata query and the probe touch disk, and the probe spawns FFprobe.
             // Neither belongs on the main thread.
             val file = withContext(pickDispatcher) { InputQuery.describe(getApplication(), uri) }
+            // Every write below the hop above is guarded, this one included: two picks in quick
+            // succession suspend here together, and without this the slower one would land last
+            // and put the file the user did not choose on screen.
+            if (!ownership.stillHeldBy(token)) return@launch
             // Show the file as soon as its name and size are known. Probing now runs FFprobe on
             // every pick, which is a native process spawn, and making the whole screen wait on it
             // would read as the app having ignored the tap.
             _state.value = ConversionState.Ready(file)
 
             val probe = withContext(pickDispatcher) { probeOrUnreadable(uri) }
-            // Only fill in the probe if the user has not moved on in the meantime.
-            _state.update { current ->
-                if (current is ConversionState.Ready && current.input.uri == uri) {
-                    ConversionState.Ready(file.copy(probe = probe))
-                } else {
-                    current
-                }
-            }
+            // Only fill in the probe if the user has not moved on in the meantime. The claim is
+            // what says whether they have -- it covers a second pick of the same URI, which a
+            // comparison of URIs cannot, and every state a later claim could have written.
+            if (!ownership.stillHeldBy(token)) return@launch
+            _state.value = ConversionState.Ready(file.copy(probe = probe))
         }
     }
 
@@ -366,10 +407,13 @@ class ConversionViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
             quality = settings.quality,
             enginePreference = settings.enginePreference,
         )
+        // Tapping Convert claims the screen for this job, which is what supersedes the pick's
+        // still-in-flight probe and any reattachment that has not finished asking.
+        val token = ownership.claim()
         activeWorkId = request.id
         workManager.enqueue(request)
         _state.value = ConversionState.Converting(input, 0)
-        observe(request.id, input)
+        observe(request.id, input, token = token)
     }
 
     /**
@@ -377,12 +421,27 @@ class ConversionViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
      *   picked file, ready to convert again. For one picked up by [reattach] there is no picked
      *   file — the URI that job holds belongs to a process that no longer exists — so it lands
      *   on Idle instead, rather than offering a Convert button over a file nothing can open.
+     * @param token the claim this observation belongs to. Nothing here can write until `collect`
+     *   has resumed with a `WorkInfo`, which is some time after the caller decided to observe, so
+     *   the claim is checked again at the last possible moment rather than trusted from then. This
+     *   is issue #49's fix and the only thing standing between a superseded observation and the
+     *   user's screen — see [ScreenOwnership].
      */
-    private fun observe(id: UUID, input: InputFile, cancelled: ConversionState = ConversionState.Ready(input)) {
+    private fun observe(
+        id: UUID,
+        input: InputFile,
+        cancelled: ConversionState = ConversionState.Ready(input),
+        token: Long,
+    ) {
         observer?.cancel()
         observer = viewModelScope.launch {
             workManager.getWorkInfoByIdFlow(id).collect { info ->
                 if (info == null) return@collect
+                // Ahead of the `when`, not merely ahead of the assignment: the SUCCEEDED branch
+                // takes ownership of the staged file, and a superseded observation must not do
+                // that either. The state and `pendingStaged` are meant to refer to the same file
+                // or to no file, and this is where that stays true.
+                if (!ownership.stillHeldBy(token)) return@collect
                 _state.value = when (info.state) {
                     WorkInfo.State.RUNNING -> ConversionState.Converting(
                         input,
@@ -528,6 +587,10 @@ class ConversionViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
      * existed, this delete was the only thing a failed save could lead to — which was the defect.
      */
     fun reset() {
+        // Start over is a claim like any other. The cancel below is a request honoured at the next
+        // suspension point, so a collector already on its way to a write has nothing left to
+        // honour it at; the claim is what actually stops that write landing on top of Idle.
+        ownership.claim()
         observer?.cancel()
         observer = null
         activeWorkId = null

app/src/main/java/org/libremediaconverter/convert/ScreenOwnership.kt

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+package org.libremediaconverter.convert
+
+/**
+ * Which of the things writing to a screen is still allowed to.
+ *
+ * Both ViewModels are a state machine written to from several coroutines that each suspend before
+ * they write: a pick hops to a dispatcher for the metadata query, a reattachment hops for the tag
+ * query, and an observation of a WorkManager job cannot write at all until its `collect` has
+ * resumed with a `WorkInfo`. Whoever resumes last wins, which is how issue #49 let a finished job
+ * from an earlier session take a screen the user had already picked a file on.
+ *
+ * The rule this makes enforceable is one line: **every write that lands after a suspension point
+ * checks the claim it was made under, and drops itself if that claim has been superseded.** The
+ * claim is taken synchronously, when the user acts; the check happens immediately before the
+ * write. Superseded work is *dropped*, not reordered — a dropped write cannot come back later.
+ *
+ * Cancelling the superseded coroutine is not a substitute and was never going to be. `Job.cancel`
+ * is a request, honoured at the next suspension point; a collector that has already resumed and is
+ * on its way to `_state.value = …` has no suspension point left to honour it at, so the write
+ * lands anyway. Cancellation also cannot help at all in the case #49 actually reported, where
+ * nothing supersedes the observation until after it has been launched. Both ViewModels still
+ * cancel their old observer, because leaving a collector running is a leak — but the guarantee
+ * does not rest on it.
+ *
+ * **Confined to the main dispatcher, and that confinement is the atomicity argument.** Every
+ * claim and every check runs there, with no suspension point between a check and the write it
+ * guards, so a claim can never land between the two. Nothing here is synchronized and nothing is
+ * `@Volatile`: making the field visible across threads would invite exactly the off-main use this
+ * cannot support, and would replace an argument that holds with one that only looks like it does.
+ */
+internal class ScreenOwnership {
+
+    private var claims = 0L
+
+    /**
+     * The claim in force now.
+     *
+     * Read by work that is about to suspend and will want to know, when it comes back, whether
+     * the screen it was reading is still the screen it is writing to. Read it *before* the
+     * suspension, not after — reading it afterwards would return whatever claim superseded it,
+     * which is the bug rather than the check for it.
+     */
+    val current: Long get() = claims
+
+    /**
+     * Takes the screen, invalidating every write still in flight under an older claim.
+     *
+     * Called synchronously from the user's action rather than from inside the coroutine it
+     * starts. A claim made inside a `launch` is only immediate while the dispatcher happens to
+     * run it inline, and a deferred claim is no claim at all: it would leave the same gap this
+     * exists to close.
+     */
+    fun claim(): Long = ++claims
+
+    /** Whether [token] is still the claim in force, and may therefore write. */
+    fun stillHeldBy(token: Long): Boolean = token == claims
+}

app/src/main/java/org/libremediaconverter/join/JoinViewModel.kt

@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ import org.libremediaconverter.convert.InputFile
 import org.libremediaconverter.convert.InputQuery
 import org.libremediaconverter.convert.PendingSave
 import org.libremediaconverter.convert.STAGED_FILE_GONE_MESSAGE
+import org.libremediaconverter.convert.ScreenOwnership
 import org.libremediaconverter.model.ConcatStrategy
 import org.libremediaconverter.work.ConcatWorker
 import org.libremediaconverter.work.JobTags
@@ -76,6 +77,15 @@ class JoinViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
     app: Application,
     /** Where [reset] runs its delete. See the same parameter on `ConversionViewModel`. */
     private val cleanupDispatcher: CoroutineDispatcher = Dispatchers.IO,
+    /**
+     * Where the metadata query behind a pick runs. See the same parameter on `ConversionViewModel`.
+     *
+     * The join side had no such seam, and the gap was not cosmetic: the one write `onInputsPicked`
+     * makes lands *after* this hop, so a test that wants to ask what happens while a pick is still
+     * in flight had no way to hold one there. Issue #49's race is exactly that question, and it
+     * went unasked on this side for as long as the dispatcher was a literal.
+     */
+    private val pickDispatcher: CoroutineDispatcher = Dispatchers.IO,
 ) : AndroidViewModel(app) {
 
     private val workManager = WorkManager.getInstance(app)
@@ -90,6 +100,20 @@ class JoinViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
     private var observer: Job? = null
     private var activeWorkId: UUID? = null
 
+    /**
+     * Who is allowed to write to this screen -- see [ScreenOwnership], which carries the rule and
+     * the reason cancelling the superseded coroutine is not one.
+     *
+     * The convert side had issue #49 reported against it four times in two days; this side has the
+     * identical shape and was never reported, because nothing was watching. Every write below that
+     * lands after a suspension point is guarded: the one in [onInputsPicked] and the one in
+     * [observe]. [save] is the one left out, deliberately and with the same limit its counterpart
+     * in `ConversionViewModel` spells out: nothing can overwrite what it writes, but it can still
+     * land on top of a [reset] taken while its copy was in flight. Which way that should go is a
+     * question about the save screen rather than about this race -- issue #123.
+     */
+    private val ownership = ScreenOwnership()
+
     /**
      * The staged output this ViewModel is responsible for deleting.
      *
@@ -116,6 +140,10 @@ class JoinViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
      * the rules about which job and why.
      */
     private fun reattach() {
+        // Read before the launch, and before the query it is about to suspend in: this is the
+        // claim the answer belongs to. Reading it on the far side of the query would read whatever
+        // superseded it, which is the bug rather than the check for it.
+        val token = ownership.current
         viewModelScope.launch {
             val reattachment = Reattachment.choose(
                 workManager.jobSnapshots(
@@ -125,8 +153,15 @@ class JoinViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
             ) ?: return@launch
 
             // The query suspends, so the user may have picked files or started a join in the
-            // meantime. Theirs wins. No suspension point between this check and the assignment
-            // below, and both run on the main dispatcher, so nothing can interleave.
+            // meantime. Theirs wins.
+            //
+            // This catches a pick that has already *landed*, and only that. It used to claim there
+            // was "no suspension point between this check and the assignment below", which was the
+            // opposite of what happens: there is no assignment below, only observe(), which
+            // launches a separate coroutine that cannot write until its `collect` resumes. The
+            // check happens at one moment and the write lands at another, with a whole pick able
+            // to fit in between -- issue #49. The token observe() carries is what holds that line;
+            // see [ScreenOwnership].
             if (_state.value !is JoinState.Idle || activeWorkId != null) return@launch
 
             // Joins used to stage under one constant name, so two finished joins always reported
@@ -146,19 +181,29 @@ class JoinViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
                 InputFile(Uri.EMPTY, "", sizeBytes = null)
             }
             activeWorkId = reattachment.job.id
-            observe(reattachment.job.id, inputs, cancelled = JoinState.Idle)
+            observe(reattachment.job.id, inputs, cancelled = JoinState.Idle, token = token)
         }
     }
 
+    /**
+     * The tap is the claim, which is why it is taken here rather than inside the `launch` -- and
+     * above the early return, so the refusal below is covered by it too. A claim made in the
+     * coroutine is only immediate while `Dispatchers.Main.immediate` happens to run it inline, and
+     * a deferred claim leaves exactly the gap this closes.
+     */
     fun onInputsPicked(uris: List<Uri>) {
+        val token = ownership.claim()
         if (uris.size < 2) {
             _state.value = JoinState.Failed("Pick at least two files to join.")
             return
         }
         viewModelScope.launch {
-            val files = withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
+            val files = withContext(pickDispatcher) {
                 uris.map { InputQuery.describe(getApplication(), it) }
             }
+            // Guarded like every other write that lands after a hop: two picks in quick succession
+            // suspend here together, and the slower one would otherwise land last.
+            if (!ownership.stillHeldBy(token)) return@launch
             _state.value = JoinState.Ready(files)
         }
     }
@@ -172,10 +217,13 @@ class JoinViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
             // did answer would hand the space check a lower bound it would read as a total.
             totalBytes = InputQuery.total(inputs.map { it.sizeBytes }),
         )
+        // Tapping Join claims the screen for this job, superseding any reattachment that has not
+        // finished asking.
+        val token = ownership.claim()
         activeWorkId = request.id
         workManager.enqueue(request)
         _state.value = JoinState.Joining(inputs)
-        observe(request.id, inputs)
+        observe(request.id, inputs, token = token)
     }
 
     /**
@@ -183,12 +231,25 @@ class JoinViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
      *   files, ready to join again. For one picked up by [reattach] there are no picked files —
      *   what that job holds are URIs granted to a process that no longer exists — so it lands on
      *   Idle rather than offering to re-join files nothing can open.
+     * @param token the claim this observation belongs to. Nothing here can write until `collect`
+     *   has resumed with a `WorkInfo`, which is some time after the caller decided to observe, so
+     *   the claim is checked again at the last possible moment rather than trusted from then. See
+     *   [ScreenOwnership], and issue #49.
      */
-    private fun observe(id: UUID, inputs: List<InputFile>, cancelled: JoinState = JoinState.Ready(inputs)) {
+    private fun observe(
+        id: UUID,
+        inputs: List<InputFile>,
+        cancelled: JoinState = JoinState.Ready(inputs),
+        token: Long,
+    ) {
         observer?.cancel()
         observer = viewModelScope.launch {
             workManager.getWorkInfoByIdFlow(id).collect { info ->
                 if (info == null) return@collect
+                // Ahead of the `when`, not merely ahead of the assignment: the SUCCEEDED branch
+                // takes ownership of the staged file, and a superseded observation must not do
+                // that either.
+                if (!ownership.stillHeldBy(token)) return@collect
                 _state.value = when (info.state) {
                     WorkInfo.State.RUNNING, WorkInfo.State.BLOCKED -> JoinState.Joining(inputs)
                     WorkInfo.State.ENQUEUED ->
@@ -301,6 +362,10 @@ class JoinViewModel @JvmOverloads constructor(
      * this button, so deletion is what the user chose rather than all this state could do.
      */
     fun reset() {
+        // Start over is a claim like any other. The cancel below is a request honoured at the next
+        // suspension point, so a collector already on its way to a write has nothing left to
+        // honour it at; the claim is what stops that write landing on top of Idle.
+        ownership.claim()
         observer?.cancel()
         observer = null
         activeWorkId = null

app/src/test/java/org/libremediaconverter/convert/ParkedPickDispatcher.kt

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+package org.libremediaconverter.convert
+
+import kotlinx.coroutines.CoroutineDispatcher
+import java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentLinkedQueue
+import kotlin.coroutines.CoroutineContext
+
+/**
+ * A dispatcher that holds a pick in flight until the test lets it finish.
+ *
+ * Issue #49 is about what a ViewModel does *while* a pick is between the tap and the write it
+ * eventually makes. Both ViewModels put a blocking hop there — the metadata query, and on the
+ * convert side the probe as well — and both hops go through an injectable dispatcher. Handing
+ * them this one turns "the pick has been made but has not landed yet" from a window a test has
+ * to race into a state it can simply sit in.
+ *
+ * Nothing here is a fake pick. The real `InputQuery.describe` still runs, on this thread,
+ * whenever [runAll] is called; the only thing under the test's control is *when*.
+ *
+ * Confined to the thread that drives the test. Both ViewModels reach `withContext(pickDispatcher)`
+ * from a coroutine on the main dispatcher, so [dispatch] is only ever called from there — the
+ * queue is concurrent anyway, because a dispatcher that quietly dropped a block from another
+ * thread would fail as a hang rather than as an assertion.
+ */
+class ParkedPickDispatcher : CoroutineDispatcher() {
+
+    private val parked = ConcurrentLinkedQueue<Runnable>()
+
+    /**
+     * How many blocks are waiting.
+     *
+     * Asserted on before the interesting part of a test, because "the pick was in flight" is a
+     * premise rather than a detail: a zero here means the pick had already landed and whatever
+     * the test went on to prove was proved about a different situation.
+     */
+    val parkedCount: Int get() = parked.size
+
+    override fun dispatch(context: CoroutineContext, block: Runnable) {
+        parked += block
+    }
+
+    /**
+     * Removes everything parked, oldest first, and hands it to the caller to run.
+     *
+     * What [runAll] cannot express: two picks are two hops through this dispatcher, and the defect
+     * they can produce is the *first* one finishing last. Running them in the order they arrived
+     * is the one order in which nothing goes wrong, so a test has to be able to choose.
+     */
+    fun takeParked(): List<Runnable> = generateSequence { parked.poll() }.toList()
+
+    /**
+     * Runs everything parked, and everything that parks as a result.
+     *
+     * The loop is not defensive: `ConversionViewModel.onInputPicked` makes two hops through this
+     * dispatcher — the metadata query, then the probe — and the second is only enqueued once the
+     * first has run. Draining once would leave the probe parked for the rest of the process.
+     */
+    fun runAll() {
+        while (true) {
+            val next = parked.poll() ?: return
+            next.run()
+        }
+    }
+}

app/src/test/java/org/libremediaconverter/convert/PickOwnershipTest.kt

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+package org.libremediaconverter.convert
+
+import android.app.Application
+import android.net.Uri
+import androidx.media3.common.util.UnstableApi
+import androidx.work.workDataOf
+import org.junit.After
+import org.junit.Assert.assertEquals
+import org.junit.Assert.assertNotNull
+import org.junit.Assert.assertNull
+import org.junit.Before
+import org.junit.Test
+import org.junit.runner.RunWith
+import org.libremediaconverter.model.InputProbe
+import org.libremediaconverter.work.ConversionWorker
+import org.robolectric.RobolectricTestRunner
+import org.robolectric.RuntimeEnvironment
+import java.io.File
+
+/**
+ * The half of issue #49 that is not about reattachment at all.
+ *
+ * `onInputPicked` makes two writes and both of them land after a hop off the main thread, so both
+ * belong to whichever pick was in flight rather than to whichever pick the user last made. Nothing
+ * was enforcing that. Two taps in quick succession — an easy thing to do while a `content://`
+ * metadata query is slow — put the loser's file on screen if its query happened to come back
+ * second, which is the same defect the ticket reported against reattachment with a different
+ * coroutine on the losing side.
+ *
+ * Both cases below were measured rather than assumed: deleting either guard turns the matching
+ * test red, and deleting the probe one turns nine other tests red with it. Neither was ever
+ * reported, because a pick that loses to another pick still shows *a* file the user chose -- which
+ * is what made it worth closing alongside #49 rather than leaving as a second thing to find.
+ */
+@UnstableApi
+@RunWith(RobolectricTestRunner::class)
+class PickOwnershipTest {
+
+    private lateinit var app: Application
+    private lateinit var parkedPick: ParkedPickDispatcher
+    private lateinit var viewModel: ConversionViewModel
+
+    @Before
+    fun setUp() {
+        app = RuntimeEnvironment.getApplication()
+        ConversionDependencies.publisher = { RecordingPublisher(app) }
+        ConversionDependencies.probe = { _, _ -> PROBE }
+        installTestWorkManager(app, workDataOf(ConversionWorker.KEY_OUTPUT_PATH to "/dev/null"))
+
+        parkedPick = ParkedPickDispatcher()
+        viewModel = ConversionViewModel(app, pickDispatcher = parkedPick)
+    }
+
+    @After
+    fun tearDown() {
+        ConversionDependencies.reset()
+    }
+
+    /**
+     * Two taps, and the first one's metadata query is the slow one.
+     *
+     * The order is chosen rather than raced: both queries are parked, and this runs the second
+     * before the first. Without an ownership check the straggler writes last and the screen ends
+     * up showing a file the user moved off two taps ago.
+     */
+    @Test
+    fun `the slower of two picks does not land on top of the faster one`() {
+        viewModel.onInputPicked(FIRST)
+        viewModel.onInputPicked(SECOND)
+
+        val queries = parkedPick.takeParked()
+        assertEquals("both picks should be in flight", 2, queries.size)
+        // The second pick's query comes back first; the first pick's is the straggler.
+        queries[1].run()
+        queries[0].run()
+
+        val current = viewModel.state.value
+        assertEquals(
+            "a pick the user has already replaced took the screen: $current",
+            SECOND,
+            (current as ConversionState.Ready).input.uri,
+        )
+    }
+
+    /**
+     * The second of `onInputPicked`'s two writes, which lands a whole probe later.
+     *
+     * The probe hop is a native process spawn, so it is the longest gap in a pick and the easiest
+     * one to pick again during. This used to be guarded by comparing URIs against the state, which
+     * answers a narrower question than the one that matters — it cannot tell a second pick of the
+     * same file from the first, and it reads a state that a later claim may not have written yet,
+     * which is exactly this case: the newer pick has claimed the screen but its own query has not
+     * come back, so the state still names the older file and the comparison waves it through.
+     */
+    @Test
+    fun `a probe from a pick the user has moved off does not fill the card in`() {
+        viewModel.onInputPicked(FIRST)
+        parkedPick.takeParked().single().run()
+        assertEquals(FIRST, (viewModel.state.value as ConversionState.Ready).input.uri)
+
+        // The user picks again while the first pick is still probing.
+        viewModel.onInputPicked(SECOND)
+        val pending = parkedPick.takeParked()
+        assertEquals("the first probe and the second query should both be waiting", 2, pending.size)
+        pending[0].run()
+
+        assertNull(
+            "a probe belonging to a pick the user replaced must not reach the card",
+            (viewModel.state.value as ConversionState.Ready).input.probe,
+        )
+
+        // And the pick that did win still fills its own card in, probe included.
+        pending[1].run()
+        parkedPick.runAll()
+        val settled = viewModel.state.value as ConversionState.Ready
+        assertEquals(SECOND, settled.input.uri)
+        assertNotNull("the winning pick's own probe still has to land", settled.input.probe)
+    }
+
+    private companion object {
+        val FIRST: Uri = Uri.fromFile(File("/tmp/first.mp4"))
+        val SECOND: Uri = Uri.fromFile(File("/tmp/second.mp4"))
+        val PROBE = InputProbe(videoCodec = "h264")
+    }
+}

app/src/test/java/org/libremediaconverter/convert/ReattachmentOwnershipTest.kt

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+package org.libremediaconverter.convert
+
+import android.app.Application
+import android.net.Uri
+import androidx.media3.common.util.UnstableApi
+import androidx.work.WorkManager
+import androidx.work.workDataOf
+import org.junit.After
+import org.junit.Assert.assertEquals
+import org.junit.Assert.assertTrue
+import org.junit.Before
+import org.junit.Test
+import org.junit.runner.RunWith
+import org.libremediaconverter.model.InputProbe
+import org.libremediaconverter.work.ConversionWorker
+import org.robolectric.RobolectricTestRunner
+import org.robolectric.RuntimeEnvironment
+import java.io.File
+
+/**
+ * Issue #49, on the JVM and without the race.
+ *
+ * `ReattachOnLaunchTest.doesNotOverwriteAPickTheUserHasAlreadyMade` has been catching this on
+ * devices since 2026-08-24 — four occurrences, spread across API 33, 35 and 36, which is what
+ * ruled out an emulator-image quirk. Every one was on attempt 1 and every one passed on re-run,
+ * which is why it was read as flaky infrastructure for two days. It is not. The assertion it fails
+ * on is `expected null, but was:<Converted>`: a finished job from an earlier session taking a
+ * screen the user had already picked a file on.
+ *
+ * The defect is a check-then-act whose act is deferred into another coroutine. `reattach()` reads
+ * `_state.value` and then calls `observe()`, which *launches* a collector that has to suspend on
+ * `getWorkInfoByIdFlow(...).collect` before it can write anything. So the check happens at one
+ * moment and the write lands at another:
+ *
+ * 1. `init` starts the tag query and suspends in it.
+ * 2. The user picks a file; `onInputPicked` suspends in its metadata query.
+ * 3. The query comes back. `_state.value` is still `Idle` — step 2 has not written yet — so the
+ *    guard passes and an observation of the old job is launched.
+ * 4. The pick lands. `Ready(picked)`. The user owns the screen.
+ * 5. The observation's first `WorkInfo` arrives and writes `Converted(yesterday)` over it.
+ *
+ * The comment above that guard claimed "no suspension point between this check and the assignment
+ * below, so nothing can interleave". There is no assignment below, and the check and the write
+ * are in different coroutines.
+ *
+ * [ReattachGuardsTest] covers the case where the pick has already *landed*, which the plain guard
+ * does catch. This covers the one where it is still in flight, which it does not.
+ */
+@UnstableApi
+@RunWith(RobolectricTestRunner::class)
+class ReattachmentOwnershipTest {
+
+    private lateinit var app: Application
+    private lateinit var publisher: RecordingPublisher
+    private lateinit var workManager: WorkManager
+    private lateinit var staged: File
+
+    @Before
+    fun setUp() {
+        app = RuntimeEnvironment.getApplication()
+        publisher = RecordingPublisher(app)
+        ConversionDependencies.publisher = { publisher }
+        ConversionDependencies.probe = { _, _ -> InputProbe() }
+
+        staged = publisher.createStagingFile("holiday_converted.mp4").apply { writeBytes(ByteArray(4096)) }
+        installTestWorkManager(app, workDataOf(ConversionWorker.KEY_OUTPUT_PATH to staged.absolutePath))
+        workManager = WorkManager.getInstance(app)
+        // The situation reattachment exists for: a conversion that finished in a process that is
+        // gone, with its output still in the cache and nothing in the UI holding its id.
+        workManager.enqueue(
+            ConversionWorker.request(
+                inputUri = Uri.parse("content://test/holiday.mp4"),
+                displayName = "holiday.mp4",
+                sizeBytes = 4_096L,
+            ),
+        ).result.get()
+    }
+
+    @After
+    fun tearDown() {
+        ConversionDependencies.reset()
+    }
+
+    /**
+     * The race, made into a state the test can sit in rather than one it has to catch.
+     *
+     * The pick is parked on a dispatcher this test owns, so it stays in flight — issued, not yet
+     * written — for as long as the assertions need it to be. Everything else is production: a
+     * real `WorkManager` holding a real finished job, the real `reattach`, the real `observe`.
+     *
+     * Determinism comes from where Robolectric leaves the main looper. `reattach`'s tag query hops
+     * to a real [kotlinx.coroutines.Dispatchers.IO] thread, so its continuation can only come back
+     * as a message posted to the main looper — and that looper is paused, so it cannot run until
+     * something pumps it. `onInputPicked` is an ordinary synchronous call from this thread. The
+     * pick is therefore *always* issued before the guard runs; none of it is left to timing, which
+     * is the whole point of writing it here rather than relying on the rare device sighting.
+     */
+    @Test
+    fun `a conversion found while the user was picking never reaches the screen`() {
+        val picked = Uri.fromFile(File(app.cacheDir, "beach.mp4").apply { writeBytes(ByteArray(2048)) })
+        val parkedPick = ParkedPickDispatcher()
+        val viewModel = ConversionViewModel(app, pickDispatcher = parkedPick)
+        viewModel.onInputPicked(picked)
+
+        assertEquals(
+            "the pick must still be in flight, or this proves something about a different situation",
+            1,
+            parkedPick.parkedCount,
+        )
+
+        // The control, and the reason this test does not rest on a settle window being long
+        // enough. A second ViewModel with nothing to supersede it reattaches to the same job
+        // through the same code; when it has arrived, the whole query-guard-observe-write path has
+        // demonstrably run to completion. `viewModel` started its own reattachment first, so it
+        // has had at least as long. Waiting on this rather than on a sleep is what makes the
+        // assertion below "it did not happen" rather than "it had not happened yet".
+        reattachmentHasRunToCompletion()
+
+        val current = viewModel.state.value
+        assertTrue("reattachment took the screen from the user: $current", current is ConversionState.Idle)
+
+        // And the pick, when it lands, is what stays there.
+        parkedPick.runAll()
+        val ready = awaitState(viewModel.state, "Ready") { it is ConversionState.Ready }
+        assertEquals(picked, (ready as ConversionState.Ready).input.uri)
+        reattachmentHasRunToCompletion()
+        assertEquals("the user's pick must survive a late reattachment", ready, viewModel.state.value)
+    }
+
+    /**
+     * The other half of the contract: a reattachment nobody has superseded still takes the screen.
+     *
+     * Without this, dropping every reattachment on the floor would pass the test above. Same job,
+     * same WorkManager, same production path — only the pick is missing.
+     */
+    @Test
+    fun `a conversion nobody has superseded still reaches the screen`() {
+        val converted = awaitState(ConversionViewModel(app).state, "Converted") {
+            it is ConversionState.Converted
+        }
+
+        assertEquals(staged.absolutePath, (converted as ConversionState.Converted).staged.absolutePath)
+        assertEquals("holiday.mp4", converted.input.displayName)
+    }
+
+    /**
+     * Drives a throwaway ViewModel through a whole reattachment, and returns once it has landed.
+     *
+     * [awaitState] pumps the main looper, which is what runs every reattachment continuation
+     * waiting on it — this one's, and the one belonging to the ViewModel under test, which was
+     * posted earlier and therefore runs first.
+     */
+    private fun reattachmentHasRunToCompletion() {
+        awaitState(ConversionViewModel(app).state, "Converted") { it is ConversionState.Converted }
+    }
+}

app/src/test/java/org/libremediaconverter/join/JoinPickOwnershipTest.kt

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+package org.libremediaconverter.join
+
+import android.app.Application
+import android.net.Uri
+import androidx.media3.common.util.UnstableApi
+import androidx.work.workDataOf
+import org.junit.After
+import org.junit.Assert.assertEquals
+import org.junit.Before
+import org.junit.Test
+import org.junit.runner.RunWith
+import org.libremediaconverter.convert.ConversionDependencies
+import org.libremediaconverter.convert.ParkedPickDispatcher
+import org.libremediaconverter.convert.RecordingPublisher
+import org.libremediaconverter.convert.installTestWorkManager
+import org.libremediaconverter.work.ConcatWorker
+import org.robolectric.RobolectricTestRunner
+import org.robolectric.RuntimeEnvironment
+
+/**
+ * `PickOwnershipTest`'s case on the join side.
+ *
+ * `onInputsPicked` makes one write and it lands after a hop off the main thread, so it belongs to
+ * whichever pick was in flight rather than to whichever set of files the user last chose. Two
+ * selections in quick succession — likelier here than on the convert side, since a join picks
+ * several files at a time and the metadata query is per file — put the loser's files on screen if
+ * its query came back second.
+ */
+@UnstableApi
+@RunWith(RobolectricTestRunner::class)
+class JoinPickOwnershipTest {
+
+    private lateinit var app: Application
+    private lateinit var parkedPick: ParkedPickDispatcher
+    private lateinit var viewModel: JoinViewModel
+
+    @Before
+    fun setUp() {
+        app = RuntimeEnvironment.getApplication()
+        ConversionDependencies.publisher = { RecordingPublisher(app) }
+        installTestWorkManager(app, workDataOf(ConcatWorker.KEY_OUTPUT_PATH to "/dev/null"))
+
+        parkedPick = ParkedPickDispatcher()
+        viewModel = JoinViewModel(app, pickDispatcher = parkedPick)
+    }
+
+    @After
+    fun tearDown() {
+        ConversionDependencies.reset()
+    }
+
+    /**
+     * Two selections, with the first one's metadata query the slow one.
+     *
+     * The order is chosen rather than raced: both queries are parked, and this runs the second
+     * before the first.
+     */
+    @Test
+    fun `the slower of two selections does not land on top of the faster one`() {
+        viewModel.onInputsPicked(FIRST)
+        viewModel.onInputsPicked(SECOND)
+
+        val queries = parkedPick.takeParked()
+        assertEquals("both selections should be in flight", 2, queries.size)
+        // The second selection's query comes back first; the first one's is the straggler.
+        queries[1].run()
+        queries[0].run()
+
+        val current = viewModel.state.value
+        assertEquals(
+            "a selection the user has already replaced took the screen: $current",
+            SECOND,
+            (current as JoinState.Ready).inputs.map { it.uri },
+        )
+    }
+
+    private companion object {
+        val FIRST = listOf(
+            Uri.parse("content://test/first-a.mp4"),
+            Uri.parse("content://test/first-b.mp4"),
+        )
+        val SECOND = listOf(
+            Uri.parse("content://test/second-a.mp4"),
+            Uri.parse("content://test/second-b.mp4"),
+        )
+    }
+}

app/src/test/java/org/libremediaconverter/join/JoinReattachmentOwnershipTest.kt

@@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
+package org.libremediaconverter.join
+
+import android.app.Application
+import android.net.Uri
+import androidx.media3.common.util.UnstableApi
+import androidx.work.WorkManager
+import androidx.work.workDataOf
+import org.junit.After
+import org.junit.Assert.assertEquals
+import org.junit.Assert.assertTrue
+import org.junit.Before
+import org.junit.Test
+import org.junit.runner.RunWith
+import org.libremediaconverter.convert.ConversionDependencies
+import org.libremediaconverter.convert.ParkedPickDispatcher
+import org.libremediaconverter.convert.RecordingPublisher
+import org.libremediaconverter.convert.awaitState
+import org.libremediaconverter.convert.installTestWorkManager
+import org.libremediaconverter.model.ConcatStrategy
+import org.libremediaconverter.work.ConcatWorker
+import org.robolectric.RobolectricTestRunner
+import org.robolectric.RuntimeEnvironment
+import java.io.File
+
+/**
+ * Issue #49 on the join side, where nothing was watching for it.
+ *
+ * `reattach()` checks that the screen is still free, and then hands the answer to `observe()`,
+ * which writes from a *different* coroutine that has to suspend on `collect` before it can write
+ * anything at all. So the check happens at one moment and the write lands at another, with a
+ * whole pick able to fit in between:
+ *
+ * 1. `init` starts the tag query and suspends in it.
+ * 2. The user picks files; `onInputsPicked` suspends in its metadata query.
+ * 3. The query comes back. The screen is still `Idle` — step 2 has not written yet — so the
+ *    guard passes and an observation of the old job is launched.
+ * 4. The pick lands. `Ready(picked)`. The user owns the screen.
+ * 5. The observation's first `WorkInfo` arrives and writes `Joined(yesterday's file)` over it.
+ *
+ * The comment above that guard used to say "no suspension point between this check and the
+ * assignment below, so nothing can interleave". There is no assignment below, and the two lines
+ * are in different coroutines.
+ *
+ * The convert side has been failing this on CI for two days — four occurrences across three API
+ * levels, each read as flaky infrastructure. `JoinViewModel` has the identical shape and no test
+ * at all, which is why this one was written before the fix rather than after it.
+ */
+@UnstableApi
+@RunWith(RobolectricTestRunner::class)
+class JoinReattachmentOwnershipTest {
+
+    private lateinit var app: Application
+    private lateinit var publisher: RecordingPublisher
+    private lateinit var workManager: WorkManager
+    private lateinit var staged: File
+
+    @Before
+    fun setUp() {
+        app = RuntimeEnvironment.getApplication()
+        publisher = RecordingPublisher(app)
+        ConversionDependencies.publisher = { publisher }
+
+        staged = publisher.createStagingFile("joined-yesterday.mp4").apply { writeBytes(ByteArray(4096)) }
+        installTestWorkManager(
+            app,
+            workDataOf(
+                ConcatWorker.KEY_OUTPUT_PATH to staged.absolutePath,
+                ConcatWorker.KEY_STRATEGY to ConcatStrategy.STREAM_COPY.name,
+            ),
+        )
+        workManager = WorkManager.getInstance(app)
+        // The situation reattachment exists for: a join that finished in a process that is gone,
+        // with its output still in the cache and nothing in the UI holding its id.
+        workManager.enqueue(
+            ConcatWorker.request(
+                inputs = listOf(
+                    Uri.parse("content://test/yesterday-a.mp4"),
+                    Uri.parse("content://test/yesterday-b.mp4"),
+                ),
+                totalBytes = 8_192L,
+            ),
+        ).result.get()
+    }
+
+    @After
+    fun tearDown() {
+        ConversionDependencies.reset()
+    }
+
+    /**
+     * The race, made into a state the test can sit in rather than one it has to catch.
+     *
+     * The pick is parked on a dispatcher this test owns, so it is in flight — issued, not yet
+     * written — for as long as the assertions need it to be. Everything else is real: a real
+     * `WorkManager` holding a real finished job, the production `reattach`, the production
+     * `observe`.
+     *
+     * Determinism comes from where Robolectric leaves the main looper. `reattach`'s tag query
+     * hops to a real [kotlinx.coroutines.Dispatchers.IO] thread, so its continuation can only
+     * come back as a message posted to the main looper — and that looper is paused, so it cannot
+     * run until something pumps it. `onInputsPicked` is an ordinary synchronous call from this
+     * thread. The pick is therefore always issued before the guard runs, with nothing left to
+     * timing.
+     */
+    @Test
+    fun `a join found while the user was picking never reaches the screen`() {
+        val parkedPick = ParkedPickDispatcher()
+        val viewModel = JoinViewModel(app, pickDispatcher = parkedPick)
+        viewModel.onInputsPicked(PICKED)
+
+        assertEquals(
+            "the pick must still be in flight, or this proves something about a different situation",
+            1,
+            parkedPick.parkedCount,
+        )
+
+        // The control, and the reason this test does not rest on a settle window being long
+        // enough. A second ViewModel with nothing to supersede it reattaches to the same job
+        // through the same code; when it has arrived, the whole query-guard-observe-write path
+        // has demonstrably run to completion. `viewModel` started its own reattachment first, so
+        // it has had at least as long. Waiting on this rather than on a sleep is what makes the
+        // assertion below "it did not happen" instead of "it had not happened yet".
+        reattachmentHasRunToCompletion()
+
+        val current = viewModel.state.value
+        assertTrue("reattachment took the screen from the user: $current", current is JoinState.Idle)
+
+        // And the pick, when it lands, is what stays there.
+        parkedPick.runAll()
+        val ready = awaitState(viewModel.state, "Ready") { it is JoinState.Ready }
+        assertEquals(PICKED, (ready as JoinState.Ready).inputs.map { it.uri })
+        reattachmentHasRunToCompletion()
+        assertEquals("the user's pick must survive a late reattachment", ready, viewModel.state.value)
+    }
+
+    /**
+     * The other half of the contract: a reattachment nobody has superseded still takes the screen.
+     *
+     * Without this, dropping every reattachment on the floor would pass the test above. It is the
+     * same job, the same WorkManager and the same production path — only the pick is missing.
+     */
+    @Test
+    fun `a join nobody has superseded still reaches the screen`() {
+        val joined = awaitState(JoinViewModel(app).state, "Joined") { it is JoinState.Joined }
+
+        assertEquals(staged.absolutePath, (joined as JoinState.Joined).staged.absolutePath)
+    }
+
+    /**
+     * Drives a throwaway ViewModel through a whole reattachment, and returns once it has landed.
+     *
+     * [awaitState] pumps the main looper, which is what runs every reattachment continuation
+     * waiting on it — this one's and the one belonging to the ViewModel under test, which was
+     * posted earlier and therefore runs first.
+     */
+    private fun reattachmentHasRunToCompletion() {
+        awaitState(JoinViewModel(app).state, "Joined") { it is JoinState.Joined }
+    }
+
+    private companion object {
+        val PICKED = listOf(
+            Uri.parse("content://test/clip-one.mp4"),
+            Uri.parse("content://test/clip-two.mp4"),
+        )
+    }
+}