fix: remove unnecessary ThreadSafeReference

[patricioxavier8]

Removed the unnecessary ThreadSafeReference and resolveSyncedNode usage. Since findSyncedNode returns an unmanaged object, it is already thread-safe and can be used directly across threads without causing concurrency violations.

[sg-gs]

The description states that findSyncedNode returns an unmanaged object, but this isn't accurate. Looking at the implementation:

func findSyncedNode(url: URL, deviceId: Int) -> SyncedNode? {
    let realm = try getRealm()
    return realm.objects(SyncedNode.self)
        .filter("url == %@ AND deviceId == %@", url.absoluteString, deviceId)
        .first
}

This returns a managed object directly from realm.objects(). Per Realm's threading documentation:

"Instances of Realm, Results, List, or managed Objects are thread-confined. You can only use them on the thread where you created them."

To get an actual unmanaged (thread-safe) object, you'd need to create a detached copy:

return SyncedNode(value: managedNode)

Could you clarify why removing ThreadSafeReference is safe here? Is it because all calls happen on the same thread?

[patricioxavier8]

The description states that findSyncedNode returns an unmanaged object, but this isn't accurate. Looking at the implementation:

func findSyncedNode(url: URL, deviceId: Int) -> SyncedNode? {
    let realm = try getRealm()
    return realm.objects(SyncedNode.self)
        .filter("url == %@ AND deviceId == %@", url.absoluteString, deviceId)
        .first
}

This returns a managed object directly from realm.objects(). Per Realm's threading documentation:

"Instances of Realm, Results, List, or managed Objects are thread-confined. You can only use them on the thread where you created them."

To get an actual unmanaged (thread-safe) object, you'd need to create a detached copy:

return SyncedNode(value: managedNode)

Could you clarify why removing ThreadSafeReference is safe here? Is it because all calls happen on the same thread?

If it's due to the previous change implemented for handling concurrency and threads, I found that it's causing an error in that function precisely because of that handling.