Please address the comments from this code review:

## Individual Comments

### Comment 1
<location> `src/BootstrapBlazor/Components/Message/Message.razor.js:48-49` </location>
<code_context>
     el.classList.add('show');

     const close = () => {
-        EventHandler.off(el, 'click')
-        el.classList.remove('show');
-        const hideHandler = setTimeout(function () {
</code_context>

<issue_to_address>
**suggestion:** The close function is now unused and can be removed for clarity.

Removing unused code helps maintain clarity and reduces potential confusion.
</issue_to_address>

### Comment 2
<location> `test/UnitTest/Components/MessageTest.cs:156-161` </location>
<code_context>
+            ForceDelay = true,
+            Delay = 2000
+        };
+        await cut.InvokeAsync(() => service.Show(option, cut.Instance));
+        Assert.Contains("data-bb-delay=\"2000\"", cut.Markup);
+
+        var alert = cut.Find(".alert");
</code_context>

<issue_to_address>
**suggestion (testing):** Add assertions to verify that messages are actually removed from the DOM after Clear is called.

Consider adding an assertion to confirm that the alert element is removed from the DOM after Clear is called, to fully validate the Clear functionality.

```suggestion
        await cut.InvokeAsync(() => cut.Instance.Clear(alert.Id));
        // Assert that the alert element is removed from the DOM after Clear is called
        Assert.Empty(cut.FindAll(".alert"));

        option.ForceDelay = false;
        await cut.InvokeAsync(() => service.Show(option, cut.Instance));
        Assert.Contains("data-bb-delay=\"4000\"", cut.Markup);
        await cut.InvokeAsync(() => cut.Instance.Clear(alert.Id));
        // Assert that the alert element is removed from the DOM after Clear is called
        Assert.Empty(cut.FindAll(".alert"));
```
</issue_to_address>

Please address the comments from this code review:

## Overall Comments
- The sample’s `_items` list is initialized with square brackets instead of a valid C# collection initializer (use `{}`), which will fail to compile.
- The JS interop setup doesn’t clean up event handlers or Data entries on component disposal; consider implementing `DisposeAsync` to remove handlers and avoid memory leaks.
- The fallback to a 1000ms delay when `MessageDelay` is set to zero can be surprising—consider making this default behavior more explicit in code or via a named constant.

## Individual Comments

### Comment 1
<location> `src/BootstrapBlazor/Components/Message/Message.razor.js:55-64` </location>
<code_context>
     };

-    EventHandler.on(el, 'click', '.btn-close', e => {
+    EventHandler.on(el, 'click', '.btn-close', async e => {
         e.preventDefault();
         e.stopPropagation();

         const alert = e.delegateTarget.closest('.alert');
         if (alert) {
+            EventHandler.off(el, 'click')
+            alert.classList.add("d-none");
+
             const alertId = alert.getAttribute('id');
-            msg.invoke.invokeMethodAsync('Dismiss', alertId);
+            msg.items = msg.items.filter(i => i.el.id !== alertId);
+            await msg.invoke.invokeMethodAsync('Dismiss', alertId);
         }
-        close();
</code_context>

<issue_to_address>
**issue (bug_risk):** Mixing async/await with non-async event handler registration may cause unhandled promise rejections.

Wrap the async handler logic in a try/catch block to prevent silent UI failures from unhandled promise rejections.
</issue_to_address>

### Comment 2
<location> `test/UnitTest/Components/MessageTest.cs:170-150` </location>
<code_context>
+        Assert.Contains("data-bb-delay=\"1000\"", cut.Markup);
+        await cut.InvokeAsync(() => cut.Instance.Clear(alert.Id));
+
+        options.CurrentValue.MessageDelay = 0;
+        await cut.InvokeAsync(() => service.Show(option, cut.Instance));
+        Assert.Contains("data-bb-delay=\"1000\"", cut.Markup);
+        await cut.InvokeAsync(() => cut.Instance.Clear(alert.Id));
</code_context>

<issue_to_address>
**suggestion (testing):** Suggestion: Add a test for negative MessageDelay values.

Add a test with a negative MessageDelay to verify the component's behavior and ensure it handles invalid input correctly.

Suggested implementation:

```csharp
        options.CurrentValue.MessageDelay = 1000;
        await cut.InvokeAsync(() => service.Show(option, cut.Instance));
        Assert.Contains("data-bb-delay=\"1000\"", cut.Markup);
        await cut.InvokeAsync(() => cut.Instance.Clear(alert.Id));

        // Negative MessageDelay test
        options.CurrentValue.MessageDelay = -500;
        await cut.InvokeAsync(() => service.Show(option, cut.Instance));
        // Assert that negative delay is handled (e.g., defaults to 0 or a minimum value)
        Assert.DoesNotContain("data-bb-delay=\"-500\"", cut.Markup);
        Assert.Contains("data-bb-delay=\"0\"", cut.Markup); // Adjust if the component defaults to another value
        await cut.InvokeAsync(() => cut.Instance.Clear(alert.Id));

```

If the component does not default negative values to 0, adjust the assertion to match the actual default value. You may also want to check the component's implementation to ensure negative values are handled gracefully.
</issue_to_address>

### Comment 3
<location> `src/BootstrapBlazor/Components/Message/Message.razor.cs:88` </location>
<code_context>
         }
     }

+    private List<MessageOption> GetMessages()
+    {
+        var messages = new List<MessageOption>(_messages);
</code_context>

<issue_to_address>
**issue (complexity):** Consider replacing the message list reversal and removal logic with a property and helper method to streamline rendering and message management.

Here’s one way to collapse the duplication and simplify the “reverse‐if‐bottom” logic without losing any behavior:

```csharp
// replace GetMessages()
private IEnumerable<MessageOption> MessagesForRender =>
    Placement == Placement.Bottom
        ? _messages.AsEnumerable().Reverse()
        : _messages;

// helper to remove + return the removed item
private MessageOption? RemoveMessageById(string id)
{
    var msg = _messages.FirstOrDefault(x => GetItemId(x) == id);
    if (msg != null)
        _messages.Remove(msg);
    return msg;
}

[JSInvokable]
public Task Clear(string id)
{
    RemoveMessageById(id);
    StateHasChanged();
    return Task.CompletedTask;
}

[JSInvokable]
public async ValueTask Dismiss(string id)
{
    var msg = RemoveMessageById(id);
    if (msg?.OnDismiss != null)
        await msg.OnDismiss();

    StateHasChanged();
}
```

And in your `.razor` just enumerate `MessagesForRender` instead of calling `GetMessages()`. This:

- Removes the extra copy/reverse helper.
- Unifies the “find & remove” logic into one small method.
- Still calls all callbacks and updates state exactly once.
</issue_to_address>