I have 2 publishers where I want to perform an action based on either response. I don't care about the values. I'm trying to do something like this:
var hasChangedPublisher: AnyPublisher<(Void, Void), Never> {
Publishers.CombineLatest(
preferences.publisher,
state.$permissionStatus
).eraseToAnyPublisher()
}
If preferences.publisher fires first but not the other, I want to fire. If state.$permissionStatus fires but not the other, I want to fire. I don't really want to CombineLatest, but not sure how to fire if either emit.
Is there a way to produce an even if either fire but more elegantly erase its values?
You're looking for Merge instead of CombineLatest. Your code for this would look a bit like the following:
var hasChangedPublisher: AnyPublisher<Void, Never> {
preferences.publisher
.merge(state.$permissionStatus)
.map({ _ in
return () // transform to Void
})
.eraseToAnyPublisher()
}
Instead of CombineLatest, use Merge.
CombineLatest creates a tuple based on all the publishers that are combined. It is great, except, it will not fire at all until every one of the combined publishers has fired at least once. After that, it will fire once for every firing of any of its combined publishers - (merging the last value from each publisher into the tuple).
Merge, instead, just multiplexes all combined publishers together and generates a stream of events - containing a stream of single values from any of the combined publishers.
// transform to Void
.map { _ in }
Related
I'm trying to create an Observable with the following characteristics:
allows multiple concurrent and/or consecutive subscribers
emits the last emitted item to every new subscriber
does something when the first subscriber subscribes, and when the last subscription is disposed
A BehaviorSubject with doOnSubscribe/doOnDispose satisfies #1 and #2, but runs subscribe/dispose for every subscriber instead of only the first and last. Adding share satisfies #1 and #3, but only emits the last emitted item to the first concurrent subscriber.
I came up with a solution that seems to work but feels like an ugly hack:
AtomicInteger subs = new AtomicInteger();
Observable<String> test = BehaviorSubject.createDefault("foo")
.doOnSubscribe(x -> {
if(subs.getAndIncrement() == 0) {
// do something
}
})
.doOnDispose(() -> {
if(subs.decrementAndGet() == 0) {
// do something
}
});
Is there an existing operator or combination of operators that achieves the same effect?
Use the replay operator with argument 1 i.e.
yourObservable.replay(1)
Edit: You are right that replay will return a connectedObservable and that the refcount operator will make it behave like on Observable i.e.
yourObservable.replay(1).refcount()
I am going through the tutorial:
https://marcosantadev.com/mvvmc-with-swift/
Which talks about MVVM-C design pattern. I have real trouble understanding of how and why .never() observable is used there (and in general why we would want to use .never() besides testing timeouts).
Could anyone give a reasonable example of .never() observable usage in swift code (not in testing) and explain why it is necessary and what are the alternatives?
I address all the actions from View to ViewModel. User taps on a button? Good, the signal is delivered to a ViewModel. That is why I have multiple input observables in ViewModel. And all the observables are optional. They are optional because sometimes I write tests and don't really want to provide all the fake observables to test some single function. So, I provide other observables as nil. But working with nil is not very convenient, so I provide some default behavior for all the optional observables like this:
private extension ViewModel {
func observableNavigation() -> Observable<Navigation.Button> {
return viewOutputFactory().observableNavigation ?? Observable.never()
}
func observableViewState() -> Observable<ViewState> {
return viewOutputFactory().observableViewState ?? Observable.just(.didAppear)
}
}
As you can see, if I pass nil for observableViewState I substitute it with just(.didAppear) because the ViewModel logic heavily depends on the state of view. On the other hand if I pass nil for observableNavigation I provide never() because I assume that non of the navigation button will ever be triggered.
But this whole story is just my point of view. I bet you will find your own place to use this never operator.
Maybe your ViewModel has different configurations (or you have different viewModel under the same protocol), one of which does not need to send any updates to its observers. Instead of saying that the observable does not exist for this particular case (which you would implement as an optional), you might want to be able to define an observable as a .never(). This is in my opinion cleaner.
Disclaimer - I am not a user of RxSwift, but I am assuming never is similar than in ReactiveSwift, i.e. a signal that never sends any value.
It's an open ended question, and there can be many answers, but I've found myself reaching for never on a number of cases. There are many ways to solve a problem, but recently, I was simplifying some device connection code that had a cascading fail over, and I wanted to determine if my last attempt to scan for devices yielded any results.
To do that, I wanted to create an observable that only emitted a "no scan results" event in the event that it was disposed without having seen any results, and conversely, emitted nothing if it did.
I have pruned out other details from my code to sake of brevity, but in essence:
func connect(scanDuration: TimeInterval) -> Observable<ConnectionEvent> {
let scan = scan(for: scanDuration).share(replay: 1)
let connection: Observable<ConnectionEvent> =
Observable.concat(Observable.from(restorables ?? []),
connectedPeripherals(),
scan)
.flatMapLatest { [retainedSelf = self] in retainedSelf.connect(to: $0) }
let scanDetector = scan
.toArray() // <-- sum all results as an array for final count
.asObservable()
.flatMap { results -> Observable<ConnectionEvent> in
results.isEmpty // if no scan results
? Observable.just(.noDevicesAvailable) // emit event
: Observable.never() } // else, got results, no action needed
// fold source and stream detector into common observable
return Observable.from([
connection
.filter { $0.isConnected }
.flatMapLatest { [retained = self] event -> Observable<ConnectionEvent> in
retained.didDisconnect(peripheral: event.connectedPeripheral!.peripheral)
.startWith(event) },
scanDetector])
.switchLatest()
}
For a counter point, I realized as I typed this up, that there is still a simpler way to achieve my needs, and that is to add a final error emitting observable into my concat, it fails-over until it hits the final error case, so I don't need the later error detection stream.
Observable.concat(Observable.from(restorables ?? []),
connectedPeripherals(),
scan,
hardFailureEmitNoScanResults())
That said, there are many cases where we may want to listen and filter down stream, where the concat technique is not available.
I'm trying to get a subscription to automatically unsubscribe when it emits an item. The base observable is created like this.
public static Observable<RxBleConnection> setupConnection(RxBleDevice device, PublishSubject<Void> disconnectTrigger) {
return device
.establishConnection(false)
.takeUntil(disconnectTrigger)
.retry(3)
.retryWhen(o -> o.delay(RETRY_DELAY, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS))
.compose(new ConnectionSharingAdapter());
}
Then I try to combine three read operations into a ProgramModel.
private void readCharacteristics(Action1<ProgramModel> onReadSuccess) {
mConnectionObservable
.flatMap(rxBleConnection ->
// combines the following three observables into a single observable that is
// emitted in onNext of the subscribe
Observable.combineLatest(
rxBleConnection.readCharacteristic(UUID_SERIAL_NUMBER),
rxBleConnection.readCharacteristic(UUID_MACHINE_TYPE),
rxBleConnection.readCharacteristic(UUID_CHARACTERISTIC),
ProgramModel::new))
.observeOn(AndroidSchedulers.mainThread())
.take(1)
.subscribe(programModel -> {
programModel.trimSerial();
onReadSuccess.call(programModel);
}, BleUtil::logError);
}
So theoretically once a program model is comes through oNext of the subscribe, the subscription will be unsubscribed from. For some reason the operation gets stuck and onNext and onError are never called. If I remove the take(1) this works fine but I don't want to have to deal with holding onto a reference to the subscription and unsubscribing manually. Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong or why onNext is not being called?
I needed to call take(1) before the flatMap as well as after. This post sort of explains it Read multiple characteristics from an Android device using library RxAndroidBle
I'm trying to use RxSwift to execute actions on multiple data sources. However, I have no idea how to accomplish the following.
I have an array of observabless where the output of each, should be the input of the next. So, I want to do something like, get the first observable, wait for the result and pass it to the next, all the way to the end of the array and return one final value.
Is that possible? Thanks in advance.
*** Update: Ok, I'll be more specific as requested.
The 'observables' I'm using in the array, are custom. I use a function that returns Observable.create { ... }. Inside the closure, I run an asynchronous operation that transforms the value and then send the result to the observer before completing. That resulting value, must pass to the next observable, and so on to the last observable in the array to get a final value.
The observables may send multiple values, but they must pass from one observable to the next like an assembly line.
It is difficult to know exactly what you are asking for, since Observables do not exactly have inputs but I think this is a common problem.
You may be looking for a combination of the concat or reduce operators, which allow you to accumulate data from the values emitted from an Observable. See ReactiveX's documentation for Mathematical and Aggregate Operators.
Hopefully this can get you started:
// "I have an array of observables..."
let one = Observable.deferred { Observable.just(1) }
let two = Observable.deferred { Observable.just(2) }
let observables = [one, two]
// "the output of each, should be the input of the next"
// this is problematic, because observables do not strictly have inputs.
let resultsFromEach = Observable.concat(observables)
resultsFromEach
.reduce(0) { result, next in
result + 1
}
.debug("result")
.subscribe()
i'm a RxJava newcomer, and i'm having some trouble wrapping my head around how to do the following.
i'm using Retrofit to invoke a network request that returns me a Single<Foo>, which is the type i ultimately want to consume via my Subscriber instance (call it SingleFooSubscriber)
Foo has an internal property items typed as List<String>.
if Foo.items is not empty, i would like to invoke separate, concurrent network requests for each of its values. (the actual results of these requests are inconsequential for SingleFooSubscriber as the results will be cached externally).
SingleFooSubscriber.onComplete() should be invoked only when Foo and all Foo.items have been fetched.
fetchFooCall
.subscribeOn(Schedulers.io())
// Approach #1...
// the idea here would be to "merge" the results of both streams into a single
// reactive type, but i'm not sure how this would work given that the item emissions
// could be far greater than one. using zip here i don't think it would every
// complete.
.flatMap { foo ->
if(foo.items.isNotEmpty()) {
Observable.zip(
Observable.fromIterable(foo.items),
Observable.just(foo),
{ source1, source2 ->
// hmmmm...
}
).toSingle()
} else {
Single.just(foo)
}
}
// ...or Approach #2...
// i think this would result in the streams for Foo and items being handled sequentially,
// which is not really ideal because
// 1) i think it would entail nested streams (i get the feeling i should be using flatMap
// instead)
// 2) and i'm not sure SingleFooSubscriber.onComplete() would depend on the completion of
// the stream for items
.doOnSuccess { data ->
if(data.items.isNotEmpty()) {
// hmmmm...
}
}
.observeOn(AndroidSchedulers.mainThread())
.subscribe(
{ data -> /* onSuccess() */ },
{ error -> /* onError() */ }
)
any thoughts on how to approach this would be greatly appreciated!
bonus points: in trying to come up with a solution to this, i've begun to question the decision to use the Single reactive type vs the Observable reactive type. most (all, except this one Foo.items case?) of my streams actually revolve around consuming a single instance of something, so i leaned toward Single to represent my streams as i thought it would add some semantic clarity around the code. anybody have any general guidance around when to use one vs the other?
You need to nest flatMaps and then convert back to Single:
retrofit.getMainObject()
.flatMap(v ->
Flowable.fromIterable(v.items)
.flatMap(w ->
retrofit.getItem(w.id).doOnNext(x -> w.property = x)
)
.ignoreElements()
.toSingle(v)
)