How do you sequentially chain observables in concise and readable way - swift

Im new to RXSwift and I've begun investigating how I can perform Promise like function chaining.
I think I'm on the right track by using flatmap but my implementation is very difficult to read so I suspect theres a better way to accomplish it.
What I have here seems to work but I'm getting a headache thinking about what It might looks like if I added another 3 or functions to the chain.
Here Is where I declare my 'promise chain'(hard to read)
LOGIN().flatMap{ (stuff) -> Observable<Int> in
return API(webSiteData: stuff).flatMap
{ (username) -> Observable<ProfileResult> in
return accessProfile(userDisplayName: username) }
}.subscribe(onNext: { event in
print("The Chain Completed")
print(event)
}, onError:{ error in
print("An error in the chain occurred")
})
These are the 3 sample functions I'm chaining
struct apicreds
{
let websocket:String
let token:String
}
typealias APIResult = String
typealias ProfileResult = Int
// FUNCTION 1
func LOGIN() -> Observable<apicreds> {
return Observable.create { observer in
print("IN LOGIn")
observer.onNext(apicreds(websocket: "the web socket", token: "the token"))
observer.on(.completed)
return Disposables.create()
}
}
// FUNCTION 2
func API(webSiteData: apicreds) -> Observable<APIResult> {
return Observable.create { observer in
print("IN API")
print (webSiteData)
// observer.onError(myerror.anError)
observer.on(.next("This is the user name")) // assiging "1" just as an example, you may ignore
observer.on(.completed)
return Disposables.create()
}
}
//FUNCTION 3
func accessProfile(userDisplayName:String) -> Observable<ProfileResult>
{
return Observable.create { observer in
// Place your second server access code
print("IN Profile")
print (userDisplayName)
observer.on(.next(200)) // 200 response from profile call
observer.on(.completed)
return Disposables.create()
}
}

This is a very common problem we run into while chaining operations. As a beginner I had written similar code using RxSwift in my projects as well. And there are two areas of improvement -
1. Refactor the code to remove nested flatMaps
2. Format it differently to make the sequence easier to follow
LOGIN()
.flatMap{ (stuff) -> Observable<APIResult> in
return API(webSiteData: stuff)
}.flatMap{ (username) -> Observable<ProfileResult> in
return accessProfile(userDisplayName: username)
}.subscribe(onNext: { event in
print("The Chain Completed")
print(event)
}, onError:{ error in
print("An error in the chain occurred")
})

In addition to nested flatMap and code formatting, you could omit return and explicit return types:
LOGIN()
.flatMap { webSiteData in API(webSiteData: webSiteData) }
parameter names
LOGIN()
.flatMap { API(webSiteData: $0) }
or even remove parameters at all where appropriate:
LOGIN()
.flatMap(API)
.flatMap(accessProfile)
.subscribe(
onNext: { event in
print(event)
}, onError:{ error in
print(error)
}
)
FYI there is Observable.just method which would be convenient here:
struct ApiCredentials {
let websocket: String
let token: String
}
func observeCredentials() -> Observable<ApiCredentials> {
let credentials = ApiCredentials(websocket: "the web socket", token: "the token")
return Observable.just(credentials)
}
Try to follow official Swift API Guidelines to make your code more readable.

You can also use the point-free style and just pass function references to flatMap:
LOGIN()
.flatMap(API)
.flatMap(accessProfile)
.subscribe(onNext: { event in
print("The Chain Completed")
print(event)
}, onError:{ error in
print("An error in the chain occurred")
})

Related

Chaining calls when using Future in Swift similar to PromiseKit

Below there are three functions. The first one is the function that I need to refactor. Basically what I'm hoping for is something similar what can be achieved using Promise Kit but in this case using Swifts combine framework.
The second function loginWithFacebook() returns a AuthCredential.
This AuthCredential needs to be passed on to the last functions which returns a type Future<UserProfileCompact, Error> which is a similar return type to the main function (1st function).
My question is is there a way to achieve this in a Swifty way, similar to Promise Kit doing this operation: return loginWithFacebook().then {loginWithFirebase(:_)}
// Call site is a View Model
// Main Function that needs to be refactored
func loginwithFacebook() -> Future<UserProfileCompact, Error> {
//This returs a Future Firebase Credential
loginWithFacebook()
//The above credential needs to be passed to this method and this returns a type Future<UserProfileCompact, Error>
loginWithFirebase(<#T##credentials: AuthCredential##AuthCredential#>)
}
private func loginWithFacebook() -> Future<AuthCredential,Error> {
return Future { [weak self] promise in
self?.loginManager.logIn(permissions: ["public_profile","email"], from: UIViewController()) { (loginResult, error) in
if let error = error {
promise(.failure(error))
} else if loginResult?.isCancelled ?? false {
//fatalError()
}
else if let authToken = loginResult?.token?.tokenString {
let credentials = FacebookAuthProvider.credential(withAccessToken: authToken)
promise(.success(credentials))
}
else{
fatalError()
}
}
}
}
private func loginWithFirebase(_ credentials: AuthCredential) -> Future<UserProfileCompact, Error> {
return Future { promise in
Auth.auth().signIn(with: credentials) { (result, error) in
if let error = error {
//Crashlytics.crashlytics().record(error: error)
promise(.failure(error))
}
else if let user = result?.user {
//Crashlytics.crashlytics().setUserID(user.uid)
let profile = UserProfileCompactMapper.map(firebaseUser: user)
promise(.success(profile))
}
else {
fatalError()
}
}
}
}
You can use a .flatMap operator, which takes a value from upstream and produces a publisher. This would look something like below.
Note, that it's also better to return a type-erased AnyPublisher at the function boundary, instead of the specific publisher used inside the function
func loginwithFacebook() -> AnyPublisher<UserProfileCompact, Error> {
loginWithFacebook().flatMap { authCredential in
loginWithFirebase(authCredential)
}
.eraseToAnyPublisher()
}

RxSwift+Alamofire custom mapper error handling

RxSwift one more question about error handling:
I'm using Alamofire+RxAlamofire this way:
SessionManager.default.rx.responseJSON(.post, url, parameters:params)
example:
func login() -> Observable<Int> {
let urlString = ...
let params = ...
return SessionManager.default.rx.responseJSON(.post, url, parameters:params)
.rxJsonDefaultResponse()
.map({ (data) in
data["clientId"] as! Int
})
}
....
extension ObservableType where Element == (HTTPURLResponse, Any) {
func rxJsonDefaultResponse() -> Observable<Dictionary<String, Any>> {
return self.asObservable().map { data -> Dictionary<String, Any> in
if... //error chechings
throw NSError(domain: ..,
code: ...,
userInfo: ...)
}
...
return json
}
}
}
using:
loginBtn.rx.tap
.flatMap{ _ in
provider.login()
}.subscribe(onNext: { id in
...
}, onError: { (er) in
ErrorPresentationHelper.showErrorAlert(for: er)
})
.disposed(by: bag)
So if error occurred everything works as intended: error alert shows and 'loginBtn.rx.tap' disposed, but I need it to be still alive, what's my strategy here if I want to use onError block?
You can use materialize function in rxSwift. It will convert any Observable into an Observable of its events. So that you will be listening to Observable<Event<Int>> than Observable<Int>. Any error thrown from the flatmap would be captured as error event in your subscription block's onNext and can be handled there. And your subscription would still be alive. Sample code would be as follows.
button.rx.tap.flatMap { _ in
return Observable.just(0)
.flatMap { _ -> Observable<Int> in
provider.login()
}.materialize()
}.subscribe(onNext: { event in
switch event {
case .next:
if let value = event.element {
print(value) //You will be getting your value here
}
case .error:
if let error = event.error {
print(error.localizedDescription) //You will be getting your captured error here
}
case .completed:
print("Subscription completed")
}
}) {
print("Subscription disposed")
}.disposed(by: disposeBag)
Hope it helps. You can checkout the materialize extension here.

How do I reverse a promise?

I'm using PromiseKit to handle flow through a process.
Prior, I did a similar app without promises but decided frick it I'm gonna try promises just because, well, why not?
So I'm throwing a back button in the mix as I did in the prior app. Only problem is, I'm not exactly sure how to handle "reversing" if you want to call it that.
So say I have a flow of
doSomething().then {
// do something else
}.then {
// do something else
}.done {
// wrap it up, boss
}.catch {
// you're an idiot, bud
}
Say I'm in the first or second part of the chain then and I want to go back up the chain - is this possible?
Is there a link y'all can give me that I can use to read up on how to do that?
I'm thinking I might have to restart the "chain", but then how would I step through the flow....WAIT (light bulb), I can programmatically fulfill the necessary promises with whatever the data is that initially was fulfilled with until I get to the point in the "chain" where I needed to go back to, right?
Advice D:?
You can always have a catch and a then on the same promise.
var somePromise = doSomething()
// first chain
somePromise.catch { error in
// handle error
}
// second chain from the same starting point
somePromise.then {
// do something else
}.then {
// do something else
}.catch {
// you can still catch the error here too
}
You're basically creating two promise chains from the same original promise.
No, you can not do that. Once you commit a promise, you can not reverse that. Because the chain is supposed to finish in the descending order, it's cumbersome to track the order in each .then block.
What you can do is, handle the internal logic responsible to fulfill or reject a promise and start the chain from the beginning.
func executeChain() {
doSomething().then {
// do something else
}.then {
// do something else
}.done {
// condition to
executeChain()
}.catch {
// you're an idiot, bud
}
}
func doSomething() -> Promise<SomeThing>{
if (condition to bypass for reversing) {
return .value(something)
}
// Normal execution
}
But if you can improve your question with an actual use case and code then it could help providing more suitable explanation.
No you can't but you can set order in array.
bar(promises: [foo1(), foo2(), foo3()])
func bar<T>(promises: [Promise<T>]) {
when(fulfilled: promises)
.done { _ in
// TODO
}
.catch { error in
// When get error reverse array and call it again
self.bar(promises: promises.reversed())
}
}
func foo1() -> Promise<Void> {
return Promise { $0.fulfill(()) }
}
func foo2() -> Promise<Void> {
return Promise { $0.fulfill(()) }
}
func foo3() -> Promise<Void> {
return Promise { $0.fulfill(()) }
}
or alternatively
bar(foo1, foo2, foo3)
.done { _ in
// TODO
}
.catch { error in
print(error.localizedDescription)
self.bar(self.foo3, self.foo2, self.foo1)
.done { _ in
// TODO
}
.catch { error2 in
print(error2.localizedDescription)
}
}
func bar<T>(_ promise1: () -> Promise<T>,
_ promise2: #escaping () -> Promise<T>,
_ promise3: #escaping () -> Promise<T>) -> Promise<T> {
return Promise { seal in
promise1()
.then { _ in return promise2() }
.then { _ in return promise3() }
.done { model in
seal.fulfill(model)
}
.catch {
seal.reject($0)
}
}
}
func foo1() -> Promise<Void> {
return Promise { $0.fulfill(()) }
}
func foo2() -> Promise<Void> {
return Promise { $0.fulfill(()) }
}
func foo3() -> Promise<Void> {
return Promise { $0.fulfill(()) }
}

Why use the responseWith method?

In the process of reading the RXAlamofire source code, there is a place that I don't understand very well.
Since this method is an observable object for creating a DataRequest, why call the responseWith method?
func request<R: RxAlamofireRequest>(_ createRequest: #escaping (SessionManager) throws -> R) -> Observable<R> {
return Observable.create { observer -> Disposable in
let request: R
do {
request = try createRequest(self.base)
observer.on(.next(request))
request.responseWith(completionHandler: { response in
if let error = response.error {
observer.on(.error(error))
} else {
observer.on(.completed)
}
})
if !self.base.startRequestsImmediately {
request.resume()
}
return Disposables.create {
request.cancel()
}
} catch {
observer.on(.error(error))
return Disposables.create()
}
}
}
I believe the authors of RXAlamofire use this as their convention. If you look at there request implementation All of the request methods return the result of a method responseXYZ. The response methods typically execute the request and respond with something (JSON, String, etc.) Sounds a bit confusing but its kind of like this request some data respond with something.

RXAlamofire not returning data ( error or not)

This is my non-reactive code that works just fine.
func getLatestHtml2 () {
Alamofire.request("https://www.everfest.com/fest300").responseString { response in
print("\(response.result.isSuccess)")
if let html = response.result.value {
self.parseHTML(html: html)
}
}
}
However when I make it reactive using this code.
func getLatestHtml1() -> Observable<String> {
return Observable<String>.create { (observer) -> Disposable in
let request = Alamofire
.request("https://www.everfest.com/fest300")
.responseString { response in
print(response.result.value)
observer.onNext(response.result.value!)
observer.onCompleted()
}
return Disposables.create { request.cancel() }
}
}
I get no data in the print statement. I even used RxAlamofire, which I feel is the right way with this code and it has error checking:
func getLatestHtml() -> Observable<String?> {
return RxAlamofire
.requestData(.get,"https://web.archive.org/web/20170429080421/https://www.everfest.com/fest300" )
.debug()
.catchError { error in
print(error)
return Observable.never()
}
.map { (response, value) in
print(response.statusCode)
guard response.statusCode == 200 else { return nil }
print(value)
return String(data: value, encoding: String.Encoding.utf8)
}
.asObservable()
}
which produced no data or errors anywhere. I need to know if my syntax is wrong or my thinking regarding reactive programming is wrong.
I cam calling it as .getLatestHTMLX(). Thanks !
Observable's are lazy, they don't do any work unless they are being watched (and will generally stop working as soon as nobody is watching.) This means you have to subscribe to an observable in order for it to start emitting values.
Also, unless you explicitly share the observable, it will start a new request for every subscriber.