Can't get first window of Rx's Window with FirstAsync - system.reactive

I want to separate an observable sequence (IObservable) into several observable sequences (the criteria is complicated, but for the sake of demonstration we can simply use count). This, quite obviously, calls for Window.
private static IObservable<int> GenerateSequence()
{
return Observable.Range(1, 5);
}
await GenerateSequence()
.Window(2)
.Select((w, i) => new {i, w})
.Do(w => w.w.Dump($"Window {w.i}"));
Output is as expected:
Window 0-->1
Window 0-->2
Window 0-->X
Window 1-->3
Window 1-->4
Window 1-->X
Window 2-->5
Window 2-->X
(X's mark the OnCompleted)
Now, for some reason I want only first of those sequences. Hence, FirstAsync:
(await GenerateSequence()
.Window(2)
.FirstAsync())
.Dump("Window");
But the strange thing is, I get no output at all, as if the sequence I get from FirstAsync was completely dead.
I'm kinda new to Rx, so I'm totally lost as to what and why exactly happens here.

EDIT:
Your answer works. You may want to look at replacing Window with Buffer. They're virtually identical, except Buffer was meant for similar scenarios. It returns a list though instead of array:
var t = GenerateSequence()
.Buffer(2)
.FirstAsync()
//.Select(list => list.ToArray()) //If you're particular about Task<int[]> over Task<IList<int>>
.ToTask();
As another aside, .SelectMany(i => i) can be replaced with .Merge().
Old answer:
I generally don't mix Rx with await. It's apparently supported, but seems... unintuitive. This code dumps the output of the first window:
GenerateSequence()
.Window(2)
.FirstAsync()
.Subscribe(i => i.Dump("Window"));
This dumps the first item from each window:
GenerateSequence()
.Window(2)
.Select(o => o.FirstAsync())
.Subscribe(i => i.Dump("Window"));
It wasn't clear from your question which one you wanted.

Actually, the solution was quite simple (although I still don't get what happens in my original code) - use SelectMany to flatten the sequence:
GenerateSequence()
.Window(2)
.FirstAsync()
.Concat()
.Dump("SO");
Produces, as expected:
SO-->1
SO-->2
SO-->X
And then, to achieve my original goal - i.e., to change the monad and return the result as Task<int[]>:
GenerateSequence()
.Window(2)
.FirstAsync()
.Concat()
.ToArray()
.ToTask();

Related

Is there an Operation to block onComplete?

I am trying to learn reactive programming, so forgive me if I ask a silly question. I'm also open to advice on changing my design.
I am working in scala-swing to display the results of a simulator. With one setting, a chart is displayed as a histogram; with the other setting the chart is displayed as the cumulative sum. (I'm probably using the wrong word; in the first setting you might have bin1=2, bin2=5, bin3=3; in the second setting the first height is 2, the second is 2 + 5, the third is 2 + 5 + 3, etc.). The simulator can be slow, so I originally used a Future to compute it, and the set the data into the chart. I decided to try a reactive approach, so my requirements are: 1. I don't want to recreate the data when I change the display mode, and 2. I want to set the Observable once for the chart and have the chart listen to the same Observable permanently.
I got this to work when I started the chain with a PublishSubject and the Future set the data into the start of the chain. When the display mode changed, I created a new PublishSubject().map(newRenderingLogic).subscribe(theChartsObservable). I am now trying to do what looks like the "right way," but it's not working correctly. I've tried to simplify what I have done:
val textObservable: Subject[String] = PublishSubject()
textObservable.subscribe(text => {
println(s"Text: ${text}")
})
var textSubscription: Option[Subscription] = None
val start = Observable.from(Future {
"Base text"
}).cache
var i = 0
val button = new Button() {
text = "Click"
reactions += {
case event => {
i += 1
if (textSubscription.isDefined) {
textSubscription.get.unsubscribe()
}
textSubscription = Some(start.map(((j: Int) => { (base: String) => s"${base} ${j}" })(i)).subscribe(textObservable))
}
}
}
On start, an Observable is created and logic to print some text is added to it. Then, an Observable with the generated data is created and a cache is added so that the result is replayed if the next subscription comes in after its results are generated. Then, a button is created. Then on button clicks a middle observable is chained with unique logic (it's a function that creates a function to append the value of i into the string, run with the current value of i; I tried to make something that couldn't just be reused) that is supposed to change with each click. Then the first Observable is subscribed to it so that the results of the whole chain end up being printed.
In theory, the cache operation takes care of not regenerating the data, and this works once, but onComplete is called on textObservable and then it can't be used again. It works if I subscribe it like this:
textSubscription = Some(start.map(((j: Int) => { (base: String) => s"${base} ${j}" })(i)).subscribe(text => textObservable.onNext(text)))
because the call to onComplete is intercepted, but this looks wrong and I wanted to know if there was a more typical way to do this, or architect it. It makes me think that I don't understand how this is supposed to be done if there isn't an out-of-the-box operation to do this.
Thank you.
I'm not 100% sure if I got the essence of your question right, but: if you have an Observable that may complete and you want to turn it into an Observable that never completes, you can just concatenate it with Observable.never.
For example:
// will complete after emitting those three elements:
val completes = Observable.from(List(1, 2, 3))
// will emit those three elements, but will never complete:
val wontComplete = completes ++ Observable.never

Creating Seq after waiting for all results from map/foreach in Scala

I am trying to loop over inputs and process them to produce scores.
Just for the first input, I want to do some processing that takes a while.
The function ends up returning just the values from the 'else' part. The 'if' part is done executing after the function returns the value.
I am new to Scala and understand the behavior but not sure how to fix it.
I've tried inputs.zipWithIndex.map instead of foreach but the result is the same.
def getscores(
inputs: inputs
): Future[Seq[scoreInfo]] = {
var scores: Seq[scoreInfo] = Seq()
inputs.zipWithIndex.foreach {
case (f, i) => {
if (i == 0) {
// long operation that returns Future[Option[scoreInfo]]
getgeoscore(f).foreach(gso => {
gso.foreach(score => {
scores = scores.:+(score)
})
})
} else {
scores = scores.:+(
scoreInfo(
id = "",
score = 5
)
)
}
}
}
Future {
scores
}
}
For what you need, I would drop the mutable variable and replace foreach with map to obtain an immutable list of Futures and recover to handle exceptions, followed by a sequence like below:
def getScores(inputs: Inputs): Future[List[ScoreInfo]] = Future.sequence(
inputs.zipWithIndex.map{ case (input, idx) =>
if (idx == 0)
getGeoScore(input).map(_.getOrElse(defaultScore)).recover{ case e => errorHandling(e) }
else
Future.successful(ScoreInfo("", 5))
})
To capture/print the result, one way is to use onComplete:
getScores(inputs).onComplete(println)
The part your missing is understanding a tricky element of concurrency, and that is that the order of execution when using multiple futures is not guaranteed.
If your block here is long running, it will take a while before appending the score to scores
// long operation that returns Future[Option[scoreInfo]]
getgeoscore(f).foreach(gso => {
gso.foreach(score => {
// stick a println("here") in here to see what happens, for demonstration purposes only
scores = scores.:+(score)
})
})
Since that executes concurrently, your getscores function will also simultaneously continue its work iterating over the rest of inputs in your zipWithindex. This iteration, especially since it's trivial work, likely finishes well before the long-running getgeoscore(f) completes the execution of the Future it scheduled, and the code will exit the function, moving on to whatever code is next after you called getscores
val futureScores: Future[Seq[scoreInfo]] = getScores(inputs)
futureScores.onComplete{
case Success(scoreInfoSeq) => println(s"Here's the scores: ${scoreInfoSeq.mkString(",")}"
}
//a this point the call to getgeoscore(f) could still be running and finish later, but you will never know
doSomeOtherWork()
Now to clean this up, since you can run a zipWithIndex on your inputs parameter, I assume you mean it's something like a inputs:Seq[Input]. If all you want to do is operate on the first input, then use the head function to only retrieve the first option, so getgeoscores(inputs.head) , you don't need the rest of the code you have there.
Also, as a note, if using Scala, get out of the habit of using mutable vars, especially if you're working with concurrency. Scala is built around supporting immutability, so if you find yourself wanting to use a var , try using a val and look up how to work with the Scala's collection library to make it work.
In general, that is when you have several concurrent futures, I would say Leo's answer describes the right way to do it. However, you want only the first element transformed by a long running operation. So you can use the future return by the respective function and append the other elements when the long running call returns by mapping the future result:
def getscores(inputs: Inputs): Future[Seq[ScoreInfo]] =
getgeoscore(inputs.head)
.map { optInfo =>
optInfo ++ inputs.tail.map(_ => scoreInfo(id = "", score = 5))
}
So you neither need zipWithIndex nor do you need an additional future or join the results of several futures with sequence. Mapping the future just gives you a new future with the result transformed by the function passed to .map().

RxJS interleaving merged observables (priority queue?)

UPDATE
I think I've figured out the solution. I explain it in this video. Basically, use timeoutWith, and some tricks with zip (within zip).
https://youtu.be/0A7C1oJSJDk
If I have a single observable like this:
A-1-2--B-3-4-5-C--D--6-7-E
I want to put the "numbers" as lower priority; it should wait until the "letters" is filled up (a group of 2 for example) OR a timeout is reached, and then it can emit. Maybe the following illustration (of the desired result) can help:
A------B-1-----C--D-2----E-3-4-5-6-7
I've been experimenting with some ideas... one of them: first step is to split that stream (groupBy), one containing letters, and the other containing numbers..., then "something in the middle" happen..., and finally those two (sub)streams get merged.
It's that "something in the middle" what I'm trying to figure out.
How to achieve it? Is that even possible with RxJS (ver 5.5.6)? If not, what's the closest one? I mean, what I want to avoid is having the "numbers" flooding the stream, and not giving enough chance for the "letters" to be processed in timely manner.
Probably this video I made of my efforts so far can clarify as well:
Original problem statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEmU4JK5Tic
So far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWDI9wpVxJk&feature=youtu.be
The problem with my solution so far (delaying each emission in "numbers" substream using .delay) is suboptimal, because it keeps clocking at slow pace (10 seconds) even after the "characters" (sub)stream has ended (not completed -- no clear boundary here -- just not getting more value for indeterminate amount of time). What I really need is, to have the "numbers" substream raise its pace (to 2 seconds) once that happen.
Unfortunately I don't know RxJs5 that much and use xstream myself (authored by one of the contributor to RxJS5) which is a little bit simpler in terms of the number of operators.
With this I crafted the following example:
(Note: the operators are pretty much the same as in Rx5, the main difference is with flatten wich is more or less like switch but seems to handle synchronous streams differently).
const xs = require("xstream").default;
const input$ = xs.of("A",1,2,"B",3,4,5,"C","D",6,7,"E");
const initialState = { $: xs.never(), count: 0, buffer: [] };
const state$ = input$
.fold((state, value) => {
const t = typeof value;
if (t === "string") {
return {
...state,
$: xs.of(value),
count: state.count + 1
};
}
if (state.count >= 2) {
const l = state.buffer.length;
return {
...state,
$: l > 0 ? xs.of(state.buffer[0]) : xs.of(value) ,
count: 0,
buffer: state.buffer.slice(1).concat(value)
};
}
return {
...state,
$: xs.never(),
buffer: state.buffer.concat(value),
};
}, initialState);
xs
.merge(
state$
.map(s => s.$),
state$
.last()
.map(s => xs.of.apply(xs, s.buffer))
)
.flatten()
.subscribe({
next: console.log
});
Which gives me the result you are looking for.
It works by folding the stream on itself, looking at the type of values and emitting a new stream depending on it. When you need to wait because not enough letters were dispatched I emit an emptystream (emits no value, no errors, no complete) as a "placeholder".
You could instead of emitting this empty stream emit something like
xs.empty().endsWith(xs.periodic(timeout)).last().mapTo(value):
// stream that will emit a value only after a specified timeout.
// Because the streams are **not** flattened concurrently you can
// use this as a "pending" stream that may or may not be eventually
// consumed
where value is the last received number in order to implement timeout related conditions however you would then need to introduce some kind of reflexivity with either a Subject in Rx or xs.imitate with xstream because you would need to notify your state that your "pending" stream has been consumed wich makes the communication bi-directionnal whereas streams / observables are unidirectionnal.
The key here the use of timeoutWith, to switch to the more aggresive "pacer", when the "events" kicks in. In this case the "event" is "idle detected in the higher-priority stream".
The video: https://youtu.be/0A7C1oJSJDk

Combining parts of Stream

I've got an observable watching a log that is continuously being written too. Each line is a new onNext call. Sometimes the log outputs a single log item over multiple lines. Detecting this is easy, I just can't find the right RX call.
I'd like to find a way to collect the single log items into a List of lines, and onNext the list when the single log item is complete.
Buffer doesn't seem right as this isn't time based, it's algorithm based.
GroupBy might be what I want, but the documentation is confusing for it. It also seems that the observables it creates probably won't have onComplete called until the completion of the source observable.
This solution can't delay the log much (preferably not at all). I need to be reading the log as close to real time as possible, and order matters.
Any push in the right direction would be great.
This is a typical reactive parsing problem. You could use Rxx Parsers, or for a native solution you can build your own state machine with either Scan or by defining an async iterator. Scan is preferable for simple parsers and often uses a Scan-Where-Select pattern.
Async iterator state machine example: Turnstile
Scan parser example (untested):
IObservable<string> lines = ReadLines();
IObservable<IReadOnlyList<string>> parsed = lines.Scan(
new
{
ParsingItem = (IEnumerable<string>)null,
Item = (IEnumerable<string>)null
},
(state, line) =>
// I'm assuming here that items never span lines partially.
IsItem(line)
? IsItemLastLine(line)
? new
{
ParsingItem = (IEnumerable<string>)null,
Item = (state.ParsingItem ?? Enumerable.Empty<string>()).Concat(line)
}
: new
{
ParsingItem = (state.ParsingItem ?? Enumerable.Empty<string>()).Concat(line),
Item = (List<string>)null
}
: new
{
ParsingItem = (IEnumerable<string>)null,
Item = new[] { line }
})
.Where(result => result.Item != null)
.Select(result => result.Item.ToList().AsReadOnly());

Why I am getting only one item out of this Observable?

I have a cold observable with static number of items, I needed some time delay between each item, I have combined it with another IObservable I got through Observable.Timer. I am using Zip .
var ob1 = Observable.Range(1, 100);
var ob2 = Observable.Timer(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1.0));
var myObservable = Observable.Zip(ob1, ob2, (a, b) => b);
myObservable.Subscribe(a => Console.WriteLine("Item encountered"));
///Allow enough time for Timer observable to give back multiple ticks
Thread.Sleep(3000);
But output only prints "Item encountered" once. What am I missing ?
To confirm the commentary, Observable.Interval is the way to go for just a single argument - and thus it has always been!
I found the solution. Observable.Timer takes two arguments for my scenario, first one is due time for first item and second due time is for all subsequent items. And if only one TimeSpan argument is supplied, it would yield only one item.
Observable.Timer(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1.0), TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1.0));