I have two methods that both return an IObservable
IObservable<Something[]> QueryLocal();
and
IObservable<Something[]> QueryWeb();
QueryLocal is always successful. QueryWeb is susceptible to both a timeout and possible web errors.
I wish to implement a QueryLocalAndWeb() that calls both and combines their results.
So far I have:
IObservable<Something[]> QueryLocalAndWeb()
{
var a = QueryLocal();
var b = QueryWeb();
var plan = a.And(b).Then((x, y) => x.Concat(y).ToArray());
return Observable.When(plan).Timeout(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10), a);
}
However, I'm not sure that it handles the case where QueryWeb yields an error.
In the future I might have a QueryWeb2() that also needs to be taken into account.
So, how do I combine the results from a number of IObservables ignoring the ones that throw errors (or time out)?
I guess OnErrorResumeNext should be able to handle this scenario:
From MSDN:
Continues an observable sequence that is terminated normally or by an
exception with the next observable sequence.
IObservable<Something[]> QueryLocalAndWeb()
{
var a = QueryLocal();
var b = QueryWeb().Timeout(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));
return Observable.OnErrorResumeNext(b, a);
}
You can do concat of array by using Aggregation on the returned observable.
I am assuming that both local and web are cold observable i.e they start producing values only when someone subscribes to them.
How about:
var plan = a.And(b).Then((x, y) => x.Concat(y.Catch(Observable.Empty<Something[]>()).ToArray());
Related
I have a method which connects to a websocket and gets stream messages from some really outside system.
The simplified version is:
def watchOrders(): Var[Option[Order]] = {
val value = Var[Option[Order]](None)
// onMessage( order => value.update(Some(order))
value
}
When I test it (with scalatest), I want to make it connect to the real outside system, and only check the first 4 orders:
test("watchOrders") {
var result = List.empty[Order]
val stream = client.watchOrders()
stream.foreach {
case Some(order) =>
result = depth :: result
if (result.size == 4) { // 1.
assert(orders should ...) // 2.
stream.kill() // 3.
}
case _ =>
}
Thread.sleep(10000) // 4.
}
I have 4 questions:
Is it the right way to check the first 4 orders? there is no take(4) method found in scala.rx
If the assert fails, the test still passes, how to fix it?
Is it the right way to stop the stream?
If the thread doesn't sleep here, the test will pass the code in case Some(order) never runs. Is there a better way to wait?
One approach you might consider to get a List out of a Var is to use the .fold combinator.
The other issue you have is dealing with the asynchronous nature of the data - assuming you really want to talk to this outside real world system in your test code (ie, this is closer to the integration test side of things), you are going to want to look at scalatest's support for async tests and will probably do something like construct a future out of a promise that you can complete when you accumulate the 4 elements in your list.
See: http://www.scalatest.org/user_guide/async_testing
I have the following code:
Single<Response<User>> single = service.registerUser();
single
.subscribeOn(Schedulers.io())
.observeOn(Schedulers.computation())
.map(Response::body)
.flatMap(parentsRepsitory::writeUser)
.observeOn(AndroidSchedulers.mainThread())
.flatMap(parentsRepsitory::getUser)
Where the parentsRepository is a repo wraping my realm database. The problems come when the server returns validation errors, however. So somewhere in my stream i want to have the equivalent of
if(response.code() == 201){
// CONTINUE STREAM USING THE LOGIC THAT HANDLES SUCCESS
}elseif(response.code() == 400){
// CONTINUE STREAM USING LOGIC TO HANDLE THE VALIDATION ERRORS
}
A solution I have previously implemented is as follows:
Observable<Response<User>> observable_from_api =
service.attemptLogin(username, password)
.share();
observable_from_api
.filter(response -> response.code() == HttpStatus.HTTP_STATUS_200_OK)
.//handle logic for success
observable_from_api
.filter(response -> response.code() == HttpStatus.HTTP_STATUS_400_BAD_REQUEST)
.//handle logic for validation errors
I don't like this solution for several different reasons. The main one being it just does not seem right. The second one being that the .share() method is only available on an Observable object. Since my network operation emits only one responce I would much rather use Single instead, but the .share() method is not available there.
Excuse me if this is a duplicate question, I have done some digging around and only found the solution I mentioned. I want to either see the optimal solution or be told explicitly that this is in fact the optimal solution.
I think you need to define which kind of data you want your consumer to receive. I assume you want to receive in the consumer a User object.
These are the signatures of the method that you should create:
Single<User> handleSuccess(Response<User> response)
Single<User> handleError(Response<User> response)
And then you create you stream in this way:
service.registerUser()
.flatMap(response -> {
if (response.success) {
return handleSuccess(response);
} else {
return handleError(response);
}
})
.subscribe(user -> logd("user: " + user.name));
I'm trying to learn the RxJS library. One of the cases I don't quite understand is described in this jsfiddle (code also below).
var A= new Rx.Subject();
var B= new Rx.Subject();
A.onNext(0);
// '.combineLatest' needs all the dependency Observables to get emitted, before its combined signal is emitted.
//
// How to have a combined signal emitted when any of the dependencies change (using earlier given values for the rest)?
//
A.combineLatest( B, function (a,b) { return a+b; } )
.subscribe( function (v) { console.log( "AB: "+ v ); } );
B.onNext("a");
A.onNext(1);
I'd like to get two emits to the "AB" logging. One from changing B to "a" (A already has the value 0). Another from changing A to 1.
However, only changes that occur after a subscribe seem to matter (even though A has a value and thus the combined result could be computed).
Should I use "hot observables" for this, or some other method than .combineLatest?
My problem in the actual code (bigger than this sample) is that I need to make separate initialisations after the subscribes, which cuts stuff in two separate places instead of having the initial values clearly up front.
Thanks
I think you have misunderstood how the Subjects work. Subjects are hot Observables. They do not hold on to values, so if they receive an onNext with no subscribers than that value will be lost to the world.
What you are looking for is a either the BehaviorSubject or the ReplaySubject both of which hold onto past values that re-emit them to new subscribers. In the former case you always construct it with an initial value
//All subscribers will receive 0
var subject = new Rx.BehaviorSubject(0);
//All subscribers will receive 1
//Including all future subscribers
subject.onNext(1);
in the latter you set the number of values to be replayed for each subscription
var subject = new Rx.ReplaySubject(1);
//All new subscribers will receive 0 until the subject receives its
//next onNext call
subject.onNext(0);
Rewriting your example it could be:
var A= new Rx.BehaviorSubject(0);
var B= new Rx.Subject();
// '.combineLatest' needs all the dependency Observables to get emitted, before its combined signal is emitted.
//
// How to have a combined signal emitted when any of the dependencies change (using earlier given values for the rest)?
//
A.combineLatest( B, function (a,b) { return a+b; } )
.subscribe( function (v) { console.log( "AB: "+ v ); } );
B.onNext("a");
A.onNext(1);
//AB: 0a
//AB: 1a
On another note, realizing of course that this is all new to you, in most cases you should not need to use a Subject directly as it generally means that you are trying to wrangle Rx into the safety of your known paradigms. You should ask yourself, where is your data coming from? How is it being created? If you ask those questions enough, following your chain of events back up to the source, 9 out of 10 times you will find that there is probably an Observable wrapper for it.
I have paged interface. Given a starting point a request will produce a list of results and a continuation indicator.
I've created an observable that is built by constructing and flat mapping an observable that reads the page. The result of this observable contains both the data for the page and a value to continue with. I pluck the data and flat map it to the subscriber. Producing a stream of values.
To handle the paging I've created a subject for the next page values. It's seeded with an initial value then each time I receive a response with a valid next page I push to the pages subject and trigger another read until such time as there is no more to read.
Is there a more idiomatic way of doing this?
function records(start = 'LATEST', limit = 1000) {
let pages = new rx.Subject();
this.connect(start)
.subscribe(page => pages.onNext(page));
let records = pages
.flatMap(page => {
return this.read(page, limit)
.doOnNext(result => {
let next = result.next;
if (next === undefined) {
pages.onCompleted();
} else {
pages.onNext(next);
}
});
})
.pluck('data')
.flatMap(data => data);
return records;
}
That's a reasonable way to do it. It has a couple of potential flaws in it (that may or may not impact you depending upon your use case):
You provide no way to observe any errors that occur in this.connect(start)
Your observable is effectively hot. If the caller does not immediately subscribe to the observable (perhaps they store it and subscribe later), then they'll miss the completion of this.connect(start) and the observable will appear to never produce anything.
You provide no way to unsubscribe from the initial connect call if the caller changes its mind and unsubscribes early. Not a real big deal, but usually when one constructs an observable, one should try to chain the disposables together so it call cleans up properly if the caller unsubscribes.
Here's a modified version:
It passes errors from this.connect to the observer.
It uses Observable.create to create a cold observable that only starts is business when the caller actually subscribes so there is no chance of missing the initial page value and stalling the stream.
It combines the this.connect subscription disposable with the overall subscription disposable
Code:
function records(start = 'LATEST', limit = 1000) {
return Rx.Observable.create(observer => {
let pages = new Rx.Subject();
let connectSub = new Rx.SingleAssignmentDisposable();
let resultsSub = new Rx.SingleAssignmentDisposable();
let sub = new Rx.CompositeDisposable(connectSub, resultsSub);
// Make sure we subscribe to pages before we issue this.connect()
// just in case this.connect() finishes synchronously (possible if it caches values or something?)
let results = pages
.flatMap(page => this.read(page, limit))
.doOnNext(r => this.next !== undefined ? pages.onNext(this.next) : pages.onCompleted())
.flatMap(r => r.data);
resultsSub.setDisposable(results.subscribe(observer));
// now query the first page
connectSub.setDisposable(this.connect(start)
.subscribe(p => pages.onNext(p), e => observer.onError(e)));
return sub;
});
}
Note: I've not used the ES6 syntax before, so hopefully I didn't mess anything up here.
Using reactive extension, it is easy to subscribe 2 times to the same observable.
When a new value is available in the observable, both subscribers are called with this same value.
Is there a way to have each subscriber get a different value (the next one) from this observable ?
Ex of what i'm after:
source sequence: [1,2,3,4,5,...] (infinite)
The source is constantly adding new items at an unknown rate.
I'm trying to execute a lenghty async action for each item using N subscribers.
1st subscriber: 1,2,4,...
2nd subscriber: 3,5,...
...
or
1st subscriber: 1,3,...
2nd subscriber: 2,4,5,...
...
or
1st subscriber: 1,3,5,...
2nd subscriber: 2,4,6,...
I would agree with Asti.
You could use Rx to populate a Queue (Blocking Collection) and then have competing consumers read from the queue. This way if one process was for some reason faster it could pick up the next item potentially before the other consumer if it was still busy.
However, if you want to do it, against good advice :), then you could just use the Select operator that will provide you with the index of each element. You can then pass that down to your subscribers and they can fiter on a modulus. (Yuck! Leaky abstractions, magic numbers, potentially blocking, potentiall side effects to the source sequence etc)
var source = Obserservable.Interval(1.Seconds())
.Select((i,element)=>{new Index=i, Element=element});
var subscription1 = source.Where(x=>x.Index%2==0).Subscribe(x=>DoWithThing1(x.Element));
var subscription2 = source.Where(x=>x.Index%2==1).Subscribe(x=>DoWithThing2(x.Element));
Also remember that the work done on the OnNext handler if it is blocking will still block the scheduler that it is on. This could affect the speed of your source/producer. Another reason why Asti's answer is a better option.
Ask if that is not clear :-)
How about:
IObservable<TRet> SomeLengthyOperation(T input)
{
return Observable.Defer(() => Observable.Start(() => {
return someCalculatedValueThatTookALongTime;
}, Scheduler.TaskPoolScheduler));
}
someObservableSource
.SelectMany(x => SomeLengthyOperation(input))
.Subscribe(x => Console.WriteLine("The result was {0}", x);
You can even limit the number of concurrent operations:
someObservableSource
.Select(x => SomeLengthyOperation(input))
.Merge(4 /* at a time */)
.Subscribe(x => Console.WriteLine("The result was {0}", x);
It's important for the Merge(4) to work, that the Observable returned by SomeLengthyOperation be a Cold Observable, which is what the Defer does here - it makes the Observable.Start not happen until someone Subscribes.