I have a more complex version of the following code:
val testFlow = flow {
try {
// Continually emit some values
} catch (e: CancellationException) {
// Wrap up and emit finished state value
}
}
When I collect this testFlow, I never receive the finished state value. It is documented that the flow builder performs ensureActive checks before emitting values. In this link is also an example using IntRange.asFlow that does not check for cancellation before emitting values and showing that those values are continued to be collected.
Is there a way to make a custom kotlin flow emit a last value to be collected after the cancellation of the coroutine?
Here's a Kotlin Playground example (thanks #Tenfour04) showing differing behaviour of emit after cancel depending on how the flow is constructed. I just don't know how to get a flow that's able to emit after cancel that is not constructed by IntRange.asFlow.
IntRange.asFlow uses unsafeFlow internally which is defined as:
inline fun <T> unsafeFlow(crossinline block: suspend FlowCollector<T>.() -> Unit): Flow<T> {
return object : Flow<T> {
override suspend fun collect(collector: FlowCollector<T>) {
collector.block()
}
}
}
Using unsafeFlow one can emit even in cancelled coroutines, even though this solution is quite a hack and I would like to replace it with a more officially supported version that does not require to access internal Kotlin Coroutine APIs.
Note: Emitting after cancellation only works when using
try {
...
} catch (e: CancellationException) {
...
}
and not using unsafeFlow.catch {}.
Related
I have a Kotlin Backend/server API using Ktor, and inside a certain endpoint's service logic I need to concurrently get details for a list of ids and then return it all to the client with the 200 response.
The way I wanted to do it is by using async{} and awaitAll()
However, I can't understand whether I should use runBlocking or GlobalScope.
What is really the difference here?
fun getDetails(): List<Detail> {
val fetched: MutableList<Details> = mutableListOf()
GlobalScope.launch { --> Option 1
runBlocking { ---> Option 2
Dispatchers.IO --> Option 3 (or any other dispatcher ..)
myIds.map { id ->
async {
val providerDetails = getDetails(id)
fetched += providerDetails
}
}.awaitAll()
}
return fetched
}
launch starts a coroutine that runs in parallel with your current code, so fetched would still be empty by the time your getDetails() function returns. The coroutine will continue running and mutating the List that you have passed out of the function while the code that retrieved the list already has the reference back and will be using it, so there's a pretty good chance of triggering a ConcurrentModificationException. Basically, this is not a viable solution at all.
runBlocking runs a coroutine while blocking the thread that called it. The coroutine will be completely finished before the return fetched line, so this will work if you are OK with blocking the calling thread.
Specifying a Dispatcher isn't an alternative to launch or runBlocking. It is an argument that you can add to either to determine the thread pool used for the coroutine and its children. Since you are doing IO and parallel work, you should probably be using runBlocking(Dispatchers.IO).
Your code can be simplified to avoid the extra, unnecessary mutable list:
fun getDetails(): List<Detail> = runBlocking(Dispatchers.IO) {
myIds.map { id ->
async {
getDetails(id)
}
}.awaitAll()
}
Note that this function will rethrow any exceptions thrown by getDetails().
If your project uses coroutines more generally, you probably have higher level coroutines running, in which case this should probably be a suspend function (non-blocking) instead:
suspend fun getDetails(): List<Detail> = withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
myIds.map { id ->
async {
getDetails(id)
}
}.awaitAll()
}
lifecycleScope.launch {
adapter?.getData()?.let {
val flowable = it.asFlow()
flowable.onEach {
doCompress(it)
}.flatMapConcat {
flow<Unit> {
updateProgressInMain()
}.flowOn(Dispachers.Main)
}.catch {
dismissLoading()
}.flowOn(Dispatchers.IO).collect {
Log.d("Collect", "" + Thread.currentThread())
}
}
}
As above code, I cannot print 'Collect' log in console but other code can run well. However, I can print the log when I use 'WithContext()' in onEach period instead of flatMapConcat to switch Thread. Could anyone discribe what happened?
You produce an empty Flow that never emits in flatMapConcat, so the resulting Flow will never emit anything either.
Your code doesn't quite make sense to me, but supposing the task you want to do is, for each item emitted by the source LiveData as Flow:
Pass it to doCompress() on the IO Dispatcher. Apparently doCompress() doesn't return anything.
Call updateProgressInMain() on the main thread after eeach item is compressed.
And then call dismissLoading() whether or not it failed.
Then this simpler code should do it:
adapter?.getData()?.asFlow()?.onEach {
runCatching {
withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
doCompress(it)
Log.d("Collect", "" + Thread.currentThread())
}
updateProgressInMain()
}
dismissLoading()
}?.launchIn(lifecycleScope)
I am trying call
override suspend fun getLoginResponse(loginRequest: LoginRequest) = flow {
emit(ApiResult.Loading)
networkCall {
loginService.postLoginResponse(loginRequest)
}.let { apiResult->
apiResult.isSuccessAndNotNull().letOnTrueOnSuspend {
(apiResult.getResult() as? LoginResponse)?.let {
emit(ApiResult.Success(it))
Timber.d(it.toString())
} ?: run { emit(ApiResult.Error(TypeCastException("unknown error.")))
Timber.d(TypeCastException("unknown error."))}
}
}
}.flowOn(Dispatchers.IO)
from my viewModel like this :
private fun loginResponse(email: String, password: String, device: String){
viewModelScope.launch {
try {
var loginRequest = LoginRequest(email, password, device)
loginResponseFromServer = loginRepository.getLoginResponse(loginRequest)
.asLiveData(viewModelScope.coroutineContext+Dispatchers.Default)
Timber.d(loginResponseFromServer.toString())
}
catch (e: NetworkErrorException){
validationError.value = "Network communication error!"
}
}
}
When I debug or run the code getLoginResponse not even calling. Is there anything I am missing?
First of all, getLoginResponse doesn't need to be a suspend function since it just returns a cold Flow. If you remove the suspend modifier, you won't need a coroutine to call it or convert it to LiveData.
Second, a LiveData that is built with .asLiveData() doesn't begin to collect the Flow (remains cold) until it first becomes active. This is in the docs for the function. It becomes active when it receives its first observer, but your code has not begun to observe it, which is why the code in your flow block is never called.
You also don't need to specify a different dispatcher for your LiveData. It doesn't matter which dispatcher you're collecting in since collecting it isn't blocking code.
However, LiveData isn't something that should be collected within a ViewModel. It's for UI to interact. The LiveData should be observed from the Fragment.
You need to move your catching of the network exception into your flow builder. The exception will not be thrown at the time of creating the Flow or LiveData, but rather at the time the request is being made (in the Flow's execution).
I'm not sure exactly how to rewrite your flow builder to properly catch because it has functions I haven't seen. Just a tip, but chaining together lots of scope functions into one statement makes code hard to read and reason about.
So to do this as LiveData, you can change your code as follows:
private fun loginResponse(email: String, password: String, device: String): LiveData<LoginResponse> {
val loginRequest = LoginRequest(email, password, device)
return loginRepository.getLoginResponse(loginRequest)
.asLiveData()
}
And then observe it in your Fragment.
However
LiveData and Flow don't really fit this use case, because you want to make a single request and get a single response. Your repository should just expose a suspend function that returns the response. Then your ViewModel can have a suspend function that just passes through the response by calling the repository's suspend function.
I have a flow :
val myflow = kotlinx.coroutines.flow.flow<Message>{}
and want to emit values with function:
override suspend fun sendMessage(chat: Chat, message: Message) {
myflow.emit(message)
}
But compiler does not allow me to do this, is there any workarounds to solve this problem?
You can use StateFlow for such use case.
Here's a sample code.
import kotlinx.coroutines.*
import kotlinx.coroutines.flow.*
val chatFlow = MutableStateFlow<String>("")
fun main() = runBlocking {
// Observe values
val job = launch {
chatFlow.collect {
print("$it ")
}
}
// Change values
arrayOf("Hey", "Hi", "Hello").forEach {
delay(100)
sendMessage(it)
}
delay(1000)
// Cancel running job
job.cancel()
job.join()
}
suspend fun sendMessage(message: String) {
chatFlow.value = message
}
You can test this code by running below snippet.
<iframe src="https://pl.kotl.in/DUBDfUnX3" style="width:600px;"></iframe>
The answer of Animesh Sahu is pretty much correct. You can also return a Channel as a flow (see consumeAsFlow or asFlow on a BroadcastChannel).
But there is also a thing called StateFlow currently in development by Kotlin team, which is, in part, meant to implement a similar behavior, although it is unknown when it is going to be ready.
EDIT: StateFlow and SharedFlow have been released as part of a stable API (https://blog.jetbrains.com/kotlin/2020/10/kotlinx-coroutines-1-4-0-introducing-stateflow-and-sharedflow/). These tools can and should be used when state management is required in an async execution context.
Use a SharedStateFlow it has got everything you need.
Initialization of your flow:
val myFlow = MutableSharedFlow<Message>()
and now it should just work as you were trying earlier with:
override suspend fun sendMessage(chat: Chat, message: Message) {
myFlow.emit(message)
}
Flow is self contained, once the block (lambda) inside the flow is executed the flow is over, you've to do operations inside and emit them from there.
Here is the similar github issue, says:
Afaik Flow is designed to be a self contained, replayable, cold stream, so emission from outside of it's own scope wouldn't be part of the contract. I think what you're looking for is a Channel.
And IMHO you're probably looking at the Channels, or specifically a ConflatedBroadcastChannel for multiple receivers. The difference between a normal channel and a broadcast channel is that multiple receivers can listen to a broadcast channel using openSubscription function which returns a ReceiveChannel associated with the BroadcastChannel.
I'm currently writing a test-function which should run a block or (when a certain timeout is reached) throws an exception.
I was trying this with Coroutines in Kotlin but ended up with a mixture of Coroutines and CompletableFuture:
fun <T> runBlockWithTimeout(maxTimeout: Long, block: () -> T ): T {
val future = CompletableFuture<T>()
// runs the coroutine
launch { block() }
return future.get(maxTimeout, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)
}
This works, but I'm not sure if this is the intended way to solve that problem in kotlin.
I also tried other approaches:
runBlocking {
withTimeout(maxTimeout) {
block()
}
}
But this seems not to work as soon as the block calls e.g. Thread.sleep(...)
So is the CompletableFuture approach the way to go or is there a better one?
update 1
What I want to achieve:
Async Integration-Test code (like receiving data from RabbitMq) should be tested somehow like this:
var rabbitResults: List = ... // are filled async via RabbitListeners
...
waitMax(1000).toSucceed {
assertThat(rabbitResults).hasSize(1)
}
waitMax(1000).toSucceed {
assertThat(nextQueue).hasSize(3)
}
...
withTimeout { ... } is designed to cancel the ongoing operation on timeout, which is only possible if the operation in question is cancellable.
The reason it works with future.get(timeout, unit) is because it only waits with timeout. It does not actually cancel or abort in any way your background operation which still continues to execute after timeout had elapsed.
If you want to mimick similar behavior with coroutines, then you should wait with timeout, like this:
val d = async { block() } // run the block code in background
withTimeout(timeout, unit) { d.await() } // wait with timeout
It works properly because await is a cancellable function which you can verify by reading its API documentation.
However, if you want to actually cancel the ongoing operation on timeout, then then you should implement your code in asyncronous and cancellable way. Cancellation is cooperative, so, to start, the underlying library that you are using in your code has to provide asynchronous API that supports cancellation of ongoing operation.
You can read more about cancellation and timeouts in the corresponding section of the coroutines guide and watch the KotlinConf's Deep Dive into Coroutines on how to integrate coroutines with asynchronous libraries.