How can I guarantee to get latest data when I use Coroutine in Kotlin? - kotlin

Question

The Code A is from the project architecture-samples, you can see it here.
The updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() is suspend function, so it maybe run asynchronously.
When I call the function getTasks(forceUpdate: Boolean) with the paramter True, I'm afraid that return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks() will be fired before updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource().
I don't know if the Code B can guarantee return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks() will be fired after updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource().
Code A
class DefaultTasksRepository(
private val tasksRemoteDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val tasksLocalDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val ioDispatcher: CoroutineDispatcher = Dispatchers.IO
) : TasksRepository {
override suspend fun getTasks(forceUpdate: Boolean): Result<List<Task>> {
// Set app as busy while this function executes.
wrapEspressoIdlingResource {
if (forceUpdate) {
try {
updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource()
} catch (ex: Exception) {
return Result.Error(ex)
}
}
return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks()
}
}
private suspend fun updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() {
val remoteTasks = tasksRemoteDataSource.getTasks()
if (remoteTasks is Success) {
// Real apps might want to do a proper sync, deleting, modifying or adding each task.
tasksLocalDataSource.deleteAllTasks()
remoteTasks.data.forEach { task ->
tasksLocalDataSource.saveTask(task)
}
} else if (remoteTasks is Result.Error) {
throw remoteTasks.exception
}
}
...
}
Code B
class DefaultTasksRepository(
private val tasksRemoteDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val tasksLocalDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val ioDispatcher: CoroutineDispatcher = Dispatchers.IO
) : TasksRepository {
override suspend fun getTasks(forceUpdate: Boolean): Result<List<Task>> {
// Set app as busy while this function executes.
wrapEspressoIdlingResource {
coroutineScope {
if (forceUpdate) {
try {
updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource()
} catch (ex: Exception) {
return Result.Error(ex)
}
}
}
return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks()
}
}
...
}
Added Content
To Tenfour04: Thanks!
If somebody implement updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() with lauch just like Code C, are you sure the Code C is return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks() will be fired after updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() when I call the function getTasks(forceUpdate: Boolean) with the paramter True?
Code C
class DefaultTasksRepository(
private val tasksRemoteDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val tasksLocalDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val ioDispatcher: CoroutineDispatcher = Dispatchers.IO
) : TasksRepository {
override suspend fun getTasks(forceUpdate: Boolean): Result<List<Task>> {
// Set app as busy while this function executes.
wrapEspressoIdlingResource {
if (forceUpdate) {
try {
updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource()
} catch (ex: Exception) {
return Result.Error(ex)
}
}
return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks()
}
}
private suspend fun updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() {
val remoteTasks = tasksRemoteDataSource.getTasks()
if (remoteTasks is Success) {
// Real apps might want to do a proper sync, deleting, modifying or adding each task.
tasksLocalDataSource.deleteAllTasks()
launch { //I suppose that launch can be fired
remoteTasks.data.forEach { task ->
tasksLocalDataSource.saveTask(task)
}
}
} else if (remoteTasks is Result.Error) {
throw remoteTasks.exception
}
}
}
New Added Content
To Joffrey: Thanks!
I think that the Code D can be compiled.
In this case, when forceUpdate is true, tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks() maybe be run before updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() is done.
Code D
class DefaultTasksRepository(
private val tasksRemoteDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val tasksLocalDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val ioDispatcher: CoroutineDispatcher = Dispatchers.IO,
private val myCoroutineScope: CoroutineScope
) : TasksRepository {
override suspend fun getTasks(forceUpdate: Boolean): Result<List<Task>> {
// Set app as busy while this function executes.
wrapEspressoIdlingResource {
if (forceUpdate) {
try {
updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource(myCoroutineScope)
} catch (ex: Exception) {
return Result.Error(ex)
}
}
return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks()
}
}
private suspend fun updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource(myCoroutineScope: CoroutineScope) {
val remoteTasks = tasksRemoteDataSource.getTasks()
if (remoteTasks is Success) {
// Real apps might want to do a proper sync, deleting, modifying or adding each task.
tasksLocalDataSource.deleteAllTasks()
myCoroutineScope.launch {
remoteTasks.data.forEach { task ->
tasksLocalDataSource.saveTask(task)
}
}
} else if (remoteTasks is Result.Error) {
throw remoteTasks.exception
}
}
...
}

Answer 1

suspend functions look like regular functions from the call site's point of view because they execute sequentially just like regular synchronous functions.
What I mean by this is that the instructions following a plain call to a suspend function do not execute until the called function completes its execution.
This means that code A is fine (when forceUpdate is true, tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks() will never run before updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() is done), and the coroutineScope in code B is unnecessary.
Now regarding code C, structured concurrency is here to save you.
People simply cannot call launch without a CoroutineScope receiver.
Since TaskRepository doesn't extend CoroutineScope, the code C as-is will not compile.
There are 2 ways to make this compile though:
Using GlobalScope.launch {}: this will cause the problem you expect, indeed. The body of such a launch will be run asynchronously and independently of the caller. updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource can in this case return before the launch's body is done. The only way to control this is to use .join() on the Job returned by the call to launch (which waits until it's done). This is why it is usually not recommended to use the GlobalScope, because it can "leak" coroutines.
wrapping calls to launch in a coroutineScope {...} inside updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource. This will ensure that all coroutines launched within the coroutineScope block are actually finished before the coroutineScope call completes. Note that everything that's inside the coroutineScope block may very well run concurrently, though, depending on how launch/async are used, but this is the whole point of using launch in the first place, isn't it?
Now with Code D, my answer for code C sort of still holds. Whether you pass a scope or use the GlobalScope, you're effectively creating coroutines with a bigger lifecycle than the suspending function that starts them.
Therefore, it does create the problem you fear.
But why would you pass a CoroutineScope if you don't want implementers to launch long lived coroutines in the provided scope?
Assuming you don't do that, it's unlikely that a developer would use the GlobalScope (or any scope) to do this. It's generally bad style to create long-lived coroutines from a suspending function. If your function is suspending, callers usually expect that when it completes, it has actually done its work.