RxJava Maybe: Any neat way to handle Empty case? - kotlin

I am stuck at this problem, which should be fairly simple. I need subscriber to execute a code block when the Maybe has completed as an Empty Maybe. I found that
we can pass default Maybe value or use switchIfEmpty but I feel both are hacky.
Also there is a subscribe function which takes onComplete function (along with handlers for other two events), but onComplete does not take any argument which can be used to find if maybe was completed empty.
Another way could be Maybe.isEmpty.blockingGet(), but it is dirty too.
I have tried following (Kotlin Syntax):-
fun <T> Maybe<T>.subscribeWithEmptyHandler(onSuccess: (T) -> Unit, onError: (Throwable) -> Unit, onEmpty: () -> Unit) {
this.isEmpty.subscribe({ if (it) onEmpty() }, { onError(it) })
this.subscribe({ onSuccess(it) }, { onError(it) })
}
But as expected it is running subscription twice, tested here:-
Maybe.create<Int> {
println("subscribing")
//Remove line below to create Empty Maybe
it.onSuccess(5)
it.onComplete()
}
.subscribeWithEmptyHandler({println("success")},{println("error")},{println("empty")})
Could somebody please suggest neater way to solve this?

Use Maybe.doOnEvent (java example):
Maybe
.empty()
.doOnEvent((value, error)-> {
if (value==null && error == null) {
System.out.println("empty!");
}})
.subscribe();

There is a solution using flatMap
return Maybe.just<String>(smth)
.flatMap(
Function {
Maybe.just(it) // onSuccess
},
Function {
Maybe.error(it) // onError
},
Callable { // onComplete
Maybe.just("Empty")
}
)
Or
return Maybe.just<String>(smth)
.flatMap(
{
Maybe.just<String>(it) // onSuccess
},
{
Maybe.error(it) // onError
},
{
Maybe.just("Empty") // onComplete
}
)

I did the following which is neater than any I wrote in the question:-
fun <T> Maybe<T>.subscribeWithEmptyHandler(onSuccess: (T) -> Unit, onError: (Throwable) -> Unit, onEmpty: () -> Unit) {
this.toSingle()
.subscribe(
{ onSuccess(it) },
{ if (it is NoSuchElementException) onEmpty() else onError(it) }
)
}
Here it subscribes only once and doesn't involve creating new default values. Still not sure if this is the best way.

Related

Cypress test for element existence conditionally with retry

I read the caveats in the docs on Cypress conditional testing, but nevertheless need to apply it to a particular test for certain reasons.
I have a function to do it, but there are certain selectors that do not work due to lack of retry in this function.
How can I implement retry in conditional testing and avoid flaky tests?
Is it even possible, or does one thing cancel out the other?
export function elementExists(selector: string): boolean {
try {
return Cypress.$(selector).length > 0;
} catch (error) {
return false;
}
The "standard" way to test existence of an element is pretty simple, but it does not return true/false. It fails the test if element is not found.
cy.get(selector).should('exist')
Internally the .should() retries the element until command timeout is finished - then fails the test.
If you make your function recursive, you can do the same but instead of failing, return true/false.
function elementExists(selector, attempt = 0) {
const interval = 100; // 100ms between tries
if (attempt * interval > Cypress.config('defaultCommandTimeout')) {
cy.log(selector, 'not found')
return cy.wrap(false, {log:false})
}
return cy.get('body', {log:false}).then(($body) => {
const element = $body.find(selector)
if (element.length) {
cy.log(selector, 'found')
return cy.wrap(true, {log:false})
} else {
cy.wait(interval, {log:false})
return elementExists(selector, ++attempt)
}
})
}
elementExists(selector).then(exists => {
if (exists) {
...
}
})
It's even easier now with the cypress-if package.
But retry is implemented asynchronously, so you will have to return a Chainable.
export function elementExists(selector: string): Chainable<boolean> {
return cy.get(selector)
.if('exist')
.then(true)
.else()
.then(false)
}
elementExists('span#123').then((result: boolean) =>
if (result) {
...
}
})
The above uses the full API and is very readable, but this should also work for you
export function elementExists(selector: string): Chainable<JQuery<HTMLElement>|undefined> {
return cy.get(selector).if()
}
elementExists('span#123').then((result: JQuery<HTMLElement>|undefined) =>
if(result.length) {
...
}
})

Idiomatic way to collect all errors from an iterator

Let's say I have a attrs: Vec<Attribute> of some function attributes and a function fn map_attribute(attr: &Attribute) -> Result<TokenStream, Error> that maps the attributes to some code.
I know that I could write something like this:
attrs.into_iter()
.map(map_attribute)
.collect::<Result<Vec<_>, _>()?
However, this is not what I want. What I want is spit out all errors at once, not stop with the first Error. Currently I do something like this:
let mut codes : Vec<TokenStream> = Vec::new();
let mut errors: Vec<Error> = Vec::new();
for attr in attrs {
match map_attribute(attr) {
Ok(code) => codes.push(code),
Err(err) => errors.push(err)
}
}
let mut error_iter = errors.into_iter();
if let Some(first) = error_iter.nth(0) {
return Err(iter.fold(first, |mut e0, e1| { e0.combine(e1); e0 }));
}
This second version does what I want, but is considerably more verbose than the first version. Is there a better / more idiomatic way to acchieve this, if possible without creating my own iterator?
The standard library does not have a convenient one-liner for this as far as I know, however the excellent itertools library does:
use itertools::Itertools; // 0.9.0
fn main() {
let foo = vec![Ok(42), Err(":("), Ok(321), Err("oh noes")];
let (codes, errors): (Vec<_>, Vec<_>)
= foo.into_iter().partition_map(From::from);
println!("codes={:?}", codes);
println!("errors={:?}", errors);
}
(Permalink to the playground)
I ended up writing my own extension for Iterator, which allows me to stop collecting codes when I encounter my first error. This is in my use case probably a bit more efficient than the answer by mcarton, since I only need the first partition bucket if the second one is empty. Also, I need to fold the errors anyways if I want to combine them into a single error.
pub trait CollectToResult
{
type Item;
fn collect_to_result(self) -> Result<Vec<Self::Item>, Error>;
}
impl<Item, I> CollectToResult for I
where
I : Iterator<Item = Result<Item, Error>>
{
type Item = Item;
fn collect_to_result(self) -> Result<Vec<Item>, Error>
{
self.fold(<Result<Vec<Item>, Error>>::Ok(Vec::new()), |res, code| {
match (code, res) {
(Ok(code), Ok(mut codes)) => { codes.push(code); Ok(codes) },
(Ok(_), Err(errors)) => Err(errors),
(Err(err), Ok(_)) => Err(err),
(Err(err), Err(mut errors)) => { errors.combine(err); Err(errors) }
}
})
}
}

How to retrieve the underlying error from a Failure Error?

When trying to open a broken epub/ZIP file with epub-rs, the zip-rs crate error (which doesn't use Failure) is wrapped into a failure::Error by epub-rs. I want to handle each error type of zip-rs with an distinct error handler and need a way to match against the underlying error. How can I retrieve it from Failure?
fn main() {
match epub::doc::EpubDoc::new("a.epub") {
Ok(epub) => // do something with the epub
Err(error) => {
// handle errors
}
}
}
error.downcast::<zip::result::ZipError>() fails and error.downcast_ref() returns None.
You can downcast from a Failure Error into another type that implements Fail by using one of three functions:
downcast
downcast_ref
downcast_mut
use failure; // 0.1.5
use std::{fs, io};
fn generate() -> Result<(), failure::Error> {
fs::read_to_string("/this/does/not/exist")?;
Ok(())
}
fn main() {
match generate() {
Ok(_) => panic!("Should have an error"),
Err(e) => match e.downcast_ref::<io::Error>() {
Some(e) => println!("Got an io::Error: {}", e),
None => panic!("Could not downcast"),
},
}
}
For your specific case, I'm guessing that you are either running into mismatched dependency versions (see Why is a trait not implemented for a type that clearly has it implemented? for examples and techniques on how to track this down) or that you simply are getting the wrong error type. For example, a missing file is actually an std::io::Error:
// epub = "1.2.0"
// zip = "0.4.2"
// failure = "0.1.5"
use std::io;
fn main() {
if let Err(error) = epub::doc::EpubDoc::new("a.epub") {
match error.downcast_ref::<io::Error>() {
Some(i) => println!("IO error: {}", i),
None => {
panic!("Other error: {} {:?}", error, error);
}
}
}
}

Is there a more ergonomic syntax for Either when using futures?

Here's an example of using Tokio to run a function that returns a future:
use futures::sync::oneshot;
use futures::Future;
use std::thread;
use std::time::Duration;
use tokio;
#[derive(Debug)]
struct MyError {
error_code: i32,
}
impl From<oneshot::Canceled> for MyError {
fn from(_: oneshot::Canceled) -> MyError {
MyError { error_code: 1 }
}
}
fn deferred_task() -> impl Future<Item = i32, Error = MyError> {
let (sx, rx) = oneshot::channel();
thread::spawn(move || {
thread::sleep(Duration::from_millis(100));
sx.send(100).unwrap();
});
return rx.map_err(|e| MyError::from(e));
}
fn main() {
tokio::run(deferred_task().then(|r| {
println!("{:?}", r);
Ok(())
}));
}
However, when the function in question (i.e. deferred_task) is non-trivial, the code becomes much more complex when I write it, because the ? operation doesn't seem to easily mix with returning a future:
fn send_promise_to_worker(sx: oneshot::Sender<i32>) -> Result<(), ()> {
// Send the oneshot somewhere in a way that might fail, eg. over a channel
thread::spawn(move || {
thread::sleep(Duration::from_millis(100));
sx.send(100).unwrap();
});
Ok(())
}
fn deferred_task() -> impl Future<Item = i32, Error = MyError> {
let (sx, rx) = oneshot::channel();
send_promise_to_worker(sx)?; // <-------- Can't do this, because the return is not a result
return rx.map_err(|e| MyError::from(e));
}
A Future is a Result, it's meaningless to wrap it in result, and it breaks the impl Future return type.
Instead you get a deeply nested chain of:
fn deferred_task() -> impl Future<Item = i32, Error = MyError> {
let (sx, rx) = oneshot::channel();
match query_data() {
Ok(_i) => match send_promise_to_worker(sx) {
Ok(_) => Either::A(rx.map_err(|e| MyError::from(e))),
Err(_e) => Either::B(futures::failed(MyError { error_code: 2 })),
},
Err(_) => Either::B(futures::failed(MyError { error_code: 2 })),
}
}
full code
The more results you have, the deeper the nesting; exactly what the ? operator solves normally.
Am I missing something? Is there some syntax sugar to make this easier?
I do not see how async / await syntax will categorically help you with Either. Ultimately, you still need to return a single concrete type, and that's what Either provides. async / await will reduce the need for combinators like Future::map or Future::and_then however.
See also:
Why can impl trait not be used to return multiple / conditional types?
That being said, you don't need to use Either here.
You have consecutive Result-returning functions, so you can borrow a trick from JavaScript and use an IIFE to use use the ? operator. Then, we can "lift up" the combined Result into a future and chain it with the future from the receiver:
fn deferred_task() -> impl Future<Item = i32, Error = MyError> {
let (tx, rx) = oneshot::channel();
let x = (|| {
let _i = query_data().map_err(|_| MyError { error_code: 1 })?;
send_promise_to_worker(tx).map_err(|_| MyError { error_code: 2 })?;
Ok(())
})();
future::result(x).and_then(|()| rx.map_err(MyError::from))
}
In the future, that IIFE could be replaced with a try block, as I understand it.
You could also go the other way and convert everything to a future:
fn deferred_task() -> impl Future<Item = i32, Error = MyError> {
let (tx, rx) = oneshot::channel();
query_data()
.map_err(|_| MyError { error_code: 1 })
.into_future()
.and_then(|_i| {
send_promise_to_worker(tx)
.map_err(|_| MyError { error_code: 2 })
.into_future()
})
.and_then(|_| rx.map_err(MyError::from))
}
This would be helped with async / await syntax:
async fn deferred_task() -> Result<i32, MyError> {
let (tx, rx) = oneshot::channel();
query_data().map_err(|_| MyError { error_code: 1 })?;
send_promise_to_worker(tx).map_err(|_| MyError { error_code: 2 })?;
let v = await! { rx }?;
Ok(v)
}
I have also seen improved syntax for constructing the Either by adding left and right methods to the Future trait:
foo.left();
// vs
Either::left(foo);
However, this doesn't appear in any of the current implementations.
A Future is a Result
No, it is not.
There are two relevant Futures to talk about:
From the futures 0.1 crate
From the (nightly) standard library
Notably, Future::poll returns a type that can be in two states:
Complete
Not complete
In the futures crate, "success" and "failure" are tied to "complete", whereas in the standard library they are not. In the crate, Result implements IntoFuture, and in the standard library you can use future::ready. Both of these allow converting a Result into a future, but that doesn't mean that Result is a future, no more than saying that a Vec<u8> is an iterator, even though it can be converted into one.
It's possible that the ? operator (powered by the Try trait), will be enhanced to automatically convert from a Result to a specific type of Future, or that Result will even implement Future directly, but I have not heard of any such plans.
Is there some syntax sugar to make this easier?
Yes, it's called async/await, but it's not quite ready for wide consumption. It is only supported on nightly, it uses a slightly different version of futures that Tokio only supports via an interop library that causes additional syntactic overhead, and documentation for the whole thing is still spotty.
Here are some relevant links:
What is the purpose of async/await in Rust?
https://jsdw.me/posts/rust-asyncawait-preview/
https://areweasyncyet.rs/

RxJava Flowable.Interval backpressure when flatmap with single

I'm having a scenario where I need to periodically call an API to check for a result. I'm using Flowable.interval to create an interval function which calls the API.
However, I'm having trouble with backpressure. In my example below, a new single is created on each tick in the interval. The desired effect is to only call the API if a call is not already in progress
Flowable.interval(1, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS).flatMap {
System.out.println("Delay $it")
//simulates API call
Single.just(1L).doAfterSuccess {
System.out.println("NEW SINGLE!!!")
}.delay(4, TimeUnit.SECONDS).doAfterSuccess {
System.out.println("SINGLE SUCCESS!!!")
}.toFlowable()
}.subscribeOn(Schedulers.io()).observeOn(Schedulers.computation()).blockingFirst()
I can solve this using a filter variable like so:
var filter = true
Flowable.interval(1, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS).filter {
filter
}.flatMap {
System.out.println("Delay $it")
Single.just(1L).doOnSubscribe {
filter = true
}.doAfterSuccess {
System.out.println("NEW SINGLE!!!")
}.delay(4, TimeUnit.SECONDS).doAfterSuccess {
System.out.println("SINGLE!!!")
filter = true
}.toFlowable()
}.subscribeOn(Schedulers.io()).observeOn(Schedulers.computation()).blockingFirst()
But it seems like a hacky solution. I've tired applying onBackPressureDrop after the interval function, but it has no effect.
Any suggestions?
You have to constrain flatMap as well:
Flowable.interval(1, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS)
.onBackpressureDrop()
.flatMapSingle({
System.out.println("Delay $it")
//simulates API call
Single.just(1L).doAfterSuccess {
System.out.println("NEW SINGLE!!!")
}.delay(4, TimeUnit.SECONDS).doAfterSuccess {
System.out.println("SINGLE SUCCESS!!!")
}
}, false, 1) // <----------------------------------------------------------
.subscribeOn(Schedulers.io())
.observeOn(Schedulers.computation())
.subscribe()