I am using the WinJS.UI.Pages.render call to load fragments into a page. I read that a page's ready method can return a promise that completes when the page is ready. I thought that this promise is what would be returned by the WinJS.UI.Pages.render method, but it is not. I was thinking this would be a nice mechanism to asynchronously pass values back from the fragment to the caller.
Is it possible to access the ready promise from the WinJS.UI.Pages.render promise done handler?
Looking at the code in the implementation, it looks like this may actually be a bug in WinJS. The WinJS.UI.Pages.render method does return a promise, but it's the one from just after processed is complete and and results in the control instance been returned as the completed promises value.
Your best bet is to place an additional promise as a member of your Page class. Then when you get render, peel off from that promise, rather than the render promise itself.
It's important that you use the promise created in the constructor or similar, since the promise returned from render is going to complete when processed is called on your page class -- before your ready returns, so accessing the value immediately after the render completes, your ready method has not yet been called.
Related
Is possible to get which component call some action Vuex ?
I return a promise from vuex actions and take some decisions in component as set errors messages on respective fields but I would like to set on component.$validator.errors asap I receive http response (in action method)
Is that possible and a good approach ?
In Vuex when you make a call to a mutation or action you can send an object alongside your dispatch call, if you wanted to track the component which called an action you could also send that as part of the object. Better yet you could have all objects sent via Vuex extend a specific class if your using typescript. Though note that finding which component called an action or mutation is not native behavior for Vuex.
Consider the following:
try{
let out = await this.$store.dispatch('someActionHandler', {referingComponent: this.$options.name, someParam:[1,2,3]})
} catch (e){
// Lets deal with the problem
}
In here we are sending the name of the component as a parameter, so it can be checked inside our action handler or alternatively you could just pass this straight to a mutation, though I think the former is a more likely case if you plan to build logic into this.
As for if this is a good approach, the answer to that is fairly subjective, I personally don't see any problems with the above approach. Though I would think it was an anti pattern if the majority of components are never checked or the added data ends up becoming meaningless fluff passed alongside every call.
In asp.net core ViewComponent we have to implement logic in an InvokeAsync method that returns an IViewComponentResult. However I do not have any async logic to perform inside the invoke method. So based on SO post here I have removed the async qualifier and just return Task.FromResult
public Task<IViewComponentResult> InvokeAsync(MyBaseModel model)
{
var name = MyFactory.GetViewComponent(model.DocumentTypeID);
return Task.FromResult<IViewComponentResult>(View(name, model));
}
and then in View ( since I don't have async I am not using await here)
#Component.InvokeAsync("MyViewComponent", new { model = Model })
However view renders this:
System.Threading.Tasks.Task1[Microsoft.AspNetCore.Html.IHtmlContent]`
You must await the Component.InvokeAsync. The fact that your method doesn't do anything async doesn't matter. The method itself is async.
However, that's a bit of an oversimplification. Frankly, the ease of the async/await keywords belies how complicated all this actually is. To be accurate, instead of calling these types of methods "async", it's more appropriate to discuss them as "task-returning". A task is essentially a handle for some operation. That operation could be async or sync. It's most closely associated with async, simply because wrapping sync operations in a task would be pretty pointless in most scenarios. However, the point is that just because something must return a task does not also imply that it must be async.
All async does is allow the possibility of a thread switch. In scenarios where there's some operation, typically involving I/O, that would cause the working thread to be idle for some period of time, the thread becomes available to be used for other work, and the original work may complete on a different thread. Notice the use of the passive language here. Async operations can involve no thread switching; the task could complete on the same thread, as if it was sync. The task could even complete immediately, if the underlying operation has already completed.
In your scenario here, you're not doing any async work, which is fine. However, the method definition requires Task<T> as the return, so you must use Task.FromResult to return your actual result. That's all pretty standard stuff, and seems to be understood already by you. What you're missing, I think, is that you're thinking that since you're not actually doing any asynchronous work, it would be wrong to utilize await. There's nothing magical about the await keyword; it basically just means hold here until the task completes. If there's no async work to be done, as is the case here, the sync code will just run as normal and yield back to the calling code when done, However, as a convenience, await also performs one other vital function: it unwraps the task.
That is where your problem lies. Since you're not awaiting, the task itself is being returned into the Razor view processing pipeline. It doesn't know what to do with that, so it does what it does by default and just calls ToString on it, hence the text you're getting back. Unwrapped, you'd just have IViewComponentResult and Razor does know what to do with that.
If your logic performed inside the invoke method is synchronous, i.e., you don't have any await, you have 2 options:
You can define invoke method without async keyword and it should return Task.FromResult<T>
Use public IViewComponentResult Invoke() instead.
I think the async keyword enables the await keyword and that's pretty much about it. Nothing special about async keyword.
On the main thread where your view is getting rendered, since the tag helper method
to invoke a view component Component.InvokeAsync() is awaitable, you do need to put await keyword there to start the task. await examines the view component rendering to see if it has already completed. If it has, then the main thread just keeps going. Otherwise the main thread will tell the ViewComponent to run.
I'm completely stuck on an Apollo problem, for which I've opened a GitHub issue and had zero response on.
I'm calling an Apollo mutation, using optimisticResponse. The way it's supposed to work, as I understand it, is that update() gets called twice: first with the optimistic data, then again with the actual data coming in from the network.
But for some reason, my code is not working like this. I'm getting two update() calls, both with the optimistic data.
Here's a repo that demonstrates this behavior: https://github.com/ffxsam/apollo-update-bug
yarn && yarn dev
Open in browser, open console
Enter some text and hit enter
Repeat above
Notice the error in the console about duplicate keys. This is happening because the temporary ID "??" is not being replaced with the real UUID
(optional) You can open Vue DevTools if available and inspect the data to see it's incorrect
I was doing some digging and I think I found the source of the problem.
Unfortunately, I don't have a solution.
In short, the problem might be with a network link called OfflineLink that is used by aws-appsync.
Explanation
aws-appsync has an ApolloLink called OfflineLink that intervenes with the request function.
What happens is something like this:
you call $apollo.mutate(...)
ApolloClient.QueryManager initializes the mutation that triggers your update the first time with the optimistic response. That is happening inside ApolloClient data store, markMutationInit calls markMutationResult that calls your update.
The graphql operation executes and reaches the OfflineLink in the network chain.
OfflineLink creates a new observer and dispatches the mutation info as an action.
The next line of OfflineLink calls the observer's next function with the optimisticResponse as if it was the execution result!
This triggers your update the second time with the result which is actually the optimisticResponse.
OfflineLink calls the observer's complete which resolves your promise.
console.log('done!'...
Meanwhile, OfflineLink prevents the original mutation from even sending the request, and a new mutation is generated and sent with the options you've given it.
We’re using Ninject.Extensions.Interception (LinFu if it matters) to do a few things and I want to know if its possible to return a value form the method being intercepted.
EG
A Call is made into one of our repository methods
Our Interceptor gets the BeforeInvoke event, we use this to look into the ASP.NET Cache to see if there is any relevant data
- Return the relevant data (this would cause the method to return immediately and NOT execute the body of the method
- Or Allow the method to run as per normal
Extra points if in the AfterInvoke method we take a peek at the data being returned and add it to the cache.
Has anybody done something similar before?
From your question I assume that you derive from SimpleInterceptor. This will not allow to return imediately. Instead you have to implement the Iinterceptor interface. You can decide to call the intercepted method by calling the Proceed method on the invocation or not.
My purpose is as follows: I want to create a deferred calling method. I might need to create a block for this, but I'm not sure. Can you explain me how to create a block for this?
This is the code:
- (IBAction)buyItem:(id)sender {
BOOL purchase = ... /*call purchase method use block*/
}
In this method I make a purchase and after the purchase has completed successfully I want to get result in my variable purchase.
To be more clear:
Step 1: Call the buyItem method.
Step 2: Wait for a response to the purchase (I've omitted the actual methods for the purchase)
Step 3: After the StoreKit object return a response about the purchase, write a value into the variable purchase.
Step 4: After writing the value into purchase, my method buyItem completes execution (go to the } and release).
My question is not about StoreKit specifically (meaning the StoreKit response method - this is an example only). The purchase variable is an example, too. For this variable I will use a data model and it will change after the deferred method executes.
Thanks all!
You do need a block, but maybe a different kind than you're thinking about. You don't need a 'closure', you need a function that will block until it receives the response from the store kit/server.
You can just write a normal buyItem method, but inside you either make a synchronous call to store kit, or if that's not possible, you use threading techniques to achieve what you want. For example, you could wait on a condition variable and then signal it when the store kit call returns.
For both cases, you'll want to perform the 'buyItem' call on a thread other than the UI thread, otherwise your UI will freeze. Given that constraint (if you're even dealing with a UI), I would say this entire approach doesn't make sense. Instead, you'll want to launch the store kit call, set some indicator or spinner or something in your UI, and then when the store kit call returns, unset the spinner or whatever. Make sense?