I have a hot Observable that I'm using shareReplay(1) to Multicast, but if the Observable is complete and its subscribed to it emits the last value. I need it to not emit anything.
Instead of shareReplay(1), you should be able to use this instead:
share({
connector: () => new ReplaySubject(1),
resetOnError: true,
resetOnComplete: true,
resetOnRefCountZero: false
})
The resetOnRefCountZero: false just ensures that you can still subscribe again (and receive the shared value) even if all subscribers have unsubscribed at any point.
Note: resetOnError and resetOnComplete default to "true" in the case anyway, but I have added for clarity.
Related
how can i subscribe for example three observables, and to emit when one of them emit new value depend on the order they are, like forkJoin but emit but the order of them is important so if ob3 emit first, i want the value of obv1 to be null, also obv2
and only obv3 that was emitted will have value
for example
forkJoin(obs1,obs2,ob3)
.subscribe([ob1v,ob2v,ob3v]=>{
if (obv1v){ 'do somthing'}
if (obv2v){ 'do somthing'}
if (obv3v){ 'do somthing'}
})
thanks
Maybe combineLatest with an initial value would work for you. combineLatest will emit the latest value from each source observable whenever any of its sources emit. However, it doesn't emit for the first time until all sources have emitted at least one value.
We can use startWith to overcome this by providing an initial value for each source.
combineLatest([
obs1.pipe(startWith(null)),
obs2.pipe(startWith(null)),
obs3.pipe(startWith(null)),
])
.pipe(
skip(1) // prevent emitting initial [null, null, null] value
)
.subscribe(([v1, v2, v3]) => {
// do something here
});
You can see the output in this StackBlitz.
It seems that you want to do different thing for every observable. Maybe you shouldn't gorup them? If you want to group them and do different side effect for every one of them you can do something similar to BizzyBob anwer but instead of having if statements in subscribe use tap() operator for every stream. Something like this:
combineLatest([
obs1.pipe(tap(() => 'do somthing'),
obs2.pipe(tap(() => 'do somthing')),
obs3.pipe(tap(() => 'do somthing')),
])
.subscribe(([v1, v2, v3]) => {
});
Good practise is not to use subscribe method but instead set this stream to some property in component and than use async pipe in the template.
I need a specific behavior that I can't get with the RxJS operators. The closest would be to use DebounceTime only for values entered after the first one, but I can't find a way to do it. I have also tried with ThrottleTime but it is not exactly what I am looking for, since it launches intermediate calls, and I only want one at the beginning that is instantaneous, and another at the end, nothing else.
ThrottleTime
throttleTime(12 ticks, { leading: true, trailing: true })
source: --0--1-----2--3----4--5-6---7------------8-------9---------
throttle interval: --[~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~]--------
output: --0-----------3-----------6-----------7-----------9--------
source_2: --0--------1------------------2--------------3---4---------
throttle interval: --[~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~]---[~~~~~~~~~~~]--[~~~~~~~~~~~I~
output_2: --0-----------1---------------2--------------3-----------4-
DebounceTime
debounceTime(500)
source: --0--1--------3------------4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11--13----------------
debounce_interval: -----[~~~~~]--[~~~~~]--------------------------[~~~~~]----------
output: -----------1--------3--------------------------------13---------
What I want
debounceTimeAfterFirst(500) (?)
source: --0--1--------3------------4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11--13----------------
debounce_interval: -----[~~~~~]--[~~~~~]--------------------------[~~~~~]----------
output: --0--------1--3------------4-------------------------13---------
As you see, the debounce time is activated when a new value is entered. If the debounce time passes and any new value has been entered, it stops the listening the debounceTime action and waits to start a new one.
Edit: I forgot to comment that this must be integrated with NgRx’s Effects, so it must be a continuous stream that mustn't be completed. Terminating it would probably cause it to stop listening for dispatched actions.
I would use a throttle combined with a debounceTime:
throttle: from Documentation Emit value on the leading edge of an interval, but suppress new values until durationSelector has completed.
debounceTime: from Documentation Discard emitted values that take less than the specified time between output.
I would use a throttle stream to get the raising edge (the first emission) and then the debounce stream would give us the falling edge.
const source = fromEvent(document.getElementsByTagName('input'), 'keyup').pipe(
pluck('target', 'value')
);
const debounced = source.pipe(
debounceTime(4000),
map((v) => `[d] ${v}`)
);
const effect = merge(
source.pipe(
throttle((val) => debounced),
map((v) => `[t] ${v}`)
),
debounced
);
effect.subscribe(console.log);
See RxJS StackBlitz with the console open to see the values changing.
I prepared the setup to adapt it to NgRx which you mention. The effect I got working is:
#Injectable({ providedIn: 'root' })
export class FooEffects {
switchLight$ = createEffect(() => {
const source = this.actions$.pipe(
ofType('[App] Switch Light'),
pluck('onOrOff'),
share()
);
const debounced = source.pipe(debounceTime(1000), share());
return merge(source.pipe(throttle((val) => debounced)), debounced).pipe(
map((onOrOff) => SetLightStatus({ onOrOff }))
);
});
constructor(private actions$: Actions) {}
}
See NgRx StackBlitz with the proposed solution working in the context of an Angular NgRx application.
share: This operator prevents the downstream paths to simultaneously fetch the data from all the way up the chain, instead they grab it from the point where you place share.
I also tried to adapt #martin's connect() approach. But I don't know how #martin would "reset" the system so that after a long time if a new source value is emitted would not debounce it just in the same manner as you first run it, #martin, feel free to fork it and tweak it to make it work, I'm curious about your approach, which is very smart. I didn't know about connect().
#avicarpio give it a go on your application and let us know how it goes :)
I think you could do it like the following, even though I can't think of any easier solution right now (I'm assuming you're using RxJS 7+ with connect() operator):
connect(shared$ => shared$.pipe(
exhaustMap(value => merge(
of(value),
shared$.pipe(debounceTime(1000)),
).pipe(
take(2),
)),
)),
Live demo: https://stackblitz.com/edit/rxjs-qwoesj?devtoolsheight=60&file=index.ts
connect() will share the source Observable and lets you reuse it in its project function multiple times. I'm using it only to use the source Observable inside another chain.
exhaustMap() will ignore all next notifications until its inner Observable completes. In this case the inner Observable will immediately reemit the current value (of(value)) and then use debounceTime(). Any subsequent emission from source is ignored by exhaustMap() because the inner Observable hasn't completed yet but is also passed to debounceTime(). Then take(2) is used to complete the chain after debounceTime() emits and the whole process can repeat when source emits because exhaustMap() won't ignore the next notification (its inner Observable has completed).
Here's a custom operator that (as far s I can tell) does what you're after.
The two key insights here are:
Use connect so that you can subscribe to the source twice, once to ignore emissions with exhaustMap and another to inspect and debounce emissions with switchMap
Create an internal token so that you know when to exit without a debounced emission. (Insures that from your example above, the 4 is still emitted).
function throttleDebounceTime<T>(interval: number): MonoTypeOperatorFunction<T> {
// Use this token's memory address as a nominal token
const resetToken = {};
return connect(s$ => s$.pipe(
exhaustMap(a => s$.pipe(
startWith(resetToken),
switchMap(b => timer(interval).pipe(mapTo(b))),
take(1),
filter<T>(c => c !== resetToken),
startWith(a)
))
));
}
example:
of(1,2,3,4).pipe(
throttleDebounceTime(500)
).subscribe(console.log);
// 1 [...0.5s wait] 4
I have a stream of emissions conforming to: Observable<Notice[]>. Each Notice has a property, isVisible$ (Observable<boolean>) that determines whether or not it is on screen in this particular moment. I want to filter this array of notices by whether the most recent value of isVisible$ is true. When a new array of notices occurs, I want to begin the process again. I know this entails using switchMap on the higher order observable stream.
Neither types of observable will ever complete, so using operators like toArray() will not work here. Each isVisible$ stream is guaranteed to emit at least once.
I want the output to also be of Observable<Notice[]>, emitting each time the isVisible$ stream of any of the inner observable predicates updates.
What I have so far does emit the proper values, but the inner pipeline just groups notices together and emits them (via scan, in lieu of toArray), it doesn't buffer to the length of from(notices) and then emit (if that makes sense). This makes the end result of the stream is too busy.
notices.pipe(
switchMap(notices => from(notices).pipe(
mergeMap(notice => notice.isVisible$.pipe(
map(isVisible => ({ notice, isVisible }))
)),
filter(({ isVisible }) => isVisible),
map(({ notice }) => notice),
scan((noticesArr, noticeBeingAddedOrRemoved) => {
if (!noticesArr.find(n => n.identifier === noticeBeingAddedOrRemoved.id)) {
noticesArr.push(noticeBeingAddedOrRemoved);
}
return noticesArr;
}, [])
))
);
Here's a reproducible sample of what I'm working with on StackBlitz.
I've changed it to use zip, which will only emit when each of the isVisible$ observables emit. You could also use combineLatest if you want to emit whenever any of the source observables emit, rathern than waiting for all of them.
I have at least two buttons that I want to dynamically listen for clicks on. listeningArray$ will emit an array (ar) of button #'s that I need to be listening to. When somebody clicks on one of these buttons I'm listening to, I need to console log that the button that was clicked and also log the value from a time interval.
If ar goes from [1,2] to [1], we need to stop listening to clicks on button #2. So the DOM click event needs to be removed for 2 and that should trigger the .finally() operator. But for 1, we should remain subscribed and the code inside the .finally() should not run, since nothing is being unsubscribed.
const obj$ = {};
Rx.Observable.combineLatest(
Rx.Observable.interval(2000),
listeningArray$ // Will randomly emit either [1] or [1,2]
)
.switchMap(([x, ar]) => {
const observables = [];
ar.forEach(n => {
let nEl = document.getElementById('el'+n);
obj$[n] = obj$[n] || Rx.Observable.fromEvent(nEl, 'click')
.map(()=>{
console.log(' el' + n);
})
.finally(() => {
console.log(' FINALLY_' + n);
});
observables.push(obj$[n]);
})
return Rx.Observable.combineLatest(...observables);
})
.subscribe()
But what's happening is every time the interval emits a value, the DOM events ALL get removed and then immediately get added on again, and the code inside the .finally operator runs for 1 and 2.
This is really frustrating me. What am I missing?
It's a bit of a complex situation, so I created this: https://jsfiddle.net/mfp22/xtca98vx/7/
I was actually really close, but I misunderstood the point of switchMap.
switchMap is designed to unsubscribe from the observable it returns whenever a new value is emitted from above. This is why it can be used to cancel old pending Http requests when a new request needs to be made instead.
The problem I was having is to be expected. switchMap will unsubscribe from the previously returned observable before subscribing to the current one. This was unacceptable, as I explained in the question. The reason this was unacceptable was that in my actual project, the fromEvent observables were listening to Firebase child_added events, so when these cold observables went from having no subscribers to having 1 subscriber, Firebase would subsequently fire the event for every child already existing, as well as for future ones added.
I played with mergeMap for a while, but it was really difficult and buggy to manually have to unsubscribe from previously returned observables.
So I added a subscriber for the inner observables while switchMap was doing its process of unsubscribe from old => subscribe to new so that there would always be a subscriber. I used takeUntil(Observable.timer(0)) to make sure the subscribers didn't build up and cause a memory leak.
There may be a better solution, but this was the best one I found.
const obj$ = {};
Rx.Observable.combineLatest(
Rx.Observable.interval(2000),
listeningArray$ // Will randomly emit either [1] or [1,2]
)
.switchMap(([x, ar]) => {
const observables = [];
ar.forEach(n => {
let nEl = document.getElementById('el'+n);
obj$[n] = obj$[n] || Rx.Observable.fromEvent(nEl, 'click')
.map(()=>{
console.log(' el' + n);
})
.finally(() => {
console.log(' FINALLY_' + n);
})
.share();
obj$[n].takeUntil(Rx.Observable.timer(0))
.subscribe();
observables.push(obj$[n]);
})
return Rx.Observable.combineLatest(...observables);
})
.subscribe()
I also had to add the .share() method. I was going to need it anyway. I'm using this pattern to let some Angular components declare what data they need, ignoring what other components might want, to achieve a better separation of concerns. So multiple components can subscribe to the same Firebase observables, but the .share() operator ensures that each message from Firebase is only handled once (I'm dispatching actions to a Redux store for each one).
Working solution: https://jsfiddle.net/mfp22/xtca98vx/8/
State in FRP is immutable. Thus when you switchMap to the second emission the previous observable combineLatest containing [1,2] will get unsubscribed and the finally operator invoked. Before subscribing to the next containing only [1]
If you only want to unsubscribe from one button you can store state in the DOM (add atr to button) and use filter to ignore button.
Or you can add a TakeWhile() to every button dictating when it should be unsubscribed so it can invoke it's own finally()
I have a question regarding multicasted observables and an unexpected (for me) behaviour I noticed.
const a = Observable.fromEvent(someDom, 'click')
.map(e => 1)
.startWith(-1)
.share();
const b = a.pairwise();
a.subscribe(a => {
console.log(`Sub 1: ${a}`);
});
a.subscribe(a => {
console.log(`Sub 2: ${a}`)
});
b.subscribe(([prevA, curA]) => {
console.log(`Pairwise Sub: (${prevA}, ${curA})`);
});
So, there is a shared observable a, which emits 1 on every click event. -1 is emitted due to the startWith operator.
The observable b just creates a new observable by pairing up latest two values from a.
My expectation was:
[-1, 1] // first click
[ 1, 1] // all other clicks
What I observed was:
[1, 1] // from second click on, and all other clicks
What I noticed is that the value -1 is emitted immediately and consumed by Sub 1, before even Sub 2 is subscribed to the observable and since a is multicasted, Sub 2 is too late for the party.
Now, I know that I could multicast via BehaviourSubject and not use the startWith operator, but I want to understand the use case of this scenario when I use startWith and multicast via share.
As far as I understand, whenever I use .share() and .startWith(x), only one subscriber will be notified about the startWith value, since all other subscribers are subscribed after emitting the value.
So is this a reason to multicast via some special subject (Behavior/Replay...) or am I missing something about this startWith/share scenario?
Thanks!
This is actually correct behavior.
The .startWith() emits its value to every new subscriber, not only the first one. The reason why b.subscribe(([prevA, curA]) never receives it is because you're using multicasting with .share() (aka .publish().refCount()).
This means that the first a.subscribe(...) makes the .refCount() to subscribe to its source and it'll stay subscribed (note that Observable .fromEvent(someDom, 'click') never completes).
Then when you finally call b.subscribe(...) it'll subscribe only to the Subject inside .share() and will never go through .startWith(-1) because it's multicasted and already subscribed in .share().