Delay batch of observables with RxJS - rxjs

I perform http requests to my db and have noticed that if I send all the requests at once, some of them will get a timeout errors. I'd like to add a delay between calls so the server doesn't get overloaded. I'm trying to find the RxJS solution to this problem and don't want to add a setTimeout.
Here is what I currently do:
let observables = [];
for(let int = 0; int < 10000; int++){
observables.push(new Observable((observer) => {
db.add(doc[int], (err, result)=>{
observer.next();
observer.complete();
})
}))
}
forkJoin(observables).subscribe(
data => {
},
error => {
console.log(error);
},
() => {
db.close();
}
);

You can indeed achieve this with Rxjs quite nicely. You'll need higher order observables, which means you'll emit an observable into an observable, and the higher order observable will flatten this out for you.
The nice thing about this approach is that you can easily run X requests in // without having to manage the pool of requests yourself.
Here's the working code:
import { Observable, Subject } from "rxjs";
import { mergeAll, take, tap } from "rxjs/operators";
// this is just a mock to demonstrate how it'd behave if the API was
// taking 2s to reply for a call
const mockDbAddHtppCall = (id, cb) =>
setTimeout(() => {
cb(null, `some result for call "${id}"`);
}, 2000);
// I have no idea what your response type looks like so I'm assigning
// any but of course you should have your own type instead of this
type YourRequestType = any;
const NUMBER_OF_ITEMS_TO_FETCH = 10;
const calls$$ = new Subject<Observable<YourRequestType>>();
calls$$
.pipe(
mergeAll(3),
take(NUMBER_OF_ITEMS_TO_FETCH),
tap({ complete: () => console.log(`All calls are done`) })
)
.subscribe(console.log);
for (let id = 0; id < NUMBER_OF_ITEMS_TO_FETCH; id++) {
calls$$.next(
new Observable(observer => {
console.log(`Starting a request for ID "${id}""`);
mockDbAddHtppCall(id, (err, result) => {
if (err) {
observer.error(err);
} else {
observer.next(result);
observer.complete();
}
});
})
);
}
And a live demo on Stackblitz: https://stackblitz.com/edit/rxjs-z1x5m9
Please open the console of your browser and note that the console log showing when a call is being triggered starts straight away for 3 of them, and then wait for 1 to finish before picking up another one.

Looks like you could use an initial timer to trigger the http calls. e.g.
timer(delayTime).pipe(combineLatest(()=>sendHttpRequest()));
This would only trigger the sendHttpRequest() method after the timer observable had completed.
So with your solution. You could do the following...
observables.push(
timer(delay + int).pipe(combineLatest(new Observable((observer) => {
db.add(doc[int], (err, result)=>{
observer.next();
observer.complete();
}))
}))
Where delay could probably start off at 0 and you could increase it using the int index of your loop by some margin.
Timer docs: https://www.learnrxjs.io/learn-rxjs/operators/creation/timer
Combine latest docs: https://www.learnrxjs.io/learn-rxjs/operators/combination/combinelatest

merge with concurrent value:
mergeAll and mergeMap both allow you to define the max number of subscribed observables. mergeAll(1)/mergeMap(LAMBDA, 1) is basically concatAll()/concatMap(LAMBDA).
merge is basically just the static mergeAll
Here's how you might use that:
let observables = [...Array(10000).keys()].map(intV =>
new Observable(observer => {
db.add(doc[intV], (err, result) => {
observer.next();
observer.complete();
});
})
);
const MAX_CONCURRENT_REQUESTS = 10;
merge(...observables, MAX_CONCURRENT_REQUESTS).subscribe({
next: data => {},
error: err => console.log(err),
complete: () => db.close()
});
Of note: This doesn't batch your calls, but it should solve the problem described and it may be a bit faster than batching as well.
mergeMap with concurrent value:
Perhaps a slightly more RxJS way using range and mergeMap
const MAX_CONCURRENT_REQUESTS = 10;
range(0, 10000).pipe(
mergeMap(intV =>
new Observable(observer => {
db.add(doc[intV], (err, result) => {
observer.next();
observer.complete();
});
}),
MAX_CONCURRENT_REQUESTS
)
).subscribe({
next: data => {},
error: err => console.log(err),
complete: () => db.close()
});

Related

Wait async subscriptions when I emit next value

I have the next example
import { Subject } from "rxjs";
const subject = new Subject();
subject.subscribe(() => new Promise(res => {
setTimeout(() => console.log('!! 1'), 500);
}))
subject.subscribe(() => new Promise(res => {
setTimeout(() => console.log('!! 2'), 1000);
}))
console.log('>>> START')
subject.next();
console.log('<<< FINISH')
Console looks like
>>> START
<<< FINISH
!! 1
!! 2
I want the following behavious
>>> START
!! 1
!! 2
<<< FINISH
Can I reach expected behaviour or I should to use another aproach?
Ok so, this should work. I just forced the behavior of the Observables. To be clear, observables are async javascript and need to share values in async mode so that you can 'emit' a new value through a subject and all the observables can see that value while doing some other tasks. This code do exactly what you asked for but it makes no sense to emit a value and await for that value in the same place and moment, to achieve that you should probably think about another way of coding this module.
Said that, i've tested this snippet and it works, hope this will help
import { Subject } from "rxjs";
const subject = new Subject();
async function nextValue(value) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
subject.subscribe(subValue => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log(subValue);
resolve();
}, 500);
}, err => reject(err));
subject.next(value);
});
}
(async () => {
console.log('>>> START');
await nextValue('myValue');
console.log('<<< FINISH');
})();

RxJs - how to make observable behave like queue

I'm trying to achieve next:
private beginTransaction(): Observable() {
..
}
private test(): void {
this.beginTransaction().subscribe((): void => {
this.commitTransaction();
});
this.beginTransaction().subscribe((): void => {
this.commitTransaction();
});
}
beginTransaction can be called concurrently, but should delay the observable until first or only one beginTransaction finished.
In order words: Only one transaction can be in progress at any time.
What have I tried:
private transactionInProgress: boolean = false;
private canBeginTransaction: Subject<void> = new Subject<void>();
private bla3(): void {
this.beginTransaction().subscribe((): void => {
console.log('beginTransaction 1');
this.commitTransaction();
});
this.beginTransaction().subscribe((): void => {
console.log('beginTransaction 2');
this.commitTransaction();
});
this.beginTransaction().subscribe((): void => {
console.log('beginTransaction 3');
this.commitTransaction();
});
}
private commitTransaction(): void {
this.transactionInProgress = false;
this.canBeginTransaction.next();
}
private beginTransaction(): Observable<void> {
if(this.transactionInProgress) {
return of(undefined)
.pipe(
skipUntil(this.canBeginTransaction),
tap((): void => {
console.log('begin transaction');
})
);
}
this.transactionInProgress = true;
return of(undefined);
}
What you've asked about is pretty vague and general. Without a doubt, a more constrained scenario could probably look a whole lot simpler.
Regardless, here I create a pipeline that only lets transaction(): Observable be subscribed to once at a time.
Here's how that might look:
/****
* Represents what each transaction does. Isn't concerned about
* order/timing/'transactionInProgress' or anything like that.
*
* Here is a fake transaction that just takes 3-5 seconds to emit
* the string: `Hello ${name}`
****/
function transaction(args): Observable<string> {
const name = args?.message;
const duration = 3000 + (Math.random() * 2000);
return of("Hello").pipe(
tap(_ => console.log("starting transaction")),
switchMap(v => timer(duration).pipe(
map(_ => `${v} ${name}`)
)),
tap(_ => console.log("Ending transation"))
);
}
// Track transactions
let currentTransactionId = 0;
// Start transactions
const transactionSubj = new Subject<any>();
// Perform transaction: concatMap ensures we only start a new one if
// there isn't a current transaction underway
const transaction$ = transactionSubj.pipe(
concatMap(({id, args}) => transaction(args).pipe(
map(payload => ({id, payload}))
)),
shareReplay(1)
);
/****
* Begin a new transaction, we give it an ID since transactions are
* "hot" and we don't want to return the wrong (earlier) transactions,
* just the current one started with this call.
****/
function beginTransaction(args): Observable<any> {
return defer(() => {
const currentId = currentTransactionId++;
transactionSubj.next({id: currentId, args});
return transaction$.pipe(
first(({id}) => id === currentId),
map(({payload}) => payload)
);
})
}
// Queue up 3 transactions, each one will wait for the previous
// one to complete before it will begin.
beginTransaction({message: "Dave"}).subscribe(console.log);
beginTransaction({message: "Tom"}).subscribe(console.log);
beginTransaction({message: "Tim"}).subscribe(console.log);
Asynchronous Transactions
The current setup requires transactions to be asynchronous, or you risk losing the first one. The workaround for that is not simple, so I've built an operator that subscribes, then calls a function as soon as possible after that.
Here it is:
function initialize<T>(fn: () => void): MonoTypeOperatorFunction<T> {
return s => new Observable(observer => {
const bindOn = name => observer[name].bind(observer);
const sub = s.subscribe({
next: bindOn("next"),
error: bindOn("error"),
complete: bindOn("complete")
});
fn();
return {
unsubscribe: () => sub.unsubscribe
};
});
}
and here it is in use:
function beginTransaction(args): Observable<any> {
return defer(() => {
const currentId = currentTransactionId++;
return transaction$.pipe(
initialize(() => transactionSubj.next({id: currentId, args})),
first(({id}) => id === currentId),
map(({payload}) => payload)
);
})
}
Aside: Why Use defer?
Consider re-writting beginTransaction:
function beginTransaction(args): Observable<any> {
const currentId = currentTransactionId++;
return transaction$.pipe(
initialize(() => transactionSubj.next({id: currentId, args})),
first(({id}) => id === currentId),
map(({payload}) => payload)
);
}
In this case, the ID is set at the moment you invoke beginTransaction.
// The ID is set here, but it won't be used until subscribed
const preppedTransaction = beginTransaction({message: "Dave"});
// 10 seconds later, that ID gets used.
setTimeout(
() => preppedTransaction.subscribe(console.log),
10000
);
If transactionSubj.next is called without the initialize operator, then this problem gets even worse as transactionSubj.next would also get called 10 seconds before the observable is subscribed to (You're sure to miss the output)
The problems continue:
What if you want to subscribe to the same observable twice?
const preppedTransaction = beginTransaction({message: "Dave"});
preppedTransaction.subscribe(
value => console.log("First Subscribe: ", value)
);
preppedTransaction.subscribe(
value => console.log("Second Subscribe: ", value)
);
I would expect the output to be:
First Subscribe: Hello Dave
Second Subscribe: Hello Dave
Instead, you get
First Subscribe: Hello Dave
First Subscribe: Hello Dave
Second Subscribe: Hello Dave
Second Subscribe: Hello Dave
Because you don't get a new ID on subscribing, the two subscriptions share one ID. defer fixes this problem by not assigning an id until subscription. This becomes seriously important when managing errors in streams (letting you re-try an observable after it errors).
I am not sure I have understood the problem right, but it looks to me as concatMap is the operator you are looking for.
An example could be the following
const transactionTriggers$ = from([
't1', 't2', 't3'
])
function processTransation(trigger: string) {
console.log(`Start processing transation triggered by ${trigger}`)
// do whatever needs to be done and then return an Observable
console.log(`Transation triggered by ${trigger} processing ......`)
return of(`Transation triggered by ${trigger} processed`)
}
transactionTriggers$.pipe(
concatMap(trigger => processTransation(trigger)),
tap(console.log)
).subscribe()
You basically start from a stream of events, where each event is supposed to trigger the processing of the transaction.
Then you use processTransaction function to do whatever you have to do to process a transaction. processTransactio needs to return an Observable which emits the result of the processing when the transaction has been processed and then completes.
Then in the pipe you can use tap to do further stuff with the result of the processing, if required.
You can try the code in this stackblitz.

Re-execute async RxJS stream after delay

I'm using RxJS 6 to lazily step through iterable objects using code similar to example running below. This is working well but I'm having trouble solving my final use case.
Full code here
import { EMPTY, defer, from, of } from "rxjs";
import { delay, expand, mergeMap, repeat } from "rxjs/operators";
function stepIterator (iterator) {
return defer(() => of(iterator.next())).pipe(
mergeMap(result => result.done ? EMPTY : of(result.value))
);
}
function iterateValues ({ params }) {
const { values, delay: delayMilliseconds } = params;
const isIterable = typeof values[Symbol.iterator] === "function";
// Iterable values which are emitted over time are handled manually. Otherwise
// the values are provided to Rx for resolution.
if (isIterable && delayMilliseconds > 0) {
const iterator = values[Symbol.iterator]();
// The first value is emitted immediately, the rest are emitted after time.
return stepIterator(iterator).pipe(
expand(v => stepIterator(iterator).pipe(delay(delayMilliseconds)))
);
} else {
return from(values);
}
}
const options = {
params: {
// Any iterable object is walked manually. Otherwise delegate to `from()`.
values: ["Mary", "had", "a", "little", "lamb"],
// Delay _between_ values.
delay: 350,
// Delay before the stream restarts _after the last value_.
runAgainAfter: 1000,
}
};
iterateValues(options)
// Is not repeating?!
.pipe(repeat(3))
.subscribe(
v => {
console.log(v, Date.now());
},
console.error,
() => {
console.log('Complete');
}
);
I'd like to add in another option which will re-execute the stream, an indefinite number of times, after a delay (runAgainAfter). I'm having trouble composing this in cleanly without factoring the result.done case deeper. So far I've been unable to compose the run-again behavior around iterateValues.
What's the best approach to accomplish the use case?
Thanks!
Edit 1: repeat just hit me in the face. Perhaps it means to be friendly.
Edit 2: No, repeat isn't repeating but the observable is completing. Thanks for any help. I'm confused.
For posterity here is the full code sample for a revised edition is repeat-able and uses a consistent delay between items.
import { concat, EMPTY, defer, from, interval, of, throwError } from "rxjs";
import { delay, expand, mergeMap, repeat } from "rxjs/operators";
function stepIterator(iterator) {
return defer(() => of(iterator.next())).pipe(
mergeMap(result => (result.done ? EMPTY : of(result.value)))
);
}
function iterateValues({ params }) {
const { values, delay: delayMilliseconds, times = 1 } = params;
const isIterable =
values != null && typeof values[Symbol.iterator] === "function";
if (!isIterable) {
return throwError(new Error(`\`${values}\` is not iterable`));
}
// Iterable values which are emitted over time are handled manually. Otherwise
// the values are provided to Rx for resolution.
const observable =
delayMilliseconds > 0
? defer(() => of(values[Symbol.iterator]())).pipe(
mergeMap(iterator =>
stepIterator(iterator).pipe(
expand(v => stepIterator(iterator).pipe(delay(delayMilliseconds)))
)
)
)
: from(values);
return observable.pipe(repeat(times));
}
I'm gonna be honest, but there could be better solution for sure. In my solution, I ended up encapsulating delay logic in a custom runAgainAfter operator. Making it an independent part, that doesn't affect your code logic directly.
Full working code is here
And the code of runAgainAfter if anybody needs it:
import { Observable } from "rxjs";
export const runAgainAfter = delay => observable => {
return new Observable(observer => {
let timeout;
let subscription;
const subscribe = () => {
return observable.subscribe({
next(value) {
observer.next(value);
},
error(err) {
observer.error(err);
},
complete() {
timeout = setTimeout(() => {
subscription = subscribe();
}, delay);
}
});
};
subscription = subscribe();
return () => {
subscription.unsubscribe();
clearTimeout(timeout);
};
});
};
Hope it helps <3

how to access previous mergeMap values from rxjs

I am learning to use RXJS. In this scenario, I am chaining a few async requests using rxjs. At the last mergeMap, I'd like to have access to the first mergeMap's params. I have explored the option using Global or withLatest, but neither options seem to be the right fit here.
const arraySrc$ = from(gauges).pipe(
mergeMap(gauge => {
return readCSVFile(gauge.id);
}),
mergeMap((csvStr: any) => readStringToArray(csvStr.data)),
map((array: string[][]) => transposeArray(array)),
mergeMap((array: number[][]) => forkJoin(uploadToDB(array, gauge.id))),
catchError(error => of(`Bad Promise: ${error}`))
);
readCSVFile is an async request which returns an observable to read CSV from a remote server.
readStringToArray is another async request which returns an observable to convert string to Arrays
transposeArray just does the transpose
uploadToDB is async DB request, which needs gague.id from the first mergeMap.
How do I get that? It would be great to take some advice on why the way I am doing it is bad.
For now, I am just passing the ID layer by layer, but it doesn't feel to be correct.
const arraySrc$ = from(gauges).pipe(
mergeMap(gauge => readCSVFile(gauge.id)),
mergeMap(({ data, gaugeId }: any) => readStringToArray(data, gaugeId)),
map(({ data, gaugeId }) => transposeArray(data, gaugeId)),
mergeMap(({ data, gaugeId }) => uploadToDB(data, gaugeId)),
catchError(error => of(`Bad Promise: ${error}`))
);
Why don't you do simply this?
const arraySrc$ = from(gauges).pipe(
mergeMap(gauge => readCSVFile(gauge.id).pipe(
mergeMap((csvStr: any) => readStringToArray(csvStr.data)),
map((array: string[][]) => transposeArray(array)),
mergeMap((array: number[][]) => forkJoin(uploadToDB(array, gauge.id)))
)),
catchError(error => of(`Bad Promise: ${error}`))
);
You can also wrap the inner observable in a function:
uploadCSVFilesFromGaugeID(gaugeID): Observable<void> {
return readCSVFile(gaugeID).pipe(
mergeMap((csvStr: any) => readStringToArray(csvStr.data)),
map((array: string[][]) => transposeArray(array)),
mergeMap((array: number[][]) => forkJoin(uploadToDB(array, gaugeID))
);
}
In order to do this at the end:
const arraySrc$ = from(gauges).pipe(
mergeMap(gauge => uploadCSVFileFromGaugeID(gauge.id)),
catchError(error => of(`Bad Promise: ${error}`))
);
MergeMap requires all observable inputs; else, previous values may be returned.
It is a difficult job to concatenate and display the merging response. But here is a straightforward example I made so you can have a better idea. How do we easily perform sophisticated merging.
async playWithBbservable() {
const observable1 = new Observable((subscriber) => {
subscriber.next(this.test1());
});
const observable2 = new Observable((subscriber) => {
subscriber.next(this.test2());
});
const observable3 = new Observable((subscriber) => {
setTimeout(() => {
subscriber.next(this.test3());
subscriber.complete();
}, 1000);
});
console.log('just before subscribe');
let result = observable1.pipe(
mergeMap((val: any) => {
return observable2.pipe(
mergeMap((val2: any) => {
return observable3.pipe(
map((val3: any) => {
console.log(`${val} ${val2} ${val3}`);
})
);
})
);
})
);
result.subscribe({
next(x) {
console.log('got value ' + x);
},
error(err) {
console.error('something wrong occurred: ' + err);
},
complete() {
console.log('done');
},
});
console.log('just after subscribe');
}
test1() {
return 'ABC';
}
test2() {
return 'PQR';
}
test3() {
return 'ZYX';
}

How can I reset accumulator of scan on ReplaySubject?

I have a ReplaySubject that accumulate data with scan operator and every 10000 ms should be reset. Is there any another way to do it?
Now:
let subject = new ReplaySubject();
subject.scan((acc, cur) => {
acc.push(cur);
return acc;
}, [])
.subscribe(events => {
localStorage.setItem('data', JSON.stringify(events))
});
subject
.bufferTime(10000)
.map(() => {
subject.observers[0]._seed = [];
})
.subscribe(() => localStorage.removeItem('data'));
I asked a very similar question few days ago and later answered myself
accumulating values such as with scan but with the possibility to reset the accumulator over time
maybe this can help you
SOME MORE DETAILS
An alternative approach is to have an Observable which acts as a timer which emits at a fixed interval, 10000ms in your case.
Once this timer emits, you pass the control to the Observable that cumululates via scan operator. To pass the control you use the switchMap operator to make sure the previous instance of the Observable completes.
If I understand correctly what you want to achieve, I would use a normal Subject rather than ReplaySubject.
The code could look something like this
const subject = new Subject<number>();
const timer = Observable.timer(0, 1000).take(4);
const obs = timer.switchMap(
() => {
console.log('-----');
return subject
.scan((acc, cur) => {
acc.push(cur);
return acc;
}, []);
}
)
obs.subscribe(
events => {
console.log(JSON.stringify(events))
}
);
// TEST DATA EMITTED BY THE SUBJECT
setTimeout(() => {
subject.next(1);
}, 100);
setTimeout(() => {
subject.next(2);
}, 1100);
setTimeout(() => {
subject.next(3);
}, 2100);
setTimeout(() => {
subject.next(4);
}, 2200);

Resources