I have a flux of values that I need to 'merge' until they met a certain condition.
I don't want to use outer variable as buffer to check my condition is met but I cannot find a way to do a 'reduceWhile' or 'bufferWhile' operation because I don't have access to buffer (with .buffer) to check that I have enough data to pass the result downstream.
I have:
ohlcIntfFlux
.reduce(OHLCIntf::mergeWith)
.filter(timeFrameProvider::isBarComplete)
.map(this::makeBar)
.subscribe(pub::next)
but this reduces whole stream and then checks filter.
I need to reduce until the condition in filter is met then pass it downstream.
Hope it's clear enough...
Thank you!
this how I done it:
ConnectableFlux.create(pub ->
ohlcIntfFlux
.scan((i, acc) -> {
if (!timeFrameProvider.isBarComplete(acc))
return acc.mergeWith(i);
pub.next(makeBar(acc));
return i;
})
.subscribe()
)
it does what I want to, but if you can suggest more functional way, I would be glad to hear that
Related
I'm using WebFlux to pull data from two different REST endpoints, and trying to correlate some data from one stream with the other. I have Flux instances called events and egvs and for each event, I want to find the EGV with the nearest timestamp.
final Flux<Tuple2<Double,Object>> data = events
.map(e -> Tuples.of(e.getValue(),
egvs.map(egv -> Tuples.of(egv.getValue(),
Math.abs(Duration.between(e.getDisplayTime(),
egv.getDisplayTime()).toSeconds())))
.sort(Comparator.comparingLong(Tuple2::getT2))
.take(1)
.map(v -> v.getT1())));
When I send data to my Thymeleaf template, the first element of the tuple renders as a number, as I'd expect, but the second element renders as a FluxMapFuseable. It appears that the egvs.map(...) portion of the pipeline isn't executing. How do I get that part of the pipeline to execute?
UPDATE
Thanks, #Toerktumlare - your answer helped me figure out that my approach was wrong. On each iteration through the map operation, the event needs the context of the entire set of EGVs to find the one it matches with. So the working code looks like this:
final Flux<Tuple2<Double, Double>> data =
Flux.zip(events, egvs.collectList().repeat())
.map(t -> Tuples.of(
// Grab the event
t.getT1().getValue(),
// Find the EGV (from the full set of EGVs) with the closest timestamp
t.getT2().stream()
.map(egv -> Tuples.of(
egv.getValue(),
Math.abs(Duration.between(
t.getT1().getDisplayTime(),
egv.getDisplayTime()).toSeconds())))
// Sort the stream of (value, time difference) tuples and
// take the smallest time difference.
.sorted(Comparator.comparingLong(Tuple2::getT2))
.map(Tuple2::getT1)
.findFirst()
.orElse(0.)));
what i think you are doing is that you are breaking the reactive chain.
During the assembly phase reactor will call each operator backwards until it finds a producer that can start producing items and i think you are breaking that chain here:
egvs.map(egv -> Tuples.of( ..., ... )
you see egvs returns something that you need to take care of and chain on to the return of events.map
I'll give you an example:
// This works because we always return from flatMap
// we keep the chain intact
Mono.just("foobar").flatMap(f -> {
return Mono.just(f)
}.subscribe(s -> {
System.out.println(s)
});
on the other hand, this behaves differently:
Mono.just("foobar").flatMap(f -> {
Mono.just("foo").doOnSuccess(s -> { System.out.println("this will never print"); });
return Mono.just(f);
});
Because in this example you can see that we ignore to take care of the return from the inner Mono thus breaking the chain.
You havn't really disclosed what evg actually is so i wont be able to give you a full answer but you should most likely do something like this:
final Flux<Tuple2<Double,Object>> data = events
// chain on egv here instead
// and then return your full tuple object instead
.map(e -> egvs.map(egv -> Tuples.of(e.getValue(), Tuples.of(egv.getValue(), Math.abs(Duration.between(e.getDisplayTime(), egv.getDisplayTime()).toSeconds())))
.sort(Comparator.comparingLong(Tuple2::getT2))
.take(1)
.map(v -> v.getT1())));
I don't have compiler to check against atm. but i believe that is your problem at least. its a bit tricky to read your code.
I know there is a function named "hasElements" on a Flux object. But it behaves a bit strange！
Flux<RoomBO> rooms=serverRequest.bodyToMono(PageBO.class).flatMapMany(roomRepository::getRooms);
return rooms.hasElements().flatMap(aBool -> aBool?ServerResponse.ok().body(rooms,RoomBO.class):ServerResponse.badRequest().build());
return ServerResponse.ok().body(rooms,RoomBO.class)
The second return statement can return the right things I need when the flux object is not empty,but the first return statement only returns a empty array,which likes "[]" in json.I don't know why this could happen!I use the same data to test.The only difference is that I call the hasElements function in the first situation.But I need to return badRequest when the flux object is empty. And the hasElements function seems to make my flux object empty,though I know it doesn't do this actually.
well, finally I decide to call switchIfEmpty(Mono.error()) to throw an error and then I deal with the special error globally(Sometimes it's not suitable to use onErrorReturn or onErrorResume). I think this can avoid the collect operation in memory when meets big data. But it's still not a good solution for the global error handler can be hard to maintain. I'd expect someone to give a better solution.
In your example you are transforming class Flux to class RoomBO, it is one of the reasons, why you get an empty array.
If you need to return the processed list of rooms, then, I think, collectList should be your choice. https://projectreactor.io/docs/core/release/api/reactor/core/publisher/Flux.html#collectList--
Flux<RoomBO> roomsFlux = serverRequest.bodyToMono(PageBO.class)
.flatMapMany(roomRepository::getRooms);
return rooms
.collectList()
.flatMap(rooms -> !rooms.isEmpty() ? ServerResponse.ok().bodyValue(rooms) : ServerResponse.badRequest().build());
Background
I'm trying to observe one Int stream (actually I'm not, but to make the argument easier) and do something with it while combining that stream to multiple other streams, say a String stream and a Double stream like the following:
// RxSwift
let intStream = BehaviorSubject<Int>(value: 0) // subscribe to this later on
let sharedStream = intStream.share()
let mappedStream = sharedStream.map { ... }.share()
let combinedStream1 = Observable.combineLatest(sharedStream, stringStream).map { ... }
let combinedStream2 = Observable.combineLatest(sharedStream, doubleStream).map { ... }
The above code is just to demonstrate what I'm trying to do. The code above is part of view model code (the VM part of MVVM), and only the first map (for mappedStream) runs, while the others are not called.
Question
What is wrong with the above approach, and how do I achieve what I'm trying to do?
Also, is there a better way to achieve the same effect?
Updates
I confirmed that setting the replay count to 1 makes things work. But why?
The code above all goes in the initialization phase of the view model, and the subscription happens afterwards.
Okay, I have an answer but it's a bit complex... One problem is that you are using a Subject in the view model, but I'll ignore that for now. The real problem comes from the fact that you are using hot observables inappropriately (share() make a stream hot) and so events are getting dropped.
It might help if you put a bunch of .debug()s on this code so you can follow along. But here's the essence...
When you subscribe to mappedStream, it subscribes to the share which in turn subscribes to the sharedStream, which subscribes to the intStream. The intStream then emits the 0, and that 0 goes down the chain and shows up in the observer.
Then you subscribe to the combinedStream1, which subscribes to the sharedStream's share(). Since this share has already been subscribed to, the subscriptions stop there, and since the share has already output it's next event, the combinedStream1 doesn't get the .next(0) event.
Same for the combinedStream2.
Get rid of all the share()s and everything will work:
let intStream = BehaviorSubject<Int>(value: 0) // subscribe to this later on
let mappedStream = intStream.map { $0 }
let combinedStream1 = Observable.combineLatest(intStream, stringStream).map { $0 }
let combinedStream2 = Observable.combineLatest(intStream, doubleStream).map { $0 }
This way, each subscriber of intStream gets the 0 value.
The only time you want to share is if you need to share side effects. There aren’t any side effects in this code, so there’s no need to share.
function c() {
return Math.random();
}
source$.pipe(
map(a => c())
).subscribe(v => console.log(v));
Say there's a simple code like above. What I tried was logging the value when the source stream emits something but obviously, the value I log has nothing to do with the value from the source stream. So it got me considering using mapTo operator like this:
function c() {
return Math.random();
}
source$.pipe(
mapTo(c())
).subscribe(v => console.log(v));
But as you may guess, the value is always the same. More accurately speaking, it stays as the first value which is not what I want.
So my point is, I want the evaluation to be executed each time the source emits a value which I don't use at the evaluation. I can get it working like the first code by using map operator but it just doesn't seem right to use map when I don't use the value from the source stream. Is it okay to use map like this? Or is there any workaround for this kind of matter using mapTo or something else? Any insight would be appreciated!
According to the official definition, mapTo emits the given constant value on the output Observable every time the source Observable emits a value.
Therefore the behavior you described is the expected one. The first evaluation from Math.random() is kept and emitted for every time.
There seems nothing wrong to use map here to get the random values as you expect.
I've been doing a massive code review and one pattern I notice all over the place is this:
public bool MethodName()
{
bool returnValue = false;
if (expression)
{
// do something
returnValue = MethodCall();
}
else
{
// do something else
returnValue = Expression;
}
return returnValue;
}
This is not how I would have done this I would have just returned the value when I knew what it was. which of these two patterns is more correct?
I stress that the logic always seems to be structured such that the return value is assigned in one plave only and no code is executed after it's assigned.
A lot of people recommend having only one exit point from your methods. The pattern you describe above follows that recommendation.
The main gist of that recommendation is that if ou have to cleanup some memory or state before returning from the method, it's better to have that code in one place only. having multiple exit points leads to either duplication of cleanup code or potential problems due to missing cleanup code at one or more of the exit points.
Of course, if your method is couple of lines long, or doesn't need any cleanup, you could have multiple returns.
I would have used ternary, to reduce control structures...
return expression ? MethodCall() : Expression;
I suspect I will be in the minority but I like the style presented in the example. It is easy to add a log statement and set a breakpoint, IMO. Plus, when used in a consistent way, it seems easier to "pattern match" than having multiple returns.
I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer on this, however.
Some learning institutes and books advocate the single return practice.
Whether it's better or not is subjective.
That looks like a part of a bad OOP design. Perhaps it should be refactored on the higher level than inside of a single method.
Otherwise, I prefer using a ternary operator, like this:
return expression ? MethodCall() : Expression;
It is shorter and more readable.
Return from a method right away in any of these situations:
You've found a boundary condition and need to return a unique or sentinel value: if (node.next = null) return NO_VALUE_FOUND;
A required value/state is false, so the rest of the method does not apply (aka a guard clause). E.g.: if (listeners == null) return null;
The method's purpose is to find and return a specific value, e.g.: if (nodes[i].value == searchValue) return i;
You're in a clause which returns a unique value from the method not used elsewhere in the method: if (userNameFromDb.equals(SUPER_USER)) return getSuperUserAccount();
Otherwise, it is useful to have only one return statement so that it's easier to add debug logging, resource cleanup and follow the logic. I try to handle all the above 4 cases first, if they apply, then declare a variable named result(s) as late as possible and assign values to that as needed.
They both accomplish the same task. Some say that a method should only have one entry and one exit point.
I use this, too. The idea is that resources can be freed in the normal flow of the program. If you jump out of a method at 20 different places, and you need to call cleanUp() before, you'll have to add yet another cleanup method 20 times (or refactor everything)
I guess that the coder has taken the design of defining an object toReturn at the top of the method (e.g., List<Foo> toReturn = new ArrayList<Foo>();) and then populating it during the method call, and somehow decided to apply it to a boolean return type, which is odd.
Could also be a side effect of a coding standard that states that you can't return in the middle of a method body, only at the end.
Even if no code is executed after the return value is assigned now it does not mean that some code will not have to be added later.
It's not the smallest piece of code which could be used but it is very refactoring-friendly.
Delphi forces this pattern by automatically creating a variable called "Result" which will be of the function's return type. Whatever "Result" is when the function exits, is your return value. So there's no "return" keyword at all.
function MethodName : boolean;
begin
Result := False;
if Expression then begin
//do something
Result := MethodCall;
end
else begin
//do something else
Result := Expression;
end;
//possibly more code
end;
The pattern used is verbose - but it's also easier to debug if you want to know the return value without opening the Registers window and checking EAX.