I have an observable for which I would want to call cancellation (teardown) logic when subscriber unsubscribes from it but only if the source observable haven't completed yet (or failed) by itself.
The built-in finalize operator lets to register custom callback when unsubscribe occurs but it being called whenever the unsubscription was caused by subscriber or completion of the source observable.
I implemented the this helper function:
function withCancellation(source, onCancel) {
return new Observable(subscriber => {
let completed = false;
const cancellable = source.pipe(
tap({
error: () => { completed = true; },
complete: () => { completed = true; },
})
);
const subscription = cancellable.subscribe(subscriber);
subscription.add(() => { if (!completed) onCancel(); });
return subscription;
});
}
Which I can use the following way:
const sourceStream = startJob(jobId); // returns source observable
const cancellableStream = withCancellation(sourceStream, () => stopJob(jobId));
Is there any more concise way to achieve the same using any built-in primitives?
Related
If you're using JS, the documentation works well. But in case of angular I would prefer to handle observables instead of promises. The problem is that this kind of promise has a handler. I tried many approaches listed below but nothing seems to work.
from(listen("click", v => v))
let x = async() => listen("click", v => v)
Does anyone know how to convert this kind of event to an Observable?
The response is always this:
function () {
var self = this,
args = arguments;
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
var gen = fn.apply(self, args);
function _next(value) {
asyncGeneratorStep(gen, resolve, reject, _next, _throw, "next", value);
}
function _throw(err) {
asyncGeneratorStep(gen, resolve, reject, _next, _throw, "throw", err);
}
_next(undefined);
});
}
You would have to create an Observable yourself with new Observable.
const obs$ = new Observable((subscriber) => {
const unlisten = listen("click", v => subscriber.next(v))
return async () => {
(await unlisten)()
}
})
Inside the callback, we listen to the events and pass each event to subscriber.next(v).
We also want to call unlisten when the Observable is unsubscribed to clean up the event listener. We can do that by returning the unlisten. The function returned by the callback will be called when the Observable is unsubscribed.
Thanks to #Tobias S., I was able to create those 2 functions and reuse them in all my services.
import {from, map, Observable, ObservableInput, ObservedValueOf} from "rxjs";
import {emit, listen, Event} from "#tauri-apps/api/event";
export function tauriListen(listenerName: string): Observable<any> {
return new Observable<any>((subscriber) => {
// return from(listen(listenerName, v => subscriber.next(v))).subscribe()
const unlisten = listen(listenerName, v => subscriber.next(v))
return async () => {
(await unlisten)()
}
}).pipe(
map((response: Event<any>) => response.payload)
);
}
export function tauriEmit(emitterName: string, payload: any) {
return from(emit(emitterName, payload));
}
Preconditions:
The ref.getDownload() returns an Observable which only can be subscribed, if the
task.snapshotChanges()-Observable completed.
This code-snippet works:
task.snapshotChanges().subscribe({
complete: () => {
ref.getDownloadURL().subscribe((downloadUrl) => console.log(downloadUrl));
}
});
This code-snippet does NOT work:
concat(
task.snapshotChanges(),
ref.getDownloadURL()
).pipe(
last()
).subscribe((downloadUrl) => console.log(downloadUrl));
getDownloadUrl throws an error (404 file not found), because it seems
ref.getDownloadUrl is subscribed to early.
Why subscribes the ref.getDownloaded()-Observable and does not wait until task.snapshotChanges() completes? The concat-operator should ensure this behaviour.
Or am I wrong?
The function ref.getDownloadURL() is called when the concat(..) Observable is created. See:
const { of, concat } = rxjs;
const { delay } = rxjs.operators;
const fetch1 = () => { console.log('run fetch1'); return of('from 1').pipe(delay(2000)) }
const fetch2 = () => { console.log('run fetch2'); return of('from 2').pipe(delay(2000)) }
concat(fetch1(), fetch2()).subscribe(console.log);
<script src="https://unpkg.com/rxjs/bundles/rxjs.umd.min.js"></script>
ref.getDownloadURL() seems to query the database directly when it gets called and not when the Observable it returns gets subscribed to.
You can wrap ref.getDownloadURL() with defer to only execute it when the Observable is subscribed to.
const { of, concat, defer } = rxjs;
const { delay } = rxjs.operators;
const fetch1 = () => { console.log('run fetch1'); return of('from 1').pipe(delay(2000)) }
const fetch2 = () => { console.log('run fetch2'); return of('from 2').pipe(delay(2000)) }
concat(fetch1(), defer(() => fetch2())).subscribe(console.log);
<script src="https://unpkg.com/rxjs/bundles/rxjs.umd.min.js"></script>
Also see my answer here https://stackoverflow.com/a/57671521/9423231
Why does this function only work once? I click a button to call the next() on the Subject queue which works but if I click the other button it doesn't work.
getData(text): Observable<string> {
const timer$ = timer(2000);
const observable = new Observable<string>(observer => {
timer$.pipe(
map(() => {
observer.next('http response ' + text);
})
).subscribe();
});
return observable;
}
I setup a Subject and use next() which should make the observable emit data.
queue = new Subject();
streamA$: Observable<string>;
streamB$: Observable<string>;
images$: Observable<string>;
constructor(private timerService: TimerService) {
}
ngOnInit() {
this.streamA$ = this.timerService.getData('a');
this.streamB$ = this.timerService.getData('b');
this.images$ = this.queue.pipe(concatMap((data: string) => data));
}
clickA() {
this.queue.next(this.streamA$);
}
clickB() {
this.queue.next(this.streamB$);
}
Template:
<button (click)="clickA()">Click A</button>
<button (click)="clickB()">Click B</button>
<div>{{images$ | async}}</div>
https://stackblitz.com/edit/angular-subject-queue
You're using concatMap(). This emits all the events emitted from the first observable emitted by the subject, then all the events emitted by the second observable emitted by the subject.
But the first observable never completes, so there's no way for the second observable to ever emit anything.
If you want the observable returned by the service to emit once after 2 seconds then complete, all you need is
return timer(2000).pipe(
map(() => 'http response ' + text)
);
The newest version of redux-observable doesn't give any access to store and we have to dispatch actions by returning them from epics. I don't know how to dispatch actions when some observables are cancelled, for example by switchMap effect. For instance:
const counter = new Observable(observer => {
let i = 0;
const timer = setInterval(() => {
observer.next(i++);
}, 1000);
return {
unsubscribe: () => {
clearInterval(timer);
// how to dispatch action here like { type: 'COUNTER_ABORTED' }?
}
};
});
Or maybe this is RXJS antipattern what I want to do? Maybe there is some switchMap trick I could use to do additional things for cancelled observables?
When creating an Rx.Subject using Subject.create(observer, observable), the Subject is so lazy. When I try to use subject.onNext without having a subscription, it doesn't pass messages on. If I subject.subscribe() first, I can use onNext immediately after.
Let's say I have an Observer, created like so:
function createObserver(socket) {
return Observer.create(msg => {
socket.send(msg);
}, err => {
console.error(err);
}, () => {
socket.removeAllListeners();
socket.close();
});
}
Then, I create an Observable that accepts messages:
function createObservable(socket) {
return Observable.fromEvent(socket, 'message')
.map(msg => {
// Trim out unnecessary data for subscribers
delete msg.blobs;
// Deep freeze the message
Object.freeze(msg);
return msg;
})
.publish()
.refCount();
}
The subject is created using these two functions.
observer = createObserver(socket);
observable = createObservable(socket);
subject = Subject.create(observer, observable);
With this setup, I'm not able to subject.onNext immediately (even if I don't care about subscribing). Is this by design? What's a good workaround?
These are actually TCP sockets, which is why I haven't relied on the super slick websocket subjects.
The basic solution, caching nexts before subscription with ReplaySubject:
I think all you wanted to do is use a ReplaySubject as your observer.
const { Observable, Subject, ReplaySubject } = Rx;
const replay = new ReplaySubject();
const observable = Observable.create(observer => {
replay.subscribe(observer);
});
const mySubject = Subject.create(replay, observable);
mySubject.onNext(1);
mySubject.onNext(2);
mySubject.onNext(3);
mySubject.subscribe(x => console.log(x));
mySubject.onNext(4);
mySubject.onNext(5);
Results in:
1
2
3
4
5
A socket implementation (example, don't use)
... but if you're looking at doing a Socket implementation, it gets a lot more complicated. Here is a working socket implementation, but I don't recommend you use it. Rather, I'd suggest that you use one of the community supported implementations either in rxjs-dom (if you're an RxJS 4 or lower) or as part of RxJS 5, both of which I've helped work on.
function createSocketSubject(url) {
let replay = new ReplaySubject();
let socket;
const observable = Observable.create(observer => {
socket = new WebSocket(url);
socket.onmessage = (e) => {
observer.onNext(e);
};
socket.onerror = (e) => {
observer.onError(e);
};
socket.onclose = (e) => {
if (e.wasClean) {
observer.onCompleted();
} else {
observer.onError(e);
}
}
let sub;
socket.onopen = () => {
sub = replay.subscribe(x => socket.send(x));
};
return () => {
socket && socket.readyState === 1 && socket.close();
sub && sub.dispose();
}
});
return Subject.create(replay, observable);
}
const socket = createSocketSubject('ws://echo.websocket.org');
socket.onNext('one');
socket.onNext('two');
socket.subscribe(x => console.log('response: ' + x.data));
socket.onNext('three');
socket.onNext('four');
Here's the obligatory JsBin