I have a scenario where I need to make a request to an endpoint, and then based on the return I need to either produce multiple items or just pass an item through (specifically I am using redux-observable and trying to produce multiple actions based on an api return if it matters).
I have a simplified example below but it doesn't feel like idiomatic rx and just feels weird. In the example if the value is even I want to produce two items, but if odd, just pass the value through. What is the "right" way to achieve this?
test('url and response can be flatMap-ed into multiple objects based on array response and their values', async () => {
const fakeUrl = 'url';
axios.request.mockImplementationOnce(() => Promise.resolve({ data: [0, 1, 2] }));
const operation$ = of(fakeUrl).pipe(
mergeMap(url => request(url)),
mergeMap(resp => resp.data),
mergeMap(i =>
merge(
of(i).pipe(map(num => `number was ${num}`)),
of(i).pipe(
filter(num => num % 2 === 0),
map(() => `number was even`)
)
)
)
);
const result = await operation$.pipe(toArray()).toPromise();
expect(result).toHaveLength(5);
expect(axios.request).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
});
Personally I'd do it in a very similar way. You just don't need to be using the inner merge for both cases:
...
mergeMap(i => {
const source = of(`number was ${i}`);
return i % 2 === 0 ? merge(source, of(`number was even`)) : source;
})
I'm using concat to append a value after source Observable completes. Btw, in future RxJS versions there'll be endWith operator that will make it more obvious. https://github.com/ReactiveX/rxjs/pull/3679
Try to use such combo - partition + merge.
Here is an example (just a scratch)
const target$ = Observable.of('single value');
const [streamOne$, streamTwo$] = target$.partition((v) => v === 'single value');
// some actions with your streams - mapping/filtering etc.
const result$ = Observable.merge(streamOne$, streamTwo$)';
Related
i'm kinda new to rxjs and can't get my head around this problem:
I have two streams:
one with incoming objects
---a----b----c----d----->
one with the selected object from a list
-------------------c---->
From the incoming objects stream make a stream of the list of objects (with scan operator)
incoming: ----a--------b-------c----------d----------------\>
list: -------[a]----[a,b]----[a,b,c]----[a,b,c,d]---------\>
When a list object is selected (n), start a new stream
the first value of the new stream is the last value of the list sliced ( list.slice(n))
incoming: ----a--------b-------c----------d--------------------e-------->
list: -------[a]----[a,b]----[a,b,c]----[a,b,c,d]--------->
selected object: ---------------------------------c------->
new stream of list: ------[c,d]-----[c,d,e]--->
i can't get the last value of the list stream when the object is selected,,,
made a marble diagram for better understanding,
selectedObject$ = new BehaviorSubject(0);
incomingObjects$ = new Subject();
list$ = incomingObjects$.pipe(
scan((acc, val) => {
acc.push(val);
return acc;
}, [])
)
newList$ = selectedObject$.pipe(
withLastFrom(list$),
switchMap(([index,list])=> incomingObjects$.pipe(
scan((acc, val) => {
acc.push(val);
return acc;
}, list.slice(index))
))
)
A common pattern I use along with the scan operator is passing reducer functions instead of values to scan so that the current value can be used in the update operation. In this case you can link the two observables with a merge operator and map their values to functions that are appropriate - either adding to a list, or slicing the list after a selection.
// these are just timers for demonstration, any observable should be fine.
const incoming$ = timer(1000, 1000).pipe(map(x => String.fromCharCode(x + 65)), take(10));
const selected$ = timer(3000, 3000).pipe(map(x => String.fromCharCode(x * 2 + 66)), take(2));
merge(
incoming$.pipe(map(x => (s) => [...s, x])), // append to list
selected$.pipe(map(x => (s) => { // slice list starting from selection
const index = s.indexOf(x);
return (index !== -1) ? s.slice(index) : s;
}))
).pipe(
scan((list, reducer) => reducer(list), []) // run reducer
).subscribe(x => console.log(x)); // display list state as demonstration.
If I understand the problem right, you could follow the following approach.
The key point is to recognize that the list Observable (i.e. the Observable obtained with the use of scan) should be an hot Observable, i.e. an Observable that notifies independent on whether or not it is subscribed. The reason is that each new stream you want to create should have always the same source Observable as its upstream.
Then, as you already hint, the act of selecting a value should be modeled with a BehaviorSubject.
As soon as the select BehaviorSubject notifies a value selected, the previous stream has to complete and a new one has to be subscribed. This is the job of switchMap.
The rest is to slice the arrays of numbers in the right way.
This is the complete code of this approach
const selectedObject$ = new BehaviorSubject(1);
const incomingObjects$ = interval(1000).pipe(take(10));
const incomingObjectsHot$ = new ReplaySubject<number[]>(1);
incomingObjects$
.pipe(
scan((acc, val) => {
acc.push(val);
return acc;
}, [])
)
.subscribe(incomingObjectsHot$);
selectedObject$
.pipe(
switchMap((selected) =>
incomingObjectsHot$.pipe(
map((nums) => {
const selIndex = nums.indexOf(selected);
if (selIndex > 0) {
return nums.slice(selIndex);
}
})
)
),
filter(v => !!v)
)
.subscribe(console.log);
An example can be seen in this stackblitz.
I have written the following effect in my Angular app which uses rxjs. On MyActions.myAction, I receive an object containing a property ids - an array of ids - and for each id I want to send an HTTP request via this.myApiService.getResource, which returns an Observable<Resource>. I want then to collect all results in an array, and dispatch another action passing the array.
public loadResources$: Observable<MyAction> = this.actions$.pipe(
ofType(MyActions.myAction),
switchMap(({ ids }) => from(ids).pipe(
mergeMap(id => this.myApiService.getResource(id)),
toArray()
)),
map(resources) => MyActions.resourcesLoaded({ resources } )),
);
The code above does the job, but I wonder whether I should avoid nesting two flows of reactive operators, and whether there is a better way to write that.
The reason I wonder that is that I am having problems writing a test for it. I wrote the test below but I cannot make it pass.
it('should dispatch an resourcesLoaded action with the resources', () => {
const ids = ['5f7c723832758b859bd8f866'];
const resources = [{} as Resource];
const values = {
l: MyActions.loadResources({ ids }),
t: ids[0],
o: MyActions.resourcesLoaded({ resources })
};
actions = hot('--l------------', values);
const get$ = cold(' -------t-----', values);
const expected = cold('---------o-----', values);
myApiService.getResource.withArgs(ids[0]).returns(get$);
expect(myEffects.loadResources$).toBeObservable(expected);
});
The error I get is:
Expected $.length = 0 to equal 1.
Expected $[0] = undefined to equal Object({ frame: 50, notification: Notification({ kind: 'N', value: { ....
Error: Expected $.length = 0 to equal 1.
Expected $[0] = undefined to equal Object({ frame: 50, notification: Notification({ kind: 'N', value: { ....
at <Jasmine>
at compare (http://localhost:9876/Users/jacopolanzoni/Documents/Development/myProject/node_modules/jasmine-marbles/index.js:91:1)
at <Jasmine>
but I wonder whether I should avoid nesting two flows of reactive operators, and whether there is a better way to write that
I'd say it depends on what you want to achieve, at least in this case.
of([1,2,3]).pipe(mergeAll(), switchMap(value => http.get(...)))
differs from
of([1,2,3]).pipe(switchMap(ids => from(ids).pipe(mergeMap(...))))
In the first scenario, each inner observable will be discarded by the next value(except for the last value), so only 3 will resolve.
In the second scenario, it will process all of them, because you explode the array in the inner observable(which is managed by swtichMap, so the only way its inner observable will be discarded is if a new outer value(e.g another array of ids) is emitted by the source).
A case where nesting is not necessary is:
of([1,2,3])
.pipe(
// whenever you want to explode an array,
// it does not matter which higher order operator you use
// since the operation is **synchronous**
// so, `mergeAll`, `concatAll`, `switchAll` should work the same
mergeAll(),
mergeAll(id => this.apiService.useId(id))
)
// same as
of([1,2,3])
.pipe(
mergeMap(ids => from(ids).pipe(mergeMap(id => this.apiService.useId(id))))
)
As you can see, in this case, switchMap has been replaced with mergeMap.
I have found out my test was failing because toArray was waiting for the observable returned by getResource (i.e., httpClient.get) to complete. Replacing t with (t|) fixes the test:
it('should dispatch an resourcesLoaded action with the resources', () => {
const ids = ['5f7c723832758b859bd8f866'];
const resources = [{} as Resource];
const values = {
l: MyActions.loadResources({ ids }),
t: ids[0],
o: MyActions.resourcesLoaded({ resources })
};
actions = hot('--l------------', values);
const get$ = cold(' -------(t|)-----', values);
const expected = cold('---------o-----', values);
myApiService.getResource.withArgs(ids[0]).returns(get$);
expect(myEffects.loadResources$).toBeObservable(expected);
});
Yet, the first part of my question, i.e. whether it's good practice or not to nest operators like that, still stands.
I need to write marble test for my custom operator used in this loadEpic epic - this helps me to avoid problems that action INITIALiZE sometimes is dispatched to late and i getting LOAD_FAILURE:
loadEpic: Epic<ExamManagementAction, ExamManagementAction, RootState> = (
action$,
state$
) =>
action$.pipe(
filter(isActionOf(load)),
waitFor(state$),
switchMap(() =>
this.load(state$).pipe(
map(loadSuccess),
catchError(error => of(loadFailure({ error })))
)
)
);
and this is how i wrote my waitFor operator which works fine:
const waitFor = <T>(
state$: Observable<RootState>
): OperatorFunction<T, T> => source$ =>
source$.pipe(
switchMap(value =>
state$.pipe(
filter(state => state.navigation.initialized),
take(1),
mapTo(value)
)
)
);
can you help me to write this test with rxjs-marbles/jest or any similar approach? many thanks!
You describe three streams of events:
states (mock them with simple objects)
actions (again, you may use any JS value as a mock)
filtered actions (the same object as in 2)
Then you expect your operator to transform 2 to 3 with toBeObservable matcher. That's it.
it('should reject given values until navigation is initialized', () => {
const state$ = hot(' -i--u--u-i-- ', {u: {navigation: {initialized: false}}, i: {navigation: {initialized: true}}});
const action$ = hot(' v----v--v--- ', {v: load});
const expect$ = cold(' -v-------v-- ', {v: load});
expect(action$.pipe(waitFor(state$))).toBeObservable(expect$);
});
Note how I've formatted my code so one stream is described under another. It really helps with long sequences of events.
You might also write separate specs for edge cases. It depends on what behavior you want to test.
I need to wait on 2 observables to process a request, the types of which are different, e.g.
observable1 = Observable.create((observer: Subscriber<Type1> => ...)
and
observable2 = Observable.create((observer: Subscriber<Type2> => ...)
How can I avoid nested subscriptions such as
observable1.subscribe(result1 => {
observable2.subscribe(result2 => {
...
<do something with result1 and result2>
...
}
}
I tried
observable1.concat(observable2).subscribe(result => ...)
but that appears to read from both observables in turn.
I'm thinking along the lines of
observable1<???>observable2.subscribe((result1, result2) => ...)
How can I do that?
You're correct: concat will read from the observables in turn. To "join" them (by ordinal position), you will want to use zip:
const a$ = Rx.Observable.just(1);
const b$ = Rx.Observable.just(2);
const combined$ = a$.zip(b$, (x, y) => ({ a: x, b: y }));
const subscription = combined$.subscribe(x => console.log(x));
Note that the fact that the two streams are of different types causes no inconvenience when using zip, as a function must be provided to produce a new value from the two "zipped" values.
I've got an Observable that listens to some user input from a text box. If the observed string's length is >=3 (filter), it executes some HTTP call (switchMap).
Now I'd like to detect somehow if the user input has been filtered. Reason:
If the HTTP call has been done, it should show the results.
If the user input got filtered (== is invalid), it should clear the results.
Here's the code I'd like to have (see: ifFiltered):
this.userInput.valueChanges
.filter(val => val && val.length >= 3)
.ifFiltered(() => this.results = [])
.switchMap(val => getDataViaHTTP())
.subscribe(val => this.results = val);
I know, I could place that logic within the filter function for this simple example. But what if I have 10 different filters?
Did I miss any method that satisfies my needs?
Thanks in advance!
Either use partition like here RxJS modeling if else control structures with Observables operators
Or instead of filter use map and pipe the object if the former filter condition is true or null otherwise. so you can catch the null where ever you want in your chain with a filter.
Last option call some function in the else part of the filter function
We've had a similar case and tried it with partition as mentioned above but found it much handier to use throw here. So for your code
this.userInput.valueChanges
.do(val => {
if (!val || val.length < 3) {
throw new ValueTooShortError();
}
})
.switchMap(val => getDataViaHTTP())
.do(val => this.results = val)
.catch(() => this.results = [])
.subscribe();
I suggest having a common event stream, creating two filtered streams, and merging the two before subscription:
var o = this.userInput.valueChanges;
var empty= o.filter(t=> t.length < 3)
.map(t=>[])
var nonempty = o.filter(t=> t.length >= 3)
.switchMap(t=> getDataViaHTTP());
empty.merge(nonempty).subscribe(val => this.results = val);
I found another nice solution for my use case using Validators:
(I know that this is no solution using Observables as the question stated. Instead it's using Angular2 features to workaround the problem nicely.)
this.userInput.validator = Validators.compose([
Validators.required,
Validators.minLength(3)
]);
this.userInput.valueChanges
.filter(val => this.userInput.valid)
.switchMap(val => getDataViaHTTP())
.subscribe(val => this.results = val);
Now I can use the userInput.valid property and/or the userInput.statusChanges Observable to keep track of the input value.
May be it's late, but wanted to post for the members still seeking a more cleaner approach to validate IF EMPTY inside .map:
of(fooBar).pipe(
map(
(val) =>
({
...val,
Foo: (val.Bar
? val.Foo.map((e) => ({
title: e.Title,
link: e.Link,
}))
: []) as fooModal[],
}));
This code returns a empty array if val.bar is missing, but it's just an example you can use any validation & expression instead.