RXJS repeat does not have a chance to repeat? - rxjs

Question

I have the following epic I use in my application to handle api requests:
action$ => {
return action$.ofType(actions.requestType)
.do(() => console.log('handled epic ' + actions.requestType))
.switchMap((action) => (
Observable.create((obs) => {
obs.next({ type: type, value: action.value, form: action.form });
})
.debounceTime(250)
.switchMap((iea) => (
Observable.ajax(ajaxPost(url(iea.value), body ? body(iea.value) : action.form))
.mergeMap(payload => {
return Observable.merge(
Observable.of(actions.success(payload)),
/* some other stuff */
);
})
.catch(payload => {
return [actions.failure(payload)];
})
))
))
.takeUntil(action$.filter((a) => (a.type === masterCancelAction))
.repeat();
};
Basically, any time I perform an api request, I dispatch a request action. If I dispatch another request quickly, the previous one is ignored using debounceTime. Additionally, the request can be cancelled using the masterCancelAction and when cancelled repeat() restarts the epic. This epic works as intended in all cases expect one.
The failure case occurs when a user uses the browser back during a request. In this case I fire the masterCancelAction to the request. However, on the same execution context as a result from the masterCancelAction, another request action dispatches to perform a new request on the same epic, but the api request does not occur (the console.log does occur though) as if there was no repeat(). In other cases where cancels occur, the next request is not invoked from the same execution context and it works fine, so it seems in this case my code does not give repeat a chance to restart the epic?
A dirty workaround I found was to use setTimeout(dispatch(action), 0) on the request that dispatches after the cancellation. This seems to allow repeat() to execute. I tried passing different schedulers into repeat, but that didn't seem to help. Also, attaching takeUntil and repeat into my inner switchMap solves the problem, but then other cases where my next request does not execute in the same call stack fail.
Is there a way I can solve this problem without using setTimeout? Maybe it is not a repeat related problem, but it seems to be the case.
Using rxjs 5.0.3 and redux-observable 0.14.1.

Answer 1

The issue is not 100% clear without something like a jsbin to see what you mean, but I do see some general issues that might help:
Anonymous Observable never completes
When creating a custom anonymous Observable it's important to call observer.complete() if you do indeed want it to complete. In most cases, not doing so will cause the subscription to be a memory leak and might also other strange behaviors
Observable.create((observer) => {
observer.next({ type: type, value: action.value, form: action.form });
observer.complete();
})
Observable.of would have been equivalent:
Observable.of({ type: type, value: action.value, form: action.form })
However, it's not clear why this was done as the values it emits are in captured in scope.
debounceTime in this case does not debounce, it delays
Since the anonymous observable it's applied to only ever emits a single item, debounceTime will act just as a regular .delay(250). I'm betting you intended instead to debounce actions.requestType actions, in which case you'd need to apply your debouncing outside the switchMap, after the action$.ofType(actions.requestType).
Observable.of accepts any number of arguments to emit
This is more of a "did you know?" rather than an issue, but I noticed you're merging your of and /* some other actions */ I assume would be other of observables merged in. Instead, you can just return a single of and pass the actions as arguments.
Observable.of(
actions.success(payload),
/* some other actions */
actions.someOtherOne(),
actions.etc()
);
Also, when you find yourself emitting multiple actions synchronously like this, consider whether your reducers should be listening for the same, single action instead of having two or more. Sometimes this wouldn't make sense as you want them to have completely unrelated actions, just something to keep in mind that people often forget--that all reducers receive all actions and so multiple reducers can change their state from the same action.
.takeUntil will stop the epic from listening for future actions
Placing the takeUntil on the top-level observable chain causes the epic to stop listening for action$.ofType(actions.requestType), which is why you added the .repeat() after. This might work in some cases, but it's inefficient and can cause other hard to realize bugs. Epics should be thought of instead as sort of like sidecar processes that usually "start up" with the app and then continue listening for a particular action until the app "shuts down" aka the user leaves the app. They aren't actually processes, it's just helpful to conceptually think of them this way as an abstraction.
So each time it matches its particular action it then most often will switchMap, mergeMap, concatMap, or exhaustMap into some side effect, like an ajax call. That inner observable chain is what you want to make cancellable. So you'd place your .takeUntil on it, at the appropriate place in the chain.
Summary
As mentioned, it's not clear what you intended to do and what the issue is, without a more complete example like a jsbin. But strictly based on the code provided, this is my guesstimate:
const someRequestEpic = action$ => {
return action$.ofType(actions.requestType)
.debounceTime(250)
.do(() => console.log('handled epic ' + actions.requestType))
.switchMap((action) =>
Observable.ajax(ajaxPost(url(action.value), body ? body(action.value) : action.form))
.takeUntil(action$.ofType(masterCancelAction))
.mergeMap(payload => {
return Observable.of(
actions.success(payload),
/* some other actions */
...etc
);
})
.catch(payload => Observable.of(
actions.failure(payload)
))
);
};
Check out the Cancellation page in the redux-observable docs.
If this is a bit confusing, I'd recommend digging a bit deeper into what Observables are and what an "operator" is and does so that it doesn't feel magical and where you should place an operator makes more sense.
Ben's post on Learning Observable by Building Observable is a good start.