There is a continuous stream of event objects which doesn't complete. Each event has bands. By subscribing to events you get an event with several properties, among these a property "bands" which stores an array of bandIds. With these ids you can get each band. (The stream of bands is continuous as well.)
Problem: In the end you'd not only like to have bands, but a complete event object with bandIds and the complete band objects.
// This is what I could come up with myself, but it seems pretty ugly.
getEvents().pipe(
switchMap(event => {
const band$Array = event.bands.map(bandId => getBand(bandId));
return combineLatest(of(event), ...band$Array);
})),
map(combined => {
const newEvent = combined[0];
combined.forEach((x, i) => {
if (i === 0) return;
newEvent.bands = {...newEvent.bands, ...x};
})
})
)
Question: Please help me find a cleaner way to do this (and I'm not even sure if my attempt produces the intended result).
ACCEPTED ANSWER
getEvents().pipe(
switchMap(event => {
const band$Array = event.bands.map(bandId => getBand(bandId));
return combineLatest(band$Array).pipe(
map(bandArray => ({bandArray, event}))
);
})
)
ORIGINAL ANSWER
You may want to try something along these lines
getEvents().pipe(
switchMap(event => {
const band$Array = event.bands.map(bandId => getBand(bandId));
return forkJoin(band$Array).pipe(
map(bandArray => ({bandArray, event}))
);
})
)
The Observable returned by this transformation emits an object with 2 properties: bandArray holding the array of bands retrieved with the getBand service and event which is the object emitted by the Observable returned by getEvents.
Consider also that you are using switchMap, which means that as soon as the Observable returned by getEvents emits you are going to switch to the last emission and complete anything which may be on fly at the moment. In other words you can loose some events if the time required to exectue the forkJoin is longer than the time from one emission and the other of getEvents.
If you do not want to loose anything, than you better use mergeMap rather than switchMap.
UPDATED ANSWER - The Band Observable does not complete
In this case I understand that getBand(bandId) returns an Observable which emits first when the back end is queried the first time and then when the band data in the back end changes.
If this is true, then you can consider something like this
getEvents().pipe(
switchMap(event => {
return from(event.bands).pipe(
switchMap(bandId => getBand(bandId)).pipe(
map(bandData => ({event, bandData}))
)
);
})
)
This transformation produces an Observable which emits either any time a new event occurs or any time the data of a band changes.
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$, streamTwo$)';
I'm making use of the withLatestFrom operator in RxJS in the normal way:
var combined = source1.withLatestFrom(source2, source3);
...to actively collect the most recent emission from source2 and source3 and to emit all three value only when source1 emits.
But I cannot guarantee that source2 or source3 will have produced values before source1 produces a value. Instead I need to wait until all three sources produce at least one value each before letting withLatestFrom do its thing.
The contract needs to be: if source1 emits then combined will always eventually emit when the other sources finally produce. If source1 emits multiple times while waiting for the other sources we can use the latest value and discard the previous values. Edit: as a marble diagram:
--1------------2---- (source)
----a-----b--------- (other1)
------x-----y------- (other2)
------1ax------2by--
--1------------2---- (source)
------a---b--------- (other1)
--x---------y------- (other2)
------1ax------2by--
------1--------2---- (source)
----a-----b--------- (other1)
--x---------y------- (other2)
------1ax------2by--
I can make a custom operator for this, but I want to make sure I'm not missing an obvious way to do this using the vanilla operators. It feels almost like I want combineLatest for the initial emit and then to switch to withLatestFrom from then on but I haven't been able to figure out how to do that.
Edit: Full code example from final solution:
var Dispatcher = new Rx.Subject();
var source1 = Dispatcher.filter(x => x === 'foo');
var source2 = Dispatcher.filter(x => x === 'bar');
var source3 = Dispatcher.filter(x => x === 'baz');
var combined = source1.publish(function(s1) {
return source2.publish(function(s2) {
return source3.publish(function(s3) {
var cL = s1.combineLatest(s2, s3).take(1).do(() => console.log('cL'));
var wLF = s1.skip(1).withLatestFrom(s2, s3).do(() => console.log('wLF'));
return Rx.Observable.merge(cL, wLF);
});
});
});
var sub1 = combined.subscribe(x => console.log('x', x));
// These can arrive in any order
// and we can get multiple values from any one.
Dispatcher.onNext('foo');
Dispatcher.onNext('bar');
Dispatcher.onNext('foo');
Dispatcher.onNext('baz');
// combineLatest triggers once we have all values.
// cL
// x ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
// withLatestFrom takes over from there.
Dispatcher.onNext('foo');
Dispatcher.onNext('bar');
Dispatcher.onNext('foo');
// wLF
// x ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
// wLF
// x ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
I think the answer is more or less as you described, let the first value be a combineLatest, then switch to withLatestFrom. My JS is hazy, but I think it would look something like this:
var selector = function(x,y,z) {};
var combined = Rx.Observable.concat(
source1.combineLatest(source2, source3, selector).take(1),
source1.withLatestFrom(source2, source3, selector)
);
You should probably use publish to avoid multiple subscriptions, so that would look like this:
var combined = source1.publish(function(s1)
{
return source2.publish(function(s2)
{
return source3.publish(function(s3)
{
return Rx.Observable.concat(
s1.combineLatest(s2, s3, selector).take(1),
s1.withLatestFrom(s2, s3, selector)
);
});
});
});
or using arrow functions...
var combined = source1.publish(s1 => source2.publish(s2 => source3.publish(s3 =>
Rx.Observable.concat(
s1.combineLatest(s2, s3, selector).take(1),
s1.withLatestFrom(s2, s3, selector)
)
)));
EDIT:
I see the problem with concat, the withLatestFrom isn't getting the values. I think the following would work:
var combined = source1.publish(s1 => source2.publish(s2 => source3.publish(s3 =>
Rx.Observable.merge(
s1.combineLatest(s2, s3, selector).take(1),
s1.skip(1).withLatestFrom(s2, s3, selector)
)
)));
...so take one value using combineLatest, then get the rest using withLatestFrom.
I wasn't quite satisfied with the accepted answer, so I ended up finding another solution. Many ways to skin a cat!
My use-case involves just two streams - a "requests" stream and a "tokens" stream. I want requests to fire as soon as they are received, using the whatever the latest token is. If there is no token yet, then it should wait until the first token appears, and then fire off all the pending requests.
I wasn't quite satisfied with the accepted answer, so I ended up finding another solution. Essentially I split the request stream into two parts - before and after first token arrives. I buffer the first part, and then re-release everything in one go once I know that the token stream is non-empty.
const first = token$.first()
Rx.Observable.merge(
request$.buffer(first).mergeAll(),
request$.skipUntil(first)
)
.withLatestFrom(token$)
See it live here: https://rxviz.com/v/VOK2GEoX
For RxJs 7:
const first = token$.first()
merge(
request$.pipe(
buffer(first),
mergeAll()
),
request$.pipe(
skipUntil(first)
)
).pipe(
withLatestFrom(token$)
)
I had similar requirements but for just 2 observables.
I ended up using switchMap+first:
observable1
.switchMap(() => observable2.first(), (a, b) => [a, b])
.subscribe(([a, b]) => {...}));
So it:
waits until both observables emit some value
pulls the value from second observable only if the first one has changed (unlike combineLatest)
doesn't hang subscribed on second observable (because of .first())
In my case, second observable is a ReplaySubject. I'm not sure if it will work with other observable types.
I think that:
flatMap would probably work too
it might be possible to extend this approach to handle more than 2 observables
I was surprised that withLatestFrom will not wait on second observable.
In my mind, the most elegant way to achieve the different behavior of an existing RxJS operator is to wrap it into a custom operator. So that from the outside it looks just like any regular operator and doesn't require you to restructure your code each time you need this behavior.
Here is how you can create your own operator which behaves just like withLatestFrom, except that at the very beginning it will emit as soon as the first value of the target observable is emitted (unlike standard withLatestFrom, which will ignore the first emission of the source if the target hasn't yet emitted once). Let's call it delayedWithLatestFrom.
Note that it's written in TypeScript, but you can easily transform it to plain JS. Also, it's a simple version that supports only one target observable and no selector function - you can extend it as needed from here.
export function delayedWithLatestFrom<T, N>(
target$: Observable<N>
): OperatorFunction<T, [T, N]> {
// special value to avoid accidental match with values that could originate from target$
const uniqueSymbol = Symbol('withLatestFromIgnore');
return pipe(
// emit as soon target observable emits the first value
combineLatestWith<T, [N]>(target$.pipe(first())),
// skip the first emission because it's handled above, and then continue like a normal `withLatestFrom` operator
withLatestFrom(target$.pipe(skip(1), startWith(uniqueSymbol))),
map(([[rest, combineLatestValue], withLatestValue]) => {
// take combineLatestValue for the first time, and then always take withLatestValue
const appendedValue =
withLatestValue === uniqueSymbol ? combineLatestValue : withLatestValue;
return [rest, appendedValue];
})
);
}
// SAMPLE USAGE
source$.pipe(
delayedWithLatestFrom(target$)
).subscribe(console.log);
So if you compare it with the original marble diagram for withLatestFrom, it will differ only in one fact: while withLatestFrom ignores the first emissions and produces b1 as the first value, the delayedWithlatestFrom operator will emit one more value a1 at the beginning, as soon as the second observable emits 1.
a) Standard withLatestFrom:
b) Custom delayedWithLatestFrom:
Use combineLatest and filter to remove tuples before first full set is found then set a variable to stop filtering. The variable can be within the scope of a wrapping defer to do things properly (support resubscription). Here it is in java (but the same operators exist in RxJs):
Observable.defer(
boolean emittedOne = false;
return Observable.combineLatest(s1, s2, s3, selector)
.filter(x -> {
if (emittedOne)
return true;
else {
if (hasAll(x)) {
emittedOne = true;
return true;
} else
return false;
}
});
)
I wanted a version where tokens are fetched regularly - and where I want to retry the main data post on (network) failure. I found shareReplay to be the key. The first mergeWith creates a "muted" stream, which causes the first token to be fetched immediately, not when the first action arrives. In the unlikely event that the first token will still not be available in time, the logic also has a startWith with an invalid value. This causes the retry logic to pause and try again. (Some/map is just a Maybe-monad):
Some(fetchToken$.pipe(shareReplay({refCount: false, bufferSize: 1})))
.map(fetchToken$ =>
actions$.pipe(
// This line is just for starting the loadToken loop immediately, not waiting until first write arrives.
mergeWith(fetchToken$.pipe(map(() => true), catchError(() => of(false)), tap(x => loggers.info(`New token received, success: ${x}`)), mergeMap(() => of()))),
concatMap(action =>
of(action).pipe(
withLatestFrom(fetchToken$.pipe(startWith(""))),
mergeMap(([x, token]) => (!token ? throwError(() => "Token not ready") : of([x, token] as const))),
mergeMap(([{sessionId, visitId, events, eventIds}, token]) => writer(sessionId, visitId, events, token).pipe(map(() => <ISessionEventIdPair>{sessionId, eventIds}))),
retryWhen(errors =>
errors.pipe(
tap(err => loggers.warn(`Error writing data to WG; ${err?.message || err}`)),
mergeMap((_error: any, attemptIdx) => (attemptIdx >= retryPolicy.retryCount ? throwError(() => Error("It's enough now, already")) : of(attemptIdx))), // error?.response?.status (int, response code) error.code === "ENOTFOUND" / isAxiosError: true / response === undefined
delayWhen(attempt => timer(attempt < 2 ? retryPolicy.shortRetry : retryPolicy.longRetry, scheduler))
)
)
)
),
)
)
Thanks to everyone on this question-page for good inputs.
Based on the answer from #cjol
Here's a RxJs 7 implementation of a waitFor operator that will buffer the source stream until all input observables have emitted values, then emit all buffered events on the source stream. Any subsequent events on the source stream are emitted immediately.
// Copied from the definition of withLatestFrom() operator.
export function waitFor<T, O extends unknown[]>(
inputs: [...ObservableInputTuple<O>]
): OperatorFunction<T, [T, ...O]>;
/**
* Buffers the source until every observable in "from" have emitted a value. Then
* emit all buffered source values with the latest values of the "from" array.
* Any source events are emitted immediately after that.
* #param from Array of observables to wait for.
* #returns Observable that emits an array that concatenates the source and the observables to wait.
*/
export function waitFor(
from: Observable<unknown>[]
): (source$: Observable<unknown>) => Observable<unknown> {
const combined$ = combineLatest(from);
// This served as a conditional that switched on and off the streams that
// wait for the the other observables, or emits the source right away because
// the other observables have emitted.
const firstCombined$ = combined$.pipe(first());
return function (source$: Observable<unknown>): Observable<unknown> {
return merge(
// This stream will buffer the source until the other observables have all emitted.
source$.pipe(
takeUntil(firstCombined$), // without this it continues to buffer new values forever
buffer(firstCombined$),
mergeAll()
),
// This stream emits the source straight away and will take over when the other
// observables have emitted.
source$.pipe(skipUntil(firstCombined$))
).pipe(
withLatestFrom(combined$),
// Flatten it to behave like withLatestFrom() operator.
map(([source, combined]) => [source, ...combined])
);
};
}
All of the above solutions are not really on the point, therefore I made my own. Hope it helps someone out.
import {
combineLatest,
take,
map,
ObservableInputTuple,
OperatorFunction,
pipe,
switchMap
} from 'rxjs';
/**
* ### Description
* Works similar to {#link withLatestFrom} with the main difference that it awaits the observables.
* When all observables can emit at least one value, then takes the latest state of all observables and proceeds execution of the pipe.
* Will execute this pipe only once and will only retrigger pipe execution if source observable emits a new value.
*
* ### Example
* ```ts
* import { BehaviorSubject } from 'rxjs';
* import { awaitLatestFrom } from './await-latest-from.ts';
*
* const myNumber$ = new BehaviorSubject<number>(1);
* const myString$ = new BehaviorSubject<string>("Some text.");
* const myBoolean$ = new BehaviorSubject<boolean>(true);
*
* myNumber$.pipe(
* awaitLatestFrom([myString$, myBoolean$])
* ).subscribe(([myNumber, myString, myBoolean]) => {});
* ```
* ### Additional
* #param observables - the observables of which the latest value will be taken when all of them have a value.
* #returns a tuple which contains the source value as well as the values of the observables which are passed as input.
*/
export function awaitLatestFrom<T, O extends unknown[]>(
observables: [...ObservableInputTuple<O>]
): OperatorFunction<T, [T, ...O]> {
return pipe(
switchMap((sourceValue) =>
combineLatest(observables).pipe(
take(1),
map((values) => [sourceValue, ...values] as unknown as [T, ...O])
)
)
);
}
Actually withLatestFrom already
waits for every source
emits only when source1 emits
remembers only the last source1-message while the other sources are yet to start
// when source 1 emits the others have emitted already
var source1 = Rx.Observable.interval(500).take(7)
var source2 = Rx.Observable.interval(100, 300).take(10)
var source3 = Rx.Observable.interval(200).take(10)
var selector = (a,b,c) => [a,b,c]
source1
.withLatestFrom(source2, source3, selector)
.subscribe()
vs
// source1 emits first, withLatestFrom discards 1 value from source1
var source1 = Rx.Observable.interval(500).take(7)
var source2 = Rx.Observable.interval(1000, 300).take(10)
var source3 = Rx.Observable.interval(2000).take(10)
var selector = (a,b,c) => [a,b,c]
source1
.withLatestFrom(source2, source3, selector)
.subscribe()
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.