Develop Reference

Kotlin Coroutine Flow: Limit the number of collector

Is there a way to limit the number of collector in a function that returns a Flow using flow builder?
I have this public method in a ViewModel
fun fetchAssets(limit: String) {
viewModelScope.launch {
withContext(Dispatchers.IO){
getAssetsUseCase(AppConfigs.ASSET_PARAMS, limit).onEach {
when (it) {
is RequestStatus.Loading -> {
_assetState.tryEmit(AssetState.FetchLoading)
}
is RequestStatus.Success -> {
_assetState.tryEmit(AssetState.FetchSuccess(it.data.assetDataDomain))
}
is RequestStatus.Failed -> {
_assetState.tryEmit(AssetState.FetchFailed(it.message))
}
}
}.collect()
}
}
}
This method is called on ViewModel's init block, but can also be called manually on UI.
This flow emits value every 10 seconds.
Repository
override fun fetchAssets(
query: String,
limit: String
) = flow {
while (true) {
try {
interceptor.baseUrl = AppConfigs.ASSET_BASE_URL
emit(RequestStatus.Loading())
val domainModel = mapper.mapToDomainModel(service.getAssetItems(query, limit))
emit(RequestStatus.Success(domainModel))
} catch (e: HttpException) {
emit(RequestStatus.Failed(e))
} catch (e: IOException) {
emit(RequestStatus.Failed(e))
}
delay(10_000)
}
}
Unfortunately every time fetch() was invoke from UI, I noticed that it creates another collectors thus can ended up having tons of collector which is really bad and incorrect.
The idea is having a flow that emits value every 10 seconds but can also be invoke manually via UI for immediate data update without having multiple collectors.

You seem to misunderstand what does it mean to collect the flow or you misuse the collect operation. By collecting the flow we mean we observe it for changes. But you try to use collect() to introduce changes to the flow, which can't really work. It just starts another flow in the background.
You should collect the flow only once, so keep it inside init or wherever it is appropriate for your case. Then you need to update the logic of the flow to make it possible to trigger reloading on demand. There are many ways to do it and the solution will differ depending whether you need to reset the timer on manual update or not. For example, we can use the channel to notify the flow about the need to reload:
val reloadChannel = Channel<Unit>(Channel.CONFLATED)
fun fetchAssets(
query: String,
limit: String
) = flow {
while (true) {
try {
...
}
withTimeoutOrNull(10.seconds) { reloadChannel.receive() } // replace `delay()` with this
}
}
fun reload() {
reloadChannel.trySend(Unit)
}
Whenever you need to trigger the manual reload, do not start another flow or invoke another collect() operation, but instead just invoke reload(). Then the flow that is already being collected, will start reloading and will emit state changes.
This solution resets the timer on manual reload, which I believe is better for the user experience.

I ended up moving the timer on ViewModel as I can request on demand fetch while also not having multiple collectors that runs at the same time.
private var job: Job? = null
private val _assetState = defaultMutableSharedFlow<AssetState>()
fun getAssetState() = _assetState.asSharedFlow()
init {
job = viewModelScope.launch {
while(true) {
if (lifecycleState == LifeCycleState.ON_START || lifecycleState == LifeCycleState.ON_RESUME)
fetchAssets()
delay(10_000)
}
}
}
fun fetchAssets() {
viewModelScope.launch {
withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
getAssetsUseCase(
AppConfigs.ASSET_BASE_URL,
AppConfigs.ASSET_PARAMS,
AppConfigs.ASSET_SIZES[AppConfigs.ASSET_LIMIT_INDEX]
).onEach {
when(it){
is RequestStatus.Loading -> {
_assetState.tryEmit(AssetState.FetchLoading)
}
is RequestStatus.Success -> {
_assetState.tryEmit(AssetState.FetchSuccess(it.data.assetDataDomain))
}
is RequestStatus.Failed -> {
_assetState.tryEmit(AssetState.FetchFailed(it.message))
}
}
}.collect()
}
}
}
override fun onCleared() {
job?.cancel()
super.onCleared()
}
Please correct me if this one is a code smell.

Cancelling the collect of the Kotlin flow

I have a parent class that has different states, this parent class has a list of child classes that have different states each. I want to collect on each one of them and cancel the one that reaches the Terminated state. Something like that:
coroutineScope.launch(Dispatcher.IO) {
parent.parentState.collect {
if(it is ParentState.Normal){
it.children.forEach{ child ->
coroutineScope.launch(Dispatcher.IO){
child.childState.collect{
if(it is ChildState.Terminated){
//when this line executed all the collectors stop until I change the states for each one of them..
this.coroutineContext.job.cancel()
} else{
// Do something else for any other state...
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
But when I do that all the children that I am collecting from stop collecting, but it starts collecting again If I changed the state for each one of them, which is wasn't the case before cancelling one of them.
So my question is why it behaves like that when cancelling the job for one of the collectors?
Also is there a better way "reactive way" to write this?

I totally agree that you can use SupervisorJob to deal with your problems.
But in my opinion, not so many sub-jobs are needed. A sub-job can solve the problems you encounter. In your code, a child coroutine of the size of children Collection will be created. Although the coroutine is very lightweight, I think it is unnecessary overhead.
You can completely convert List<Flow<T>> into Flow<List<T>> before each Flow collect. After that, only the converted single Flow can be collect.
Here is how I handled it:
inline fun <reified T> List<Flow<T>>.flattenFlow(): Flow<List<T>> = combine(this#flattenFlow) {
it.toList()
}
coroutineScope.launch(Dispatcher.IO) {
parent.parentState.collect {
if (it is ParentState.Normal) {
it.flattenFlow().collect {childStateList ->
childStateList.onEach {childState ->
if (childState is ChildState.Terminated) {
// Do something when state in Terminated..
} else {
// Do something else for any other state...
}
}
}
}
}
}

By default, coroutine scope is using Job() in CoroutineContext, Job() will cancel coroutine execution or any running child on canceled or exception thrown.
To keep other child execution remain active, you can use special Job, which is SupervisorJob()
CoroutineScope(SupervisorJob() + Dispatchers.IO)
Also, let's create a brand new scope for each child
val childScope = CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO)
childScope.launch {
child.childState.collect {
....
}
}
and you should cancel those childScope instead the coroutineContext.
Therefore, your code will looks like below
val scope = CoroutineScope(SupervisorJob() + Dispatchers.IO)
scope.launch {
parent.parentState.collect {
if(it is ParentState.Normal){
it.children.forEach{ child ->
val childScope = CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO)
childScope.launch(Dispatcher.IO){
child.childState.collect{
if(it is ChildState.Terminated){
//when this line executed all the collectors stop until I change the states for each one of them..
childScope.cancel()
} else{
// Do something else for any other state...
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

How to pause/stop collecting/emitting data in a Flow while app minimised?

I have a UseCase and remote repository that return Flow in a loop and I collect the result of UseCase in the ViewModel like this:
viewModelScope.launch {
useCase.updatePeriodically().collect { result ->
when (result.status) {
Result.Status.ERROR -> {
errorModel.value = result.errorModel
}
Result.Status.SUCCESS -> {
items.value = result.data
}
Result.Status.LOADING -> {
loading.value = true
}
}
}
}
the problem is when the app is in the background (minimized) flow continues working. so can I pause it when the app is in the background and resume it when the app comes back to the foreground?
and also I don't want to observe the data in my view (fragment or activity).

I'd play around with the stateIn operator and the way I'm currently consuming the flow in the view.
Something like:
val state = useCase.updatePeriodically().map { ... }
.stateIn(viewModelScope, SharingStarted.WhileSubscribed, initialValue)
And consume it from the View like:
viewModel.flowWithLifecycle(this, Lifecycle.State.STARTED)
.onEach {
}
.launchIn(lifecycleScope)
For other potential ways on how to collect flows from the UI: https://medium.com/androiddevelopers/a-safer-way-to-collect-flows-from-android-uis-23080b1f8bda
EDIT:
If you don't want to consume it from the view, you still have to signal for the VM that your View is in the background currently.
Something like:
private var job: Job? = null
fun start(){
job = viewModelScope.launch {
state.collect { ... }
}
}
fun stop(){
job?.cancel()
}

Even if the viewModelScope is cancelled, the flow will continue to collect because it is not cooperative to cancellation.
To make a flow cancellable, you can do one of the following things:
In the collect lambda, call currentCoroutineContext().ensureActive() to make sure the context in which the flow is being collected is still active. This will however throw a CancellableException, which you will need to catch, if the coroutine scope was cancelled already (viewModel scope for your case.)
You can use cancellable() operator as follows:
myFlow.cancellable().collect { //do stuff here.. }
And you can call cancel() whenever you want to cancel the flow.
For official documentation on cancelling the flow see:
https://kotlinlang.org/docs/flow.html#flow-cancellation-checks

I believe you want something like this
lifecycleScope.launch {
repeatOnLifecycle(Lifecycle.State.STARTED) {
state.collect {
}
}
}
Here's an execellent article on repeatOnLifecyle: https://medium.com/androiddevelopers/repeatonlifecycle-api-design-story-8670d1a7d333

Make part of coroutine continue past cancellation

I have a file managing class that can save a big file. The file manager class is an application singleton, so it outlives my UI classes. My Activity/Fragment can call the save suspend function of the file manager from a coroutine and then show success or failure in the UI. For example:
//In MyActivity:
private fun saveTheFile() = lifecycleScope.launch {
try {
myFileManager.saveBigFile()
myTextView.text = "Successfully saved file"
} catch (e: IOException) {
myTextView.text = "Failed to save file"
}
}
//In MyFileManager
suspend fun saveBigFile() {
//Set up the parameters
//...
withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
//Save the file
//...
}
}
The problem with this approach is that I don't want the save operation to be aborted if the Activity is finished. If the activity is destroyed before the withContext block gets going, or if the withContext block has any suspension points in it, then saving will not be completed because the coroutine will be canceled.
What I want to happen is that the file is always saved. If the Activity is still around, then we can show UI updates on completion.
I thought one way to do it might be to start a new coroutineScope from the suspend function like this, but this scope still seems to get cancelled when its parent job is cancelled.
suspend fun saveBigFile() = coroutineScope {
//...
}
I thought another alternative might be to make this a regular function that updates some LiveData when it's finished. The Activity could observe the live data for the result, and since LiveData automatically removes lifecycle observers when they're destroyed, the Activity is not leaked to the FileManager. I'd like to avoid this pattern if the something less convoluted like the above can be done instead.
//In MyActivity:
private fun saveTheFile() {
val result = myFileManager.saveBigFile()
result.observe(this#MyActivity) {
myTextView.text = when (it) {
true -> "Successfully saved file"
else -> "Failed to save file"
}
}
}
//In MyFileManager
fun saveBigFile(): LiveData<Boolean> {
//Set up the parameters
//...
val liveData = MutableLiveData<Boolean>()
MainScope().launch {
val success = withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
//Save the file
//...
}
liveData.value = success
}
return liveData
}

You can wrap the bit that you don't want to be cancelled with NonCancellable.
// May cancel here.
withContext(Dispatchers.IO + NonCancellable) {
// Will complete, even if cancelled.
}
// May cancel here.

If you have code whose lifetime is scoped to the lifetime of the whole application, then this is a use case for the GlobalScope. However, just saying GlobalScope.launch is not a good strategy because you could launch several concurrent file operations that may be in conflict (this depends on your app's details). The recommended way is to use a globally-scoped actor, in the role of an executor service.
Basically, you can say
#ObsoleteCoroutinesApi
val executor = GlobalScope.actor<() -> Unit>(Dispatchers.IO) {
for (task in channel) {
task()
}
}
And use it like this:
private fun saveTheFile() = lifecycleScope.launch {
executor.send {
try {
myFileManager.saveBigFile()
withContext(Main) {
myTextView.text = "Successfully saved file"
}
} catch (e: IOException) {
withContext(Main) {
myTextView.text = "Failed to save file"
}
}
}
}
Note that this is still not a great solution, it retains myTextView beyond its lifetime. Decoupling the UI notifications from the view is another topic, though.
actor is labeled as "obsolete coroutines API", but that's just an advance notice that it will be replaced with a more powerful alternative in a future version of Kotlin. It doesn't mean it's broken or unsupported.

I tried this, and it appears to do what I described that I wanted. The FileManager class has its own scope, though I suppose it could also be GlobalScope since it's a singleton class.
We launch a new job in its own scope from the coroutine. This is done from a separate function to remove any ambiguity about the scope of the job. I use async
for this other job so I can bubble up exceptions that the UI should respond to.
Then after launch, we await the async job back in the original scope. await() suspends until the job is completed and passes along any throws (in my case I want IOExceptions to bubble up for the UI to show an error message). So if the original scope is cancelled, its coroutine never waits for the result, but the launched job keeps rolling along until it completes normally. Any exceptions that we want to ensure are always handled should be handled within the async function. Otherwise, they won't bubble up if the original job is cancelled.
//In MyActivity:
private fun saveTheFile() = lifecycleScope.launch {
try {
myFileManager.saveBigFile()
myTextView.text = "Successfully saved file"
} catch (e: IOException) {
myTextView.text = "Failed to save file"
}
}
class MyFileManager private constructor(app: Application):
CoroutineScope by MainScope() {
suspend fun saveBigFile() {
//Set up the parameters
//...
val deferred = saveBigFileAsync()
deferred.await()
}
private fun saveBigFileAsync() = async(Dispatchers.IO) {
//Save the file
//...
}
}

Kotlin Coroutines the right way in Android

I'm trying to update a list inside the adapter using async, I can see there is too much boilerplate.
Is it the right way to use Kotlin Coroutines?
can this be optimized more?
fun loadListOfMediaInAsync() = async(CommonPool) {
try {
//Long running task
adapter.listOfMediaItems.addAll(resources.getAllTracks())
runOnUiThread {
adapter.notifyDataSetChanged()
progress.dismiss()
}
} catch (e: Exception) {
e.printStackTrace()
runOnUiThread {progress.dismiss()}
} catch (o: OutOfMemoryError) {
o.printStackTrace()
runOnUiThread {progress.dismiss()}
}
}

After struggling with this question for days, I think the most simple and clear async-await pattern for Android activities using Kotlin is:
override fun onCreate(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
//...
loadDataAsync(); //"Fire-and-forget"
}
fun loadDataAsync() = async(UI) {
try {
//Turn on busy indicator.
val job = async(CommonPool) {
//We're on a background thread here.
//Execute blocking calls, such as retrofit call.execute().body() + caching.
}
job.await();
//We're back on the main thread here.
//Update UI controls such as RecyclerView adapter data.
}
catch (e: Exception) {
}
finally {
//Turn off busy indicator.
}
}
The only Gradle dependencies for coroutines are: kotlin-stdlib-jre7, kotlinx-coroutines-android.
Note: Use job.await() instead of job.join() because await() rethrows exceptions, but join() does not. If you use join() you will need to check job.isCompletedExceptionally after the job completes.
To start concurrent retrofit calls, you can do this:
val jobA = async(CommonPool) { /* Blocking call A */ };
val jobB = async(CommonPool) { /* Blocking call B */ };
jobA.await();
jobB.await();
Or:
val jobs = arrayListOf<Deferred<Unit>>();
jobs += async(CommonPool) { /* Blocking call A */ };
jobs += async(CommonPool) { /* Blocking call B */ };
jobs.forEach { it.await(); };

How to launch a coroutine
In the kotlinx.coroutines library you can start new coroutine using either launch or async function.
Conceptually, async is just like launch. It starts a separate coroutine which is a light-weight thread that works concurrently with all the other coroutines.
The difference is that launch returns a Job and does not carry any resulting value, while async returns a Deferred - a light-weight non-blocking future that represents a promise to provide a result later. You can use .await() on a deferred value to get its eventual result, but Deferred is also a Job, so you can cancel it if needed.
Coroutine context
In Android we usually use two context:
uiContext to dispatch execution onto the Android main UI thread (for the parent coroutine).
bgContext to dispatch execution in background thread (for the child coroutines).
Example
//dispatches execution onto the Android main UI thread
private val uiContext: CoroutineContext = UI
//represents a common pool of shared threads as the coroutine dispatcher
private val bgContext: CoroutineContext = CommonPool
In following example we are going to use CommonPool for bgContext which limit the number of threads running in parallel to the value of Runtime.getRuntime.availableProcessors()-1. So if the coroutine task is scheduled, but all cores are occupied, it will be queued.
You may want to consider using newFixedThreadPoolContext or your own implementation of cached thread pool.
launch + async (execute task)
private fun loadData() = launch(uiContext) {
view.showLoading() // ui thread
val task = async(bgContext) { dataProvider.loadData("Task") }
val result = task.await() // non ui thread, suspend until finished
view.showData(result) // ui thread
}
launch + async + async (execute two tasks sequentially)
Note: task1 and task2 are executed sequentially.
private fun loadData() = launch(uiContext) {
view.showLoading() // ui thread
// non ui thread, suspend until task is finished
val result1 = async(bgContext) { dataProvider.loadData("Task 1") }.await()
// non ui thread, suspend until task is finished
val result2 = async(bgContext) { dataProvider.loadData("Task 2") }.await()
val result = "$result1 $result2" // ui thread
view.showData(result) // ui thread
}
launch + async + async (execute two tasks parallel)
Note: task1 and task2 are executed in parallel.
private fun loadData() = launch(uiContext) {
view.showLoading() // ui thread
val task1 = async(bgContext) { dataProvider.loadData("Task 1") }
val task2 = async(bgContext) { dataProvider.loadData("Task 2") }
val result = "${task1.await()} ${task2.await()}" // non ui thread, suspend until finished
view.showData(result) // ui thread
}
How to cancel a coroutine
The function loadData returns a Job object which may be cancelled. When the parent coroutine is cancelled, all its children are recursively cancelled, too.
If the stopPresenting function was called while dataProvider.loadData was still in progress, the function view.showData will never be called.
var job: Job? = null
fun startPresenting() {
job = loadData()
}
fun stopPresenting() {
job?.cancel()
}
private fun loadData() = launch(uiContext) {
view.showLoading() // ui thread
val task = async(bgContext) { dataProvider.loadData("Task") }
val result = task.await() // non ui thread, suspend until finished
view.showData(result) // ui thread
}
The complete answer is available in my article Android Coroutine Recipes

I think you can get rid of runOnUiThread { ... } by using UI context for Android applications instead of CommonPool.
The UI context is provided by the kotlinx-coroutines-android module.

We also have another option. if we use Anko library , then it looks like this
doAsync {
// Call all operation related to network or other ui blocking operations here.
uiThread {
// perform all ui related operation here
}
}
Add dependency for Anko in your app gradle like this.
implementation "org.jetbrains.anko:anko:0.10.5"

Like sdeff said, if you use the UI context, the code inside that coroutine will run on UI thread by default. And, if you need to run an instruction on another thread you can use run(CommonPool) {}
Furthermore, if you don't need to return nothing from the method, you can use the function launch(UI) instead of async(UI) (the former will return a Job and the latter a Deferred<Unit>).
An example could be:
fun loadListOfMediaInAsync() = launch(UI) {
try {
withContext(CommonPool) { //The coroutine is suspended until run() ends
adapter.listOfMediaItems.addAll(resources.getAllTracks())
}
adapter.notifyDataSetChanged()
} catch(e: Exception) {
e.printStackTrace()
} catch(o: OutOfMemoryError) {
o.printStackTrace()
} finally {
progress.dismiss()
}
}
If you need more help I recommend you to read the main guide of kotlinx.coroutines and, in addition, the guide of coroutines + UI

If you want to return some thing from background thread use async
launch(UI) {
val result = async(CommonPool) {
//do long running operation
}.await()
//do stuff on UI thread
view.setText(result)
}
If background thread is not returning anything
launch(UI) {
launch(CommonPool) {
//do long running operation
}.await()
//do stuff on UI thread
}

All the above answers are right, but I was having a hard time finding the right import for the UI from kotlinx.coroutines, it was conflicting with UI from Anko.
Its
import kotlinx.coroutines.experimental.android.UI

Here's the right way to use Kotlin Coroutines. Coroutine scope simply suspends the current coroutine until all child coroutines have finished their execution. This example explicitly shows us how child coroutine works within parent coroutine.
An example with explanations:
fun main() = blockingMethod { // coroutine scope
launch {
delay(2000L) // suspends the current coroutine for 2 seconds
println("Tasks from some blockingMethod")
}
coroutineScope { // creates a new coroutine scope
launch {
delay(3000L) // suspends this coroutine for 3 seconds
println("Task from nested launch")
}
delay(1000L)
println("Task from coroutine scope") // this line will be printed before nested launch
}
println("Coroutine scope is over") // but this line isn't printed until nested launch completes
}
Hope this helps.

Please find attached the implementation for a remote API call with Kotlin Coroutines & Retrofit library.
import android.view.View
import android.util.Log
import androidx.lifecycle.MutableLiveData
import androidx.lifecycle.ViewModel
import androidx.lifecycle.viewModelScope
import com.test.nyt_most_viewed.NYTApp
import com.test.nyt_most_viewed.data.local.PreferenceHelper
import com.test.nyt_most_viewed.data.model.NytAPI
import com.test.nyt_most_viewed.data.model.response.reviews.ResultsItem
import kotlinx.coroutines.*
import javax.inject.Inject
class MoviesReviewViewModel #Inject constructor(
private val nytAPI: NytAPI,
private val nytApp: NYTApp,
appPreference: PreferenceHelper
) : ViewModel() {
val moviesReviewsResponse: MutableLiveData<List<ResultsItem>> = MutableLiveData()
val message: MutableLiveData<String> = MutableLiveData()
val loaderProgressVisibility: MutableLiveData<Int> = MutableLiveData()
val coroutineJobs = mutableListOf<Job>()
override fun onCleared() {
super.onCleared()
coroutineJobs.forEach {
it.cancel()
}
}
// You will call this method from your activity/Fragment
fun getMoviesReviewWithCoroutine() {
viewModelScope.launch(Dispatchers.Main + handler) {
// Update your UI
showLoadingUI()
val deferredResult = async(Dispatchers.IO) {
return#async nytAPI.getMoviesReviewWithCoroutine("full-time")
}
val moviesReviewsResponse = deferredResult.await()
this#MoviesReviewViewModel.moviesReviewsResponse.value = moviesReviewsResponse.results
// Update your UI
resetLoadingUI()
}
}
val handler = CoroutineExceptionHandler { _, exception ->
onMoviesReviewFailure(exception)
}
/*Handle failure case*/
private fun onMoviesReviewFailure(throwable: Throwable) {
resetLoadingUI()
Log.d("MOVIES-REVIEWS-ERROR", throwable.toString())
}
private fun showLoadingUI() {
setLoaderVisibility(View.VISIBLE)
setMessage(STATES.INITIALIZED)
}
private fun resetLoadingUI() {
setMessage(STATES.DONE)
setLoaderVisibility(View.GONE)
}
private fun setMessage(states: STATES) {
message.value = states.name
}
private fun setLoaderVisibility(visibility: Int) {
loaderProgressVisibility.value = visibility
}
enum class STATES {
INITIALIZED,
DONE
}
}