I have an repository that contains an in-memory cache list inside a StateFlow. The problem is that whenever the user logs out and logs into another account, the old data from the previous user is still there.
object Repository {
private lateinit var remoteDataSource: RemoteDataSource
operator fun invoke(remoteDataSource: remoteDataSource) {
this.remoteDataSource = remoteDataSource
return this
}
private val myList = MutableStateFlow(listOf<myData>())
suspend fun getData(): Flow<List<myData>> =
withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
if (myList.value.isEmpty()) {
val response = remoteDataSource.getData()
if (response != null) {
myList.value = response.map { it.toMyData() }
}
}
myList
}
suspend fun addData(newData: MyData) =
withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
myList.value = myList.value.plus(newData)
remoteDataSource.addData(myData.toMyDataRequest())
}
}
This repository is used by multiple ViewModels. The list itself is only observed by one screen (let's call it myFragment), but other screens can add new elements to it. I've tried to clear the repository on myFragment's onDestroyView, but it clears the list whenever the user navigates away from myFragment (even when it's not a logout).
We could observe whenever the user logs out in an userRepository, but i don't know how to observe data in one repository from another repository (there's nothing like viewModelScope.launch to collect flows or something like that).
What approach can be used to solve this? And how would it clear the list?
i don't know how to observe data in one repository from another repository
I'd argue you shouldn't in this case.
You have a use-case: Logout.
When you invoke this use-case, you should perform al the necessary operations that your app requires. In this case, you should call your repository to let it know.
suspend fun clearData() =
withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
// clear your data
}
I'd argue that you shouldn't hardcode the Dispatcher, since you'll likely test this at some point; in your tests you're going to use TestDispatcher or similar, and if you hardcode it, it will be harder to test. You write tests, right?
So now your use case..
class LogoutUseCase(repo: YourRepo) {
operator fun invoke() {
repo.clearData()
//do the logout
}
}
That's how I would think about this.
Your scope for all this is the UI that initiated the logout...
Related
Is there a way to update (automatically) the RecyclerView when a list is populated with data?
I created a simple app (here is the repository for the app).
In HomeFragment there is a RecyclerView and a button to refresh the data.
The app works fine as long as I have the following code in HomeFragment to update the adapter whenever the StateFlow list gets data.
private fun setupObservers() {
lifecycleScope.launchWhenStarted {
vm.state.collect() {
if (it.list.isNotEmpty()) {
todoAdapter.data = it.list
} else {
todoAdapter.data = emptyList()
}
}
}
}
My question is, is there a away for the RecyclerView to update, without having to observe (or collect) the changes of the list of the StateFlow?
Something has to notify the RecyclerView adapter when the data has changed. Either you do it in a collector/observer, or you have to proactively do it in every place in your code where you do something that might affect the data. So, it is much easier and less error-prone to do it by collecting.
Side note, the if/else in your code doesn't accomplish anything useful. No reason to treat an empty list differently if you still end up passing an empty list to the adapter.
It's more correct to use repeatOnLifecycle (or flowWithLifecycle) than launchWhenStarted. See here.
private fun setupObservers() {
vm.state.flowWithLifecycle(viewLifecycleOwner.lifecycle, Lifecycle.State.STARTED)
.onEach { todoAdapter.data = it.list }
.launchIn(viewLifecycleOwner.lifecycleScope)
}
I personally like to use an extension function like this to make it more concise wherever I'm collecting flows:
fun <T> Flow<T>.launchAndCollectWithLifecycle(
lifecycleOwner: LifecycleOwner,
state: Lifecycle.State = Lifecycle.State.STARTED,
action: suspend (T) -> Unit
) = flowWithLifecycle(lifecycleOwner.lifecycle, state)
.onEach(action)
.launchIn(lifecycleOwner.lifecycleScope)
Then your code would become:
private fun setupObservers() {
vm.state.launchAndCollectWithLifecycle(viewLifecycleOwner) {
todoAdapter.data = it.list
}
}
This init block is in my ViewModel:
init {
viewModelScope.launch {
userRepository.login()
userRepository.user.collect {
_uiState.value = UiState.Success(it)
}
}
}
This is very similar to what's actually written on the app, but even this simple example doesn't work. After userRepository.login(), user which is a SharedFlow emits a new user state. This latest value DOES get collected within this collect function shown above, but when emitting a new uiState containing the result, the view does not get such update.
val uiState by viewModel.uiState.collectAsStateWithLifecycle()
Doing this for some reason, does not work. I suspect the issue is related to the lifecycle of the viewmodel, because when I treat the viewmodel as a singleton, this doesn't happen. It happens only when the viewmodel gets destroyed and then created a 2nd (or more) time(s).
What I'm trying to achieve is that the screen containing the view model is aware of the user state. Meaning that when I navigate to the screen, I want it to collect the latest user state, and then decide which content to show.
I also realize this is not the best pattern, most likely. I'm currently looking into a solution that holds the User as part of the app state and collecting per screen (given that it basically changes all or many screens and functionalities) so if you have any resources on an example on such implementation I'd be thankful. But I can't get my head around why this current implementation doesn't work so any light shed on the situation is much appreciated.
EDIT
This is what I have in mind for the repository
private val _user = MutableSharedFlow<User>()
override val user: Flow<User> = _user
override suspend fun login() {
delay(2000)
_user.emit(LoggedUser.aLoggedUser())
}
override suspend fun logout() {
delay(2000)
_user.emit(GuestUser)
}
For your case better to use this pattern:
ViewModel class:
sealed interface UserUiState {
object NotLoggedIn : UserUiState
object Error : UserUiState
data class LoggedIn(val user: User) : UserUiState
}
class MyViewModel #Inject constructor(
userRepository: UserRepository
) : ViewModel() {
val userUiState = userRepository.login()
.map { user ->
if (user != null)
UserUiState.LoggedIn(user)
else
UserUiState.Error
}
.stateIn(
scope = viewModelScope,
started = SharingStarted.WhileSubscribed(5_000),
initialValue = UserUiState.NotLoggedIn
)
}
Repository class:
class UserRepository {
fun login(): Flow<User?> = flow {
val user = TODO("Your code to get user")
if (isSuccess) {
emit(user)
} else {
emit(null)
}
}
}
Your screen Composable:
#Composable
fun Screen() {
val userUiState by viewModel.userUiState.collectAsStateWithLifecycle()
when (userUiState) {
is UserUiState.LoggedIn -> { TODO("Success code") }
UserUiState.NotLoggedIn -> { TODO("Waiting for login code") }
UserUiState.Error -> { TODO("Error display code") }
}
}
How it works: login() in repository returns autorized user flow which can be used in ViewModel. I use UserUiState sealed class to handle possible user states. And then I convert User value in map {} to UserUiState to display it in the UI Layer. Then Flow of UserUiState needs to be converted to StateFlow to obtain it from the Composable function, so I made stateIn.
And of course, this will solve your problem
Tell me in the comments if I got something wrong or if the code does not meet your expectations
Note: SharedFlow and StateFlow are not used in the Data Layer like you do.
EDIT:
You can emiting flow like this if you are working with network:
val user = flow of {
while (true) {
// network call to get user
delay(2000)
}
}
If you use Room you can do this in your dao.
#Query(TODO("get actual user query"))
fun getUser(): Flow<User>
It is a better way and it recommended by android developers YouTube channel
I'm trying to show a user information in DetailActivity. So, I request a data and get a data for the user from server. but in this case, the return type is Flow<User>. Let me show you the following code.
ServiceApi.kt
#GET("endpoint")
suspend fun getUser(#Query("id") id: Int): Response<User>
Repository.kt
fun getUser(id: Int): Flow<User> = flow<User> {
val userResponse = api.getUser(id = id)
if (userResponse.isSuccessful) {
val user = userResponse.body()
emit(user)
}
}
.flowOn(Dispatchers.IO)
.catch { // send error }
DetailViewModel.kt
class DetailViewModel(
private val repository : Repository
) {
val uiState: StateFlow<User> = repository.getUser(id = 369).stateIn(
scope = viewModelScope,
started = SharingStarted.WhileSubscribed(5000),
initialValue = User() // empty user
)
}
DetailActivity.kt
class DetailActivity: AppCompatActivity() {
....
initObersevers() {
lifecycleScope.launch {
// i used the `flowWithLifecycle` because the data is just a single object.
viewModel.uiState.flowWithLifecycle(lifecycle, Lifecycle.State.STARTED).collect { state ->
// show data
}
}
}
...
}
But, all of sudden, I just realized that this process is just an one-shot operation and thought i can use suspend function and return User in Repository.kt.
So, i changed the Repository.kt.
Repository.kt(changed)
suspend fun getUser(id: Int): User {
val userResponse = api.getUser(id = id)
return if(userResponse.isSuccessful) {
response.body()
} else {
User() // empty user
}
}
And in DetailViewModel, i want to convert the User into StateFlow<User> because of observing from DetailActivity and I'm going to use it the same way as before by using flowWithLifecycle.
the concept is... i thought it's just one single data and i dind't need to use Flow in Repository. because it's not several items like List.
is this way correct or not??
Yeap, this one-time flow doesn't make any sense - it emits only once and that's it.
You've got two different ways. First - is to create a state flow in your repo and emit there any values each time you're doing your GET request. This flow will be exposed to the use case and VM levels. I would say that it leads to more difficult error handling (I'm not fond of this way, but these things are always arguable, haha), but it also has some pros like caching, you can always show/get the previous results.
Second way is to leave your request as a simple suspend function which sends a request, returns the result of it back to your VM (skipping error handling here to be simple):
val userFlow: Flow<User>
get() = _userFlow
private val _userFlow = MutableStateFlow(User())
fun getUser() = launch(viewModelScope) {
_userFlow.value = repository.getUser()
}
This kind of implementation doesn't provide any cache out of scope of this VM's lifecycle, but it's easy to test and use.
So it's not like there is only one "the-coolest-way-to-do-it", it's rather a question what suits you more for your needs.
I hope to get the total of all records with Room database at once. But, normally Room use background thread to query record asynchronously.
If I use getTotalOfVoiceAsLiveData() in Code A, it will return LiveData<Long>, you know that LiveData variable is lazy, maybe the result is null.
If I use getTotalOfVoice() in Code A, I will get error because I can't use return in viewModelScope.launch{ }.
How can I get the total of all records at once with Room database?
Code A
class HomeViewModel(val mApplication: Application, private val mDBVoiceRepository: DBVoiceRepository) : AndroidViewModel(mApplication) {
fun getTotalOfVoice():Long {
viewModelScope.launch {
return mDBVoiceRepository.getTotalOfVoice() //It will cause error
}
}
fun getTotalOfVoiceAsLiveData(): LiveData<Long>{
return mDBVoiceRepository.getTotalOfVoiceAsLiveData() //It's lazy, maybe the result is null.
}
}
class DBVoiceRepository private constructor(private val mDBVoiceDao: DBVoiceDao){
suspend fun getTotalOfVoice() = mDBVoiceDao.getTotalOfVoice()
fun getTotalOfVoiceAsLiveData() = mDBVoiceDao.getTotalOfVoiceAsLiveData()
}
#Dao
interface DBVoiceDao{
#Query("SELECT count(id) FROM voice_table")
suspend fun getTotalOfVoice(): Long
//When Room queries return LiveData, the queries are automatically run asynchronously on a background thread.
#Query("SELECT count(id) FROM voice_table")
fun getTotalOfVoiceAsLiveData(): LiveData<Long>
}
Add content
To Tobi: Thanks!
Why it is important to you to get the data directly?
I need to generate a filename based the total of the records, such as "untitled0", "untitled1", "untitled2"...
If I can get the query result at once, I can use the following code easyly.
Added again
I hope to record a voice by filename based the total of query records when I click Start button. You know the total of records will change when a reocrd is added or deleted!
Code B
fun getTotalOfVoice():Long {
//Get the query result at once
...
}
fun createdFileanme(){
return "untitled"+getTotalOfVoice().toString()
}
btnStart.setOnClickListener{
recordVoice(createdFileanme()) //I will record voice by filename
}
fun addRecord(){
...
}
fun deleteRecord(){
...
}
New added content
Thanks!
I think 'You should also move all of that into the viewmodel class, without LiveData ' is good way, you can see Image A and How can I get the value of a LivaData<String> at once in Android Studio? .
Do you agree with it?
Image A
Question: at once meaning synchronous or what ? if yes, what happens if the function to get the result has to take a longer time? like network call? well you can decide to do that on another thread.
What I think is for you to use a mutable Object and use the postValue function to dispatch the result to the observers. It should look something like below:
class HomeViewModel(val mApplication: Application, private val mDBVoiceRepository: DBVoiceRepository) : AndroidViewModel(mApplication) {
private val voices = MutableLiveData<Long>()
fun getTotalOfVoiceAsLiveData(): LiveData<Long> {
voices.postValue(mDBVoiceRepository.getTotalOfVoiceAsLiveData().value)
return voices;
}
}
Making use of it in your Fragment will look like below:
override fun onActivityCreated(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
super.onActivityCreated(savedInstanceState)
if (activity != null) {
val viewModel = ViewModelProvider(requireActivity())
viewModel.get(HomeViewModel::class.java).getTotalOfVoiceAsLiveData().observe(viewLifecycleOwner, Observer { voices: Long ? ->
voices // Sound of music ? be very free to use ...
})
}
}
Happy Coding.
I hope to get the result at once, but LiveData is lazy
Sorry to tell, but this is how the Room interface is designed.
You are right with the lazyness of the returned LiveData object. But this allows you to handle it on a different thread without having to manually handle different threads.
Based on your new information!
You basically have two options:
A) you could do the following:
load data from Room via LivaData
add observer that stores the current total amount
when the button is clicked you just read the local copy
In your View: (only one observer and one clickListener)
val totalVoiceCount: long
val viewModel = ViewModelProvider(requireActivity()).get(HomeViewModel::class.java)
viewModel.getTotalOfVoiceAsLiveData().observe(viewLifecycleOwner, Observer { totalOfVoice : Long ? ->
if (totalOfVoice != null)
totalVoiceCount = totalOfVoice
})
btnStart.setOnClickListener{
viewModel.recordVoice(totalVoiceCount)
}
In your ViewModel: (the logic and everything else)
fun recordVoice(totalVoiceCount : long){
val fileName = createdFileanme(totalVoiceCount)
// create your recording // depending on how you do this, it probably runs on a background thread anyways
}
fun createdFileName(totalVoiceCount : long){
return "untitled"+ String.valueOf(totalVoiceCount)
}
This works reliably because the LiveData has enough time to update the local copy of totalVoiceCount before the user has the chance to click the button.
B) Based on the answer in your parallel question you can of course outsource even more to a background thread. Then you also have the option to call the DAO query with a non-livedata return (as room returns non-livedata queries only on background threads). Is it worth to implement the threading suggestion of Ridcully? Not possible to answer without knowing what else is going on simultaneously... To me it seems like an overkill, but he is right that the more you do on background threads the better for your refresh rate..
You can return Deferred<Long> from viewModelScope.async. I recommend you to use:
val deferred = viewModelScope.async(Dispatchers.IO) {
return#async mDBVoiceRepository.getTotalOfVoice()
}
val value = deferred.await()
await() is suspend
Edit:
If you want to get a getter which will use in your activity or fragment
you need to write a suspend function like this:
suspend fun getTotalOfVoice(): Long {
return viewModelScope.async(Dispatchers.IO) {
return#async mDBVoiceRepository.getTotalOfVoice()
}.await()
}
But mvvm pattern allows you to create LiveData inside your ViewModel, which gives your fragment an observer.
In view model:
private val _totalOfVoiceLD: MutableLiveData<Long> = MutableLiveData()
val totalOfVoiceLD: LiveData<Long>
get() = _totalOfVoiceLD
fun updateTotalOfVoice() {
viewModelScope.launch(Dispatchers.IO) {
val totalOfVoice = mDBVoiceRepository.getTotalOfVoice()
_totalOfVoiceLD.postValue(totalOfVoice)
}
}
and in your fragment:
override fun onViewCreated(view: View, savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
super.onViewCreated(view, savedInstanceState)
viewModel.totalOfVoiceLD.observe(viewLifecycleOwner, Observer { totalOfVoice ->
totalOfVoiceTextView.text = totalOfVoice.toString()
})
}
You can use coroutineContext.async to get data from DB and wait for getting it's response with data by using .await function for a async dispatch.
suspend fun getAllVoices() : Long{
val awatingResults = viewModelScope.async(Dispatchers.IO) {
mDBVoiceRepository.getTotalOfVoice()
}
val records = awatingResults.await()
return records
}
It is necessary to call a Suspend function from a coroutine and
async.await() is always called in a suspended function so,
val voiceLiveData: MutableLiveData<Long> = MutableLiveData()
fun getAllVoicesFromDB() {
viewModelScope.launch(Dispatchers.IO) {
voiceLiveData.postValue(mDBVoiceRepository.getTotalOfVoice())
}
}
Now call it where ever you want to get your voice data from database and also remember do your further work inside your voiceLiveData observer where you get your response of voices :)
Live data is designed to be lazy, when the value of the live data changes internally it emits and wherever you are observing it, the onChange function will be invoked. It is designed to fire and forget.
Because room uses background thread to run the query.
You can't expect live data to behave like sharedpreference where you store key value pair.
If you want to achieve something like that.
I would suggest you to use
Paper Db or Realm.
If you need your Room result synchronously, your code should be execute in IO thread. In case of coroutines, you can use Dispatchers.IO. Your code can be changed to this to pass the error.
class HomeViewModel(val mApplication: Application, private val mDBVoiceRepository: DBVoiceRepository) : AndroidViewModel(mApplication) {
fun getTotalOfVoice():Long {
viewModelScope.launch(Dispatchers.IO) { // here
return mDBVoiceRepository.getTotalOfVoice()
}
}
}
If you must run the queries in the main thread, then:
Allow android room to execute queries in main thread.
val dbInstance = Room
.databaseBuilder(ctx, YourDBClass::class.java, "YourDBName")
.allowMainThreadQueries()
.build()
Define the dao method as follows
#Dao
interface DBVoiceDao{
#Query("SELECT count(id) FROM voice_table")
fun getTotalOfVoice(): Long
}
Access the method in the repository
fun getTotalOfVoice():Long {
return dao.getTotalOfVoice()
}
Given the following components
data class Account(val name: String)
data class GetAccountRequest(val name: String)
#Dao
interface AccountDao {
#Query("SELECT * FROM accounts ORDER BY name ASC")
fun all(): LiveData<List<Account>>
}
interface AccountOperations {
#GET("/foo/account")
suspend fun getAccount(#Body request: GetAccountRequest): Account
}
class AccountRepository(private val dao: AccountDao, private val api: AccountOperations) {
val accounts: LiveData<List<Account>> = dao.all()
suspend fun refresh(name: String) {
val account = api.getAccount(GetAccountRequest(name))
dao.insert(account)
}
}
I am working on an Android application that is using these components (powered by Room for the database and Retrofit for API access).
In my ViewModel I maintain a RecyclerView that lists all accounts. I enable users to refresh that list manually. The respective (part of the) ViewModel looks like this:
fun refresh() {
viewModelScope.launch {
repository.accounts.value?.forEach {
launch { repository.refresh(it.name) }
}
}
Timber.i("Done refreshing!")
}
I do want the refresh to update all accounts in parallel, this is why I am using launch. I have also decided to do this in the ViewModel, rather than in the repository, since that would have required to launch a new coroutine in the repository. Which per this post is discouraged since repositories don't have a natural lifecycle.
The above function, refresh, is invoked from the UI and shows a refresh-indicator while the RecyclerView is updated. So I want to stop this indicator once all accounts have been updated.
My code as shown above doesn't do this, since it will launch all the updates and then print the log statement before all updates have been finished. As a result the refresh-indicator disappears although there are still updates.
So my question (finally) is: how can I refactor the code so that it runs all updates in parallel, but makes sure refresh doesn't return before all of them have finished?
EDIT #1
Going back to what I want to achieve: showing the refresh-indicator while the view is updating, I came up with the following (changed the refresh function in the ViewModel):
fun refresh() {
viewModelScope.launch {
try {
coroutineScope {
_refreshing.value = true
repository.accounts.value?.map { account ->
async {
repository.refresh(account.name)
}
}
}
} catch (cause: CancellationException) {
throw cause
} catch (cause: Exception) {
Timber.e(cause)
} finally {
_refreshing.value = false
}
}
}
The ViewModel exposes a LiveData for when it is refreshing and the fragment can observe it to show or hide the spinner. This seems to do the trick. However, it still doesn't feel right and I appreciate any improved solutions.
In order to await for all of your parallel refresh() operations, simply use awaitAll():
coroutineScope.launch {
_refreshing.value = true
repository.accounts.value?.map { account ->
async {
repository.refresh(account.name)
}
}.awaitAll()
_refreshing.value = false
}
Furthermore, It's not advised to wrap coroutines with try/catch.
You can read more on this here.