Develop Reference

Why does by repository Flow not update my viewModels livedata?

So currently I have a Dao with a function that emits a Flow<>
#Query("SELECT * FROM ${Constants.Redacted}")
fun loadAllContacts(): Flow<List<Redacted>>
I am calling this from a repository like so
val loadAllContacts: Flow<List<Redacted>> = contactDao.loadAllContacts()
I am injecting the repository into the viewModel's constructor, and then at the top of my viewModel I have a val like so
val contacts: LiveData<List<Redacted>> = contactRepository.loadAllContacts.asLiveData()
Which is being observed in my Activity like so
viewModel.contacts.observe(this) { contacts ->
viewModel.onContactsChange(contacts)
}
My thinking is that the Flow is converted to a LiveData, and then I can observe this LiveData from my activity and kick off this function to actually update the viewModel upon the data being updated.
For now onContactsChange just looks like
fun onContactsChange(list: List<Redacted>) {
Timber.i("VIEW UPDATE")
}
The problem is that I only see this Timber log upon opening the activity, and never again. I verified that data IS going into my database, and I verified that an insert occurred successfully while the activity & viewModel are open. But I never see the log from onContactsChange again. When I close the activity, and reopen it, I do see my new data, so that is another reason I know my insert is working correctly.
I would like to add that I am using a single instance (singleton) of my repository, and I think I can verify this by the fact that I can see my data at all, at least when the view is first made.

Figured it out:
Note: If your app runs in a single process, you should follow the singleton design pattern when instantiating an AppDatabase object. Each RoomDatabase instance is fairly expensive, and you rarely need access to multiple instances within a single process.
If your app runs in multiple processes, include enableMultiInstanceInvalidation() in your database builder invocation. That way, when you have an instance of AppDatabase in each process, you can invalidate the shared database file in one process, and this invalidation automatically propagates to the instances of AppDatabase within other processes.

It's a little bit hard to follow your question, but I think I see the overall problem with your Flow object not updating the way you want it too.
Following this quick tutorial, it seems that first you should declare your Flow object inside your Repository the same way you're already doing
val loadAllContacts: Flow<List<Redacted>> = contactDao.loadAllContacts()
and have your VM 'subscribe' to it by using the collect coroutine which would then allow you to dump all this data into a MutableLiveData State
data class YourState(..)
val state = MutableLiveData<YourState>()
init {
contactRepository.loadAllContacts().collect {
if (it.isNotEmpty()) {
state.postValue(YourState(
...
)
}
}
}
that your Activity/Fragment could then observe for changes
viewModel.state.observe(.. { state ->
// DO SOMETHING
})
P.S. The tutorial also mentions that because of how Dao's work, you might be getting updates for even the slightest of changes, but that you can use the distinctUntilChanged() Flow extension function to get more specific results.

Map multiple suspend functions to single LiveData

The company I just started working at uses a so called Navigator, which I for now interpreted as a stateless ViewModel. My Navigator receives some usecases, with each contains 1 suspend function. The result of any of those usecases could end up in a single LiveData. The Navigator has no coroutine scope, so I pass the responsibility of scoping suspending to the Fragment using fetchValue().
Most current code in project has LiveData in the data layer, which I tried not to. Because of that, their livedata is linked from view to dao.
My simplified classes:
class MyFeatureNavigator(
getUrl1: getUrl1UseCase,
getUrl1: getUrl1UseCase
) {
val url = MediatorLiveData<String>()
fun goToUrl1() {
url.fetchValue { getUrl1() }
}
fun goToUrl2() {
url.fetchValue { getUrl2() }
}
fun <T> MediatorLiveData<T>.fetchValue(provideValue: suspend () -> T) {
val liveData = liveData { emit(provideValue()) }
addSource(liveData) {
removeSource(liveData)
value = it
}
}
}
class MyFeatureFragment : Fragment {
val viewModel: MyFeatureViewModel by viewModel()
val navigator: MyFeatureNavigator by inject()
fun onViewCreated() {
button.setOnClickListener { navigator.goToUrl1() }
navigator.url.observe(viewLifecycleOwner, Observer { url ->
openUrl(url)
})
}
}
My two questions:
Is fetchValue() a good way to link a suspend function to LiveData? Could it leak? Any other concerns?
My main reason to only use coroutines (and flow) in the data layer, is 'because Google said so'. What's a better reason for this? And: what's the best trade off in being consistent with the project and current good coding practices?

Is fetchValue() a good way to link a suspend function to LiveData?
Could it leak? Any other concerns?
Generally it should work. You probably should remove the previous source of the MediatorLiveData before adding new one, otherwise if you get two calls to fetchValue in a row, the first url can be slower to fetch, so it will come later and win.
I don't see any other correctness concerns, but this code is pretty complicated, creates a couple of intermediate objects and generally difficult to read.
My main reason to only use coroutines (and flow) in the data layer,
is 'because Google said so'. What's a better reason for this?
Google has provided a lot of useful extensions to use coroutines in the UI layer, e.g. take a look at this page. So obviously they encourage people to use it.
Probably you mean the recommendation to use LiveData instead of the Flow in the UI layer. That's not a strict rule and it has one reason: LiveData is a value holder, it keeps its value and provides it immediately to new subscribers without doing any work. That's particularly useful in the UI/ViewModel layer - when a configuration change happens and activity/fragment is recreated, the newly created activity/fragment uses the same view model, subscribes to the same LiveData and receives the value at no cost.
At the same time Flow is 'cold' and if you expose a flow from your view model, each reconfiguration will trigger a new flow collection and the flow will be to execute from scratch.
So e.g. if you fetch data from db or network, LiveData will just provide the last value to new subscriber and Flow will execute the costly db/network operation again.
So as I said there is no strict rule, it depends on the particular use-case. Also I find it very useful to use Flow in view models - it provides a lot of operators and makes the code clean and concise. But than I convert it to a LiveData with help of extensions like asLiveData() and expose this LiveData to the UI. This way I get best from both words - LiveData catches value between reconfigurations and Flow makes the code of view models nice and clean.
Also you can use latest StateFlow and SharedFlow often they also can help to overcome the mentioned Flow issue in the UI layer.
Back to your code, I would implement it like this:
class MyFeatureNavigator(
getUrl1: getUrl1UseCase,
getUrl1: getUrl1UseCase
) {
private val currentUseCase = MutableStateFlow<UseCase?>(null)
val url = currentUseCase.filterNotNull().mapLatest { source -> source.getData()}.asLiveData()
fun goToUrl1() {
currentUseCase.value = getUrl1
}
fun goToUrl2() {
currentUseCase.value = getUrl2
}
}
This way there are no race conditions to care about and code is clean.
And: what's the best trade off in being consistent with the project
and current good coding practices?
That's an arguable question and it should be primarily team decision. In most projects I participated we adopted this rule: when fixing bugs, doing maintenance of existing code, one should follow the same style. When doing big refactoring/implementing new features one should use latest practices adopted by the team.

RxJava: unpack object

I am using RxJava in my Android project and I'm happy about it. I'm currently using it to make all my DAO methods asynchronous and make UI listens on them.
But I have a big problem, that is, when I retrieve some data from database using Observable<List<User>> getLists(), I need to use List<User> in my ViewModels, but I cannot extract it from the observable.
I would like to know what is the common approach to solve this kind of problem ? I searched on Internet and people said it's not recommended to extract the objects, but in this case how can I use the data from database and at the same time still enable the observers listening ?
Should I create another method using AsyncTask ??
Thanks.
In my UserRepo.java
public Observable<List<User>> getUsers() {
return colisDao.getUsers();
}
In HomeScreenViewModel.java:
public List<User> getUsers() {
return userRepo.getUsers(); // do not work because I need a List<User>
}
In HomeActivity.java:
UserListAdapter userListAdapter = new UserListAdapter(this,
vm.getUsers());

Central idea of reactive extensions is to make use of events' streams observation and timely processing.
So actually, if you need to retrieve data in a straightforward way, I'd say you don't need RxJava2 at all. Still, if you want to stick to the reactive approach, the data stream should be listened to instead.
All RxJava2 types provide a subscribe method that "notifies" the source of data that's lazy by nature that here is an observer that wants to receive the data, so all the data processing flow described by use of RxJava2 operators will become alive.
The most painless approach is to change HomeActivity's code to this:
vm.getUsers()
.subscribeOn(Schedulers.io())
.observeOn(AndroidSchedulers.mainThread())
.subscribe(userListAdapter::populateWithNewDataSet);
, assuming that adapter will have the mentioned method that will update the UI data set using something like notifyDataSetChanged() (or DiffUtil, for instance) internally.
By doing that the data source is now observed and every time the update is emitted the UI will be repopulated with the most recent data.
P.S.: I've just demonstrated the simplest way to do the thing, but it is up to the developer where to place RxJava-related code: be it ViewModel, Activity, or even some other component. RxJava is a convenient tool to use and it can make complicated asynchronous flow simple, but the problem with RxJava arises when all the code base is dependent on it. The code base can then quickly become unmanageable, fragile and rigid if the tool was used in an improper place.

Adding on #AndreyIlyunin very good answer, You could also use MutableLivedata in your Viewmodel to save the List in the viewmodel as Livedata and observe changes to it in your Activity. This is suggested by Google as a way to maintain MVVM architecture. Something like:
In HomeScreenViewModel.java:
private final MutableLivedata<List<User>> users = new MutableLivedata<>();
public void getUsers() {
return userRepo.getUsers()
.subscribeOn(Schedulers.io())
.observeOn(AndroidSchedulers.mainThread())
.subscribe(this::onUsers)
}
private void onUsers(List<> list){
users.setValue(list);
}
public MutableLivedata<List<User>> getUserList(){
return users;
}
In HomeActivity.java, in onCreate() add:
vm.getUserList().observe(this,this::onUserList);
and add following methods to activity:
private void onUserList(List<> list){
userListAdapter = new UserListAdapter(this,list);
}
and then from your activity call:
vm.getUsers();
The getUsers() call is made asynchronously in the background, and you get the userList reactivly.

Comparing current values with last values in architecture component

I am getting a complex json from an api and I am saving the values with Architect component(Room).
Question:
Can I compare current values with last values that I saved in SQlite and if in compare I find a difference, update the RecyclerView?
Is this method logical?
Do you have a better way to offer?
If you have a better way to offer get me a sample(url sample)

Yes, you can do that and it is actually the recommended way. In order to do so, I think you should leverage the use of two other Architecture Components that were introduced with Android Jetpack, not only Room database: ViewModel and LiveData, but it is not mandatory.
The important thing is to add an extra layer to your app called Repository:
Repository modules handle data operations. They provide a clean API so
that the rest of the app can retrieve this data easily. They know
where to get the data from and what API calls to make when data is
updated. You can consider repositories to be mediators between
different data sources, such as persistent models, web services, and
caches.
So basically, the suggested architecture to handle this will look something like this:
With that in mind, an example of a Repository that retrieves User data from a web service and save it to a local Room Database will look something like this:
public class UserRepository {
private final Webservice webservice;
private final UserDao userDao;
private final Executor executor;
public UserRepository(Webservice webservice, UserDao userDao, Executor executor) {
this.webservice = webservice;
this.userDao = userDao;
this.executor = executor;
}
public LiveData<User> getUser(String userId) {
refreshUser(userId);
// Returns a LiveData object directly from the database.
return userDao.load(userId);
}
private void refreshUser(final String userId) {
// Runs in a background thread.
executor.execute(() -> {
// Check if user data was fetched recently.
boolean userExists = userDao.hasUser(FRESH_TIMEOUT);
if (!userExists) {
// Refreshes the data.
Response<User> response = webservice.getUser(userId).execute();
// Check for errors here.
// Updates the database. The LiveData object automatically
// refreshes, so we don't need to do anything else here.
userDao.save(response.body());
}
});
}
}
Then, your ViewModel will get the User Live Data doing something like this:
...
user = userRepo.getUser(userId);
...
And it will provide that LiveData to the UI layer with a public method:
...
public LiveData<User> getUser() {
return this.user;
}
...
Finally, from your UI layer (an Activity or Fragment) you can observe the LiveData in the ViewModel and adapt the UI accordingly.
viewModel.getUser().observe(this, user -> {
// Update UI.
});
For a more complete explanation I suggest that you take a look to:
Guide to app architecture in Android`s Developers website.
This Github project with a basic example.
This other Github project with a more complex example.

You can merge multiple live data source from server and sqlite with MediatorLiveData which is a subclass of LiveData.
For example, if you have a LiveData object in your UI that can be updated from a local database or a network, then you can add the following sources to the MediatorLiveData object:
A LiveData object associated with the data stored in the database.
A LiveData object associated with the data accessed from the network.
Documentation

Can I make the LiveData static?

I don't know if this is a stupid question. This may defeat the purpose of LiveData/ViewModel.
Can I make the LiveData static? My reason is I have a listener from a Service which updates the information. So I need to have a way from a service to "set/change" the LiveData.
I used to do following and it works:
1. Service changes the DB
2. ViewModel listens to the DB change
3. UI updates from the liveData change
I found this way is too slow. To increase the performance, I want something like:
1. Service changes the class object directly
2. ViewModel listens to the the class object changes
3. UI updates from the liveData change
In order to achieve what I want, either I need to make the MutableLiveData static or make the ViewModel class to share the same instance of ViewModel between Activities.
Is this good idea?
public class MyViewModel extends AndroidViewModel {
// Note: this MutableLiveData is static
private static MutableLiveData<MyModel> mutableLiveData;
public MyViewModel(#NonNull Application application) {
super(application);
}
LiveData<MyModel> getLiveDataList() {
if (mutableLiveData == null) {
mutableLiveData = new MutableLiveData<>();
loadDataFromDb();
}
return mutableLiveData;
}
private void loadDataFromDb() {
// load data from DB
// mutableLiveData.setValue(MyModelFromDb); // Omit the real implementation
}
// Note: this method is static
public static void setData(MyModel newData) {
mutableLiveData.setValue(newData);
}
#Override
protected void onCleared() {
super.onCleared();
}
}

The whole point of ViewModel from Android Jetpack (as opposed to other versions) is for the ViewModel to be lifecycle aware and perform magic like destroying itself when observer is destroyed (activity/fragment), or surviving configuration changes (for example, orientation) without initialising itself all over again thereby making it much easier to deal with issues related to configuration changes.
So if you made the ViewModel or LiveData static you would actually beat their purpose and most likely leak ViewModel's data, though the need to do this is understandable. So this requires you to engineer your way around it, and the first way you mentioned is probably the best way you can do it. I don't understand why you have an issue with the first solution. The way I see it, it provides the best user experience:
You init ViewModel in your fragment or activity in onCreate and add an Observer to the data.
If database already has some data, your observer will receive it instantly and UI will be updated with existing data instantly.
Service makes the API request and changes the DB
DB changes triggers an update to the data in ViewModel
Observer refreshes received data and you pass this to your views/adapters
UI updates with latest data with some nice animations that indicate addition/removal of items.
From what I can see it cant get better than this. Since your question is from months ago, I am curious to know what you ended up doing?

I think if MyViewModel will have lots of LiveData fields it will grow with large amount of getters and setters. And what even worst, as for me, you will break the testablity of your code, because if you will create a new instance of MyViewModel you will expect that your LiveData objects are stateless at this point of time, but as it's a static object you don't know in what exactly state it is after simple creation.
As well static methods can't be overriden. And about fields: if you will want to have common field, suppose errorMessage, in class A and class B while both of them extend class C(which contains your common field) you can have unexpected behavior. On the other hand you can duplicate this code in other classes(what is bad).
The memory issue: if a large number of static variables/methods are used. Because they will not be GC until program ends.
But it just my opinion.