Develop Reference

Troube with getting a Single<T> call to work in RxJava and Android

I have a MVVM architecture in my Android app. In an activity, I invoke a method to try to create something from service/repository and return it. I am using RxJava.
Here is the flow:
I click something in view, it invokes method in the Activity.
Method in Activity invokes method in ViewModel.
Method in ViewModel invokes method in Interactor(/use-case).
Interactor has access to service and tries to create something from that service.
Here is the code for this:
Activity:
#Override
public void onCreateWalletClick(String password) {
addWalletViewModel.createWallet(password);
}
ViewModel:
public class AddWalletViewModel extends BaseViewModel {
private AddWalletInteractor addWalletInteractor;
private final MutableLiveData<Wallet> newWallet = new MutableLiveData<Wallet>();
private final MutableLiveData<ErrorCarrier> newWalletError = new MutableLiveData<ErrorCarrier>();
public LiveData<Wallet> newWallet() {
return newWallet;
}
public AddWalletViewModel(AddWalletInteractor addWalletInteractor) {
this.addWalletInteractor = addWalletInteractor;
}
public Single<Wallet> createWallet(String password){
return addWalletInteractor.addWallet(password)
.subscribe(wallet -> newWallet.postValue(wallet), this::addErrorToLiveData);
}
private void addErrorToLiveData(Throwable throwable){
newWalletError.postValue(new ErrorCarrier());
}
}
Interactor:
public class AddWalletInteractor {
private final KeyStoreServiceInterface keyStoreServiceInterface;
public AddWalletInteractor(KeyStoreServiceInterface keyStoreServiceInterface) {
this.keyStoreServiceInterface = keyStoreServiceInterface;
}
public Single<Wallet> addWallet(String password){
return keyStoreServiceInterface.
createWalletAndReturnWallet(password);
}
}
Service:
#Override
public Single<Wallet[]> getAllWallets() {
return Single.fromCallable(()-> {
Accounts accounts = keyStore.getAccounts();
int amount = (int) accounts.size();
Wallet[] wallets = new Wallet[amount];
for (int i = 0; i<amount; i++){
org.ethereum.geth.Account gethAccount = accounts.get(i);
wallets[i] = new Wallet(gethAccount.getAddress().getHex().toLowerCase());
}
return wallets;
}).subscribeOn(Schedulers.io());
}
Problem is I can not manage to get this to work by tweaking the code. Right now it forces me to cast to (Single) in the return of the createWallet() method in the viewmodel. When running the app, it crashes in that method with:
java.lang.ClassCastException:
io.reactivex.internal.observers.ConsumerSingleObserver cannot be cast
to io.reactivex.Single
at addwallet.AddWalletViewModel.createWallet(AddWalletViewModel.java:31)
Please keep in mind I am new to RxJava, I am still trying to figure it out. Any suggestions here?

The cast performed in the createWallet method will always fail.
Solution 1
The simplest way to fix the crash is to change the return type of that method to io.reactivex.disposables.Disposable, assuming you're using RxJava 2. If you're using RxJava 1, then have it return rx.Subscription. The code you presented that calls the createWallet method doesn't seem to use the returned value so it shouldn't make a difference.
Solution 2
If you really do need the return type to be Single and you want to keep the same behavior, then an alternate solution would be to change the createWallet method as follows:
public Single<Wallet> createWallet(String password) {
return addWalletInteractor.addWallet(password)
.doOnSuccess(wallet -> newWallet.postValue(wallet))
.doOnError(this::addErrorToLiveData);
}
The method now returns a new Single that does whatever the Single returned from addWallet does and additionally invokes the appropriate lambda function when a value is successfully emitted or an error occurs. You would also need to modify the call site for the method as follows:
#Override
public void onCreateWalletClick(String password) {
addWalletViewModel.createWallet(password).subscribe();
}
That subscribe call is needed to have the Single start emitting values. It takes no parameters because you already do all of the interesting work in the createWallet method itself. Both snippets were written with RxJava 2 in mind, but I believe they will also work in RxJava 1 as is.
If you haven't already done so, you should check out the official Rx website as it provides a ton of information on how reactive streams work and how to use them.
Since you're new to RxJava and the documentation is so vast, here's a brief overview of the subscription concept and how it applies to your situation.
RxJava and other stream-based libraries like it have two main components: producers and consumers. Producers supply values and consumers do something with those supplied values.
Single is a kind of producer that only produces one value before terminating. In your case, it produces a reference to the newly created wallet. In order to do something with that reference, it needs to be consumed. That's what the subscribe method on the Single class does. When the Single returned by the addWallet method produces a value, the lambda passed to the subscribe method is invoked and the wallet parameter in that lambda is set to the produced value.
The return type of the subscribe method is NOT itself a Single. When a consumer and a producer are coupled together by the subscribe method, it forms a connection which is represented by the Disposable class. An instance of that class has methods to cancel the connection before the producer is done producing values or to check if the connection has been cancelled. It is this connection object that is returned by the subscribe method.
Note that until this connection is made via one of the subscribe overloads, the producer will not start producing items. I.e., a Single that is never subscribed to will never do anything. It's analogous to a Runnable whose run method is never called.

Correct way to use IdlingResource in Espresso Android

I'm writing UI tests with Espresso. App cooperates tightly with server, so in many cases, I need to wait for either value to be calculated, or data is got and displayed, etc. Espresso suggests using IdlingResource for this.
My IdlingResource classes look like this (simple and clear example).
public class IRViewVisible implements IdlingResource {
private View view;
private ResourceCallback callback;
public IRViewVisible(View view) {
this.view = view;
}
#Override
public String getName() {
return IRViewVisible.class.getName();
}
#Override
public boolean isIdleNow() {
if(view.getVisibility() == View.VISIBLE && callback != null) {
callback.onTransitionToIdle();
return true;
}
return false;
}
#Override
public void registerIdleTransitionCallback(ResourceCallback resourceCallback) {
this.callback = resourceCallback;
}
}
Please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere (as sometimes it seems to me that my IdlingResources do not work properly).
I register the idling resource in setUp() like this:
IRViewVisible ir = new IRViewVisible(View v);
Espresso.registerIdlingResources(ir).
Unregister it on tearDown().
I found this article (there is a section called "Register a component tied to an Activity instance") — I do not use his schema, but I checked hashcode of view that was set to IdlingResource after registering (in each method), and it's not the same view — all hashes are different.
Another question: One Test class (it's results) can't have any effect on another Test class, can it?

I'm guessing your problem stems from getName() returning the same name for all instances of IRViewVisible. This means you can only have one registered instance of it at a time - any subsequent registrations will fail (silently!).
You mention that you clear the IdlingResources at the end of each test, but if you are register multiple instances of it at once, you need to make sure each instance has a unique name. it's not clear from your question if you're registering multiple instances of IRViewVisible in a single test.
As to your final question: Yes, it is possible. Android doesn't completely shut down the Application between test runs - just the Activities. Common things which can cause problems:
Failing to clear persistent state (saved data).
Failing to clear global state - e.g. static variables/singletons
Not waiting for background threads to finish running.
As an aside, it's worth noting that you only call onTransitionToIdle() inside isIdleNow(). This works (thanks #Be_Negative for the heads up!) but it could slow down your tests a lot, since Espresso will only poll isIdleNow() every few seconds. If you call onTransitionToIdle() as soon as the view becomes visible, it should speed things up considerably.
I needed something similar to your IRViewVisible myself, here's my effort.

So the isIdleNow() method will never return true if you don't set a callback to the idlingResource?
I reckon it's better to refactor it like this:
#Override
public boolean isIdleNow() {
boolean idle = view.getVisibility() == View.VISIBLE;
if(idle && callback != null) {
callback.onTransitionToIdle();
}
return idle;
}

Well, first of all you shouldn't need to use Espresso IdlingResource to test server calls. If you use AsyncTasks in your server calls, Espresso will be able to know when to be idle and when not. If this is not enough: try to refactor your code in this way:
IRViewVisible idlingResource = new IRViewVisible(yourView);
IdlingPolicies.setMasterPolicyTimeout(waitingTime * 2, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
IdlingPolicies.setIdlingResourceTimeout(waitingTime * 2, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
// Now we wait
Espresso.registerIdlingResources(idlingResource);
// Stop and verify
// Clean up
Espresso.unregisterIdlingResources(idlingResource);
Hope to be helpful.

Verify a static method was called by another static method in PowerMock

I have a Tool class with two static methods, doSomething(Object) and callDoSomething(). The names are intuitive in that callDoSomething delegates its call to doSomething(Object);
public class Tool
{
public static void doSomething( Object o )
{
}
public static void callDoSomething()
{
doSomething( new Object());
}
}
I have a Test class for Tool and I'd like to verify if doSomething(Object) was called (I want to do Argument Matching too in the future)
#RunWith( PowerMockRunner.class )
#PrepareForTest( { Tool.class } )
public class ToolTest
{
#Test
public void toolTest()
{
PowerMockito.mockStatic( Tool.class );
Tool.callDoSomething();// error!!
//Tool.doSomething();// this works! it gets verified!
PowerMockito.verifyStatic();
Tool.doSomething( Mockito.argThat( new MyArgMatcher() ) );
}
class MyArgMatcher extends ArgumentMatcher<Object>
{
#Override
public boolean matches( Object argument )
{
return true;
}
}
}
Verify picks up doSomething(Object) if it's called directly. I've commented this code out above. Verify does NOT pick up doSomething(Object) when using callDoSomething, (this is the code shown above). This is my error log when running the code above:
Wanted but not invoked tool.doSomething(null);
However, there were other interactions with this mock.
at org.powermock.api.mockito.internal.invocation.MockitoMethodInvocationControl.performIntercept(MockitoMethodInvocationControl.java:260)
at org.powermock.api.mockito.internal.invocation.MockitoMethodInvocationControl.invoke(MockitoMethodInvocationControl.java:192)
at org.powermock.core.MockGateway.doMethodCall(MockGateway.java:105)
at org.powermock.core.MockGateway.methodCall(MockGateway.java:60)
at Tool.doSomething(Tool.java)
at ToolTest.toolTest(ToolTest.java:22)
... [truncated]
I'd like to avoid making any changes to the Tool class. My question is, how can I verify doSomething(Object) was called from callDoSomething(), as well as perform some argument matching on doSomething's param

It sounds like you want to use a static spy (partial mock). The section of the PowerMock documentation that talks about mocking static has a note in the second bullet that could be easily missed:
(use PowerMockito.spy(class) to mock a specific method)
Note, in your example you're not actually mocking the behavior, just verifying the method is called. There's a subtle but important difference. If you don't want doSomething(Object) to be called you'd need to do something like this:
#Test
public void toolTest() {
PowerMockito.spy(Tool.class); //This will call real methods by default.
//This will suppress the method call.
PowerMockito.doNothing().when(Tool.class);
Tool.doSomething(Mockito.argThat( new MyArgMatcher() ));
Tool.callDoSomething();
//The rest isn't needed since you're already mocking the behavior
//but you can still leave it in if you'd like.
PowerMockito.verifyStatic();
Tool.doSomething(Mockito.argThat( new MyArgMatcher() ));
}
If you still want the method to fire though, just remove the two lines for doNothing(). (I added a simple System.out.println("do something " + o); to my version of Tool.java as an additional verification of doNothing().)

You can do your validation with this:
public class Tool{
public static boolean isFromCallDoSomethingMethod= false;
public static void doSomething(Object o){
}
public static void callDoSomething() {
doSomething(new Object());
isFromCallDoSomethingMethod= true;
}
}
You can do the verification as:
if(Tool.isFromCallDoSomethingMethod){
//you called doSomething() from callDoSomething();
}
REMEMBER
Don't forget to do the validation if you call the doSomething() from another way that is not from callDoSomething(), you can do this by ussing Tool.isFromCallDoSomethingMethod = false
Is this what you want?

Generic asynctask for ws calls in Android

I'm using AsyncTask class to execute WS methods. I would like to have a generic async task class to call any method in the WS.
I create a set of classes that works fine but the problem is when I have to update the UI. I know I can create the async task with a reference to the Activity class and then execute the desired method, but what I want is the method to execute to be also a parameter.
Otherwise I have to implement a new class for each method which interacts with the UI because each action is different depending on the method.
Provably the solution is to use Listeners combined with parameters but I didn't find a complete example of how to use this.

In Java, you cannot pass a method as a parameter, but you can pass an object that extends or implements an ancestor and overrides that method. The Command pattern uses this concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_pattern).
Here's an idea of the approach:
private static interface Command {
public void execute();
}
public static final class MyWsCommand1 implements Command {
#Override
public void execute() {
// TODO your WS code 1
}
}
public static final class MyWsCommand2 implements Command {
#Override
public void execute() {
// TODO your WS code 2
}
}
private static class GenericAsyncTask<Params, Progress, Result> extends AsyncTask<Params, Progress, Result> {
private Command command;
public GenericAsyncTask(Command command) {
super();
this.command = command;
}
#Override
protected Result doInBackground(Params... params) {
// TODO your code
command.execute();
// TODO your code
return null;
}
}
private GenericAsyncTask<Object, Object, Object> myAsyncTask1;
private GenericAsyncTask<Object, Object, Object> myAsyncTask2;
And use those in your code:
myAsyncTask1 = new GenericAsyncTask<Object, Object, Object>(new MyWsCommand1());
myAsyncTask1.execute();
...
myAsyncTask2 = new GenericAsyncTask<Object, Object, Object>(new MyWsCommand2());
myAsyncTask2.execute();

by WS , you mean webservice?
asyncTask is not meant to be used for such long tasks . they are supposed to do small tasks . things that take (approx.) less than 5 seconds .
if you wish to do very long tasks , use a simple thread and consider putting it in a service.
also , in order to communicate with it , you can communicate with the service , and when you need to post something to the UI thread , use a handler .

The most close answer is this
You can choose the method in the same UI which waits until the background process ends

I would use Async, and I did on a production implementation. The issue you'll run into is doing more logic in the doInBackground because if you watch your debug build any time you see it say "Skipped X Frames" you may want to do a lot of post processing in doInBackground still.
Using an interface is the best approach, it's how I implemented my Async class. full.stack.ex hit the nail on the head with that answer. That answer shows a clear, simple, powerful way to extend Async and use it for your purpose.

Callback to activity from other class

I have Activity class, Controller class (normal java class use to control number of activity) and BusinessEngine class (normal java class use to process data).
When I need to do some calculation from activity, Activity will call Controller and Controller will call BusinessEngine to do the calculation. When BusinessEngine done with the calculation, it will pass the value back to Controller and finally let the activity know the calculation is complete.
The problem is how I callback Activity from Controller class? Or pass any data to Activity and notify it the data has been change?

Any "long" running tasks must be performed in a background thread. I'm not sure if your currently doing this for your task, so just in case your not, there are a couple of ways to do this. The first is to simply use a AsyncTask, the second is to create your own instance of AbstractExecutorService (AsyncTask uses ThreadPoolExecutor) and use that to post Runnable or Callables to. The later way may save you a lot of re factoring depending on your code base.
Assuming you're now running the task in a background thread, it's necessary to perform your UI updates on the UI thread. There are again a couple of ways to do this. One method is to post a runnable to the method Activity#runOnUiThread, the second is to use a Handler which has previously been created on the UI thread (which Activity#runOnUiThread does behind the scenes).
So, assume your Activity has a method #postResults(final Object o), and your controller has the method #doSomething(final Activity activity).
Your activity would look something like this.
public class MyActivity extends Activity {
Controller controller = ....
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
private void startTask() {
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
c.doSomething(MyActivity.this);
}
}
service.submit(r);
}
public void postResults(final Object o) {
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// Update your UI here
}
}
runOnUiThread(r)
}
}
and your controller
public class Controller {
public void doSomething(final Activity activity) {
// Perform some long running task here
activity.postResults(someObject);
}
}
Obviously this example could be tidied up (for example passing a interface to doSomething rather than the Activity), but hopefully it should be enough to understand what you need to do :)

Why are you looking for the controller to call you Activity? Normally, your Activity must call the controller via its methods and directly get results from them:
// Code in your Activity
result = controller.doSomething(args);

try using a android AsyncTask, if your method takes a long time to process. example

Add your classes to an Async task or if you're calling the classes and passing them from one class to the other.I would say to use static class. And provide some code so we can know how you are passing your data.
If not use general methods to call the superclass or the subclass.
My answer is a bit abstract as information is less.