Hey guys, what do you think about tweaking the `ru...

# orbit-mvi

[Oleksii Malovanyi]

Hey guys,
what do you think about tweaking the runOnCreate function so one could subscribe to container from it -> currently it’s impossible due to compilation restrictions, so in case of ViewModel we have to subscribe from the `init{}`which then could affect tests which don’t wanna run runOnCreate on TestContainer

[Oleksii Malovanyi]

e.g.: non-braking change

onCreate: Container<STATE, SIDE_EFFECT>.(state: STATE) -> Unit

[Oleksii Malovanyi]

also, this is doubtable as we could trick the compiler if wrap the subscription call with a method

[Oleksii Malovanyi]

another thing is (but related) if one collects the state from onCreate then runOnCreate test would never finish (obviously). Maybe, we could add a param to runOnCreate to indicate it should terminate with timeout silently. e.g.

runOnCreate(withTimeout:Long = 0L)

and if withTimeout > 0 wrap the call with withTimeoutOrNull.

[appmattus]

hi @Oleksii Malovanyi, I realise we've not got back to you yet on this, @Mikolaj Leszczynski is currently on holiday so we've not had a chance to discuss this properly.

out of curiosity, what is the use case for observing the container from within the viewmodel. i ask as it feels very self-referential and not something we imagined someone doing.

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

@Oleksii Malovanyi is this not something that can be achieved by simply calling a ContainerHost function invoking intent where you can subscribe to the container?

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

private inner class SomeMiddleware : ContainerHost<TestState, String> {
        override val container = scope.container<TestState, String>(TestState(42)) {
            test()
        }

        private fun test(): Unit = intent {
            coroutineScope {
                container.stateFlow.collect {
                    println("TEST LOL $it")
                }
            }
        }
    }

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

works for me locally :)

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

as long as you explicitly specify the return type on fun test you’re golden

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

You can even forgo the function and just launch an intent from within onCreate

[Oleksii Malovanyi]

Hey guys, thanks for your replies and no worries -> I know I always could get feedback from you and this is something to appreciate 👍

[Oleksii Malovanyi]

About the thread: the use case is imagine self-validation: every time the input (is stored in the state) changes, the validation (also part of the state) should auto-change. Or another case: travel in time: on error I’d like to apply to the state the properties from it’s previous version.

[Oleksii Malovanyi]

in the end yes, we could overcome the compilation issues with an extra method, and functionally it’s decent api for me

[Oleksii Malovanyi]

the more sever issue for me is testing: if you do runOnCreate with infinite collection of the state runBlockingTest will punch you for that (obviously indefinite collection is not allowed in tests), as it blocks. The solution is to create a coroutine or something similar for the collection – withTimeoutOrNull works then, but looks kinda ugly 🤔

[Oleksii Malovanyi]

unfortunately I haven’t come up with a better solution. I could create a branch with a tests so you could play around with the use case for what I mean

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

It sounds like we need the test to be in non blocking mode, once you test the on create method in this mode the rest of your tests can block safely with runOnCreate set to off. Am I missing something?

[Oleksii Malovanyi]

yeap, and also not really 🤔 or am I missing something – I’ve used to always use runBlockingTest , but! There is a case when you have to start runOnCreate going (for the collection) and still do testIntent for the rollback-state on smth bad happens scenario

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

Non blocking tests were created with testing flow collection in mind

[Oleksii Malovanyi]

okay, maybe I’ve really missed it 😲 I’ll take a look, thanks ⭐

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

Yeah they should work functionally the same except the blocking happens with a timeout in the assert function

[Oleksii Malovanyi]

aha, so it basically very similar to timeout trick with the coroutines

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

Yes!

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

It will await the expected number of states and side effects and time out of it doesn't reach the desired number within 5 seconds

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

You can tweak the timeout too

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

I think

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

@Oleksii Malovanyi let us know how it goes 🙂

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

@Oleksii Malovanyi anything to report? 🙂

[Oleksii Malovanyi]

sorry, not yet -> would try out this weekend

[Mikolaj Leszczynski]

thanks!