-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
RF-9688 - [refactor]: Remove ReactiveSwift from Workflow public interface #360
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
bd84d2e
to
13f4761
Compare
WorkflowUIReactiveSwift/Sources/WorkflowHostingController+OutputSignal.swift
Show resolved
Hide resolved
WorkflowReactiveSwift/Sources/WorkflowOutputPublisher+OutputSignal.swift
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
f7e5fc3
to
59bcc8b
Compare
Workflow/Sources/WorkflowHost.swift
Outdated
public protocol WorkflowOutputPublisher { | ||
associatedtype Output | ||
|
||
var outputPublisher: AnyPublisher<Output, Never> { get } | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is this protocol necessary? what's the benefit over just extending the concrete type directly?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It allows us to add the output signal on both WorkflowHost
and WorkflowHostingController
by just extending the protocol in WorkflowReactiveSwift. This was a suggestion in Andrew's feedback.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah gotcha (sorry i missed the existing convo). so the tradeoff here is adding a 'public' protocol to which we really only want 2 specific things to conform so that we don't need to make Workflow
or WorkflowUI
depend on ReactiveSwift
– is that right? mostly out of curiosity – is it possible to define the protocol with package
visibility? that seems like it might be a slightly more accurate definition (assuming it works and integrates successfully into the monorepo).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Before I had extensions on WorkflowHost
and WorkflowHostingController
which required a new module just to put the extension on WorkflowHostingController
since I could not put it in WorkflowReactiveSwift
since it does not know about WorkflowUI
. Andrew's idea was use a protocol and drop the extension in WorkflowReactiveSwift
so we don't need to have an additional module and the reactive swift stuff stays in WorkflowReactiveSwift
.
I can look into the package
visibility to see if that is possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I make the protocol package
visibility then the output
property can't be public:
Property cannot be declared public because its type uses a package type
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah, makes sense – thanks for checking. maybe just as a matter of hygiene we should make the protocol underscored (_WorkflowOutputPublisher
) and add comments regarding its purpose, since it doesn't seem like it's actually intended to be 'really' public.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Pushed up the added underscore.
96bbd04
to
7ce7d31
Compare
let rootNode: WorkflowNode<WorkflowType> | ||
|
||
private let mutableRendering: MutableProperty<WorkflowType.Rendering> | ||
private let renderingSubject: CurrentValueSubject<WorkflowType.Rendering, Never> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
slightly inclined to split the storage for the property vs the observer, since that will give us the most control over when the 'outside world' sees the update. e.g.
var rendering: Rendering
let renderingSubject = PassThroughSubject<Rendering, Never>()
any thoughts on that? i guess one thing that would be different is that the old way (and presumably using a CVS) would have some baked-in synchronization mechanism over the underlying value. in theory this stuff should be main-thread-only though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We currently are using a ReactiveSwift MutableProperty which does have an internal lock. Yes CurrentValueSubject does have some baked in serialization mechanism albeit without Apple documentation on what that is. Since we can't enforce someone reading the rendering value on the main thread I'm inclined to use the CurrentValueSubject since it's about as close as we can get as a Combine version of what we have now.
If we split the storage for the property out we could always lock around getting/setting it so I'm not against doing that but I think CurrentValueSubject should work for how we are using it.
public var output: Signal<Output, Never> { | ||
Signal.unserialized { observer, lifetime in | ||
let cancellable = outputPublisher.sink( | ||
receiveCompletion: { completion in | ||
switch completion { | ||
case .finished: | ||
observer.sendCompleted() | ||
|
||
case .failure(let error): | ||
observer.send(error: error) | ||
} | ||
}, | ||
receiveValue: { value in | ||
observer.send(value: value) | ||
} | ||
) | ||
lifetime.observeEnded { | ||
cancellable.cancel() | ||
} | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
let's plan on testing this fairly thoroughly. i'm never certain what the exact lifetime semantics are for the ReactiveSwift stuff personally...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed. This has been in use in the ReactiveSwift bridging module for a while.
Workflow/Sources/WorkflowHost.swift
Outdated
public protocol WorkflowOutputPublisher { | ||
associatedtype Output | ||
|
||
var outputPublisher: AnyPublisher<Output, Never> { get } | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah gotcha (sorry i missed the existing convo). so the tradeoff here is adding a 'public' protocol to which we really only want 2 specific things to conform so that we don't need to make Workflow
or WorkflowUI
depend on ReactiveSwift
– is that right? mostly out of curiosity – is it possible to define the protocol with package
visibility? that seems like it might be a slightly more accurate definition (assuming it works and integrates successfully into the monorepo).
let's also include in the commit message something that clearly indicates this is a breaking change to the public API, a la the guidelines specified via 'conventional commits' |
7ce7d31
to
99238f0
Compare
I've updated the commit message |
99238f0
to
f9c40fd
Compare
f9c40fd
to
2fee5aa
Compare
BREAKING CHANGE: This changes the public interface of WorkflowHost and WorkflowHostingController. The rendering property is now a read only property of the Rendering There is a new renderingPublisher property for a Combine publisher for renderings The output Signal property has been removed and moved to an extension in WorkflowReactiveSwift There is a new outputPublisher property for a Combine publisher for output
2fee5aa
to
101286a
Compare
This is a breaking change to Workflow that removes ReactiveSwift from the public interface of Workflow and Workflow UI.
There are 3 changes:
WorkflowHost
rendering
is now a read only property of the latest rendering.WorkflowHost
renderingPublisher
is a Combine publisher that publishes renderings. In searching the register code base there were very few places we were using aSignal
/SignalProducer
from therendering
property. The plan would be to change those consumers to userenderingPublisher
andsink
.WorkflowHost
output
has been renamed tooutputPublisher
. It is now a CombinePublisher
that can be used to subscribe to Workflow output. Per Andrew's suggestion I added a new protocolWorkflowOutputPubisher
that exposes theoutputPublisher
. Theoutput
property is used in a lot of places in register. To fix those places I added an extension onWorkflowOutputPubisher
in WorkflowReactiveSwift that re-exposesoutput
as aSignal
. All the places that useoutput
will just need to import WorkflowReactiveSwift and they will continue to work.WorkflowHostingController
in WorkflowUI now implementsWorkflowOutputPublisher
. Consumers usingoutput
will just need to import WorkflowReactiveSwift to continue to work.Note: Even though this removes ReactiveSwift as a dependency from the Workflow and WorkflowUI targets the Workflow Package has to continue to have ReactiveSwift as a dependency since it's used by WorkflowReactiveSwift. But because register uses bazel if you import Workflow/WorkflowUI in your module it does not import (directly or transitively) ReactiveSwift.
Checklist