Resolving handleSubmit's promise by observing state change - react-final-form

I have augmented Context's dispatch similar to what is described in this blog post. In addition, much like Redux, I can create a middleware chain which all my actions will be run through. Based on this middleware sample from Real World Redux, I have a middleware that centrally handles all API consumption.
This means that my components dispatch actions to initiate API requests, and can not easily observe the promise that represents that async operation. As such, I can't pass that promise to RFF's handleSubmit. Instead, I need to create my own async function to pass to handleSubmit and resolve its promise by observing changes in application state.
#erikras created the Redux Promise Listener which solves a similar problem using middleware observing dispatched actions.
I took a first pass at creating a React hook that would settle promises by observing state changes, but it feels awkward:
/**
* usePromiseSettler invokes an async executor function, and then will observe changes in
* state to determine when the async function's promise has settled. Once settled,
* either the success or failure callback will be invoked.
*
* #param executor Function that initiates state change we wish to observe
* #param successCondition Condition that indicates executor operation succeeded
* #param successCallback Callback to invoke when executor operation succeeds
* #param failureCondition Condition that indicates executor operation has failed
* #param failureCallback Callback to invoke when executor operation fails
* #returns An async function returning a promise which will be settled when
* a success or error condition is observed.
*/
export const usePromiseSettler = (
executor: (...args: any[]) => any,
successCondition: boolean,
successCallback: (value?: any) => void,
failureCondition: boolean,
failureCallback: (value?: any) => void,
) => {
const resolveRef = useRef<(value?: any) => void>();
const successConditionRef = useRef<boolean>(false);
const failureConditionRef = useRef<boolean>(false);
const staticExecutor = React.useCallback(executor, []);
const handlePromise = React.useCallback(
(value) => {
staticExecutor(value);
return new Promise((resolve) => {
resolveRef.current = resolve;
});
},
[staticExecutor],
);
if (!successConditionRef.current && successCondition) {
successCallback(resolveRef.current);
}
if (!failureConditionRef.current && failureCondition) {
failureCallback(resolveRef.current);
}
successConditionRef.current = successCondition;
failureConditionRef.current = failureCondition;
return handlePromise;
};
Usage:
const previousDidCreateSucceed = usePrevious(
state.targetState.didCreateSucceed,
);
const previousError = usePrevious(state.targetState.error);
const handleSubmit = usePromiseSettler(
(target: TargetData) => {
const action = requestPostTarget(target);
dispatch(action);
},
!previousDidCreateSucceed && state.targetState.didCreateSucceed,
(resolve) => {
resolve(state.targetState.data);
history.push("/targets");
},
!previousError && !!state.targetState.error,
(resolve) => {
resolve({ [FORM_ERROR]: state.targetState.error });
},
);
...
return (
<Form
onSubmit={handleSubmit}
Has this problem been solved elsewhere with less complexity?

Related

How to call asynchronous function before event.respondWith in Service Worker?

its not work.
self.addEventListener('fetch', async (event) => {
const url = await localforage.getItem('url'); // url change if page changed
if(event.request.url === url){
event.respondWith(handleFetch(event));
}
});
const handleFetch = async (event) => {
....
}
if i move url to inside event.responseWith. its work, but do every request, but i need only match url to fetch in service worker if not match then do nothing.
self.addEventListener('fetch', async (event) => {
event.respondWith(handleFetch(event));
});
const handleFetch = async (event) => {
const url = await localforage.getItem('url'); // url change if page changed
if(event.request.url === url){
....
}
}
This is intentional. Your decision as to whether or not to call event.respondWith() needs to be done synchronously, within the top-level execution of your fetch handler.
This allows you to do things like examine the request URL and headers synchronously, but it does preclude you from performing asynchronous lookups against things like IndexedDB.
If you can't transition your criteria to use something synchronous, then your best option is to call event.respondWith() unconditionally, and when the criteria is not met, use return fetch(event.request) to come as close as you could to the "default" behavior you'd get if you didn't respond at all. (That's basically what you're doing in the second example.)

Forwarding an incoming call after task reservation timeout

I am using Twilio Flex to support a call center. I have a TaskRouter workflow set up where Task Reservation Timeout is set to 120 seconds. In its filter, I've created two routing steps. The first one finds matching workers in the main queue and has a timeout of 120 seconds. After 120 seconds, it should move to Call Forward Queue. In the call forward queue, no workers exist (target worker expression: 1==2). I'm catching all these events with a "trEventListener" function. Once a task is moved into the Call Forward queue, I call the "callForward" function which uses twiml.dial() to connect the call to an external number. I also change this task's status to "canceled" with a custom reason so I can track it in flex insights. I am using the guide in this link to form my logic: https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/360021082934-Implementing-Voicemail-with-Twilio-Flex-TaskRouter-and-WFO.
Call forwarding is working fine but according to Flex insights, there are some calls that get handled after 120 seconds (between 120 - 300 seconds). Ideally, these should be forwarded as well. There is also no error logged for me to track down why this is happening to only a handful of calls.
Furthermore, in some cases, when I try to change the task status to cancel with my custom reason, it spits out the following error: Cannot cancel task because it is not pending or reserved. In other cases, it works fine. It's again hard to figure out why it's selectively working and not consistent in its behavior.
Here is the function code.
trEventListener.js:
exports.handler = function(context, event, callback) {
const client = context.getTwilioClient();
let task = '';
let workspace = '';
console.log(`__[trEventStream]__: Event recieved of type: ${event.EventType}`);
// setup an empty success response
let response = new Twilio.Response();
response.setStatusCode(204);
// switch on the event type
switch(event.EventType) {
case 'task-queue.entered':
// ignore events that are not entering the 'Call Forward' TaskQueue
if (event.TaskQueueName !== 'Call Forward') {
console.log(`__[trEventStream]__: Entered ${event.TaskQueueName} queue - no forwarding required!`);
return callback(null, response);
}
console.log(`__[trEventStream]__: entered ${event.TaskQueueName} queue - forwarding call!`);
task = event.TaskSid;
workspace = event.WorkspaceSid;
const ta = JSON.parse(event.TaskAttributes);
const callSid = ta.call_sid;
let url = `https://${context.DOMAIN_NAME}/forwardCall`;
// redirect call to forwardCall function
client.calls(callSid).update({
method: 'POST',
url: encodeURI(url),
}).then(() => {
console.log(`__[trEventStream]__: [SUCCESS] ~> Task with id ${task} forwarded to external DID`);
// change task status to canceled so it doesn't appear in flex or show up as a pending task
client.taskrouter.workspaces(workspace)
.tasks(task)
.update({
assignmentStatus: 'canceled',
reason: 'Call forwarded'
})
.then(task => {
console.log(`__[trEventStream]__: [SUCCESS] ~> Task canceled`);
return callback(null, response);
}).catch(err => {
console.log(`__[trEventStream]__: [ERROR] ~> Task not marked complete: `, err);
// doesn't warrant reponse 500 since call still forwarded :)
return callback(null, response);
});
}).catch(err => {
console.log(`__[trEventStream]__: [ERROR] ~> Task failed to forward to external DID: `, err);
response.setStatusCode(500);
return callback(err, response);
});
break;
default:
return callback(null, response);
}
};
callForward.js:
exports.handler = function(context, event, callback) {
console.log(`forwarding call`);
// set-up the variables that this Function will use to forward a phone call using TwiML
// REQUIRED - you must set this
let phoneNumber = event.PhoneNumber || context.NUMBER;
// OPTIONAL
let callerId = event.CallerId || null;
// OPTIONAL
let timeout = event.Timeout || null;
// OPTIONAL
let allowedCallers = event.allowedCallers || [];
let allowedThrough = true;
if (allowedCallers.length > 0) {
if (allowedCallers.indexOf(event.From) === -1) {
allowedThrough = false;
}
}
// generate the TwiML to tell Twilio how to forward this call
let twiml = new Twilio.twiml.VoiceResponse();
let dialParams = {};
if (callerId) {
dialParams.callerId = callerId;
}
if (timeout) {
dialParams.timeout = timeout;
}
if (allowedThrough) {
twiml.dial(dialParams, phoneNumber); // making call :)
}
else {
twiml.say('Sorry, you are calling from a restricted number. Good bye.');
}
// return the TwiML
callback(null, twiml);
};
Any kind of help and/or guidance will be appreciated.
Twilio developer evangelist here.
When you redirect a call from a task, its task is cancelled with the reason "redirected" so you don't need to cancel it yourself.
Your code was failing to update the task occasionally because of a race condition between your code and the task getting cancelled by Twilio.

How can the electron framework enable communication like an Ajax request?

ipcRenderer.sendSync may block the whole renderer process. ipcRenderer.send need use ipcRenderer.on to listen for the asynchronous return of events.
So is there a way of communicating that data can be returned as a callback directly where it was requested?
It might look something like this: ipcRenderer.sendAsync('eventName', args, callback), Or by other means.
ipcRenderer.on("onMessage", (e, {cbName, data}) => {
switch (cbName) {
case 'foo1':
foo1(data)
break
case 'foo2':
foo2(data)
break
case 'foo3':
foo2(data)
break
// more
default:
break
}
})
ipcRenderer.send("message", { cbName, /* other args */ })
what you need is ipcMain.handle() and ipcRenderer.invoke()
this will return a promise back to renderer.
// Main process
ipcMain.handle('my-invokable-ipc', async (event, ...args) => {
const result = await somePromise(...args)
return result
})
// Renderer process
async () => {
const result = await ipcRenderer.invoke('my-invokable-ipc', arg1, arg2)
// ...
}
For further info
https://www.electronjs.org/docs/api/ipc-main#ipcmainhandlechannel-listener
What you're asking for, if I understand it correctly, is to pass a callback from the renderer process to the main process and have the handler in main call into it with the response rather than sending it back.
so rather than doing this:
main.js:
ipcMain.on("message", (e, arg) => {
e.sender.send("onMessage", "response");
});
renderer.js:
ipcRenderer.send("message", 1);
ipcRenderer.on("onMessage", (e, response) => { });
you want to do this:
main.js:
ipcMain.on("message", (e, arg, callback) => {
callback("response");
});
renderer.js:
function callback(response) { }
ipcRenderer.send("message", 1, callback);
Then no, you can't do that because you can't pass functions across processes like this. Even if you .toString() the function and then recreate the function in the main process via new Function(...), you would be executing it in the context of the main process, not the renderer, and presumably you'd want to execute it in the renderer process.
Using e.sender.send(...) is the idiomatic way of sending messages back to the other process, and you shouldn't shy away from it.

Embeded Watson Virtual Agent chatbot missing response

I've created an html file with embedded Watson Virtual Agent chat bot, code similar below, with WVA strictly using the building core capabilities:
IBMChat.init({
el: 'ibm_chat_root',
baseURL: 'https://api.ibm.com/virtualagent/run/api/v1',
botID: '',
XIBMClientID: '',
XIBMClientSecret: ''
});
What I noticed is if I run the WVA in Preview mode, and have input "pay bill", the WVA can come back with two piece response, with first:
Accessing your account information...
and second the make payment:
Your account balance is $42.01 due on 5/17/2017. What would you like to do? (More options coming soon!)
However, if I enter the same in my HTML chatbot, the response only comes back with the first part:
Accessing your account information...
and second part never comes out.
Does anyone else experience the same problem?
The version in the "Preview" mode has some mock "action" handlers setup. Obviously, not every one of you users would owe $42! In the sample code on the github, the mock action handlers are not setup. There are examples on how to subscribe to those action events with handlers here: https://github.com/watson-virtual-agents/chat-widget/tree/master/examples/basic-actions-example
As of 5/31/17 you can cover all the built in actions using the code snippet below...
const config = { instance: null };
const getUserProfileVariablesMap = {
'bill_amount': '42.01',
'payment_due_date': (() => {
const currentDate = new Date(new Date().getTime() + 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000);
return `${currentDate.getMonth() + 1}/${currentDate.getDate()}/${currentDate.getFullYear()}`;
})(),
'authorized_users': 'Bob Everyman and Jane Doe'
};
const getUserProfileVariables = (data) => {
const variables = data.message.action.args.variables;
variables.forEach(v => {
const value = getUserProfileVariablesMap[v];
(value) ? config.instance.profile.set(v, value) : config.instance.profile.set(v, '[sample data]');
});
config.instance.sendSilently('success');
};
const success = () => config.instance.sendSilently('success');
const agent = () => config.instance.receive('On your own site you would run code to connect to an agent now.');
const accountSettings = () => config.instance.receive('On your own site you would run code to open the Account Settings page now.');
function registerActions(instance) {
config.instance = instance;
instance.subscribe('action:getUserProfileVariables', getUserProfileVariables);
instance.subscribe('action:updateAddress', success);
instance.subscribe('action:updateUserName', success);
instance.subscribe('action:updatePhoneNumber', success);
instance.subscribe('action:updateEmail', success);
instance.subscribe('action:payBill', success);
instance.subscribe('action:sendPaymentReceipt', success);
instance.subscribe('action:agent', agent);
instance.subscribe('action:openAccountSettingsPage', accountSettings);
};
window.IBMChatActions = {
registerActions: registerActions
};
// window.IBMChatActions.registerActions(window.IBMChat);
On the Administrative Preview, you are getting fake code stubs that handle action requests from the agent.
When one of these actions are invoked, the widget will print the "Processing..." message and then invoke all registered subscribers for that action. It is up to these registered subscribers to continue the conversation flow by silently sending "success", "failure", or "cancel" back to the server.
For example, the agent might pass down the "payBill" action. You would want to call your payment gateway, determine if it was successful, and then notify the agent of the result:
IBMChat.init(/* Settings */);
IBMChat.subscribe('action:payBill', function() {
var data = {
amount: IBMChat.profile.get('amount'),
card: {
number: IBMChat.profile.get('cc_number'),
// ... other private card data
}
};
$.post('https://www.myserver.com/payment-gateway', data)
.done( function() {
IBMChat.sendSilently('success');
})
.fail( function() {
IBMChat.sendSilently('failure');
});
});
Actions Documentation
https://github.com/watson-virtual-agents/chat-widget/blob/master/docs/DOCS.md#actions

AngularJS serverside variable to ng-init and methods sequence

I´v got a "detail" view and a controller that initilizes data with an id.
My view:
<div ng-app="AFApp" ng-controller="AgentCtrl" ng-init="init('#Model.Id')">
My controller:
$scope.id;
$scope.agent = {};
$scope.init = function (id) {
$scope.id = id;
getAgent();
getAgentStatus();
getSystemInfo();
getActions();
};
The problem is that the method "getAgentStatus();" gets executed before "getAgent();". The "getAgentStatus" needs the $scope.agent data that "getAgent" provides. The function getAgentStatus has an attached timer, and it gets the value as the timer elepses but not in the init function. Can someone please help me out with the method execution sequence in angular controllers and how the id parameter is provided the best possible way.
See methods below:
function getAgent() {
agentDataFactory.getAgent($scope.id)
.success(function (data) {
$scope.agent = data;
})
.error(function (error) {
console.log('Unable to load data: ' + error.message);
});
};
function getAgentStatus() {
if (typeof ($scope.agent.ServiceUrl) == 'undefined' || $scope.agent.ServiceUrl == null) {
console.log('getAgentStatus: ServiceUrl is undefined ' + JSON.stringify($scope.agent));
}
agentDataFactory.getAgentStatus($scope.agent.ServiceUrl)
.success(function (data) {
$scope.agent.CurrentStatus = data.Status;
$scope.agent.CurrentInterval = data.Interval;
})
.error(function (error) {
console.log('Unable to load data: ' + error);
});
$timeout(getAgentStatus, 3000);
};
You can pass getAgentStatus() as a callback parameter to getAgent() and have it executed in the success callback (at which point agent will be defined):
function getAgent(callback) {
agentDataFactory.getAgent($scope.id)
.success(function (data) {
$scope.agent = data;
callback && callback();
})
.error(function (error) {
console.log('Unable to load data: ' + error.message);
});
};
$scope.init = function (id) {
$scope.id = id;
getAgent(getAgentStatus);
getSystemInfo();
getActions();
};
Short explanation:
Some highlights first:
agentDataFactory.getAgent($scope.id).success(...).error(...);:
Creates a promise (which will be resolved) asynchronously and registers two callbacks, one if the promise is successfully resolved and one for the case of an error.
.success(function (data) { $scope.agent = data; }):
Registers a callbackfor when the promise is successfully resolved. When (and if) that happens, $scope.agent will be set.
function getAgentStatus() { if (typeof ($scope.agent.ServiceUrl...:
Tries to access some properties of $scope.agent and thus requires the object to be defined.
So, what happens with your code:
getAgent() is gets called.
[$scope.agent is undefined]
A promise is created that when resolved will set $scope.agent.
[$scope.agent is undefined]
getAgent() returns and getAgentStatus() is called.
[$scope.agent is undefined]
getAgentStatus() tries to access $scope.agent's properties and fails.
[$scope.agent is undefined]
The promise created in step 2 is resolved and its success callback get executed.
[$scope.agent is finally defined]
My version of the code ensures that getAgentStatus() is not executed before the promise is resolved and thus $scope.agent is defined:
getAgent() is gets called.
[$scope.agent is undefined]
A promise is created that when resolved will set $scope.agent.
[$scope.agent is undefined]
getAgent() returns and other functions get called (e.g. getSystemInfo(), getActions(), etc.).
[$scope.agent is undefined]
The promise created in step 2 is resolved and its success callback get executed.
[$scope.agent is finally defined]
Only now does getAgentStatus() get called and it works as expected since...
[$scope.agent is defined]
Take a look at the $q service for more info on Angular promises.

Resources