# View model interface ## Synopsis This document explains how data flows between the view model and the UI it is serving (either an `Activity` or `Fragment`). > Note: At the time of writing this is correct for `NotificationsViewModel` > and `NotificationsFragment`. Other components will be updated over time. After reading this document you should understand: - How user actions in the UI are communicated to the view model - How changes in the view model are communicated to the UI Before reading this document you should: - Understand Kotlin flows - Read [Guide to app architecture / UI layer](https://developer.android.com/topic/architecture/ui-layer) ## Action and UiState flows ### The basics Every action between the user and application can be reduced to the following: ```mermaid sequenceDiagram actor user as User participant ui as Fragment participant vm as View Model user->>+ui: Performs UI action ui->>+vm: Sends action vm->>-ui: Sends new UI state ui->>ui: Updates visible UI ui-->>-user: Observes changes ``` In this model, actions always flow from left to right. The user tells the fragment to do something, then te fragment tells the view model to do something. The view model does **not** tell the fragment to do something. State always flows from right to left. The view model tells the fragment "Here's the new state, it up to you how to display it." Not shown on this diagram, but implicit, is these actions are asynchronous, and the view model may be making one or more requests to other components to gather the data to use for the new UI state. Rather than modelling this transfer of data as function calls, and by passing callback functions from place to place they can be modelled as Kotlin flows between the Fragment and View Model. For example: 1. The View Model creates two flows and exposes them to the Fragment. ```kotlin // In the View Model data class UiAction(val action: String) { ... } data class UiState(...) { ... } val actionFlow = MutableSharedFlow() val uiStateFlow = StateFlow() init { // ... viewModelScope.launch { actionFlow .collect { // Do work // ... work is complete // Update UI state uiStateFlow.emit(uiStatFlow.value.update { ... }) } } // ... } ``` 2. The fragment collects from `uiStateFlow`, and updates the visible UI, and emits new `UiAction` objects in to `actionFlow` in response to the user interacting with the UI. ```kotlin // In the Fragment fun onViewCreated(...) { // ... binding.button.setOnClickListener { // Won't work, see section "Accepting user actions from the UI" for why viewModel.actionFlow.emit(UiAction(action = "buttonClick")) } lifecycleScope.launch { viewModel.uiStateFlow.collectLatest { uiState -> updateUiWithState(uiState) } } // ... } ``` This is a good start, but it can be me significantly improved. ### Model actions with sealed classes The prototypical example in the previous section suggested the `UiAction` could be modelled as ```kotlin data class UiAction(val action: String) { ... } ``` This is not great. - It's stringly-typed, with opportunity for run time errors - Trying to store all possible UI actions in a single type will lead to a plethora of different properties, only some of which are valid for a given action. These problems can be solved by making `UiAction` a sealed class, and defining subclasses, one per action. In the case of `NotificationsFragment` the actions the user can take in the UI are: - Apply a filter to the set of notifications - Clear the current set of notifications - Save the ID of the currently visible notification in the list > NOTE: The user can also interact with items in the list of the > notifications. > > That is handled a little differently because of how code outside > `NotificationsFragment` is currently written. It will be adjusted at > a later time. That becomes: ```kotlin // In the View Model sealed class UiAction { data class ApplyFilter(val filter: Set) : UiAction() object ClearNotifications : UiAction() data class SaveVisibleId(val visibleId: String) : UiAction() } ``` This has multiple benefits: - The actions the view model can act on are defined in a single place - Each action clearly describes the information it carries with it - Each action is strongly typed; it is impossible to create an action of the wrong type - As a sealed class, using the `when` statement to process actions gives us compile-time guarantees all actions are handled In addition, the view model can spawn multiple coroutines to process the different actions, by filtering out actions dependent on their type, and using other convenience methods on flows. For example: ```kotlin // In the View Model val actionFlow = MutableSharedFlow() // As before init { // ... handleApplyFilter() handleClearNotifications() handleSaveVisibleId() // ... } fun handleApplyFilter() = viewModelScope.launch { actionFlow .filterIsInstance() .distinctUntilChanged() .collect { action -> // Apply the filter, update state } } fun handleClearNotifications() = viewModelScope.launch { actionFlow .filterIsInstance() .distinctUntilChanged() .collect { action -> // Clear notifications, update state } } fun handleSaveVisibleId() = viewModelScope.launch { actionFlow .filterIsInstance() .distinctUntilChanged() .collect { action -> // Save the ID, no need to update state } } ``` Each of those runs in separate coroutines and ignores duplicate events. ### Accepting user actions from the UI Example code earlier had this snippet, which does not work. ```kotlin // In the Fragment binding.button.setOnClickListener { // Won't work, see section "Accepting user actions from the UI" for why viewModel.actionFlow.emit(UiAction(action = "buttonClick")) } ``` This fails because `emit()` is a `suspend fun`, so it must be called from a coroutine scope. To fix this, provide a function or property in the view model that accepts `UiAction` and emits them in `actionFlow` under the view model's scope. ```kotlin // In the View Model val accept: (UiAction) -> Unit = { action -> viewModelScope.launch { actionFlow.emit(action)} } ``` When the Fragment wants to send a `UiAction` to the view model it: ```kotlin // In the Fragment binding.button.setOnClickListener { viewModel.accept(UiAction.ClearNotifications) } ``` ### Model the difference between fallible and infallible actions An infallible action either cannot fail, or, can fail but there are no user-visible changes to the UI. Conversely, a fallible action can fail and the user should be notified. I've found it helpful to distinguish between the two at the type level, as it simplifies error handling in the Fragment. So the actions in `NotificationFragment` are modelled as: ```kotlin // In the View Model sealed class UiAction sealed class FallibleUiAction : UiAction() { // Actions that can fail are modelled here // ... } sealed class InfallibleUiAction : UiAction() { // Actions that cannot fail are modelled here // ... } ``` ### Additional `UiAction` subclasses It can be useful to have a deeper `UiAction` class hierarchy, as filtering flows by the class of item in the flow is straightforward. `NotificationsViewModel` splits the fallible actions the user can take as operating on three different parts of the UI: - Everything not the list of notifications - Notifications in the list of notifications - Statuses in the list of notifications Those last two are modelled as: ```kotlin // In the View Model sealed class NotificationAction : FallibleUiAction() { // subclasses here } sealed class StatusAction( open val statusViewData: StatusViewData.Concrete ) : FallibleUiAction() { // subclasses here } ``` Separate handling for actions on notifications and statuses is then achieved with code like: ```kotlin viewModelScope.launch { uiAction.filterIsInstance() .collect { action -> // Process notification actions here } } viewModelScope.launch { uiAction.filterIsInstance() .collect { action -> // Process status actions where } } ``` At the time of writing the UI action hierarchy for `NotificationsViewModel` is: ```mermaid classDiagram direction LR UiAction <|-- InfallibleUiAction InfallibleUiAction <|-- SaveVisibleId InfallibleUiAction <|-- ApplyFilter UiAction <|-- FallibleUiAction FallibleUiAction <|-- ClearNotifications FallibleUiAction <|-- NotificationAction NotificationAction <|-- AcceptFollowRequest NotificationAction <|-- RejectFollowRequest FallibleUiAction <|-- StatusAction StatusAction <|-- Bookmark StatusAction <|-- Favourite StatusAction <|-- Reblog StatusAction <|-- VoteInPoll ``` ### Multiple output flows So far the UI has been modelled as a single output flow of a single `UiState` type. For simple UIs that can be sufficient. As the UI gets more complex it can be helpful to separate these in to different flows. In some cases the Android framework requires you to do this. For example, the flow of `PagingData` in to the adapter is provided and managed by the `PagingData` class. You should not attempt to reassign it or update it during normal operation. Similarly, `RecyclerView.Adapter` provides its own `loadStateFlow`, which communicates information about the loading state of data in to the adapter. For `NotificationsViewModel` I have found it helpful to provide flows to separate the following types - `PagingData` in to the adapter - `UiState`, representing UI state *outside* the main `RecyclerView` - `StatusDisplayOptions`, representing the user's preferences for how all statuses should be displayed - `UiSuccess`, representing transient notifications about a fallible action succeeding - `UiError`, representing transient notifications about a fallible action failing There are separated this way to roughly match how the Fragment will want to process them. - `PagingData` is handed to the adapter and not modified by the Fragment - `UiState` is generally updated no matter what has changed. - `StatusDisplayOptions` is handled by rebinding all visible items in the list, without disturbing the rest of the UI - `UiSuccess` show a brief snackbar without disturbing the rest of the UI - `UiError` show a fixed snackbar with a "Retry" option They also have different statefulness requirements, which makes separating them in to different flows a sensible approach. `PagingData`, `UiState`, and `StatusDisplayOptions` are stateful -- if the Fragment disconnects from the flow and then reconnects (e.g., because of a configuration change) the Fragment should receive the most recent state of each of these. `UiSuccess` and `UiError` are not stateful. The success and error messages are transient; if one has been shown, and there is a subsequent configuration change the user should not see the success or error message again. ### Modelling success and failure for fallible actions A fallible action should have models capturing success and failure information, and be communicated to the UI. > Note: Infallible actions, by definition, neither succeed or fail, so > there is no need to model those states for them. Suppose the user has clicked on the "bookmark" button on a status, sending a `UiAction.FallibleAction.StatusAction.Bookmark(...)` to the view model. The view model processes the action, and is successful. To signal this back to the UI it emits a `UiSuccess` subclass for the action's type in to the `uiSuccess` flow, and includes the original action request. You can read this as the `action` in the `UiAction` is a message from the Fragment saying "Here is the action I want to be performed" and the `action` in `UiSuccess` is the View Model saying "Here is the action that was carried out." Unsurprisingly, this is modelled with a `UiSuccess` class, and per-action subclasses. Failures are modelled similarly, with a `UiError` class. However, details about the error are included, as well as the original action. So each fallible action has three associated classes; one for the action, one to represent the action succeeding, and one to represent the action failing. For the single "bookmark a status" action the code for its three classes looks like this: ```kotlin // In the View Model sealed class StatusAction( open val statusViewData: StatusViewData.Concrete ) : FallibleUiAction() { data class Bookmark( val state: Boolean, override val statusViewData: StatusViewData.Concrete ) : StatusAction(statusViewData) // ... other actions here } sealed class StatusActionSuccess(open val action: StatusAction) : UiSuccess () { data class Bookmark(override val action: StatusAction.Bookmark) : StatusActionSuccess(action) // ... other action successes here companion object { fun from (action: StatusAction) = when (action) { is StatusAction.Bookmark -> Bookmark(action) // ... other actions here } } } sealed class UiError( open val exception: Exception, @StringRes val message: Int, open val action: UiAction? = null ) { data class Bookmark( override val exception: Exception, override val action: StatusAction.Bookmark ) : UiError(exception, R.string.ui_error_bookmark, action) // ... other action errors here companion object { fun make(exception: Exception, action: FallibleUiAction) = when (action) { is StatusAction.Bookmark -> Bookmark(exception, action) // other actions here } } } ``` > Note: I haven't found it necessary to create subclasses for `UiError`, as > all fallible errors (so far) are handled identically. This may change in > the future. Receiving status actions in the view model (from the `uiAction` flow) is then: ```kotlin // In the View Model viewModelScope.launch { uiAction.filterIsInstance() .collect { action -> try { when (action) { is StatusAction.Bookmark -> { // Process the request } // Other action types handled here } uiSuccess.emit(StatusActionSuccess.from(action)) } catch (e: Exception) { uiError.emit(UiError.make(e, action)) } } } ``` Basic success handling in the fragment would be: ```kotlin // In the Fragment lifecycleScope.launch { // Show a generic message when an action succeeds this.launch { viewModel.uiSuccess.collect { Snackbar.make(binding.root, "Success!", LENGTH_SHORT).show() } } } ``` In practice it is more complicated, with different actions depending on the type of success. Basic error handling in the fragment would be: ```kotlin lifecycleScope.launch { // Show a specific error when an action fails this.launch { viewModel.uiError.collect { error -> SnackBar.make( binding.root, getString(error.message), LENGTH_LONG ).show() } } } ``` ### Supporting "retry" semantics This approach has an extremely helpful benefit. By including the original action in the `UiError` response, implementing a "retry" function is as simple as re-sending the original action (included in the error) back to the view model. ```kotlin lifecycleScope.launch { // Show a specific error when an action fails. Provide a "Retry" option // on the snackbar, and re-send the original action to retry. this.launch { viewModel.uiError.collect { error -> val snackbar = SnackBar.make( binding.root, getString(error.message), LENGTH_LONG ) error.action?.let { action -> snackbar.setAction("Retry") { viewModel.accept(action) } } snackbar.show() } } } ``` ### Updated sequence diagram ```mermaid sequenceDiagram actor user as User participant ui as Fragment participant vm as View Model user->>ui: Performs UI action activate ui ui->>+vm: viewModel.accept(UiAction.*()) deactivate ui vm->>vm: Perform action alt Update UI state? vm->>vm: emit(UiState(...)) vm-->>ui: UiState(...) activate ui ui->>ui: collect UiState, update UI deactivate ui else Update StatusDisplayOptions? vm->>vm: emit(StatusDisplayOptions(...)) vm-->>ui: StatusDisplayOption(...) activate ui ui->>ui: collect StatusDisplayOptions, rebind list items deactivate ui else Successful fallible action vm->>vm: emit(UiSuccess(...)) vm-->>ui: UiSuccess(...) activate ui ui->>ui: collect UiSuccess, show snackbar deactivate ui else Failed fallible action vm->>vm: emit(UiError(...)) vm-->>ui: UiError(...) activate ui deactivate vm ui->>ui: collect UiError, show snackbar with retry deactivate ui user->>ui: Presses "Retry" activate ui ui->>vm: viewModel.accept(error.action) deactivate ui activate vm vm->>vm: Perform action, emit response... deactivate vm end note over ui,vm: Type of UI change depends on type of object emitted
UiState, StatusDisplayOptions, UiSuccess, UiError ui-->>user: Observes changes ```