suspend | Callback-free control flow for Node using ES6 generators | Reactive Programming library

I think it is already working actually, but you are in fact not catching the correct error. In your code you have:

This strange behaviour with the visible state of a "save queue" was only true in the interpreted code running in the shell, not in regular compiled modules. In the actual C implementation of receive, there is only one queue with a pointer to keep track of which ones have been scanned so far, and process_info does not show an empty queue during a real receive. The behaviour of the interpreted code was fixed back in R16B01, so nowadays there is no visible difference: https://github.com/erlang/otp/commit/acb8ef5d18cc3976bf580a8e6925cb5641acd401

I faced the same issue yesterday with the upgrade of Kotlin 1.6.0.

My working project started to fail, same error messages.

After searching in some other forums someone mentioned to change roomVersion to "2.4.0-beta02". And.. surprisingly it worked! At least it compiled without any more issues.

Try it , hopefully it will work for you too.

Mine is defined in a variable:

def roomVersion = "2.4.0-beta02"

So the rest of the dependencies for Room should take advantage of this change.

You are better off avoiding serializable isolation level. The way the serializable guarantee is provided is often deadlock prone.

If you can't alter your stored procs to use more targeted locking hints that guarantee the results you require at a lesser isolation level then you can prevent this particular deadlock scenario shown by ensuring that all locks are taken out on ServiceChange first before any are taken out on ServiceChangeParameter.

One way of doing this would be to introduce a table variable in spGetManageServicesRequest and materialize the results of

This is exactly one of the reasons why the view model is passed with a default value. In the preview, you can pass a test object:

tl;dr

Add this to your application.properties:

You should use the code below to create a coroutines scope in your composable.

Tasks have the ability to use isCancelled or checkCancellation, but for the sake of a debounce routine, where you want to wait for a period of time, you might just use the throwing rendition of Task.sleep(nanoseconds:), whose documentation says:

If the task is canceled before the time ends, this function throws CancellationError.

Thus, this effectively debounces for 2 seconds.

Note: To clear things out, one should not deliberately block the main/UI thread with runBlocking, because while the UI thread get's released inside runBlocking (if it suspends) for its child coroutines, nothing outside the runBlocking gets executed (no draw methods, nothing), which leads to frozen UI for as long as runBlocking is active.

It's probably due to how "immediate" is implemented. It's not just join(), it's any suspend function, if you call yield() it won't help, and if you call delay() mainJob will resume only when the delay is done. Basically mainJob will not resume as long as runBlocking is running, and runBlocking will not finish until mainJob is done, which is a deadlock by definition.

You can omit specifying Dispatcher.Main.immediate to the mainJob and let it inherit its context from runBlocking. And if you want to start executing mainJob as soon as its declared just yield the thread from runBlocking to it.