I have an interesting query with regard to #MainActor and strict concurrency checking (-Xfrontend -warn-concurrency -Xfrontend -enable-actor-data-race-checks)
I have functions (Eg, Analytics) that at the lowest level require access to the device screen scale UIScreen.main.scale which is isolated to MainActor. However I would prefer not to have to declare the entire stack of functions above the one that accesses scale as requiring MainActor.
Is there a way to do this, or do I have no other options?
How would be the best way to ensure my code only ever calls UIScreen once and keeps the result available for next time without manually defining a var and checking if its nil? Ie is there a kind of computed property that will do this?
Edit: Is there an equivalent of this using MainActor (MainActor.run doesn't do the same thing; it seems to block synchronously):
DispatchQueue.main.async {
Thanks,
Chris
Non-UI code should not rely directly on UIScreen. The scale (for example), should be passed as a parameter, or to actors in their init. If the scale changes (which it can, when screens are added or removed), then the new value should be sent to the actor. Or the actor can observe something that publishes the scale when it changes.
The key point is accessing UIScreen from a random thread is not valid for a reason. The scale can in fact change at any time. Reading it from an actor is and should be an async call.
It sounds like you have some kind of Analytics actor. The simplest implementation of this would be to just pass the scale when you create it.
Related
Status: Sort of solved. Switching Lua.Ref (close equivalent to LuaD LuaObject) to struct as suggested in answer has solved most issues related to freeing references, and I changed back to similar mechanism LuaD uses. More about this in the end.
In one of my project, I am working with Lua interface. I have mainly borrowed the ideas from LuaD. The mechanism in LuaD uses lua_ref & lua_unref to be able to move lua table/function references in D space, but this causes heavy problems because the calls to destructors and their order is not guaranteed. LuaD usually segfaults at least at the program exit.
Because it seems that LuaD is not maintained anymore, I decided to write my own interface for my purposes. My Lua interface class is here: https://github.com/mkoskim/games/blob/master/engine/util/lua.d
Usage examples can be found here:
https://github.com/mkoskim/games/blob/master/demo/luasketch/luademo.d
And in case you need, the Lua script used by the example is here:
https://github.com/mkoskim/games/blob/master/demo/luasketch/data/test.lua
The interface works like this:
Lua.opIndex pushes global table and index key to stack, and return Top object. For example, lua["math"] pushes _G and "math" to stack.
Further accesses go through Top object. Top.opIndex goes deeper in the table hierarchy. Other methods (call, get, set) are "final" methods, which perform an operation with the table and key at the top of the stack, and clean the stack afterwards.
Close everything works fine, except this mechanism has nasty quirk/bug that I have no idea how to solve it. If you don't call any of those "final" methods, Top will leave table and key to the stack:
lua["math"]["abs"].call(-1); // Works. Final method (call) called.
lua["math"]["abs"]; // table ref & key left to stack :(
What I know for sure, is that playing with Top() destructor does not work, as it is not called immediately when object is not referenced anymore.
NOTE: If there is some sort of operator to be called when object is accessed as rvalue, I could replace call(), set() and get() methods with operator overloads.
Questions:
Is there any way to prevent users to write such expressions (getting Top object without calling any of "final" methods)? I really don't want users to write e.g. luafunc = lua["math"]["abs"] and then later try to call it, because it won't work at all. Not without starting to play with lua_ref & lua_unref and start fighting with same issues that LuaD has.
Is there any kind of opAccess operator overloading, that is, overloading what happens when object is used as rvalue? That is, expression "a = b" -> "a.opAssign(b.opAccess)"? opCast does not work, it is called only with explicit casts.
Any other suggestions? I internally feel that I am looking solution from wrong direction. I feel that the problem reside in the realm of metaprogramming: I am trying to "scope" things at expression level, which I feel is not that suitable for classes and objects.
So far, I have tried to preserve the LuaD look'n'feel at interface user's side, but I think that if I could change the interface to something like following, I could get it working:
lua.call(["math", "abs"], 1); // call lua.math.abs(2)
lua.get(["table", "x", "y", "z"], 2); // lua table.x.y.z = 2
...
Syntactically that would ensure that reference to lua object fetched by indexing is finally used for something in the expression, and the stack would be cleaned.
UPDATE: Like said, changing Lua.Ref to struct solved problems related to dereferencing, and I am again using reference mechanism similar to LuaD. I personally feel that this mechanism suits the LuaD-style syntax I am using, too, and it can be quite a challenge to make the syntax working correctly with other mechanisms. I am still open to hear if someone has ideas to make it work.
The system I sketched to replace references (to tackle the problem with objects holding references living longer than lua sandbox) would probably need different kind of interface, something similar I sketched above.
You also have an issue when people do
auto math_abs = lua["math"]["abs"];
math_abs.call(1);
math_abs.call(3);
This will double pop.
Make Top a struct that holds the stack index of what they are referencing. That way you can use its known scoping and destruction behavior to your advantage. Make sure you handle this(this) correctly as well.
Only pop in the destructor when the value is the actual top value. You can use a bitset in LuaInterface to track which stack positions are in use and put the values in it using lua_replace if you are worried about excessive stack use.
I have UI XCTestCases (XCUITests) that perform some gestures. Our performance tests need to be able to call startMeasuring and stopMeasuring depending on the state of the app.
We have methods in our app code that return a BOOL value depending on whether it has completed rendering everything and I need to read that value.
How can I call those methods in our app?
Short version: You shouldn't, but I guess you could try signal passing.
Longer version: A major (though perhaps philosophical) point of UI Tests is that they only evaluate that which is passed to the user, or at least to the user-visible View / Accessibility Hierarchies. Using signal passing or some other method to side-channel information is not supported and is against the aesthetic of the test framework.
Instead, you could evaluate whether or not everything has finished rendering by waiting for a .Hittable predicate on the particular UI elements; or if you have elements that only become interactable once the page has finished loading (a common pattern) you could wait for those to change state.
There are a number of different ways to go about this, but the "right" answer is to find some way that's user-visible that you can evaluate.
... alternatively, have a non-visible UI element in the View Hierarchy that changes state based on the Boolean in question, if you want something that just works and don't care about philosophy.
I have a control derived from TStringGrid.
During creation I want to access the Cancas to do some one time initializing.
I can't do it in Create because the Canvas is not ready yet. I also can't do it in CreateWnd because CreateWnd it is called multiple times.
There are some cheap tricks (use a Boolean variable) to initialize that var only once but I would like to know how to do it the 'nice way'.
So, since Create and CreateWnd is not a good place, where during the creation of a control can I initialize the var ONLY once.
The simple answer is that you should not cache this value. Calculate the value on demand, when you need it.
Caching is something that you should avoid doing. The problem with caching is that you have to make sure that you never work with a stale value. You need to respond to anything that might result in a change in the value and update your cached value.
It's easy to get that updating logic wrong. Even if you get it right, you've just added a whole load of complexity to your code. And you always want to avoid that if possible. In the case of a physical font metric, they are cheap to obtain in comparison with what you use them for. Invariably you will be using the font metric as part of your painting code. And surely that is many orders of magnitude more expensive than obtaining a font metric.
So, you can make all your problems go away by the very simple expedient of not caching, and obtaining the font metric as and when you need it. By all means wrap it up in a property with a getter method to make the code as clean as possible.
To get tracing output from Saxon-B, you call something like:
processor.getUnderlyingConfiguration().setTraceListener(new XSLTTraceListener());
My question is, how dynamic is that? Once I've created an executable, does it capture this somehow, or can I change the listener on the fly and have it take effect?
You shouldn't really set the TraceListener on the Configuration, since it doesn't really make sense to use the same one for different transformations. Better to set it on the Controller. If you do that, then I suspect you can switch it at any time - but at your own risk, for example you won't get paired open() and close() calls.
I'm reading from a byte stream that contains a series of variable length descriptors which I'm representing as various structs/classes in my code. Each descriptor has a fixed length header in common with all the other descriptors, which are used to identify its type.
Is there an appropriate model or pattern I can use to best parse and represent each descriptor, and then perform an appropriate action depending on it's type?
I've written lots of these types of parser.
I recommend that you read the fixed length header, and then dispatch to the correct constructor to your structures using a simple switch-case, passing the fixed header and stream to that constructor so that it can consume the variable part of the stream.
This is a common problem in file parsing. Commonly, you read the known part of the descriptor (which luckily is fixed-length in this case, but isn't always), and branch it there. Generally I use a strategy pattern here, since I generally expect the system to be broadly flexible - but a straight switch or factory may work as well.
The other question is: do you control and trust the downstream code? Meaning: the factory / strategy implementation? If you do, then you can just give them the stream and the number of bytes you expect them to consume (perhaps putting some debug assertions in place, to verify that they do read exactly the right amount).
If you can't trust the factory/strategy implementation (perhaps you allow the user-code to use custom deserializers), then I would construct a wrapper on top of the stream (example: SubStream from protobuf-net), that only allows the expected number of bytes to be consumed (reporting EOF afterwards), and doesn't allow seek/etc operations outside of this block. I would also have runtime checks (even in release builds) that enough data has been consumed - but in this case I would probably just read past any unread data - i.e. if we expected the downstream code to consume 20 bytes, but it only read 12, then skip the next 8 and read our next descriptor.
To expand on that; one strategy design here might have something like:
interface ISerializer {
object Deserialize(Stream source, int bytes);
void Serialize(Stream destination, object value);
}
You might build a dictionary (or just a list if the number is small) of such serializers per expected markers, and resolve your serializer, then invoke the Deserialize method. If you don't recognise the marker, then (one of):
skip the given number of bytes
throw an error
store the extra bytes in a buffer somewhere (allowing for round-trip of unexpected data)
As a side-note to the above - this approach (strategy) is useful if the system is determined at runtime, either via reflection or via a runtime DSL (etc). If the system is entirely predictable at compile-time (because it doesn't change, or because you are using code-generation), then a straight switch approach may be more appropriate - and you probably don't need any extra interfaces, since you can inject the appropriate code directly.
One key thing to remember, if you're reading from the stream and do not detect a valid header/message, throw away only the first byte before trying again. Many times I've seen a whole packet or message get thrown away instead, which can result in valid data being lost.
This sounds like it might be a job for the Factory Method or perhaps Abstract Factory. Based on the header you choose which factory method to call, and that returns an object of the relevant type.
Whether this is better than simply adding constructors to a switch statement depends on the complexity and the uniformity of the objects you're creating.
I would suggest:
fifo = Fifo.new
while(fd is readable) {
read everything off the fd and stick it into fifo
if (the front of the fifo is has a valid header and
the fifo is big enough for payload) {
dispatch constructor, remove bytes from fifo
}
}
With this method:
you can do some error checking for bad payloads, and potentially throw bad data away
data is not waiting on the fd's read buffer (can be an issue for large payloads)
If you'd like it to be nice OO, you can use the visitor pattern in an object hierarchy. How I've done it was like this (for identifying packets captured off the network, pretty much the same thing you might need):
huge object hierarchy, with one parent class
each class has a static contructor that registers with its parent, so the parent knows about its direct children (this was c++, I think this step is not needed in languages with good reflection support)
each class had a static constructor method that got the remaining part of the bytestream and based on that, it decided if it is his responsibility to handle that data or not
When a packet came in, I've simply passed it to static constructor method of the main parent class (called Packet), which in turn checked all of its children if it's their responsibility to handle that packet, and this went recursively, until one class at the bottom of the hierarchy returned the instantiated class back.
Each of the static "constructor" methods cut its own header from the bytestream and passed down only the payload to its children.
The upside of this approach is that you can add new types anywhere in the object hierarchy WITHOUT needing to see/change ANY other class. It worked remarkably nice and well for packets; it went like this:
Packet
EthernetPacket
IPPacket
UDPPacket, TCPPacket, ICMPPacket
...
I hope you can see the idea.