I'd like to create a function that performs multiple background operations but the caller should not be aware of its asynchronous nature. So when a caller calls that function it should block the caller's thread and continue after it finishes all the tasks.
Ideally, the function should be called by just invoking its name (say blockingFunction()).
How do I achieve that?
(The main thread isn't a concern here)
We will posit the following test method:
func test() {
print("start")
self.doYourThing()
print("finish")
}
That function is internally synchronous: it proceeds one line at a time from start to finish.
We also have an asynchronous method using an old-fashioned completion handler:
func behaveAsynchronously(completion: #escaping () -> ()) {
DispatchQueue.global().asyncAfter(deadline: .now()+10) {
completion()
}
}
We will consider the problem solved if doYourThing somehow calls behaveAsynchronously and yet "finish" prints 10 seconds after "start". Ready? Here we go:
func doYourThing() {
let group = DispatchGroup()
group.enter()
self.behaveAsynchronously {
group.leave()
}
group.wait()
}
QED.
Note that we are blocking the main thread for 10 seconds, which is illegal; if you did that in real life, you'd crash. Also, there must be multiple threads in the story, or we would be attempting to wait on the same thread we are delayed on and a deadlock results.
Related
I have a thread setup where I call a setup() function:
let queue = DispatchQueue(label: "my-queue", qos: .utility)
queue.async {
self.setup {
}
}
If the .async block is triggered multiple times, I want the setup() function to be called either:
multiple times, just not at the same time.
or
one time, with previously unfinished calls being cancelled, and only the last call of the function returning.
Either is acceptable in my case.
Is there a swifty way to accomplish this or is the only solution RxSwift?
I have implemented following completion block, one block is completed and then I update UI and object accordingly.
func doPaging() {
fetchProducts(page: pageNumber , completion: { success in
if let products = success as? Products
{
DispatchQueue.main.async {
self.products.append(contentsOf:products)
self.isWating = false;
self.productTableView.reloadData()
}
}
})
}
func fetchProducts(page: Int, completion: #escaping ((AnyObject) -> Void)) {
// URLSession call here
}
However, the following approach clearly shows restful call will happen in background thread and once it is completed, then update UI and objects.
func doPaging() {
DispatchQueue.global(qos: .background).async {
// Background Thread
fetchProducts()
DispatchQueue.main.async {
self.pageNumber += 1
self.productTableView.reloadData()
self.isWating = false
}
}
}
func fetchProducts(page: Int) {
// URLSession call here
}
I am confused between completion block method vs. DispatchQueue.
Which one is recommended?
In the first approach, you call a method fetchProducts() which internally uses NSURLSession. REST call using NSURLSession runs in background and on completion of the REST call, the completion of the task will be called. In that completion, you call your completion handler of fetchProducts(). This approach seems fine to me.
In the second approach, you use global background queue and asynchronously call NSURLSession APIs (I assume so), and don’t wait for the call to complete. The code on main queue will be instantly called and at this point the NSURLSession task may or may not have been completed.
So, this approach is problematic.
First method seems OK as long as you fetchProducts asynchronously. In fetchProducts() , if you call the completion block in the main queue you won't even need to get main queue again in the doPaging() method.
In your second method, you are calling fetchProducts() in a global (concurrent) queue. Although global queues start each task in the order they were added to queue, they run tasks concurrently. And since fechtProduct() takes time, your code block that contains self.pageNumber += 1 executed before even fetchProduct's URLSession is started. So, this approach won't work.
Completion block and Dispatch Queue are two different concepts.
Completion block is used when your function perform actions takes time to run, and need to return back and run some code even the functions has "ended". For example,
func networkCall(foo: Int, completion:#escaping (_ result:Bool)-> Void))
func otherFunc(){...}
func A(){
networkCall(foo:1){ (success) in
// handle your stuff
}
otherFunc()
}
When you run A(), it first run networkCall(), however networkCall() may takes time to run the network request and the app moved on to run otherFunc(). When the network request is done, networkCall() can call it's completion block so that A() can handle it again.
Dispatch Queue is the threading stuff safely encapsulated by Apple. Network request can be performed in Main thread as well, but it will be blocking other functions.
A common practice is to call Network request in background queue
DispatchQueue.global(qos: .background).async and call completion block after finished. If anything needs to be updated in main thread like UI, do it in the DispatchQueue.main.async
In Xcode 9 / Swift 4 using Google APIs Client Library for Objective-C for REST: why does service.executeQuery return thread completion notification before the thread completes?
I have been trying various ways but I am stuck with the following code where the notification is returned before the thread completes. See below the code, the actual output and what I would expect to see (notification comes once the thread has complete).
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks
func myFunctionTest () {
let workItem = DispatchWorkItem {
self.service.executeQuery(query,
delegate: self,
didFinish: #selector(self.displayResultWithTicket2b(ticket:finishedWithObject:error:))
)
}
let group = DispatchGroup()
group.enter()
group.notify(queue: service.callbackQueue) {
print("************************** NOTIFY MAIN THREAD *************************************")
}
service.callbackQueue.async(group: group) {
workItem.perform()
}
group.leave()
}
#objc func displayResultWithTicket2b(ticket : GTLRServiceTicket,
finishedWithObject messagesResponse : GTLRGmail_ListMessagesResponse,
error : NSError?) {
//some code to run here
print("************************** 02.displayResultWithTicket2b ***************************")
}
Output
************************** NOTIFY MAIN THREAD *************************************
************************** 02.displayResultWithTicket2b ***************************
What I would expect = Thread notification comes when thread has completed
************************** 02.displayResultWithTicket2b ***************************
************************** NOTIFY MAIN THREAD *************************************
The problem is that you're dealing with an asynchronous API and you're calling leave when you're done submitting the request. The leave() call has to be inside the completion handler or selector method of your executeQuery call. If you're going to stick with this selector based approach, you're going to have to save the dispatch group in some property and then have displayResultWithTicket2b call leave.
It would be much easier if you used the block/closure completion handler based rendition of the executeQuery API, instead of the selector-based API. Then you could just move the leave into the block/closure completion handler and you'd be done. If you use the block based implementation, not only does it eliminate the need to save the dispatch group in some property, but it probably eliminates the need for the group at all.
Also, the callback queue presumably isn't designed for you to add your own tasks. It's a queue that the library will use the for its callbacks (the queue on which completion blocks and/or delegate methods will be run). Just call executeQuery and the library takes care of running the callbacks on that queue. And no DispatchWorkItem is needed:
session.executeQuery(query) { ticket, object, error in
// do whatever you need here; this runs on the callback queue
DispatchQueue.main.async {
// when you need to update model/UI, do that on the main queue
}
}
The only time I'd use a dispatch group would be if I was performing a series of queries and needed to know when they were all done:
let group = DispatchGroup()
for query in queries {
group.enter()
session.executeQuery(query) { ticket, object, error in
defer { group.leave() }
// do whatever you need here; this runs on the callback queue
}
}
group.notify(queue: .main) {
// do something when done; this runs on the main queue
}
How can I prevent a block of code to be repeatedly accessed from the same thread?
Suppose, I have the next code:
func sendAnalytics() {
// some synchronous work
asyncTask() { _ in
completion()
}
}
I want to prevent any thread from accessing "// some synchronous work", before completion was called.
objc_sync_enter(self)
objc_sync_exit(self)
seem to only prevent accessing this code from multiple threads and don't save me from accessing this code from the single thread. Is there a way to do this correctly, without using custom solutions?
My repeatedly accessing, I mean calling this sendAnalytics from one thread multiple times. Suppose, I have a for, like this:
for i in 0...10 {
sendAnalytics()
}
Every next call won't be waiting for completion inside sendAnalytics get called (obvious). Is there a way to make the next calls wait, before completion fires? Or the whole way of thinking is wrong and I have to solve this problem higher, at the for body?
You can use a DispatchSemaphore to ensure that one call completes before the next can start
let semaphore = DispatchSemaphore(value:1)
func sendAnalytics() {
self.semaphore.wait()
// some synchronous work
asyncTask() { _ in
completion()
self.semaphore.signal()
}
}
The second call to sendAnalytics will block until the first asyncTask is complete. You should be careful not to block the main queue as that will cause your app to become non-responsive. It is probably safer to dispatch the sendAnalytics call onto its own serial dispatch queue to eliminate this risk:
let semaphore = DispatchSemaphore(value:1)
let analyticsQueue = DispatchQueue(label:"analyticsQueue")
func sendAnalytics() {
analyticsQueue.async {
self.semaphore.wait()
// some synchronous work
asyncTask() { _ in
completion()
self.semaphore.signal()
}
}
}
(Perhaps answered by How does a serial dispatch queue guarantee resource protection? but I don't understand how)
Question
How does gcd know when an asynchronous task (e.g. network task) is finished? Should I be using dispatch_retain and dispatch_release for this purpose? Update: I cannot call either of these methods with ARC... What do?
Details
I am interacting with a 3rd party library that does a lot of network access. I have created a wrapper via a small class that basically offers all the methods i need from the 3rd party class, but wraps the calls in dispatch_async(serialQueue) { () -> Void in (where serialQueue is a member of my wrapper class).
I am trying to ensure that each call to the underlying library finishes before the next begins (somehow that's not already implemented in the library).
The serialisation of work on a serial dispatch queue is at the unit of work that is directly submitted to the queue. Once execution reaches the end of the submitted closure (or it returns) then the next unit of work on the queue can be executed.
Importantly, any other asynchronous tasks that may have been started by the closure may still be running (or may not have even started running yet), but they are not considered.
For example, for the following code:
dispatch_async(serialQueue) {
print("Start")
dispatch_async(backgroundQueue) {
functionThatTakes10Seconds()
print("10 seconds later")
}
print("Done 1st")
}
dispatch_async(serialQueue) {
print("Start")
dispatch_async(backgroundQueue) {
functionThatTakes10Seconds()
print("10 seconds later")
}
print("Done 2nd")
}
The output would be something like:
Start
Done 1st
Start
Done 2nd
10 seconds later
10 seconds later
Note that the first 10 second task hasn't completed before the second serial task is dispatched. Now, compare:
dispatch_async(serialQueue) {
print("Start")
dispatch_sync(backgroundQueue) {
functionThatTakes10Seconds()
print("10 seconds later")
}
print("Done 1st")
}
dispatch_async(serialQueue) {
print("Start")
dispatch_sync(backgroundQueue) {
functionThatTakes10Seconds()
print("10 seconds later")
}
print("Done 2nd")
}
The output would be something like:
Start
10 seconds later
Done 1st
Start
10 seconds later
Done 2nd
Note that this time because the 10 second task was dispatched synchronously the serial queue was blocked and the second task didn't start until the first had completed.
In your case, there is a very good chance that the operations you are wrapping are going to dispatch asynchronous tasks themselves (since that is the nature of network operations), so a serial dispatch queue on its own is not enough.
You can use a DispatchGroup to block your serial dispatch queue.
dispatch_async(serialQueue) {
let dg = dispatch_group_create()
dispatch_group_enter(dg)
print("Start")
dispatch_async(backgroundQueue) {
functionThatTakes10Seconds()
print("10 seconds later")
dispatch_group_leave(dg)
}
dispatch_group_wait(dg)
print("Done")
}
This will output
Start
10 seconds later
Done
The dg.wait() blocks the serial queue until the number of dg.leave calls matches the number of dg.enter calls. If you use this technique then you need to be careful to ensure that all possible completion paths for your wrapped operation call dg.leave. There are also variations on dg.wait() that take a timeout parameter.
As mentioned before, DispatchGroup is a very good mechanism for that.
You can use it for synchronous tasks:
let group = DispatchGroup()
DispatchQueue.global().async(group: group) {
syncTask()
}
group.notify(queue: .main) {
// done
}
It is better to use notify than wait, as wait does block the current thread, so it is safe on non-main threads.
You can also use it to perform async tasks:
let group = DispatchGroup()
group.enter()
asyncTask {
group.leave()
}
group.notify(queue: .main) {
// done
}
Or you can even perform any number of parallel tasks of any synchronicity:
let group = DispatchGroup()
group.enter()
asyncTask1 {
group.leave()
}
group.enter() //other way of doing a task with synchronous API
DispatchQueue.global().async {
syncTask1()
group.leave()
}
group.enter()
asyncTask2 {
group.leave()
}
DispatchQueue.global().async(group: group) {
syncTask2()
}
group.notify(queue: .main) {
// runs when all tasks are done
}
It is important to note a few things.
Always check if your asynchronous functions call the completion callback, sometimes third party libraries forget about that, or cases when your self is weak and nobody bothered to check if the body got evaluated when self is nil. If you don't check it then you can potentially hang and never get the notify callback.
Remember to perform all the needed group.enter() and group.async(group: group) calls before you call the group.notify. Otherwise you can get a race condition, and the group.notify block can fire, before you actually finish your tasks.
BAD EXAMPLE
let group = DispatchGroup()
DispatchQueue.global().async {
group.enter()
syncTask1()
group.leave()
}
group.notify(queue: .main) {
// Can run before syncTask1 completes - DON'T DO THIS
}
The answer to the question in your questions body:
I am trying to ensure that each call to the underlying library finishes before the next begins
A serial queue does guarantee that the tasks are progressed in the order you add them to the queue.
I do not really understand the question in the title though:
How does a serial queue ... know when a task is complete?