I'm building an app in SwiftUI, based on the MVVM design pattern. What I'm doing is this:
struct AddInvestment: View {
#ObservedObject private var model = AddInvestmentVM()
#State private var action: AssetAction?
#State private var description: String = ""
#State private var amount: String = ""
#State private var costPerShare: String = ""
#State private var searchText: String = ""
#State var asset: Asset?
var body: some View {
NavigationView {
VStack {
Form {
Section("Asset") {
NavigationLink(model.chosenAsset?.completeName ?? "Scegli asset") {
AssetsSearchView()
}
}
Section {
Picker(action?.name ?? "", selection: $action) {
ForEach(model.assetsActions) { action in
Text(action.name).tag(action as? AssetAction)
}
}
.pickerStyle(.segmented)
.listRowBackground(Color.clear)
}
Section {
TextField("", text: $amount, prompt: Text("Unità"))
.keyboardType(UIKit.UIKeyboardType.decimalPad)
TextField("", text: $costPerShare, prompt: Text("Prezzo per unità"))
.keyboardType(UIKit.UIKeyboardType.decimalPad)
}
}
}
.navigationTitle("Aggiungi Investimento")
}
.environmentObject(model)
.onAppear {
model.fetchBaseData()
}
}
}
Then I have my ViewModel, this:
class AddInvestmentVM: ObservableObject {
private let airtableApiKey = "..."
private let airtableBaseID = "..."
private let assetsTableName = "..."
private let assetsActionsTableName = "..."
private let airtable = Airtable.init("...")
private var tasks = [AnyCancellable]()
#Published var chosenAsset: Asset?
#Published var assets = [Asset]()
#Published var assetsActions = [AssetAction]()
init() { }
func fetchBaseData() {
print("Fetching data...")
let assetActionsRequest = AirtableRequest.init(baseID: airtableBaseID, tableName: assetsActionsTableName, view: nil)
let assetsActionsPublisher: AnyPublisher<[AssetAction], AirtableError> = airtable.fetchRecords(request: assetActionsRequest)
assetsActionsPublisher
.eraseToAnyPublisher()
.sink { completion in
print("** **")
print(completion)
} receiveValue: { assetsActions in
print("** **")
print(assetsActions)
self.assetsActions = assetsActions
}
.store(in: &tasks)
}
}
Now, as you can see I have some properties on the view that are binded to some text fields. Let's take these in consideration:
#State private var description: String = ""
#State private var amount: String = ""
#State private var costPerShare: String = ""
#State private var searchText: String = ""
Keeping in mind the MVVM pattern, should these properties be declared in the ViewModel and binded from there? Or is this a right approach?
Instead of giving you a concrete answer which concrete variable you might move to the view model, I would like to give you a more general answer, which might also help you in the decision of other use cases, and eventually should help to answer your question yourself ;)
A View Model publishes the binding (I am not talking about a #Binding here!), which completely and unambiguously describes what a view shall render. The how it actually looks like may be still part of the view.
Tip: define a struct which contains all the variables constituting the binding, then publish this struct in your view model. You may name this binding ViewState.
If we take this strict, it means in other words, that for each possible value of the binding, there is one and only one visual representation of the view.
However, in practice, it is favourable to relax this a bit, otherwise you would have to specify and handle even the scrolling position of a scroll view, too. How far you go with this may depend on the complexity of your view and the whole scenario. But the rule, that the binding is the definitive source of truth for the view and determines what it is rendering should not be violated.
Generally, in a scenario where your model is not mutable (i.e. there are no user actions which alter the model), you very rarely would use #State variables in a SwiftUI view, since there is nothing which is variable.
Even when it happens that the elements in the list change or the order or the number of elements change, the list view always receives a constant array of elements whose elements are also not mutable by the user. Thus, you use a let elements: [Element] in your SwiftUI view.
On the other hand, your view model may use a model which publishes a value of [Element] and the view model observes it, and then mutates the binding accordingly.
Another principle of MVVM is (actually any MV* pattern) that your view does not perform logic on its own and it never ever changes the binding.
Instead, your view signals the user's "intent" via call backs (aka actions, events, intents) which eventually will reach the view model and then handled there, which in turn may eventually affect the binding.
Strictly, that would mean, if you have a scenario where a user can edit a string, and IFF you use a binding for this string, the string cannot be mutated by editing of the user. Instead, each editing command will be send to the view model, the view model then handles the changes, and sends back the mutated binding which eventually will reflect the user's changes.
Also, in practice there might be more favourable solutions: a view might use its own "edit buffer" for the string, using a #State variable. This string gets mutated "internally" within the view when the user edits the text. The model only gets informed when the user "commits" the changes, or when the user taps the "back" or "done" button. This approach is favourable when the "editing" itself is simple and no complex validation is required during editing, or when there is no need to trigger side effects (like updating a suggestion list in a search bar). Otherwise, you would route the editing through the view model.
Again in practice, you decide how far you go with a view that has "it's own behaviour". It depends on the use case and what is favourable in terms of avoiding unnecessary complex solutions which don't make the solution any better through being too strict to the pattern.
Conclusion:
In MVVM, you use #State variables in Views only iff your View adds a behaviour which does not strictly need to be monitored by the View Model and does not violate the rule that the Binding is the definitive source of truth from the perspective of the view and that the View Model still is the authority for the performed logic.
I tend to think of the View as being the definition of the human interface of an app for a device or set of devices (iPhone, iPad, Mac, etc). I tend to think of the Model as the place where the applications logic goes that is not part of any View (business logic, data manipulation, network manipulation, etc). I think of the ViewModel as being the place where any logic exits that the View needs to make the View work, such as formatting data for display on the View. I think you are looking for where the single source of truth lives for a data element needed by the View. To my thinking it should only live in the ViewModel if and only if it is specific to the View. Any logic or data that is about the application should live in the Model, not the ViewModel. By doing this I make my Model more reusable, more independent of the View. There are always borderline cases and I think about if this data or logic would need to be recreated if I built an entirely separate second View, say one that worked with a Browser via HTML/JavaScript/Etc. If I would have to recreate that data or logic with a new View layer, then I think the data or logic belongs in the Model. If the data or logic is specific to this View layer, then I would put it in the ViewModel for that View.
Using the above thinking your AddInvestment class looks like something I would put in the Model, not the ViewModel. Of course, it is all a matter of taste and I do not think there is any one right answer here, but that is how I think I would slice and dice it in my own apps.
Related
Here's what I want to do:
Have a SwiftUI view which changes a local State variable
On a button tap, pass that variable to some other part of my application
However, for some reason, even though I update the state variable, it doesn't get updated when it's passed to the next view.
Here's some sample code which shows the problem:
struct NumberView: View {
#State var number: Int = 1
#State private var showNumber = false
var body: some View {
NavigationStack {
VStack(spacing: 40) {
// Text("\(number)")
Button {
number = 99
print(number)
} label: {
Text("Change Number")
}
Button {
showNumber = true
} label: {
Text("Show Number")
}
}
.fullScreenCover(isPresented: $showNumber) {
SomeView(number: number)
}
}
}
}
struct SomeView: View {
let number: Int
var body: some View {
Text("\(number)")
}
}
If you tap on "Change Number", it updates the local state to 99. But when I create another view and pass this as a parameter, it shows 1 instead of 99. What's going on?
Some things to note:
If you uncomment Text("\(number)"), it works. But this shouldn't be necessary IMO.
It also works if you make SomeView use a binding. But for my app, this won't work. My actual use case is a 'select game options' view. Then, I will create a non-SwiftUI game view and I want to pass in these options as parameters. So, I can't have bindings all the way down my gaming code just because of this bug. I want to just capture what the user enters and create a Parameters object with that data.
It also works if you make it a navigationDestination instead of a fullScreenCover. ¯\(ツ)/¯ no idea on that one...
A View is a struct, therefore its properties are immutable, so the view can not change its own properties. This is why changing the property named number from inside the body of the view needs this property to be annotated with a #State property wrapper. Thanks to Swift and SwiftUI, transparent read and write callbacks let the value being seen changed. So you must not pass number as a parameter of SomeView() when calling fullScreenCover(), but pass a reference to number, for the callbacks to be systematically called: $number. Since you are not passing an integer anymore to construct struct SomeView, the type of the property named number in this struct can not any longer be an integer, but must be a reference to an integer (namely a binding): use the #Binding annotation for this.
So, replace SomeView(number: number) by SomeView(number: $number) and let number: Int by #Binding var number: Int to do the job.
Here is the correct source code:
import SwiftUI
struct NumberView: View {
#State var number: Int = 1
#State private var showNumber = false
var body: some View {
NavigationStack {
VStack(spacing: 40) {
// Text("\(number)")
Button {
number = 99
print(number)
} label: {
Text("Change Number")
}
Button {
showNumber = true
} label: {
Text("Show Number")
}
}
.fullScreenCover(isPresented: $showNumber) {
SomeView(number: $number)
}
}
}
}
struct SomeView: View {
#Binding var number: Int
var body: some View {
Text("\(number)")
}
}
After all that said to obtain a valid source code, their is a little trick that has not been explained up to now: if you simply replace in your source code Text("Change Number") by Text("Change Number \(number)"), without using $ reference nor #Binding keywords anywhere, you will see that the problem is also automatically solved! No need to use #binding in SomeView! This is because SwiftUI makes optimizations when building a tree of views. If it knows that the displayed view changed (not only its properties), it will compute the view with updated #State values. Adding number to the button label makes SwiftUI track changes of the number state property and it now updates its cached value to display the Text button label, therefore this new value will be correctly used to create SomeView. All of that may be considered as strange things, but is simply due to optimizations in SwiftUI. Apple does not fully explain how it implements optimizations building a tree of views, there are some informations given during WWDC events but the source code is not open. Therefore, you need to strictly follow the design pattern based on #State and #Binding to be sure that the whole thing works like it should.
All of that said again, one could argue that Apple says that you do not have to use #Binding to pass a value to a child view if this child view only wants to access the value: share the state with any child views that also need access, either directly for read-only access, or as a binding for read-write access (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swiftui/state). This is right, but Apple says in the same article that you need to place [state] in the highest view in the view hierarchy that needs access to the value. With Apple, needing to access a value means that you need it to display the view, not only to do other computations that have no impact on the screen. This is this interpretation that lets Apple optimize the computation of the state property when it needs to update NumberView, for instance when computing the content of the Text("Change Number \(number)") line. You could find it really tricky. But there is a way to understand that: take the initial code you wrote, remove the #State in front of var number: Int = 1. To compile it, you need to move this line from inside the struct to outside, for instance at the very first line of your source file, just after the import declaration. And you will see that it works! This is because you do not need this value to display NumberView. And thus, it is perfectly legal to put the value higher, to build the view named SomeView. Be careful, here you do not want to update SomeView, so there is no border effects. But it would not work if you had to update SomeView.
Here is the code for this last trick:
import SwiftUI
// number is declared outside the views!
var number: Int = 1
struct NumberView: View {
// no more state variable named number!
// No more modification: the following code is exactly yours!
#State private var showNumber = false
var body: some View {
NavigationStack {
VStack(spacing: 40) {
// Text("\(number)")
Button {
number = 99
print(number)
} label: {
Text("Change Number")
}
Button {
showNumber = true
} label: {
Text("Show Number")
}
}
.fullScreenCover(isPresented: $showNumber) {
SomeView(number: number)
}
}
}
}
struct SomeView: View {
let number: Int
var body: some View {
Text("\(number)")
}
}
This is why you should definitely follow the #State and #Binding design pattern, taking into account that if you declare a state in a view that does not use it to display its content, you should declare this state as a #Binding in child views even if those children do not need to make changes to this state. The best way to use #State is to declare it in the highest view that needs it to display something: never forget that #State must be declared in the view that owns this variable; creating a view that owns a variable but that does not have to use it to display its content is an anti-pattern.
Since number isn't read in body, SwiftUI's dependency tracking detect it. You can give it a nudge like this:
.fullScreenCover(isPresented: $showNumber) { [number] in
Now a new closure will be created with the updated number value whenever number changes. Fyi the [number] in syntax is called a "capture list", read about it here.
Nathan Tannar gave me this explanation via another channel which I think gets to the crux of my problem. It does seem that this is a SwiftUI weirdness caused by knowing when and how it updates views based on state. Thanks Nathan!
It’s because the number isn’t “read” in the body of the view. SwiftUI is smart in that it only triggers view updates when a dependency of the view changes. Why this causes issues with the fullScreenCover modifier is because it captures an #escaping closure for the body. Which means it’s not read until the cover is presented. Since its not read the view body will not be re-evaluated when the #State changes, you can validate this by setting a breakpoint in the view body. Because the view body is not re-evaluated, the #escaping closure is never re-captured and thus it will hold a copy of the original value.
As a side note, you’ll find that once you present the cover for the first time and then dismiss, subsequent presentations will update correctly.
Arguably this seems like a SwiftUI bug, the fullScreenCover probably shouldn’t be #escaping. You can workaround by reading the number within the body, or wrapping the modifier with something like this, since here destination is not #escaping captured so the number will be read in the views body evaluation.
struct FullScreenModifier<Destination: View>: ViewModifier {
#Binding var isPresented: Bool
#ViewBuilder var destination: Destination
func body(content: Content) -> some View {
content
.fullScreenCover(isPresented: $isPresented) {
destination
}
}
}
I attached an image. Please see it.
As far as I know the "View" is only view. It's not controller.
So Im developing like Way 1.
But I faced a problem that how can I use observableobject in another observableobject?
I thought if I pass a parameter with the observableobject the problem will be clean.
But I think it is bad way..
So I thought way 2.
But the way is the "View" is not only view. It is view and controller.
So Im confused the way2 is bad way or not.
Which way is good way? and Im wondering other SwiftUI developers how to develop about this case.
Please advice me if you think there is better way than way1 & way2.
Summary
Q1. Way1 - How can I use observableobject in another observableobject? (singltone? like static shared)
Q2. Way2 - Is it correct way? (View = view + controller)
Q3. Your advice.
Env
Xcode 14.2
Swift 5.7.2
Here is the sample code for your question:
struct MainView: View {
#StateObject var mainVM = MainViewModel()
#ObservedObject var discoveryVM:DiscoveryViewModel
var body: some View {
ZStack {
ScrollView {
// if data changed in DiscoveryViewModel view will automatically upadte
ForEach(discoveryVM.showProfiles, id: \.self) { profile in
MyView(profile: Profile)
}
}
}
.onReceive(discoveryVM.$toggle) { status in
// change something in MainViewModel when toggle in DiscoveryViewModel
mainVM.toggle = status // change variable(rearly used)
mainVM.doSomething() // call fucntions
}
}
}
class MainViewModel: ObservableObject {
#Published var toggle: Bool = false
func doSomething() {
print("Do something")
}
}
class DiscoveryViewModel: ObservableObject {
#Published var data: [ProfileModel] = []
#Published var toggle: Bool = false
}
ObservableObjects are mostly used where there is nesting of views
SwiftUI is a new architecture, old design patterns don't really fit. In SwiftUI the View struct isn't the view in the MVC sense, that view layer (e.g. UIView/NSView objects) is generated automatically for us based diffing the View structs which are super fast efficient value types. View state is held in property wrappers like #State which essentially makes the value behave like an object, e.g. it has a "memory". You can pass this down to sub-Views as let for read access or #Binding var for write access, SwiftUI will track dependencies and call body on the affected View structs when necessary.
Normally in SwiftUI we only have a single ObservableObject that holds the model structs in #Published properties. Usually there are 2 singletons, one shared that loads from disk and another preview pre-loaded with test data for driving SwiftUI previews. This object is shared across View structs using .environmentObject
If you attempt to use multiple ObservableObject for view data instead of #State you'll run into major problems, actually the kind of consistency problems that SwiftUI's use of value types was designed to eliminate.
While experiments with the new NavigationStack in SwiftUI 4, I find that when state changes, the destination view returned by navigationDestination() doesn't get updated. See code below.
struct ContentView: View {
#State var data: [Int: String] = [
1: "One",
2: "Two",
3: "Three",
4: "Four"
]
var body: some View {
NavigationStack {
List {
ForEach(Array(data.keys).sorted(), id: \.self) { key in
NavigationLink("\(key)", value: key)
}
}
.navigationDestination(for: Int.self) { key in
if let value = data[key] {
VStack {
Text("This is \(value)").padding()
Button("Modify It") {
data[key] = "X"
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Steps to reproduce the issue:
Run the code and click on the first item in the list. That would bring you to the detail view of that item.
The detail view shows the value of the item. It also has a button to modify the value. Click on that button. You'll observe that the value in the detail view doesn't change.
I debugged the issue by setting breakpoints at different place. My observations:
When I clicked the button, the code in List get executed. That's as expected.
But the closure passed to navigationDestination() doesn't get executed, which explains why the detail view doesn't get updated.
Does anyone know if this is a bug or expected behavior? If it's not a bug, how can I program to get the value in detail view updated?
BTW, if I go back to root view and click on the first item to go to its detail view again, the closure passed to navigationDestination() get executed and the detail view shows the modified value correctly.
#NoeOnJupiter's solution and #Asperi's comment are very helpful. But as you see in my comments above, there were a few details I wasn't sure about. Below is a summary of my final understanding, which hopefully clarifies the confusion.
navigationDestination() takes a closure parameter. That closure captures an immutable copy of self.
BTW, SwiftUI takes advantage of property wrapper to make it possible to "modify" an immutable value, but we won't discuss the details here.
Take my above code as an example, due to the use of #State wrapper, different versions of ContentView (that is, the self captured in the closure) share the same data value.
The key point here is I think the closure actually has access to the up-to-date data value.
When an user clicks on the "Modify it" button, the data state changes, which causes body re-evaluted. Since navigationDestination() is a function in body, it get called too. But a modifier function is just shortcut to modifier(SomeModifier()). The actual work of a Modifier is in its body. Just because a modifier function is called doesn't necessarilly means the corresponding Modifier's body gets called. The latter is a mystery (an implementation detail that Apple don't disclose and is hard to guess). See this post for example (the author is a high reputation user in Apple Developer Forum):
In my opinion, it definitely is a bug, but not sure if Apple will fix it soon.
One workaround, pass a Binding instead of a value of #State variables.
BTW, I have a hypothesis on this. Maybe this is based on a similar approach as how SwiftUI determines if it recalls a child view's body? My guess is that it might be a design, instead of a bug. For some reason (performance?) the SwiftUI team decided to cache the view returned by navigationDestination() until the NavigationStack is re-constructed. As a user I find this behavior is confusing, but it's not the only example of the inconsistent behaviors in SwiftUI.
So, unlike what I had thought, this is not an issue with closure, but one with how modifier works. Fortunately there is a well known and robust workaround, as suggested by #NoeOnJupiter and #Asperi.
Update: an alternative solution is to use EnvironmentObject to cause the placeholder view's body get re-called whenever data model changes. I ended up using this approach and it's reliable. The binding approach worked in my simple experiments but didn't work in my app (the placeholder view's body didn't get re-called when data model changed. I spent more than one day on this but unfortunately I can't find any way to debug it when binding stopped working mysteriously).
The button is correctly changing the value. By default navigationDestination does't create a Binding relation between the parent & child making the passed values immutable.
So you should create a separate struct for the child in order to achieve Bindable behavior:
struct ContentView: View {
#State var data: [Int: String] = [
1: "One",
2: "Two",
3: "Three",
4: "Four"
]
var body: some View {
NavigationStack {
List {
ForEach(Array(data.keys).sorted(), id: \.self) { key in
NavigationLink("\(key)", value: key)
}
}
.navigationDestination(for: Int.self) { key in
SubContentView(key: key, data: $data)
}
}
}
}
struct SubContentView: View {
let key: Int
#Binding var data: [Int: String]
var body: some View {
if let value = data[key] {
VStack {
Text("This is \(value)").padding()
Button("Modify It") {
data[key] = "X"
}
}
}
}
}
I am trying to implement a design pattern like MVC in order to achieve low coupling between different parts of the code. There are few materials online that I personally didn't find helpful in relation to IOS or swift UI development and MVC pattern.
What I am trying to understand is how should the controller class control or render the UI in Swift UI ?
Following the MVC pattern for example - the View shouldn't know about how the model looks like, so sending an object back from the Data Base to the view in order to visually present it wouldn't be a good Idea..
Say we have the following View and Controller, how should I go about the interaction between the controller and view when sending the data back from the DB in order to visually present it in the view ?
View:
import SwiftUI
import Foundation
struct SwiftUIView: View {
var assignmentController = AssignmentController()
#State var assignmentName : String = ""
#State var notes : String = ""
var body: some View {
NavigationView {
VStack {
Form {
TextField("Assignment Name", text: $assignmentName)
TextField("Notes", text: $notes)
}
Button(action: {
self.assignmentController.retrieveFirstAssignment()
}) {
Text("Get The First Assignment !")
}
}
.navigationBarTitle("First Assignment")
}
}
}
Controller
var assignmentModel = AssignmentModel()
func retrieveFirstAssignment()
{
var firstAssignment : Assignment
firstAssignment=assignmentModel.retrieveFirstAssignment()
}
For now, it does nothing with the object it found.
Model
An object in the model composed of two String fields : "assignmentName" and "notes".
*We assume the assignment Model have a working function that retrieves one task from the DB in order to present it in the view.
struct SwiftUIView: View {
#State m = AssignmentModel()
var body: some View {
// use m
}
func loadAssignmentFromDB() {
m.retrieveFirstAssignment()
}
}
This is what I called "enhanced MVC with built-in MVVM".
It satisfies your pursuit of MVC and possibly MVVM, at the same time, with much less effort.
Now I'll argue why:
function, or more specifically, mutation is Control. you don't need an object called "Controller" to have C in MVC. Otherwise we might as well stick to UIKit for 10 more years.
this makes sense when your model is value type. nothing can mutate it without your specific say-so, e.g.; #State annotation. since the only way to mutate model is via these designated endpoints, your Control takes effect only in the function that mutates these endpoints.
Quoting from another reply:
It is true that SwiftUI is a much closer match with MVVM than with MVC. However, almost all example code in the Apple documentation is so simple the ViewModel (and/or Controller in MVC) is left out completely. Once you start creating bigger projects the need for something to bridge your Views and Models arises. However, IMO, the SwiftUI documentation does not (yet) fully address this in a satisfying way.
SwiftUI, if anything, enhances MVC. What is the purpose of having ViewModel?
a.) to have model view binding, which is present in my code snippet above.
b.) to manage states associated with object. if #State does not give you the impression that it is for you to manage state, then i don't know what will. it's funny how many MVVM devs are just blind to this. Just as you don't need View Controller for Control, you don't need ViewModel for VM. Design pattern is a #State of mind. Not about specific naming and rigid structure.
c.) say i'm open to MVVM without being based. which code snippet do you think have more chance in scaling to larger projects? my compact one or that suggested in another reply?
hint: think how many extra files, view models, observableobjects, glue codes, pass-around-vm-as-parameters, init function to accept vm as parameters, you are going to have. and these are just for you to write some of the code in another object. it says nothing about reducing or simplifying the task at hand. hell it does even tell you how to refactor your control codes, so you are most likely to just repeat whatever you did wrong in MVC all over again. did i mention ViewModel is a shared, reference type object with implicit state managements? so what's the point of having a value type model when you are just going to override it with a reference type model?
it's funny how MVVM devs say SwiftUI in its base form is not scalable to larger projects. keeping things simple is the only way to scale.
This is what I observed as the roadmap of dev progression in 2020.
Day1: beginner
Day2: google some, drop MVC
Day3: google some more, SwiftUI not scalable
Day4: OK, I need MVVM+RxSwift+Coordinator+Router+DependencyInjection to avoid SDK short-comings.
My suggestion, due to this seems like a common beginner question, is to learn to walk before you run.
I've personally seen RxSwift developers move controller code to view so that controller appears "clean", and need 3 third-party libraries (one is a custom fork) to send a http GET.
Design pattern means nothing if you can't get simple things simple.
To me this is a very good question. It is true that SwiftUI is a much closer match with MVVM than with MVC. However, almost all example code in the Apple documentation is so simple the ViewModel (and/or Controller in MVC) is left out completely. Once you start creating bigger projects the need for something to bridge your Views and Models arises. However, IMO, the SwiftUI documentation does not (yet) fully address this in a satisfying way. I would love other developers to correct me or expand on this (I'm still learning), but here's what I found out so far:
For managing updating your views in non-example project you almost always want to use ObservableObject/ObservedObject.
Views should only observe an object if they need to be updated if it changes. It is better if you can delegate the updates to a child view.
It may be tempting to create a large ObservableObject and add #Published for all of its properties. However, this means that a view that observes that object gets updated (sometimes visibly) even if a property changes on which the view does not even depend.
Binding is the most natural interface for Views that represent controls that can modify data. Beware that a Binding does NOT trigger updating views. Updating the view should be managed either #State or #ObservedObject (this can done by the parent view of the control).
Constants are the natural interface for Views that only display data (and not modify it).
Here is how I would apply this to your example:
import SwiftUI
//
// Helper class for observing value types
//
class ObservableValue<Value: Hashable>: ObservableObject {
#Published var value: Value
init(initialValue: Value) {
value = initialValue
}
}
//
// Model
//
struct Assignment {
let name : String
let notes: String
}
//
// ViewModel?
//
// Usually a view model transforms data so it is usable by the view. Strings are already
// usable in our components. The only change here is to wrap the strings in an
// ObservableValue so views can listen for changes to the individual properties.
//
// Note: In Swift you often see transformations of the data implemented as extensions to
// the model rather than in a separate ViewModel.
class AssignmentModelView {
var name : ObservableValue<String>
var notes: ObservableValue<String>
init(assignment: Assignment) {
name = ObservableValue<String>(initialValue: assignment.name)
notes = ObservableValue<String>(initialValue: assignment.notes)
}
var assignment: Assignment {
Assignment(name: name.value, notes: notes.value)
}
}
//
// Controller
//
// Publish the first assignment so Views depending on it can update whenever we change
// the first assignment (**not** update its properties)
class AssignmentController: ObservableObject {
#Published var firstAssignment: AssignmentModelView?
func retrieveFirstAssignment() {
let assignment = Assignment(name: "My First Assignment", notes: "Everyone has to start somewhere...")
firstAssignment = AssignmentModelView(assignment: assignment)
}
}
struct ContentView: View {
// In a real app you should use dependency injection here
// (i.e. provide the assignmentController as a parameter)
#ObservedObject var assignmentController = AssignmentController()
var body: some View {
NavigationView {
VStack {
// I prefer to use `map` instead of conditional views, since it
// eliminates the need for forced unwrapping
self.assignmentController.firstAssignment.map { assignmentModelView in
Form {
ObservingTextField(title: "Assignment Name", value: assignmentModelView.name)
ObservingTextField(title: "Notes", value: assignmentModelView.notes)
}
}
Button(action: { self.retrieveFirstAssignment() }) {
Text("Get The First Assignment !")
}
}
.navigationBarTitle("First Assignment")
}
}
func retrieveFirstAssignment() {
assignmentController.retrieveFirstAssignment()
}
}
//
// Wrapper for TextField that correctly updates whenever the value
// changes
//
struct ObservingTextField: View {
let title: String
#ObservedObject var value: ObservableValue<String>
var body: some View {
TextField(title, text: $value.value)
}
}
struct ContentView_Previews: PreviewProvider {
static var previews: some View {
ContentView()
}
}
This may be overkill for your app. There is a more straightforward version, but it has the
disadvantage that TextFields are updated even though their contents hasn't changed. In
this particular example I do not think that matters much. For larger projects it may
become important, not (just) for performance reasons, but updates are sometimes very
visible. For reference: here's the simpler version.
import SwiftUI
// Model
struct Assignment {
let name : String
let notes: String
}
// ViewModel
class AssignmentViewModel: ObservableObject {
#Published var name : String
#Published var notes: String
init(assignment: Assignment) {
name = assignment.name
notes = assignment.notes
}
}
// Controller
class AssignmentController: ObservableObject {
#Published var firstAssignment: AssignmentViewModel?
func retrieveFirstAssignment() {
let assignment = Assignment(name: "My First Assignment", notes: "Everyone has to start somewhere...")
firstAssignment = AssignmentViewModel(assignment: assignment)
}
}
struct ContentView: View {
// In a real app you should use dependency injection here
// (i.e. provide the assignmentController as a parameter)
#ObservedObject var assignmentController = AssignmentController()
var body: some View {
NavigationView {
VStack {
self.assignmentController.firstAssignment.map { assignmentModelView in
FirstAssignmentView(firstAssignment: assignmentModelView)
}
Button(action: { self.retrieveFirstAssignment() }) {
Text("Get The First Assignment !")
}
}
.navigationBarTitle("First Assignment")
}
}
func retrieveFirstAssignment() {
assignmentController.retrieveFirstAssignment()
}
}
struct FirstAssignmentView: View {
#ObservedObject var firstAssignment: AssignmentViewModel
var body: some View {
Form {
TextField("Assignment Name", text: $firstAssignment.name)
TextField("Notes", text: $firstAssignment.notes)
}
}
}
struct ContentView_Previews: PreviewProvider {
static var previews: some View {
ContentView()
}
}
I had the very same question and I came accross an excellent paper by Matteo Manferdini in which he describes how to use the MVC model in SwiftUI.
I used his paper to refactor a Pizza app that uses CoreData. And even though I’m still a beginner in SwiftUI it gave me a very good understanding of how to implement MVC. You can find Matteo’s paper here.
I'm quite new to FRP and decided to get started with Bond and ReactiveKit as it seemed lightweight enough to start gradually applying it to my apps and my head.
I have a setup where I have a view, which has an observable State and I have a view model with another observable property of type State. I want my view to be dull and unaware of the semantics, so I want my view model to validate the state, transform it and send back to the view.
The view contains a couple of text fields and a segmented control. When the segmented control is 0, I want only the first text field to be visible, otherwise — both fields. Whenever the user enters something or taps the segmented control, the observable state object is updated. Here is the State struct:
enum ValueType {
case text
case number
}
struct State {
var name: String?
var unit: String?
var valueType: ValueType = .text
var showsUnitTextField: Bool = true
}
Here is the best I could come up with:
View model:
override init() {
super.init()
self.bind()
}
let inputState: Observable<State> = Observable<State>(State())
var outputState: Observable<State> = Observable<State>(State())
private func bind() {
inputState.map(self.sanitizeState(_:)).bind(to: outputState)
}
private func sanitizeState(_ state: State) -> State {
var newState = state
newState.showsUnitTextField = state.valueType == .number
return newState
}
View controller:
private func bind() {
myView.reactive.state.bind(to: viewModel.inputState)
viewModel.outputState.bind(to: myView.reactive.state)
}
Basically I'm having two observables, one receives the updates and the other one sends the transformed value back to the view. This solutions seems to introduce a heavy boilerplate and I'm looking for a better one. Does anyone have any idea?
P.S. Other scenarios where this could come handy is when I want to have some constraints on the user input (only letters or only digits), or maybe I want to format the input in a fancy way.