I am using Dependency Inversion the functional way (ie. using closure instead of protocol/interface/pure virtual) like so:
class StatusPoller {
init(api: #escaping (String, String) -> Observable<Data>,
getAccessToken: #escaping () -> String) {
...
}
}
class HeartbeatSender {
init(api: #escaping (String, String) -> Observable<Data>,
getAccessToken: #escaping () -> String) {
...
}
}
class Api {
func pollStatus(id: String, accessToken: String) -> Observable<Data> {
...
}
func sendHeartbeat(id: String, accessToken: String) -> Observable<Data> {
...
}
}
Now this is the problem. In the dependency injection resolver (Swinject), it goes like this:
container.register(StatusPoller.self) { _ in
let api = SwinjectApi.container.resolve(Api.self)!
let authStore = SwinjectAuth.container.resolve(AuthStore.self)!
return StatusPoller(api: api.pollStatus(id:accessToken:),
getAccessToken: authStore.getAccessToken)
}
container.register(HeartbeatSender.self) { _ in
let api = SwinjectApi.container.resolve(Api.self)!
let authStore = SwinjectAuth.container.resolve(AuthStore.self)!
return StatusPoller(api: api.pollStatus(id:accessToken:),
getAccessToken: authStore.getAccessToken)
}
I accidentally used the same dependency for the API member of different classes. It, fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your POV), worked fine for almost a year now since the backend doesn't really check for the heartbeat consistency (or at all). However, there's a new feature in the last few months that required the checking of the heartbeat of the client all the time now and this caused a bug. I've fixed it after I noticed that the heartbeat is not actually being sent at all because of that mistake above.
So my question is: How do I prevent that in the future? Testing the dependency injection? But, how though? I still don't get how I can make sure that I have injected the correct dependency.
Thanks
EDIT:
To make the question more clear, it's basically the equivalent of this but in functional:
Suppose I have an interface like this:
protocol VoipHandlerInterface {
...
}
class TwilioVoipHandlerAdapter: VoipHandlerInterface {
...
}
class AsteriskVoipHandlerAdapter: VoipHandlerInterface {
...
}
class VoipManagerInteractor {
let voipHandler: VoipHandlerInterface
init(voipHandler: VoipHandlerInterface) {
self.voipHandler = voipHandler
}
}
How do I test / make sure that, for instance, I use Twilio instead of Asterisk in VoipManagerInteractor?
That's the problem with dependency injection. Your unit tests can check if the dependency is used correctly but they can't check to ensure that the correct dependency is passed in. Only integration tests can do that.
The best you can do here is create a UI Testing Bundle for your app and check some minimal functionality to ensure that the correct dependency is passed in. Try to minimize the number of integration tests you need though because they are brittle and slow.
Lastly, instead of dependency injection, attempt dependency rejection. Make your boundaries value types instead of interfaces.
Related
this is my first question and I hope you guys can help me out.
Lets assume I've written a Framework in Swift that does stuff purely with native Swift Types. This is our interface:
class Foo {
#discardableResult
public func perform(query: String) -> [String: Any]? {
return [:]
}
}
Note that our result is discardable.
I would now like to support other Libraries optionally. I know we have Codable and stuff but lets assume that I want to support SwiftyJSON optionally by creating an extension that only compiles when SwiftyJSON can be imported.
#if canImport(SwiftyJSON)
import SwiftyJSON
extension Foo {
#discardableResult
func perform(query: String) -> JSON? {
// Call internal func => cast JSON => return JSON
return JSON()
}
}
#endif
Without SwiftyJSON (can not import) this compiles:
let bar = Foo().perform(query: "")
With SwiftyJSON it does not because its ambiguous.
Return type has to be explicitly defined like:
let baz: [String: Any]? = Foo().perform(query: "")
// or
let bar: JSON? = Foo().perform(query: "")
For calls where I want the result thats fine.
BUT: Since we have a discardableResult calls like
Foo().perform(query: "")
will always be ambiguous.
The following calls work but are not very nice imho.
Foo().perform(query: "") as JSON?
Foo().perform(query: "") as [String: Any]?
What is the best way to deal with this problem? Should the method just not be overloaded and have a different name instead? Or am I overlooking something that makes the calls non ambiguous in a nice way?
Edit:
A comment suggested to remove discardableResult. I really do not wanna do that since that would lead to a lot of calls that look like this:
_ = Foo().perform(query: "")
The more I think about the problem it occurs to me that there might just not be a good solution for this..
Actually, removing #discardableResult wouldn't work, and _ = Foo().perform(query: "") wouldn't compile, it would still have the same ambiguity: it's not that the compiler is being nitpicky, but it has literally no way of knowing which of your two functions to call!
It might be interesting to think about what behavior you'd expect from this line, and why.
You seem to want to have a function based on an existing function which:
Returns a different type;
Has the same name and parameters;
Has a discardable result.
Unfortunately, it looks like it's a classic "pick any two" type of scenario…
Well, let's do just that! Let's see what happens if we stop insisting on any one of the three conditions.
Let me use a simpler example:
#discardableResult func doSomething() -> String {
return "a"
}
#discardableResult func doSomething() -> Int {
return 1
}
doSomething() // won't compile
let x:String
x = doSomething() // "a"
We have a function overloaded with two return types (String and Int), and we see that we cannot discard its result as it would result in unresolvable ambiguity.
1. Single return type: use an enum with a payload
Let's eliminate the first condition, and try using a single return type. This is possible:
enum ReturnType {
case text(_ payload:String)
case number(_ payload:Int)
}
#discardableResult func doSomething() -> ReturnType {
if ... // some condition
{
return .text("a")
} else {
return .number(1)
}
}
doSomething() // works
let x = doSomething() // ReturnType.text("a") or ReturnType.number(1)
Here we cannot (easily) extend the functionality via extensions; rather, we'd need to touch the enum and function code with all the possible options every time we want to add a new return type. (Of course advanced APIs can also be created that help third parties easily write extensions… If it's worth the effort.)
We would also need a way to determine which return type to choose: it can be a function parameter, or a value stored elsewhere, etc. Here's an example with a parameter:
#discardableResult func doSomething(useText:Bool = false) -> ReturnType {
if useText {
return .text("a")
} else {
return .number(1)
}
}
doSomething() // works
doSomething(useText:true) // works
let x = doSomething() // ReturnType.number(1)
let x2 = doSomething(useText:false) // ReturnType.number(1)
let x3 = doSomething(useText:true) // ReturnType.text("a")
Note: Here, we lose the convenience of having the compiler infer the type from the call site; since the type is now an opaque wrapper, it's no longer the compiler's business to make sure that the wrapped type is correct. This may be a high cost for simply maintaining "result discardability," but then it may also allow us to abstract away some details, only unwrapping the "payload" when needed, which can have its own benefits.
2. Change the name or parameters of the function
This is quite easy:
#discardableResult func doSomething() -> String {
return "a"
}
#discardableResult func doSomethingElse() -> Int {
return 1
}
doSomething() // works
doSomethingElse() // works
let x = doSomething() // "a"
let y = doSomethingElse() // 1
We can also use this in an extension. All we lose is the shared name.
Changing the parameters is also possible but it would be pretty silly in this already-silly example:
#discardableResult func doSomething() -> String {
return "a"
}
#discardableResult func doSomething(thinkOfAnyNumber:Int) -> Int {
return 1
}
doSomething() // "a"
doSomething(thinkOfAnyNumber:42) // 1
Note: I'd obviously only do this if the additional parameters actually make sense.
Note 2: The parameter configuration is different between the two functions, not the parameter values like in the previous case.
3. Do not make the result discardable
Note that simply removing the #discardableResult attribute won't make it impossible to try to discard the result: you'll still be able to try the _ = assignment, or simply ignore the function result (and the compiler warning). Both will ultimately fail to compile, so it will be up to the user of the API to avoid doing either.
Hopefully, your function does some other things (side effects) than provide a return value: in that case, there may be little use in discarding the result of a function that does nothing but provide that result, and one may probably be better off not calling it in the first place.
If the side effects are identical between the two overloaded functions, you can factor them out into a single function:
func doTheActualWork() {
// ...
}
func doSomething() -> String {
doTheActualWork()
return "a"
}
func doSomething() -> Int {
doTheActualWork()
return 1
}
doSomething() // won't compile
doTheActualWork() // use this instead
let z:String = doSomething() // "a"
Note that this can also be done via extensions as long as they re-use existing functions and only overload them with different signatures and/or return types.
Now if the side effects (i.e. doTheActualWork() implementations) are also different in the two cases… Then I give up. But that can be handled as well.
Well, this is what I've been able to gather on this interesting problem. Now I may be dead wrong, and there may be something better out there… We'll find out soon enough.
I am trying to migrate some code using a Repository pattern from Vapor 3 to Vapor 4. I have gone through the documentation of this specific pattern from the Vapor 4 documentation, and I think I understand it for the most part.
The one thing I am not getting, however, is the way that the repository factory gets set within the Application extension. The example from the documentation shows this:
extension Application {
private struct UserRepositoryKey: StorageKey {
typealias Value = UserRepositoryFactory
}
var users: UserRepositoryFactory {
get {
self.storage[UserRepositoryKey.self] ?? .init()
}
set {
self.storage[UserRepositoryKey.self] = newValue
}
}
}
If I am reading the getter method correctly (and I might not be - I'm far from a Swift expert), a new instance of the UserRepositoryFactory structure will be created and returned when app.users is referenced. At that time, however, it does not appear that the contents of self.storage[UserRepositoryKey.self] is changed in any way. So if I happened to access app.users two times in a row, I would get 2 different instances returned to me and self.storage[UserRepositoryKey.self] would remain set to nil.
Following through the rest of the sample code in the document, it appears to define the make function that will be used by the factory when configuring the app as so:
app.users.use { req in
DatabaseUserRepository(database: req.db)
}
Here it seems like app.users.use would get a new factory instance and call its use function to set the appropriate make method for that instance.
Later, when I go to handle a request, I use the request.users method that was defined by this Request extension:
extension Request {
var users: UserRepository {
self.application.users.make!(self)
}
}
Here it seems like self.application.users.make would be invoked on a different repository factory instance that is referenced by self.application.users. It would therefore not apply the factory's make method that was set earlier when configuring the application.
So what am I missing here?
It looks like the docs are slightly out of date for that. You can have a look at how views or client is done, but somewhere you need to call initialize() to set the repository. Here's what my working repository looks like:
import Vapor
extension Application {
struct Repositories {
struct Provider {
let run: (Application) -> ()
public init(_ run: #escaping (Application) -> ()) {
self.run = run
}
}
final class Storage {
var makeRepository: ((Application) -> APIRepository)?
init() { }
}
struct Key: StorageKey {
typealias Value = Storage
}
let application: Application
var repository: APIRepository {
guard let makeRepository = self.storage.makeRepository else {
fatalError("No repository configured. Configure with app.repositories.use(...)")
}
return makeRepository(self.application)
}
func use(_ provider: Provider) {
provider.run(self.application)
}
func use(_ makeRepository: #escaping (Application) -> APIRepository) {
self.storage.makeRepository = makeRepository
}
func initialize() {
self.application.storage[Key.self] = .init()
}
private var storage: Storage {
if self.application.storage[Key.self] == nil {
self.initialize()
}
return self.application.storage[Key.self]!
}
}
var repositories: Repositories {
.init(application: self)
}
}
That autoinitializes itself the first time it's used. Note that APIRepository is the protocol used for my repostiory. FluentRepository is the Fluent implementation of that protocol. Then like you I have an extension on Request to use it in request handlers:
extension Request {
var repository: APIRepository {
self.application.repositories.repository.for(self)
}
}
Finally, you need to configure it to use the right repository. So in my configure.swift I have:
app.repositories.use { application in
FluentRepository(database: application.db)
}
and in tests I can switch it for the in-memory repository that doesn't touch the DB:
application.repositories.use { _ in
return inMemoryRepository
}
I have managed to get the example from the docs working as-is.
Tracing through the execution with the debugger, there is the predictable call to get, as you say, and this returns the instance from .init() as the failover from not having a previously stored value. Included in the example you refer to is:
struct UserRepositoryFactory {
var make: ((Request) -> UserRepository)?
mutating func use(_ make: #escaping ((Request) -> UserRepository)) {
self.make = make
}
}
This use function is executed next, which is mutating and updates the variable make. I believe it is this change to make that then triggers a call to set. It certainly happens immediately after use and before execution moves on in configure.swift. So, by the time the server formally starts and you actually use the Repository in a route, there is a stored instance that is reused as required.
I am writing test for my project and declared a remote API client protolcol:
public protocol ApiClient {
func load(completion: #escaping ([Any]?, String?))
}
and defined a moc api client that confirms to ApiClient:
class MocApiClient: ApiClient {
func loadFlights(completion: #escaping ([Any]?, String?)) {
// Load a sample JSON file and return it as response
}
}
this way I am able return a response by loading a JSON file. This is the happy path of the test. After it I started to think about testing different possible response types and decided that I should be able to alter behaviour of the MocApiClient and defined this:
enum TestPath {
case success
case failure
}
and using it with MocApiClient:
class MocApiClient: ApiClient {
var path: TestPath = .success
func load(completion: #escaping ([Any]?, String?) -> Void) {
switch path {
case .success:
completion([...], nil)
case .failure:
completion(nil, "error message")
}
}
}
Doyu think this is a good solution?
Do you have any beter approachs?
Your approach seems fine if you have just a few simple tests.
However, if you have a relatively complex logic and need to test many positive and negative paths, an alternative to your solution would be creating several different mocking objects, each one having a single purpose.
That way, you'll avoid a massive all-purpose mocking object problem and also will be able to define your mocking objects right inside the tests methods that use them, thus making your tests even more focused and independent.
Something like this:
func testSuccessfulResponse() {
class MockApiClientSuccessfulResponse: ApiClient {
...
}
...
}
func testMalformedResponse() {
class MockApiClientMalformedResponse: ApiClient {
...
}
...
}
func testInconsistentData() {
class MockApiClientInconsistentData: ApiClient {
...
}
...
}
Hope this helps and happy unit testing!
I'm writing the function like this
func issueArrayFromResponse(response: DataResponse<Any>) -> Result<[Issue]> {}
However this kind of function appear many time, such as repoArrayFromResponse, gistArrayFromRespnse and so on. So I tried to make these functions into one.
func arrayFromResponse<T>(response: DataResponse<Any>) -> Result<[T]> {}
The problem is I don't have initializer for type T and don't know how to achieve it. In case issueArrayFromResponse, I have a class Issue and it has initializer: init(json: [[String: Any]]), so i was able to write
issue = Issue(json: item)
However, in case arrayFromResponse<T>, the compiler says 'T' cannot be constructed because it has no accessible initializers
How can I make initializer for T?
I think the easiest way is to make protocol.
You can make such protocol:
protocol ResultProtocol {
}
and confirm all your classes to this protocol
class Issue: ResultProtocol {
init(json: String) {
}
}
then you can:
func arrayFromResponse<T: ResultProtocol>(response: DataResponse<Any>) -> Result<[T]> {
return Result<[T]>()
}
New to IOS programming but just wondering where is the best place to put functions that I would use throughout my code. For example, I want to write a few functions to perform a POST request to a web service and return a dictionary. Maybe another function to do some calculations. Is it best to create another .swift file and put all my functions there. And what would be a good name to give the file if so?
public func postRequest() -> [String:String] {
// do a post request and return post data
return ["someData" : "someData"]
}
The best way is to create a helper class with static functions, like this:
class Helper{
static func postRequest() -> [String:String] {
// do a post request and return post data
return ["someData" : "someData"]
}
}
Now every time you need to use postRequest you can just use like so: Helper.postRequest()
I usually create a separate class if I have functions that will be used by multiple classes, especially for the ones involving network operations.
If you just have separate functions that will be used, you can simply create static functions inside that class so it is easily accessible by other classes in a static way:
class DataController {
static func getData() -> [String:String] {
// do some operations
return ["someData" : "someData"]
}
}
let data = DataController.getData() // example
However, what often has been the case for me (especially if it involves more complicated operations) was that these network operations needed to establish an initial connection beforehand or required some initial setups, and they also performed asynchronous operations that needed to be controlled. If this is the case and you will often be calling such methods, you might want to create a singleton object that you could use throughout different classes and functions. This way, you could do the initial setup or establish an initial connection just once, and then do the rest as needed with the other functions, instead of doing them every time the function gets called.
Creating a singleton object is pretty simple in Swift:
class DataController {
static let sharedInstance = DataController() // singleton object
init() {
// do initial setup or establish an initial connection
}
func getData() -> [String:String] {
// do some operations
return ["someData" : "someData"]
}
}
let data = DataController.sharedInstance.getData() // example
For the name of the class, I usually name it something like DataController or DataHelper, but anything that makes sense as a "helper" class would work.
Hope this helps :)
For reusable functions it depends what I decide to use. For this specific case I use a separate file, because posting to a backend will become more complicated when the application evolves. In my app I use a backend class, with all kinds of helper classes:
struct BackendError {
var message : String
}
struct SuccessCall {
var json : JSON
var containsError : Bool {
if let error = json["error"].string {
return true
}
else {
return false
}
}
}
typealias FailureBlock = (BackendError) -> Void
typealias SuccessBlock = (SuccessCall) -> Void
typealias AlamoFireRequest = (path: String, method: Alamofire.Method, data: [String:String]) -> Request
typealias GetFunction = (path: String , data: [String : String], failureBlock: FailureBlock, successBlock: SuccessBlock) -> Void
class Backend {
func getRequestToBackend (token: String )(path: String , data: [String : String], failureBlock: FailureBlock, successBlock:
}
For other cases I often use extensions on Swift classes. Like for getting a random element from an Array.
extension Array {
func sampleItem() -> T {
let index = Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(self.count)))
return self[index]
}
}
This very old question but I would like to chirp some more points.
There are a few option, basically you can write your utility functions in Swift -
A class with static function. For example
class CommonUtility {
static func someTask() {
}
}
// uses
CommonUtility.someTask()
Also, you can have class method's as well instead of static method but those functions can be overridden by subclasses unlike static functions.
class CommonUtility {
class func someTask() {
}
}
// uses
CommonUtility.someTask()
Secondly, you can have Global functions as well, that are not part of any class and can be access anywhere from your app just by name.
func someTask() {
}
Though, selecting one over other is very subjective and I thing this is ok to make a class with static function in this particular case, where you need to achieve networking functionality but if you have some functions which perform only one task than Global function is a way to go because Global functions are more modular and separate out single tasks for a single function.
In case of static functions, if we access one of the static member, entire class gets loaded in memory. But in case of global function, only that particular function will be loaded in mem
You can create a separate swift class, might name it WebServicesManager.swift, and write all methods related to web requests in it.
You can use class methods, or singleton pattern to access the methods.