Swift override var inheritance - ios

I am trying to do something like this in Swift.
public class BaseModel {
}
public class SubModel:BaseModel {
}
public class BaseClass {
public var model:BaseModel
init(_ model:BaseModel) {
self.model = model
}
}
public class SubClass: BaseClass {
override var model:SubModel
}
But the complier is not allowing me to override model object with a subclass. Is it possible to achieve something like what I am trying to do above in Swift using inheritance?

As written, this wouldn't be type-safe. Your interface requires that subclass.model = model has to work for any model (and in this specific example, SubClass(model) also is "legal" for any model because it's currently inheriting the init).
What I believe you really mean is that all BaseClass can return a Model, but SubClass can only be set with a SubModel.
How you fix this depends heavily on what the users of SubClass look like and why you're reaching for inheritance. As a rule, you should be hesitant to reach for inheritance in Swift. It's fully supported, but Swift tends to prefer other tools than class inheritance.
A common solution for this specific example would be a generic, for example:
// Place any general Model requirements here.
public protocol BaseModel {}
// Just marking things final to emphasize that subclassing is not required
// These can all also be structs depending on if you need values or references
public final class SubModel: BaseModel {}
public final class BaseClass<Model: BaseModel> {
var model: Model
init(_ model: Model) {
self.model = model
}
}
// You can typealias specific instances if that helps
// With this, the syntax is extemely close to what you were trying to do
typealias SubClass = BaseClass<SubModel>
let sc = SubClass(SubModel())
let model: BaseModel = sc.model
// But, it's type safe
public final class OtherModel: BaseModel {}
sc.model = OtherModel // Cannot assign value of type OtherModel to type SubModel
let bad = SubClass(OtherModel()) // Cannot convert value of type 'OtherModel' to expected argument type 'SubModel'
If BaseClass and SubClass were more complex, and had more internal logic to them, then you could move up to protocols for these, but it would depend on the particular problem you were solving. I'd generally start with generics for the situation you're describing.
You cannot change the types of stored properties in Swift. But covariant overrides are fine for methods and computed properties. So as long as you make model a computed property, you can use inheritance here, but you must be very careful when doing this to avoid crashes.
The simplest approach is to just add a new property with its own name to SubClass:
var subModel: SubModel { model as! SubModel }
But to get the overriding behavior you're asking for, you need to make model a computed property:
public class BaseClass {
private var _model: BaseModel
public var model: BaseModel { _model }
init(_ model:BaseModel) {
self._model = model
}
}
Then you can override model in SubClass:
public class SubClass: BaseClass {
public override var model: SubModel { super.model as! SubModel }
init(_ model: SubModel) {
super.init(model)
}
}
But note that this is dangerous. It is possible for BaseClass or a subclass of SubClass to break the invariant, and then this will crash. To fix that, you should make _model a let value, and make SubClass final:
public class BaseClass {
private let _model: BaseModel
public var model: BaseModel { _model }
init(_ model:BaseModel) {
self._model = model
}
}
public final class SubClass: BaseClass {
public override var model: SubModel { super.model as! SubModel }
init(_ model: SubModel) {
super.init(model)
}
}
All of this is awkward and hard to keep correct. It's hard to keep class inheritance correct in all OOP languages, and that leads to a lot of bugs. That's why Swift encourages other tools, like generics, to solve these problems. They're much easier to write correctly, and the compiler can catch your mistakes.

Related

How one model can notify another model for specific property has changed?

Context, an iOS app using UIKit and MVC.
Model A has a singleton object, and one of its property value (foo in this case) can be changed during the runtime. Model B has a property, Model C, that is initialized using the property value of Model A.
class ModelA {
private(set) var foo: CustomObjectClassName
static let shared = ModelA()
}
class ModelB {
private var bar: ModelC
init() {
self.bar = ModelC(ModelA.shared.foo)
}
// TODO: Observer `foo` value change in Model A and then
// reinit ModelC to replace the old `bar` object
}
What is the common design pattern or mechanism that should be used to let Model B know about property change in Model A and re-initialize its own property?
I found two patterns that can be used; however, the more I read about them, they seem to be designed for communication between Model and Controller.
NotificationCenter (Notification & Observer)
Key-value Observing
Related Information
Using Key-Value Observing in Swift, https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swift/cocoa_design_patterns/using_key-value_observing_in_swift
NotificationCenter, https://developer.apple.com/documentation/foundation/notificationcenter
Thanks for El Tomato comment, delegation can be a pattern be used.
A delegation pattern would work since in my case Model A is only used by a single entity Model B.
protocol ModelADelegate {
func fooDidChange() -> Void
}
class ModelA {
public var delegate: ModelADelegate?
private(set) var foo: CustomObjectClassName {
didSet {
delegate.fooDidChange()
}
}
static let shared = ModelA()
}
class ModelB, ModelADelegate {
private var bar: ModelC
init() {
ModelA.shared.delegate = self
self.bar = ModelC(ModelA.shared.foo)
}
func fooDidChange() {
self.bar = ModelC(ModelA.shared.foo)
}
}

How to use generics in own created model class in iOS?

How to use generics in own created model class?
I have one FeatureListModel class and other have FavoriteModel class. Both store the same properties, the only difference is the different class model name.
I need to display model properties value in ProductDetail controller.
How could I manage this stuff using generics?
Here is my code (Swift 4.2):
1st Model: FavoriteListModel
class FavoriteListModel {
var categoryID: Int?
var item_name: String?
var MRP: String?
}
2nd Model: FeatureListModel
class FeatureListModel {
var categoryID: Int?
var item_name: String?
var MRP: String?
}
I have 8-10 more properties, but this is just some stuff in my code.
Controller - ProductDetailTableViewController
class ProductDetailTableViewController : UITableViewController {
var productDetails: FavoriteListModel!
var productFeatureList: FeatureListModel!
fileprivate func displayProduct() {
if productDetails != nil {
title = productDetails.item_name
categoryID = productDetails.categoryID!
}else if productFeatureList != nil {
categoryID = productFeatureList.categoryID!
title = productFeatureList.item_name
}
}
and in my Product Detail Table Controller, I am accessing model objects and display on the screen.
I don't want if-else check.
You are mixing up generics and protocols. In your case a protocol is preferable.
In ProductDetailTableViewController there is an object which responds to the getter of item_name (by the way please conform to the camelCased naming convention itemName) and categoryID. The type of the object as well as the existence of other properties and functions is not significant.
Create a protocol
protocol Listable {
var itemName : String { get }
var categoryID : Int { get }
}
Then adopt the protocol in your classes (do you really need a class?) and declare at least categoryID as non-optional since you are force unwrapping the value later anyway. Don't use optionals as an alibi not to write an initializer.
class FavoriteListModel : Listable { ...
class FeatureListModel : Listable { ...
In ProductDetailTableViewController rather than two properties declare one property as Listable and instead of objective-c-ish nil checking use optional binding:
var details: Listable!
fileprivate func displayProduct() {
if let productDetails = details {
title = productDetails.itemName
categoryID = productDetails.categoryID
}
}
What you have here is not a use case for the Generics. Generics are used when you have for example a function that does exact same thing but can be used with two different parameter types. That's when you use generics.
Another concept is super class (parent class or base class) which is used when you have a class with common properties and then other classes with those properties and then extra and different unique properties which in this case, each class subclasses the parent class.
What you have here is neither of them. A good architecture for this case is just a single model type (class or struct) and using two different collections (array or set) in your view controller.
You can also create a favorite class or featured class which holds an array with your models.

Add protocol to super class which will force other classes that inherit from it to implement protocol

So I'm new to iOS development and have been working on minor changes to an app at my internship that has a relatively large objective-c code base. I've been learning swift from Treehouse(Wow, love them!) and I just learned about protocols. Currently, they should be used in certain instances and the instructor used this example.
Say you have a company with two different types of employees: Salary and Hourly(Pretty common). Now, they both would inherit from a super class called Employee and both would have to call a function called "pay" which would pay the employee. How do you enforce these classes to implement that function? Sure, use a protocol but that would require you to remember to add that to the function declaration. Is there a way to just add the protocol to the super class "Employee" and then whatever inherits from that class would have to follow that protocol that's part of that superclass. Is there another way to do this? Thanks!
What you are looking for is an abstract class. The purpose of an abstract class is to behave as a base class for concrete classes to inherit from, but an abstract class cannot be instantiated directly.
If Employee was an an abstract class then any attempt to actually instantiate an instance of Employee would be reported as an error by the compiler. You would need to instantiate a concrete subclass of Employee, such as SalariedEmployee or HourlyEmployee.
The definition of the Employee class would include that the calculatePay method was required and again a compile time error would occur if a concrete subclass did not implement that method.
Now, the bad news. Neither Objective-C nor Swift supports abstract classes.
You can provide a similar kind of class by providing an implementation of a method that throws an exception if it isn't overridden by a subclass. This gives a runtime error rather than a compile time error.
e.g.
class Employee {
var givenName: String
var surname: String
...
init(givenName: String, surname: String) {
self.givenName = givenName
self.surname = surname
}
func calculatePay() -> Float {
fatalError("Subclasses must override calculatePay")
}
}
class SalariedEmployee: Employee {
var salary: Float
init(givenName: String, surname: String, annualSalary: Float) {
salary = annualSalary
super.init(givenName: givenName, surname: surname)
}
override func calculatePay() -> Float {
return salary/12 // Note: No call to super.calculatePay
}
}
Whether the calculatePay is part of the base class or assigned to the base class through an extension that adds conformance to a protocol, the result is the same;
The Employee class will need a default implementation of the function that generates some sort of error
Failure of a subclass to implement the method will not cause a compile time error
You could assign a protocol, say, Payable to each subclass individually, but then as the protocol was not part of the base class, you couldn't say something like:
var employees[Employee]
for e in employees {
let pay = e.calculatePay()
}
You would have to use the slightly more complicated:
for e in employees {
if e is Payable {
let pay = e.calculatePay()
}
}
Unfortunately abstract functions are not yet supported. A possible workaround is to launch a fatalError when such function is not overridden by a subclass, doing so:
protocol YourProtocol {
func pay()
}
class Employee: YourProtocol {
func pay() {
fatalError("Must Override")
}
}
class SubEmployee: Employee {
func pay() {
print("stuff here")
}
}
My approach to this is to include the delegate as a parameter in the class initializer. See the code below:
protocol ProtocolExample {
func somethingNeedsToHappen()
}
// typical class example with delegate property for the required protocol
class ClassExampleA {
var delegate: ProtocolExample!
init() {
}
func aCriticalMethodWithUpdates() {
delegate.somethingNeedsToHappen()
}
}
// use class example in a view controller. Can easily forget to invoke the delegate and protocol
class MySampleViewControllerA: UIViewController {
var classExampleA : ClassExampleA!
func loadMyData() {
classExampleA = ClassExampleA()
}
}
// an alternative approach for the class is to include the delegate parameter in the initializer.
class ClassExampleB {
var delegate: ProtocolExample!
init(delegateForUpdates: ProtocolExample) {
delegate = delegateForUpdates
}
func doSomething() {
delegate.somethingNeedsToHappen()
}
}
// go to use it and you're reminded that the parameter is required...
class MySampleViewControllerB: UIViewController {
var classExampleB: ClassExampleB!
func loadMyData() {
classExampleB = ClassExampleB() // error: Missing argument for parameter 'delegateForUpdates' in call
}
}
// so to avoid error:
class MySampleViewControllerC: UIViewController {
var classExampleB: ClassExampleB!
func loadMyData() {
classExampleB = ClassExampleB(delegateForUpdates: <#ProtocolExample#>)
}
}

Make class type a Dictionary key (Equatable, Hashable)

Say I have a class named LivingCreature
And other classes that inherit from it:
Human
Dog
Alien
This is what I'm trying to accomplish:
let valueForLivingCreature = Dictionary<Alien, String>
And access it like so:
let alienValue = livingCreatureForValue[Alien]
But this means the class should conform to Equatable and Hashable, but the class itself, not the class instance.
I've tried various ways of accomplishing this, but no luck.
As a compromise I've came up with is:
typealias IndexingValue = Int
class LivingCreature {
static var indexingValue: IndexingValue = 0
}
And then I can use the class as a key like so:
let livingCreatureForValue = Dictionary<IndexingValue, String>
Access:
let alienValue = livingCreatureForValue[Alien.indexingValue]
But, this way the IndexingValue should be set per class, by hand.
I would like to make a hash from the class itself like so:
class LivingCreature {
static var indexingValue: IndexingValue {
return NSStringFromClass(self).hash
}
}
This is not possible because self is not accessible is static var.
My question is, is there a better way of addressing this kind of issue?
Edit:
#Paulw11 Asked me why not make LivingCreature confirm to Equatable and Hashable,
The reason is I would not be able to access the value by the class type reference.
I would have to alloc an instance every time:
let alienValue = livingCreatureForValue[Alien()]
I do not want to call "Alien()" every time for finding a value.
And the component that uses it, doesn't care about the livingCreature instance, only about the class type.
I assume your are trying something like:
let valueForLivingCreature = Dictionary<LivingCreature.Type, String>
and:
let alienValue = valueForLivingCreature[Alien.self]
Then you can use ObjectIdentifier:
class LivingCreature {
class var classIdentifier: ObjectIdentifier {
return ObjectIdentifier(self)
}
//...
}
class Human: LivingCreature {
//...
}
class Dog: LivingCreature {
//...
}
class Alien: LivingCreature {
//...
}
let valueForLivingCreature: Dictionary<ObjectIdentifier, String> = [
Human.classIdentifier: String(Human),
Dog.classIdentifier: String(Dog),
Alien.classIdentifier: String(Alien),
]
let alienValue = valueForLivingCreature[Alien.classIdentifier] //->"Alien"
But in most use cases when you want to use meta-class as a dictionary key, you can find another way around:
class LivingCreature {
class var classValue: String {
return String(self)
}
//...
}
class Human: LivingCreature {
//...
//Override `classValue` if needed.
}
class Dog: LivingCreature {
//...
}
class Alien: LivingCreature {
//...
}
let alienValue = Alien.classValue //->"Alien"

Alternative to smelly global variables in Swift?

I've defined a global struct with static properties with values I use in many of my view controllers, like this:
public struct AppGlobal {
static var currentUser = UserModel()
static let someManager = SomeManager()
// Prevent others from initializing
private init() { }
}
Then in my UIViewController, I can do something like this:
class MyController: UIViewController {
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
AppGlobal.currentUser.prop1 = "abc123"
AppGlobal.someManager.startUpdating()
}
}
This is obviously very convenient, but smells really bad. I believe dependency injection would come in handy here, but not sure how. Is there a more elegant alternative to creating the AppGlobal singleton properties?
I can't see why you need to access userModel or someManager through a global state (and yes — Singletons are just that).
Why not just set it where you need it?
"Dependency Injection" is a 25-dollar term for a 5-cent concept.
That's not to say that it's a bad term…
[…]
Dependency injection means
giving an object its instance variables. Really. That's it.
– James Shore: Dependency Injection Demystified
Either do it during constructing
class C {
let currentUser: UserModel
let someManager: SomeManager
init(currentUser:UserModel, someManger:SomeManager) {
self.currentUser = currentUser
self.someManager = someManager
}
}
or through properties. If you need to make sure that all properties are set, do something like this:
class MyController: UIViewController {
var currentUser: UserModel? {
didSet{
self.configureIfPossible()
}
}
var someManager: SomeManager?{
didSet{
self.configureIfPossible()
}
}
func configureIfPossible(){
if let currentUser = self.currentUser, someManager = self.someManager {
// configure
}
}
}
In my current project we have the policy that every dependency must be visible and configurable from outside the class.
An example:
class LibrarySegmentViewController: BaseContentViewController {
var userDefaults: NSUserDefaults?
var previousSorting : LibrarySortingOrder = .AZ
var sorting : LibrarySortingOrder {
set{
self.previousSorting = sorting
if let filterMode = self.filterMode {
self.userDefaults?.setInteger(newValue.rawValue, forKey: "\(filterMode)_LibrarySorting")
}
self.setupIfReady()
}
get{
if let filterMode = self.filterMode {
if let s = LibrarySortingOrder(rawValue: self.userDefaults!.integerForKey("\(filterMode)_LibrarySorting")) {
return s
}
}
return .Date
}
}
}
So as you can see, we even use properties to reference NSUserDefaults.standardUserDefaults(). We do this as we can pass in fresh instances during testing, without bigger mocking hassle.
And this is the most importing reason why not to use singletons directly: The dependencies are hidden and might bite you during testing and refactoring. Another example would be an API client singleton that is hidden in the code and performs unwanted networking requests during testing. If it is set from outside of the tested class you can just pass in a mocked networking client that does not perform any requests but returns test data.
So even if you use singletons, you should pass it in as a dependencies.
If this question is about global or not, you should see this thread :
What is so bad about singletons?
But if you want a better design for your implementation of a singleton you can try something like this :
class SingletonExample: NSObject {
static let sharedInstance: SingletonExample()
}
class OtherSingletonExample: NSObject {
static let sharedInstance: OtherSingletonExample()
}
Then you can use SingletonExample.sharedInstance and OtherSingletonExample.sharedInstance anywhere in your code.
The idea is to isolate one singleton from another and access it as a class attribute instead of creating a big global struct for anything.

Resources