I would like to create a property wrapper for CurrentValueSubject. I have done this like that:
#propertyWrapper
public class CurrentValue<Value> {
public var wrappedValue: Value {
get { projectedValue.value }
set { projectedValue.value = newValue }
}
public var projectedValue: CurrentValueSubject<Value, Never>
public init(wrappedValue: Value) {
self.projectedValue = CurrentValueSubject(wrappedValue)
}
}
This works but there is a little thing I would like to change with it - use struct instead of class. The problem with using struct for this is that sometimes I could get Simultaneous accesses error. And I know why, this happens when in sink from this publisher I would try to read the value from wrapped value. So for example with code like this:
#CurrentValue
let test = 1
$test.sink { _ in
print(self.test)
}
And I more or less know why - because when projectedValue executes its observation, wrapped value is still in process of setting its value. In class this is ok, because it would just change the value, but with struct it actually modifies the struct itself, so Im trying to write and read from it at the same time.
My question is - is there some clever way to overcome this, while still using struct? I don't want to dispatch async.
Also I know that #Projected works similarly to this propertyWrapper, but there is a big difference - Projected executes on willSet, while CurrentValueSubject on didSet. And Projected has the same issue anyway.
I know that I can read the value inside the closure, but sometimes Im using this with various function calls, that might eventually use self.test instead.
Try my implementation
#propertyWrapper
class PublishedSubject<T> {
var wrappedValue: T {
didSet {
subject.send(wrappedValue)
}
}
var projectedValue: some Publisher<T, Never> {
subject
}
private lazy var subject = CurrentValueSubject<T, Never>(wrappedValue)
init(wrappedValue: T) {
self.wrappedValue = wrappedValue
}
}
Related
I have a Paho MQTT connection, with a callback updating a object and i need to update a coposable..
I can see the in Logcat that i receive information, but the composable is not updated.
I am suspecting that the issue is that i am using a static object and it is not mutable. What is the practice on this scenario? I did not implement a ViewModel. It could be done with a timer, but i think it is not an elegant solution.
snippet:
object MyCallBack : MqttCallback {
public var message = ""
override fun messageArrived(topic: String?, message: MqttMessage?) {
this.message = message.toString()
Log.e(ContentValues.TAG,"mqtt Arrived: $message")
}
......
}
and a composable function used to display the information:
#Composable
fun ShowMessage() {
var myCallBack = MyCallBack //here i can access the updated information
var message by remember {
mutableStateOf(myCallBack.message)
Text("Changed ${myCallBack.message}", color = Color.White)
}
}
Thank you!
i have tried to use mutableStateOf() but it did not called for composition, i think it is not observable.
I have created a "lock" in Swift and an Atomic property wrapper that uses that lock, for my Swift classes as Swift lacks ObjC's atomic property attribute.
When I run my tests with thread sanitizer enabled, It always captures a data race on a property that uses my Atomic property wrapper.
The only thing that worked was changing the declaration of the property wrapper to be a class instead of a struct and the main question here is: why it works!
I have added prints at the property wrapper and lock inits to track the number of objects created, it was the same with struct/class, tried reproducing the issue in another project, didn't work too. But I will add the files the resembles the problem and let me know any guesses of why it works.
Lock
public class SwiftLock {
init() { }
public func sync<R>(execute: () throws -> R) rethrows -> R {
objc_sync_enter(self)
defer { objc_sync_exit(self) }
return try execute()
}
}
Atomic property wrapper
#propertyWrapper struct Atomic<Value> {
let lock: SwiftLock
var value: Value
init(wrappedValue: Value, lock: SwiftLock=SwiftLock()) {
self.value = wrappedValue
self.lock = lock
}
var wrappedValue: Value {
get {
lock.sync { value }
}
set {
lock.sync { value = newValue }
}
}
}
Model (the data race should happen on the publicVariable2 property here)
class Model {
#Atomic var publicVariable: TimeInterval = 0
#Atomic var publicVariable2: TimeInterval = 0
var sessionDuration: TimeInterval {
min(0, publicVariable - publicVariable2)
}
}
Update 1:
Full Xcode project: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IfAsOdHKOqfuOp-pSlP75FLF32iVraru/view?usp=sharing
This is question is answered in this PR: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/1387
I think this is those lines that really explains it 💡
In Swift's formal memory access model, methods on a value types are considered to access the entire value, and so calling the wrappedValue getter formally reads the entire stored wrapper, while calling the setter of wrappedValue formally modifies the entire stored wrapper.
The wrapper's value will be loaded before the call to
wrappedValue.getter and written back after the call to
wrappedValue.setter. Therefore, synchronization within the wrapper
cannot provide atomic access to its own value.
I think part of my problem is because Swift 4 has changed the way things like #objc work.
There are a lot of tutorials floating around, with a lot of different values, and I can't pick my way between what used to work in what version enough to figure out how to make it work in this version.
let delegate = UIApplication.shared.delegate as! AppDelegate
delegate.addObserver(self, forKeyPath: #keyPath(AppDelegate.session), options: [], context: nil)
// Warning: Argument of #keyPath refers to non-'#objc' property 'session'
Adding #objc to the var declaration just informs me that APISession can't be referenced in Objective-C. That seems to lead down the path towards requiring me to expose every class / variable I want to use this tool with to Obj-C, and that just seems backwards -- this is a newer feature, as I understand it, and it's just odd that Apple wouldn't make it work natively in Swift. Which, to me, suggests I'm misunderstanding or misapplying something, somewhere, somehow.
According to the docs:
In Objective-C, a key is a string that identifies a specific property of an object. A key path is a string of dot-separated keys that specifies a sequence of object properties to traverse.
Significantly, the discussion of #keyPath is found in a section titled "Interacting with Objective-C APIs". KVO and KVC are Objective-C features.
All the examples in the docs show Swift classes which inherit from NSObject.
Finally, when you type #keyPath in Xcode, the autocomplete tells you it is expecting an #objc property sequence.
Expressions entered using #keyPath will be checked by the compiler (good!), but this doesn't remove the dependency on Objective-C.
This is how I've applied #keyPath() in real project of mine. I used it to save & retrieve data to and from UserDefaults and I called that feature as AppSettings. Here's how things are going on...
1). I have a protocol called AppSettingsConfigurable It contains a couple of stuffs which are the setting features of my app...
//: AppSetting Protocol
#objc protocol AppSettingsConfigurable {
static var rememberMeEnabled : Bool { get set }
static var notificationEnabled : Bool { get set }
static var biometricEnabled : Bool { get set }
static var uiColor: UIColor? { get set }
}
2). I have class and I named it AppSettings. This is where saving and retrieving operation take place with UserDefaults
//: AppSettings
class AppSettings: NSObject {
fileprivate static func updateDefaults(for key: String, value: Any) {
// Save value into UserDefaults
UserDefaults.standard.set(value, forKey: key)
}
fileprivate static func value<T>(for key:String) -> T? {
// Get value from UserDefaults
return UserDefaults.standard.value(forKey: key) as? T
}
}
3). Here's where BIG things are happened. Conform AppSettings class to our protocol and lets implement the stuffs using #keyPath().
//: Conform to protocol
extension AppSettings:AppSettingsConfigurable{
/** get & return remember me state */
static var rememberMeEnabled: Bool {
get { return AppSettings.value(for: #keyPath(rememberMeEnabled)) ?? false }
set { AppSettings.updateDefaults(for: #keyPath(rememberMeEnabled), value: newValue) }
}
/** get & return notification state */
static var notificationEnabled: Bool {
get { return AppSettings.value(for: #keyPath(notificationEnabled)) ?? true }
set { AppSettings.updateDefaults(for: #keyPath(notificationEnabled), value: newValue) }
}
/** get & return biometric state */
static var biometricEnabled: Bool {
get { return AppSettings.value(for: #keyPath(biometricEnabled)) ?? false}
set { AppSettings.updateDefaults(for: #keyPath(biometricEnabled), value: newValue) }
}
/** get & return biometric state */
static var uiColor: UIColor? {
get { return AppSettings.value(for: #keyPath(uiColor)) }
set { AppSettings.updateDefaults(for: #keyPath(uiColor), value: newValue!) }
}
}
PS: Noticed something different with uiColor from the rest? Nothing wrong with it as it's optional and it's allowed to accept the nil
Usage:
//: Saving...
AppSettings.biometricEnabled = true
//: Retrieving...
let biometricState = AppSettings.biometricEnabled // true
I'm trying to create a way to build compassable objects in Swift. I feel like I'm almost there with what I have but it's still not 100% correct.
What I'm aiming for is to have a FlowController object that can create our UIViewControllers and then give them any of the dependencies that they need.
What I'd also like to do is make this work as loosely as possible.
I have a small example here that works but is not ideal. I'll explain...
Here are two objects that can be used as components... Wallet and User.
class Wallet {
func topUp(amount: Int) {
print("Top up wallet with £\(amount)")
}
}
class User {
func sayHello() {
Print("Hello, world!")
}
}
We then define a Component enum that has cases for each of these...
enum Component {
case Wallet
case User
}
... And a protocol that defines a method requiresComponents that returns an array of Components.
This is where the problem arises. In order for the "factory object" to put the components into a Composable object we need to define the user and wallet properties in the protocol also.
protocol Composable {
var user: User? {get set}
var wallet: Wallet? {get set}
func requiresComponents() -> [Component]
}
In an attempt to make these properties "optional" (not Optional) I have defined an extension to the Composable protocol that defines these vars as nil.
extension Composable {
var user: User? {
get {return nil}
set {}
}
var wallet: Wallet? {
get {return nil}
set {}
}
}
Now I declare the class that I want to make Composable. As you can see it requires the User component and declares the variable.
class SomeComposableClass: Composable {
var user: User?
func requiresComponents() -> [Component] {
return [.User]
}
}
Now the FlowController that will create these and add the components to them. You can see here that I have had to take the object, create a local var version of it and then return the updated object. I think this is because it doesn't know the type of objects that will be conforming to the protocol so the parameter can't be mutated.
class FlowController {
func addComponents<T: Composable>(toComposableObject object: T) -> T {
var localObject = object
for component in object.requiresComponents() {
switch component {
case .Wallet:
localObject.wallet = Wallet()
print("Wallet")
case .User:
localObject.user = User()
print("User")
}
}
return localObject
}
}
Here I create the objects.
let flowController = FlowController()
let composable = SomeComposableClass()
And here I add the components. In production this would be done all inside the FlowController.
flowController.addComponents(toComposableObject: composable) // prints "User" when adding the user component
compassable.user?.sayHello() // prints "Hello, world!"
As you can see, it works here. The user object is added.
However, as you can also see. Because I have declared the vars in the protocol the composable object also has a reference to a wallet component (although it will always be nil).
composable.wallet // nil
I feel like I'm about 95% of the way there with this but what I'd like to be able to do is improve how the properties are declared. What I'd like is for that last line... composable.wallet to be a compile error.
I could do this by moving the declaration of the properties out of the protocol but then I have the problem of not being able to add the properties to any object that conforms to the Composable protocol.
What would be awesome is for the factory object to be able to add the properties without relying on the declaration. Or even have some sort of guard that says "if this object has a property call user then add the user component to it". Or something like that.
If anyone knows how I could get the other 5% of this working it would be awesome. Like I said, this works, just not in an ideal way.
Thanks :D
Hacky Edit
Hmm... As a quick tacky, horrible, "no-one-should-do-this" edit. I have changed my protocol extension to be like this...
extension Composable {
var user: User? {
get {fatalError("Access user")}
set {fatalError("Set user")}
}
var wallet: Wallet? {
get {fatalError("Access wallet")}
set {fatalError("Set waller")}
}
}
Now at least the program will crash if I try to access a variable I have not defined. But it's still not ideal.
Edit after reading Daniel's blog
OK, I think I've done what I wanted. Just not sure that it's exactly Swifty. Although, I also think it might be. Looking for a second opinion :)
So, my components and protocols have become this...
// these are unchanged
class Wallet {
func topUp(amount: Int) {
print("Top up wallet with £\(amount)")
}
}
// each component gets a protocol
protocol WalletComposing {
var wallet: Wallet? {get set}
}
class User {
func sayHello() {
print("Hello, world!")
}
}
protocol UserComposing {
var user: User? {get set}
}
Now the factory method has changed...
// this is the bit I'm unsure about.
// I now have to check for conformance to each protocol
// and add the components accordingly.
// does this look OK?
func addComponents(toComposableObject object: AnyObject) {
if var localObject = object as? UserComposing {
localObject.user = User()
print("User")
}
if var localObject = object as? WalletComposing {
localObject.wallet = Wallet()
print("Wallet")
}
}
This allows me to do this...
class SomeComposableClass: UserComposing {
var user: User?
}
class OtherClass: UserComposing, WalletComposing {
var user: User?
var wallet: Wallet?
}
let flowController = FlowController()
let composable = SomeComposableClass()
flowController.addComponents(toComposableObject: composable)
composable.user?.sayHello()
composable.wallet?.topUp(amount: 20) // this is now a compile time error which is what I wanted :D
let other = OtherClass()
flowController.addComponents(toComposableObject: other)
other.user?.sayHello()
other.wallet?.topUp(amount: 10)
This seems like a good case for applying the Interface Segregation Principle
Specifically, rather than having a master Composable protocol, have many smaller protocols like UserComposing and WalletComposing. Then your concrete types that wish to compose those various traits, would just list their "requiredComponents" as protocols they conform to, i.e:
class FlowController : UserComposing, WalletComposing
I actually wrote a blog post that talks about this more extensively and gives more detailed examples at http://www.danielhall.io/a-swift-y-approach-to-dependency-injection
UPDATE:
Looking at the updated question and sample code, I would only suggest the following refinement:
Going back to your original design, it might make sense to define a base Composing protocol that requires any conforming class to create storage for composed traits as a dictionary. Something like this:
protocol Composing : class {
var traitDictionary:[String:Any] { get, set }
}
Then, use protocol extensions to add the actual composable trait as a computed property, which reduces the boilerplate of having to create those properties in every conforming class. This way any class can conform to any number of trait protocols without having to declare a specific var for each. Here's a more complete example implementation:
class FlowController {
static func userFor(instance:UserComposing) -> User {
return User()
}
static func walletFor(instance:WalletComposing) -> Wallet {
return Wallet()
}
}
protocol Composing : class {
var traitDictionary:[String:Any] { get, set }
}
protocol UserComposing : Composing {}
extension UserComposing {
var user:User {
get {
if let user = traitDictionary["user"] as? User {
return user
}
else {
let user = FlowController.userFor(self)
traitDictionary["user"] = user
return user
}
}
}
}
protocol WalletComposing {}
extension WalletComposing {
var wallet:Wallet {
get {
if let wallet = traitDictionary["wallet"] as? Wallet {
return wallet
}
else {
let wallet = FlowController.walletFor(self)
traitDictionary["wallet"] = wallet
return wallet
}
}
}
}
class AbstractComposing {
var traitDictionary = [String:Any]()
}
Not only does this get rid of those pesky optionals you have to unwrap everywhere, but it makes the injection of user and wallet implicit and automatic. That means that your classes will already have the right values for those traits even inside their own initializers, no need to explicitly pass each new instance to an instance of FlowController every time.
For example, your last code snippet would now become simply:
class SomeComposableClass: AbstractComposing, UserComposing {} // no need to declare var anymore
class OtherClass: AbstractComposing, UserComposing, WalletComposing {} //no vars here either!
let composable = SomeComposableClass() // No need to instantiate FlowController and pass in this instance
composable.user.sayHello() // No unwrapping the optional, this is guaranteed
composable.wallet.topUp(amount: 20) // this is still a compile time error which is what you wanted :D
let other = OtherClass() // No need to instantiate FlowController and pass in this instance
other.user.sayHello()
other.wallet.topUp(amount: 10) // It all "just works" ;)
Is there a way to call an async function from a lazy or computed property?
struct Item {
lazy var name: String = {
API.requestThing({ (string: String) in // Xcode didn't like this
return string // this would not work here
})
}()
}
class API {
class func requestThing(completion: String -> Void) {
completion("string")
}
}
Your completion handler in API.requestThing returns a String, yet it is supposed to have no return value:
(completion: String -> Void)
I got this to work:
struct Item {
lazy var name: String = {
API.requestThing({ (string: String) in
return string
})
}()
}
class API {
class func requestThing(completion: String -> String) -> String {
return completion("string")
}
}
There is no good reason to use "lazy" in this case. lazy is for initialization. Just create a normal func and pass a completion handler.
First, requestThing returns () (ie void) and not String. So the type of the following expression is also () and not String:
API.requestThing { string in
return string
}
Second, the call to requestThing is asynchronous, so even if you defined name as a lazy var, the call to the var body function is still synchronousand will return immediately.
So if you can transform name into a function like this:
func name(completion: String -> ()) {
API.requestThing { string in
completion(string)
}
}
// Later you call it in this way
myItem.name { name in
// use the value of name
}
If in addition you want to cache the retrieved value you can modify Item to a class and use the following code
class Item {
private var nameValue: String?
func name(completion: String -> ()) {
if let value = nameValue {
// return cached value
return completion(value)
} else {
// request value
API.requestThing { string in
// cache retrieved value
self.nameValue = string
// return retrieved value
completion(string)
}
}
}
}
There's probably no compelling reason to do this, but the following approach seems to be reasonable:
Instead having a variable of type String - we sometimes require a "Future" of that thing, e.g. Future<String>. A future represents the eventual result of an asynchronous operation - that is exactly what's given in your question.
The future itself is a "normal" variable and can be lazy evaluated, too. It just doesn't yet have its eventual value. That means, the underlying task will only be started when explicitly requested (e.g. lazily). From a design or architectural point of view, this may make sense.
func fetchString() -> Future<String> { ... }
lazy var name: Future<String> = fetchString()
Later in your code, you obtain the variable as follows:
item.name.map { string in
print(string)
}
If this is the first access to the lazy property, it will start the underlying asynchronous operation which calculates the string. Then, when the variable is available, the mapping function as provided in the map function will be called with the variable as an argument - possibly some time later, too.
Otherwise (if this is not the first access), it will just provide the string in the parameter when it is available, possibly immediately.
Since operations may fail, a "Future" also provides means to handle this:
item.name.map { string in
print(string)
}.onFailure { error in
print("Error: \(error)")
}
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_and_promises
There are implementations for Futures in Swift and Objective-C, also often called "Promise".