Swift: Filter nested arrays - ios

I'm trying to filter an array of Deals with a status DealStaus which has a nested array of Bookings, each one with a BookingStatus.
I want to filter Deals with status .won and Bookings according to the statuses given when calling the function. BookingStatus and DealStatus are both enums.
Deal and Booking look like this:
public struct Deal: Decodable {
public let identifier: String?
public let status: DealStatus
public let bookings: [Booking]?
}
public struct Booking: Decodable {
public let identifier: String?
public let status: BookingStatus
public let startDate: Date?
public let endDate: Date?
}
To do so I wrote the following snippet:
private func getDeals(with bookingStatus: [BookingStatus]) -> [Deal] {
guard let user = currentUser, let deals = user.deals else { return [Deal]() } // Note: user is a class attribute
return deals.filter { $0.status == .won && $0.bookings?.filter { bookingStatus.contains($0.status) }}
}
This does not work. The compiler gives the following error:
Optional type '[Booking]?' cannot be used as a boolean; test for '!=
nil' instead

Following the instructions of #matt, I broke it down:
private func getDeals(with bookingStatus: [BookingStatus]) -> [Deal] {
guard let user = currentUser, let deals = user.deals else { return [Deal]() }
return deals
.filter { $0.status == .won }
.filter { $0.bookings?.contains(where: { bookingStatus.contains($0.status)} ) ?? false }
}

Related

Confirm to Equatable for Custom struct

I have below kind of response model, where the body is decided by another variable. How can i confirm equatable to this Model
public struct Model {
let type: String? // can be type1 or type2
let body: ResponseType?
}
protocol ResponseType: Codable {
}
struct Response1: ResponseType {
var items: [String]?
}
struct Response2: ResponseType {
var item: String?
}
What i want to achive:
extension Model: Equatable {
public static func == (lhs: Model, rhs: Model) -> Bool {
// How to equate the body?
}
}
When im trying to add Equatable to ResponseType protocol it says below error.
Protocol 'ResponseType' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
You need to implement == manually. swift doesn't know that body can only be two types, which are?
public struct Model: Equatable {
public static func == (lhs: Model, rhs: Model) -> Bool {
if lhs.type != rhs.type {
return false
}
if let lhsBody = lhs.body as? Response1, let rhsBody = rhs.body as? Response1 {
return lhsBody == rhsBody
} else if let lhsBody = lhs.body as? Response2, let rhsBody = rhs.body as? Response2 {
return lhsBody == rhsBody
} else {
return false
}
}
let type: String? // can be type1 or type2
let body: ResponseType?
}
protocol ResponseType: Codable {
}
struct Response1: ResponseType, Equatable {
var items: [String]?
}
struct Response2: ResponseType, Equatable {
var item: String?
}
It might be easier if you change Model into an enum:
enum Model: Codable, Equatable {
case type1(items: [String]?)
case type2(item: String)
var type: String {
switch self {
case .type1: return "type1"
case .type2: return "type2"
}
}
}
You probably need to change the Codable implementation so that it encodes and decodes the way you want to.

Swift - toggle model to readonly momentarily

I have a phone number model which looks like this:
import UIKit
import Foundation
struct PhoneValidation : OptionSet {
let rawValue: Int
static let phoneInValid = PhoneValidation(rawValue: 1 << 0)
static let phoneValid = PhoneValidation(rawValue: 1 << 1)
static let smsValidationAttempted = PhoneValidation(rawValue: 1 << 2)
static let smsValidationFailed = PhoneValidation(rawValue: 1 << 3)
static let smsValidationSuccessful = PhoneValidation(rawValue: 1 << 4) // OTP is successfully validated in backend. The field should be non-editable in this duration
static let smsValidationOTPTriggered = PhoneValidation(rawValue: 1 << 5) // OTP validation triggered. The field should be non-editable in this duration
}
class PhonesViewModel: NSCopying {
public var phoneType: PhoneNumberType = PhoneNumberType.mobile
public var phone: String?
public var code: String?
public var countryCode: String?
public var isValid : PhoneValidation?
func copy(with zone: NSZone? = nil) -> Any {
let copy = PhonesViewModel()
copy.phoneType = phoneType
copy.phone = phone
copy.code = code
copy.countryCode = countryCode
copy.isValid = isValid
return copy
}
}
As you can see above the phone model can transition between different states. The SMS validation is available for few countries and for few it is not applicable. So, I plan on setting smsValidationOTPTriggered state when SMS validation is applicable for a country and while the validation is in progress.
What I need here is, while the states smsValidationOTPTriggered or smsValidationSuccessful are set I would not want any module of the application to modify the values(phoneType, phone, code, countryCode) of the model. In other words, I would like the model to switch to a read-only mode while these 2 states are set in model and would like the module to be informed with an error or exception when a modification is attempted.
Is there a best practice already available for what I am trying to achieve here? I have searched before raising this question but did not find any. How can I achieve this?
Thanks,
Raj Pawan Gumdal
How about something like this, I think its better to use property wrappers for your case! The below is not an exact solution but can modify/change to accommodate your need
import UIKit
enum PhoneNumberType {
case mobile
}
enum PhoneValidation {
case phoneInValid
case phoneValid
case smsValidationAttempted
case smsValidationFailed
case smsValidationSuccessful
case smsValidationOTPTriggered
}
struct PhonesViewModel {
public var phoneType: PhoneNumberType = PhoneNumberType.mobile
public var phone: String?
public var code: String?
public var countryCode: String?
public var phoneValidation : PhoneValidation?
func validate(value: [PhoneValidation]) -> Bool {
//add proper check here
return false
}
}
#propertyWrapper
struct Wrapper {
private(set) var value: PhonesViewModel? = nil
var validators: [PhoneValidation] = []
var wrappedValue: PhonesViewModel? {
get { value }
set {
if let model = newValue, model.validate(value: validators) {
value = newValue
print("Value assigned")
} else {
print("Value not assigned")
}
}
}
}
struct SomeOtherClass {
#Wrapper(validators: [PhoneValidation.phoneInValid])
var model: PhonesViewModel?
}
var a = SomeOtherClass()
a.model = PhonesViewModel()
a.model = PhonesViewModel()
You can use a technique with the name "popsicle immutability". An object is initially mutable, but can be "frozen". Modifications for frozen objects are forbidden. In your case PhonesViewModel become frozen when isValid property have value smsValidationOTPTriggered or smsValidationSuccessful.
Let's add Freezable protocol for requirements to objects that can become immutable and conforming for PhonesViewModel:
protocol Freezable: class {
var isFrozen: Bool { get }
}
extension PhonesViewModel: Freezable {
var isFrozen: Bool {
isValid == .smsValidationOTPTriggered || isValid == .smsValidationSuccessful
}
}
Now we must add validation for isFrozen value when a property is assigned. It can be added in property observers like:
...
public var phone: String? {
didSet {
validate()
}
}
...
private func validate() {
assert(!isFrozen)
}
Or using property wrapper:
#propertyWrapper
struct Guarded<Value> {
private var value: Value
init(wrappedValue: Value) {
value = wrappedValue
}
#available(*, unavailable)
var wrappedValue: Value {
get { fatalError("only works on instance properties of classes that conforms to Freezable protocol") }
set { fatalError("only works on instance properties of classes that conforms to Freezable protocol") }
}
static subscript<EnclosingSelf: Freezable>(
_enclosingInstance object: EnclosingSelf,
wrapped wrappedKeyPath: ReferenceWritableKeyPath<EnclosingSelf, Value>,
storage storageKeyPath: ReferenceWritableKeyPath<EnclosingSelf, Self>
) -> Value {
get {
object[keyPath: storageKeyPath].value
}
set {
precondition(!object.isFrozen, "Object \(object) is frozen! Modifications are forbidden")
object[keyPath: storageKeyPath].value = newValue
}
}
}
So your class will look like:
class PhonesViewModel: NSCopying {
#Guarded
public var phoneType: PhoneNumberType = PhoneNumberType.mobile
#Guarded
public var phone: String?
#Guarded
public var code: String?
#Guarded
public var countryCode: String?
#Guarded
public var isValid : PhoneValidation?
func copy(with zone: NSZone? = nil) -> Any {
let copy = PhonesViewModel()
copy.phoneType = phoneType
copy.phone = phone
copy.code = code
copy.countryCode = countryCode
copy.isValid = isValid
return copy
}
}

Protocol conforming to Equatable for Diffing

I have a small chat app here.
I can have 2 types of messages:
- text
- video
I am using polymorphism while decoding the JSON like so:
import Foundation
enum MessageType: Int, Decodable {
case text
case video
}
protocol Message: Decodable {
static var type: MessageType { get }
var id: String { get }
var user: User { get}
var timestamp: String { get }
}
struct TextMessage: Message {
static var type: MessageType = .text
var id: String
var user: User
var timestamp: String
let text: String
}
struct VideoMessage: Message {
static var type: MessageType = .video
var id: String
var user: User
var timestamp: String
let text: String
let link: String
let poster: String
}
enum MessageWrapper: Decodable {
enum CodingKeys: String, CodingKey {
case type
}
case text(TextMessage)
case video(VideoMessage)
var item: Message {
switch self {
case .text(let item): return item
case .video(let item): return item
}
}
init(from decoder: Decoder) throws {
let values = try decoder.container(keyedBy: CodingKeys.self)
let type = try values.decode(Int.self, forKey: .type)
switch type {
case MessageType.text.rawValue: self = .text(try TextMessage(from: decoder))
case MessageType.video.rawValue: self = .video(try VideoMessage(from: decoder))
default:
throw DecodingError.dataCorruptedError(forKey: .type,
in: values,
debugDescription: "Invalid type")
}
}
}
I am also using the MVVM approach like so:
struct ChatViewModel {
enum ViewModelType {
case loading
case text(TextMessageViewModel)
case video(VideoMessageViewModel)
case failure(ErrorViewModel)
}
enum State {
case initialized
case loading
case loaded([Message])
case failed(Error)
}
let state: State
let viewModels: [ViewModelType]
init(with state: State) {
self.state = state
switch state {
case .initialized:
viewModels = []
case .loading:
viewModels = [
.loading,
]
......
}
}
In order to be able to use a Diffing library like Differ, the ChatViewModel should conform to the Equatable protocol.
extension ChatViewModel: Equatable {
static func == (lhs: ChatViewModel, rhs: ChatViewModel) -> Bool {
return lhs.state == rhs.state
}
}
extension ChatViewModel.State: Equatable {
static func == (lhs: ChatViewModel.State, rhs: ChatViewModel.State) -> Bool {
switch (lhs, rhs) {
case (.initialized, .initialized): return true
case (.loading, .loading): return true
case let (.loaded(l), .loaded(r)): return l == r
case let (.failed(l), .failed(r)): return l.localizedDescription == r.localizedDescription
default: return false
}
}
}
The problem here is for the case let (.loaded(l), .loaded(r)): return l == r, Message, as a protocol, doesn't conform to Equatable.
Making it conform to Equatable like
protocol Message: Decodable, Equatable {
static var type: MessageType { get }
var id: String { get }
var user: User { get}
var timestamp: String { get }
}
produce an error Protocol 'Message' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements for the MessageWrapper:
enum MessageWrapper: Decodable {
...
var item: Message { // Protocol 'Message' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
switch self {
case .text(let item): return item
case .video(let item): return item
}
}
...
}
Any idea or suggestion to have a clean way to solve this? I saw some post about Type Erasure but after some tests I am not sure that it is actually solving the problem.
You don't have to conform to Equatable in order to be able to use the == operator. You can just define an operator like that yourself, without conforming to Equatable.
For convenience's sake, I'll assume that TextMessage and VideoMessage already conforms to Equatable.
First, write a method that compares Messages:
func messageEqual(m1: Message, m2: Message) -> Bool {
if let textMessage1 = m1 as? TextMessage, let textMessage2 = m2 as? TextMessage {
return textMessage1 == textMessage2
}
if let videoMessage1 = m1 as? VideoMessage, let videoMessage2 = m2 as? VideoMessage {
return videoMessage1 == videoMessage2
}
return false
}
Then a the == operator for [Message]:
func ==(messages1: [Message], messages2: [Message]) -> Bool {
return messages1.count == messages2.count &&
zip(messages1, messages2).allSatisfy(messageEqual)
}
Now l == r should compile.

Replacing Element in a Set if a condition is met

I'm working with a Set of CarCagetory:
public struct Images {
static let categoryTeaser = UIImage()
}
public enum PremiumModel {
case model1, model2, model3, unknown
}
public struct CarCategory {
public let teaserImage: UIImage
public let make: String
public let model: PremiumModel
public let startPrice: Double
}
// MARK: - Equatable
extension CarCategory: Equatable {
public static func == (lhs: CarCategory, rhs: CarCategory) -> Bool {
return lhs.model == rhs.model
}
}
// MARK: - Hashable
extension CarCategory: Hashable {
public var hashValue: Int {
return model.hashValue
}
}
I'm iterating over an array of Cars and extracting a Set of categories according to the model:
var categories = Set<CarCategory>()
carSpecifications.forEach {
if PremiumModel(rawValue: $0.car.model) != .unknown {
categories.insert(CarCategory(teaserImage: Images.categoryTeaser, make: $0.car.make, model: PremiumModel(rawValue: $0.car.model), startPrice: $0.pricing.price))
}
}
This works just fine.
Now I want to keep my Set updated with the lowest price for a certain model. I'm thinking on a dictionary of [PremiumModel: Double] where I keep the lowest price for a model and at the end I update my Set accordingly, but I wonder if there is a better way.
Edit:
That's my current implementation using a dictionary. It feels rudimentary...
carSpecifications.forEach {
let model = PremiumModel(rawValue: $0.car.model)
if model != .unknown {
if let value = minPriceForModel[model] {
minPriceForModel[model] = min(value, $0.pricing.price)
} else {
minPriceForModel[model] = $0.pricing.price
}
categories.insert(CarCategory(teaserImage: Images.categoryTeaser, make: $0.car.make, model: model, startPrice: $0.pricing.price))
}
}
let sortedCategories = Array(categories.sorted(by: <))
.compactMap { (category: CarCategory) -> CarCategory in
var newCategory = category
newCategory.startPrice = minPriceForModel[category.model] ?? 0
return newCategory
}
return sortedCategories

Swift how to create and test an object with nil properties?

I'm trying to get my head around optionals, let's say I have the following classes:
class Contact {
var displayName:String
init(displayName:String) {
self.displayName = displayName
}
}
class Contacts {
func create(displayName:String) -> Contact {
return Contact(displayName: displayName)
}
}
as you can see the Contact class has a field displayName, but this value can be nil on initialization.
so to initialize this class I would normally do:
let contact = Contact(displayName: "Test Name")
but instead I want to be able to do this as well:
let contact = Contact()
or
let contact = Contacts().create()
You can make the init parameter an optional String?, with a default
value nil:
class Contact {
var displayName: String?
init(displayName: String? = nil) {
self.displayName = displayName
}
}
let contact1 = Contact()
let contact2 = Contact(displayName: "John")
The same works for the Contacts class:
class Contacts {
func create(displayName: String? = nil) -> Contact {
return Contact(displayName: displayName)
}
}
let contacts = Contacts()
let contact3 = contacts.create()
let contact4 = contacts.create("Mary")
Change your class to this if you want to use an optional displayName:
class Contact {
var displayName: String?
convenience init(displayName: String) {
self.init()
self.displayName = displayName
}
}
This allows you to to this:
let contact = Contact()
let otherContact = Contact(displayName: "Test Name")
EDIT:
Here's the create function as well:
class Contacts {
func create() -> Contact {
return Contact()
}
func create(displayName: String) -> Contact {
return Contact(displayName: displayName)
}
}
But I'd recommend this:
class Contact {
var displayName: String?
init(displayName: String?) {
self.displayName = displayName
}
}
class Contacts {
func create(displayName: String?) -> Contact {
return Contact(displayName: displayName)
}
}
Made the displayName property optional, like so:
var displayName:String?
Optionals can either hold nil or an actual value, in your case a string.

Resources