My goal is to set up a completion handler using a standard Moya request call.
Here is my process:
Call backend with with a MoyaProvider that conforms to my own BackendAPI (already set up)
Wrap this call in a completion handler to return [Player] data (Player is a custom class in the project)
Display [Player] data
Here is the actual code:
func getPlayers(orchestraId: String, finished: #escaping () -> [Player]) {
let provider = MoyaProvider<BackendAPI>()
provider.request(.getPlayers(orchestraId: orchestraId)) { (result) in
switch result {
case let .success(moyaResponse):
let statusCode = moyaResponse.statusCode
if statusCode == 200 {
let data = moyaResponse.data
let json = JSON.init(data: data)
let players: [Player] = self.deserializeJSONPlayers(with: json)
return players
} else {
print ("Non 200 for league players data")
self.debugStatementsFromResponse(response: moyaResponse)
}
case let .failure(error):
print ("Error: \(error)")
}
}
}
I am getting an error on the return line, with the note that Unexpected non-void return in void function. However, I have declared my function to be a non-void function. What I am doing incorrectly in structuring my method?
You have the completionHandler which you should use if you want to return the value with the current syntax. If you want to use return players then you must change the syntax.
Use this syntax instead to make your current code work with the completionHandler:
func getPlayers(orchestraId: String, finished: #escaping ([Player]) -> Void) {
finished(players) // Instead of return players
}
Related
I am trying to pass the value of gyroX to another function but it just ends up in it having a value of 0 when I use it as gyroX in that other function.
Here is the code:
var gyroX = Float()
motion.startGyroUpdates(to: .main) { (data, error) in
if let myData = data {
gyroX = Float(myData.rotationRate.x)
}
}
With Xcode 13 Beta and Swift 5.5
This is a problem that we can now solve with Async/Await's Continuations
We would first make a function that converts the callback into an awaitable result like:
func getXRotation(from motion: CMMotionManager) async throws -> Float {
try await withCheckedThrowingContinuation { continuation in
class GyroUpdateFailure: Error {} // make error to throw
motion.startGyroUpdates(to: .main) { (data, error) in
if let myData = data {
continuation.resume(returning: Float(myData.rotationRate.x))
} else {
throw GyroUpdateFailure()
}
}
}
}
Then we can assign the variable and use it like so:
let gyroX = try await getXRotation(from: motion)
callSomeOtherFunction(with: gyroX)
With Xcode <= 12 and Combine
In the current release of Swift and Xcode we can use the Combine framework to make callback handling a little easier for us. First we'll convert the closure from the motion manager into a "Future". Then we can use that future in a combine chain.
func getXRotation(from motion: CMMotionManager) -> Future<CMGyroData, Error> {
Future { promise in
class GyroUpdateFailure: Error {} // make error to throw
motion.startGyroUpdates(to: .main) { (data, error) in
if let myData = data {
promise(.success(myData))
} else {
promise(.failure(GyroUpdateFailure()))
}
}
}
}
// This is the other function you want to call
func someOtherFunction(_ x: Float) {}
// Then we can use it like so
_ = getXRotation(from: motion)
.eraseToAnyPublisher()
.map { Float($0.rotationRate.x) }
.map(someOtherFunction)
.sink { completion in
switch completion {
case .failure(let error):
print(error.localizedDescription)
default: break
}
} receiveValue: {
print($0)
}
There are some important parts to the combine flow. The _ = is one of them. The result of "sinking" on a publisher is a "cancellable" object. If we don't store that in a local variable the system can clean up the task before it fishes executing. So you will want to do that for sure.
I highly recommend you checkout SwiftBySundell.com to learn more about Combine or Async/Await and RayWenderlich.com for mobile development in general.
Today I am using Alamofire to extract an int value.
It's pulling the int fine, but I want to save the int value outside of the request (in a different function, viewDidLoad()).
I'm not sure how to call the completion handler, it doesn't seem to be doing anything at the moment.
Here is the method that extracts the int value in question (lastModified).
func checkVersion(completion: #escaping (Int) -> Void) {
Alamofire.request(versionCheckEndpoint).responseJSON { response in
if(response.result.value != nil) {
let json = JSON(response.result.value!)
self.s3Endpoint = json["s3BucketURL"].stringValue
let lastModified = json["lastModified"].intValue
self.latestVersion = lastModified
}
}
}
I tried saving the value to an instance variable, this doesn't work.
I called the completion handler like this in viewDidLoad().. but I'm positive it's nowhere near correct:
self.checkVersion() { response in
self.latestVersion = response
}
Can anyone give me some insight on how I can save the int value for lastModified to some local variable so it is not contained within the scope of the Alamofire request?
In the function checkVersion the completion block isn't called.
You must call it after retrieving the value (although I would suggest to make it optional)
func checkVersion(_ completion: #escaping (Int?) -> Void) {
Alamofire.request(versionCheckEndpoint).responseJSON { response in
guard let value = response.result.value else {
completion(nil)
return
}
let json = JSON(value)
self.s3Endpoint = json["s3BucketURL"].stringValue
let lastModified = json["lastModified"].intValue
completion(lastModified)
}
}
And call it like this:
self.checkVersion() { value in
guard let value = value else {
//handle invalid values here
return
}
latestVersion = value
// update the view if needed
}
I am new to RxSwift and MVVM.
my viewModel has a method named rx_fetchItems(for:) that does the heavy lifting of fetching relevant content from backend, and returns Observable<[Item]>.
My goal is to supply an observable property of the viewModel named collectionItems, with the last emitted element returned from rx_fetchItems(for:), to supply my collectionView with data.
Daniel T has provided this solution that I could potentially use:
protocol ServerAPI {
func rx_fetchItems(for category: ItemCategory) -> Observable<[Item]>
}
struct ViewModel {
let collectionItems: Observable<[Item]>
let error: Observable<Error>
init(controlValue: Observable<Int>, api: ServerAPI) {
let serverItems = controlValue
.map { ItemCategory(rawValue: $0) }
.filter { $0 != nil }.map { $0! } // or use a `filterNil` operator if you already have one implemented.
.flatMap { api.rx_fetchItems(for: $0)
.materialize()
}
.filter { $0.isCompleted == false }
.shareReplayLatestWhileConnected()
collectionItems = serverItems.filter { $0.element != nil }.dematerialize()
error = serverItems.filter { $0.error != nil }.map { $0.error! }
}
}
The only problem here is that my current ServerAPI aka FirebaseAPI, has no such protocol method, because it is designed with a single method that fires all requests like this:
class FirebaseAPI {
private let session: URLSession
init() {
self.session = URLSession.shared
}
/// Responsible for Making actual API requests & Handling response
/// Returns an observable object that conforms to JSONable protocol.
/// Entities that confrom to JSONable just means they can be initialized with json.
func rx_fireRequest<Entity: JSONable>(_ endpoint: FirebaseEndpoint, ofType _: Entity.Type ) -> Observable<[Entity]> {
return Observable.create { [weak self] observer in
self?.session.dataTask(with: endpoint.request, completionHandler: { (data, response, error) in
/// Parse response from request.
let parsedResponse = Parser(data: data, response: response, error: error)
.parse()
switch parsedResponse {
case .error(let error):
observer.onError(error)
return
case .success(let data):
var entities = [Entity]()
switch endpoint.method {
/// Flatten JSON strucuture to retrieve a list of entities.
/// Denoted by 'GETALL' method.
case .GETALL:
/// Key (underscored) is unique identifier for each entity, which is not needed here.
/// value is k/v pairs of entity attributes.
for (_, value) in data {
if let value = value as? [String: AnyObject], let entity = Entity(json: value) {
entities.append(entity)
}
}
// Need to force downcast for generic type inference.
observer.onNext(entities as! [Entity])
observer.onCompleted()
/// All other methods return JSON that can be used to initialize JSONable entities
default:
if let entity = Entity(json: data) {
observer.onNext([entity] as! [Entity])
observer.onCompleted()
} else {
observer.onError(NetworkError.initializationFailure)
}
}
}
}).resume()
return Disposables.create()
}
}
}
The most important thing about the rx_fireRequest method is that it takes in a FirebaseEndpoint.
/// Conforms to Endpoint protocol in extension, so one of these enum members will be the input for FirebaseAPI's `fireRequest` method.
enum FirebaseEndpoint {
case saveUser(data: [String: AnyObject])
case fetchUser(id: String)
case removeUser(id: String)
case saveItem(data: [String: AnyObject])
case fetchItem(id: String)
case fetchItems
case removeItem(id: String)
case saveMessage(data: [String: AnyObject])
case fetchMessages(chatroomId: String)
case removeMessage(id: String)
}
In order to use Daniel T's solution, Id have to convert each enum case from FirebaseEndpoint into methods inside FirebaseAPI. And within each method, call rx_fireRequest... If I'm correct.
Id be eager to make this change if it makes for a better Server API design. So the simple question is, Will this refactor improve my overall API design and how it interacts with ViewModels. And I realize this is now evolving into a code review.
ALSO... Here is implementation of that protocol method, and its helper:
func rx_fetchItems(for category: ItemCategory) -> Observable<[Item]> {
// fetched items returns all items in database as Observable<[Item]>
let fetchedItems = client.rx_fireRequest(.fetchItems, ofType: Item.self)
switch category {
case .Local:
let localItems = fetchedItems
.flatMapLatest { [weak self] (itemList) -> Observable<[Item]> in
return self!.rx_localItems(items: itemList)
}
return localItems
// TODO: Handle other cases like RecentlyAdded, Trending, etc..
}
}
// Helper method to filter items for only local items nearby user.
private func rx_localItems(items: [Item]) -> Observable<[Item]> {
return Observable.create { observable in
observable.onNext(items.filter { $0.location == "LA" })
observable.onCompleted()
return Disposables.create()
}
}
If my approach to MVVM or RxSwift or API design is wrong PLEASE do critique.
I know it is tough to start understanding RxSwift
I like to use Subjects or Variables as inputs for the ViewModel and Observables or Drivers as outputs for the ViewModel
This way you can bind the actions that happen on the ViewController to the ViewModel, handle the logic there, and update the outputs
Here is an example by refactoring your code
View Model
// Inputs
let didSelectItemCategory: PublishSubject<ItemCategory> = .init()
// Outputs
let items: Observable<[Item]>
init() {
let client = FirebaseAPI()
let fetchedItems = client.rx_fireRequest(.fetchItems, ofType: Item.self)
self.items = didSelectItemCategory
.withLatestFrom(fetchedItems, resultSelector: { itemCategory, fetchedItems in
switch itemCategory {
case .Local:
return fetchedItems.filter { $0.location == "Los Angeles" }
default: return []
}
})
}
ViewController
segmentedControl.rx.value
.map(ItemCategory.init(rawValue:))
.startWith(.Local)
.bind(to: viewModel.didSelectItemCategory)
.disposed(by: disposeBag)
viewModel.items
.subscribe(onNext: { items in
// Do something
})
.disposed(by: disposeBag)
I think the problem you are having is that you are only going half-way with the observable paradigm and that's throwing you off. Try taking it all the way and see if that helps. For example:
protocol ServerAPI {
func rx_fetchItems(for category: ItemCategory) -> Observable<[Item]>
}
struct ViewModel {
let collectionItems: Observable<[Item]>
let error: Observable<Error>
init(controlValue: Observable<Int>, api: ServerAPI) {
let serverItems = controlValue
.map { ItemCategory(rawValue: $0) }
.filter { $0 != nil }.map { $0! } // or use a `filterNil` operator if you already have one implemented.
.flatMap { api.rx_fetchItems(for: $0)
.materialize()
}
.filter { $0.isCompleted == false }
.shareReplayLatestWhileConnected()
collectionItems = serverItems.filter { $0.element != nil }.dematerialize()
error = serverItems.filter { $0.error != nil }.map { $0.error! }
}
}
EDIT to handle problem mentioned in comment. You now need to pass in the object that has the rx_fetchItems(for:) method. You should have more than one such object: one that points to the server and one that doesn't point to any server, but instead returns canned data so you can test for any possible response, including errors. (The view model should not talk to the server directly, but should do so through an intermediary...
The secret sauce in the above is the materialize operator that wraps error events into a normal event that contains an error object. That way you stop a network error from shutting down the whole system.
In response to the changes in your question... You can simply make the FirebaseAPI conform to ServerAPI:
extension FirebaseAPI: ServerAPI {
func rx_fetchItems(for category: ItemCategory) -> Observable<[Item]> {
// fetched items returns all items in database as Observable<[Item]>
let fetchedItems = self.rx_fireRequest(.fetchItems, ofType: Item.self)
switch category {
case .Local:
let localItems = fetchedItems
.flatMapLatest { [weak self] (itemList) -> Observable<[Item]> in
return self!.rx_localItems(items: itemList)
}
return localItems
// TODO: Handle other cases like RecentlyAdded, Trending, etc..
}
}
// Helper method to filter items for only local items nearby user.
private func rx_localItems(items: [Item]) -> Observable<[Item]> {
return Observable.create { observable in
observable.onNext(items.filter { $0.location == "LA" })
observable.onCompleted()
return Disposables.create()
}
}
}
You should probably change the name of ServerAPI at this point to something like FetchItemsAPI.
You run into a tricky situation here because your observable can throw an error and once it does throw an error the observable sequence errors out and no more events can be emitted. So to handle subsequent network requests, you must reassign taking the approach you're currently taking. However, this is generally not good for driving UI elements such as a collection view because you would have to bind to the reassigned observable every time. When driving UI elements, you should lean towards types that are guaranteed to not error out (i.e. Variable and Driver). You could make your Observable<[Item]> to be let items = Variable<[Item]>([]) and then you could just set the value on that variable to be the array of items that came in from the new network request. You can safely bind this variable to your collection view using RxDataSources or something like that. Then you could make a separate variable for the error message, let's say let errorMessage = Variable<String?>(nil), for the error message that comes from the network request and then you could bind the errorMessage string to a label or something like that to display your error message.
Introduction:
I'm introducing a Result framework (antitypical) in some points of my app. In example, given this function:
func findItem(byId: Int, completion: (Item?,Error?) -> ());
foo.findItem(byId: 1) { item, error in
guard let item = item else {
// Error case
handleError(error!)
return;
}
// Success case
handleSuccess(item)
}
I implement it this way with Result:
func findItem(byId: Int, completion: Result<Item,Error>) -> ());
foo.findItem(byId: 1) { result in
swith result {
case let success(item):
// Success case
handleSuccess(item)
case let failure(error):
// Error case
handleError(error!)
}
}
Question
What is the correct way of implementing a result where the success case returns nothing?. Something like:
func deleteItem(byId: Int, completion: (Error?) -> ());
foo.deleteItem(byId: 1) { error in
if let error = error {
// Error case
handleError(error)
return;
}
// Success case
handleSuccess()
}
In java I would implement a Result whats the correct way to do this in Swift
The best way is exactly what you've done: Error? where nil indicates success. It's quite clear and simple.
That said, another answer (and one that I've used) is exactly in your question: "How to handle Void success case with Result." The success case passes Void, so pass Void:
Result<Void, Error>
"Void" doesn't mean "returns nothing." It's a type in Swift, a type that has exactly one value: the empty tuple (). That also happens to be the type:
public typealias Void = ()
As a matter of convention, we use Void to mean the type, and () to mean the value. The one thing that's a bit strange about using Void this way in a Result is the syntax. You wind up with something like:
return .success(())
The double-parentheses are a little ugly and slightly confusing. So even though this is nicely parallel to other Result-using code, I typically just use Error? in this case. If I had a lot of it, though, I'd consider creating a new type for it:
enum VoidResult {
case .success
case .failure(Error)
}
You can add this extension, to simplify your life.
public extension Result where Success == Void {
/// A success, storing a Success value.
///
/// Instead of `.success(())`, now `.success`
static var success: Result {
return .success(())
}
}
// Now
return .success
Gists
I found Rob's answer really interesting and smart. I just want to contribute with a possible working solution to help others:
enum VoidResult {
case success
case failure(Error)
}
/// Performs a request that expects no data back but its success depends on the result code
/// - Parameters:
/// - urlRequest: Url request with the request config
/// - httpMethodType: HTTP method to be used: GET, POST ...
/// - params: Parameters to be included with the request
/// - headers: Headers to be included with the request
/// - completion: Callback trigered upon completion
func makeRequest(url: URL,
httpMethodType: HTTPMethodType,
params: [String:Any],
headers: [String:String],
completion: #escaping (VoidResult) -> Void){
let alamofireHTTPMethod = httpMethodType.toAlamofireHTTPMethod()
let parameterEncoder: ParameterEncoding
switch alamofireHTTPMethod {
case .get:
parameterEncoder = URLEncoding.default
case .post:
parameterEncoder = JSONEncoding.default
default:
parameterEncoder = URLEncoding.default
}
Log.d(message: "Calling: \(url.absoluteString)")
AF.request(url,
method: alamofireHTTPMethod,
parameters: params,
encoding:parameterEncoder,
headers: HTTPHeaders(headers)).response { response in
guard let statusCode = response.response?.statusCode,
(200 ..< 300) ~= statusCode else {
completion(.failure(NetworkFetcherError.networkError))
return
}
completion(.success)
}
}
Try this
Note this is example you can change as per your test
typealias resultHandler = (_ responseItems: AnyObject, _ error: Error) -> Void
func deleteItem(byId: Int, completion: resultHandler){
completion(Items, error)
}
Calling
self.deleteItem(byId: 1) { (result, error) in
if error ==nil{
}
}
I'm trying to update my project to Swift 3.0 but I have some difficulties.
I'm getting next error: "Escaping closures can only capture inout parameters explicitly by value".
The problem is inside this function:
fileprivate func collectAllAvailable(_ storage: inout [T], nextUrl: String, completion: #escaping CollectAllAvailableCompletion) {
if let client = self.client {
let _ : T? = client.collectionItems(nextUrl) {
(resultCollection, error) -> Void in
guard error == nil else {
completion(nil, error)
return
}
guard let resultCollection = resultCollection, let results = resultCollection.results else {
completion(nil, NSError.unhandledError(ResultCollection.self))
return
}
storage += results // Error: Escaping closures can only capture inout parameters explicitly by value
if let nextUrlItr = resultCollection.links?.url(self.nextResourse) {
self.collectAllAvailable(&storage, nextUrl: nextUrlItr, completion: completion)
// Error: Escaping closures can only capture inout parameters explicitly by value
} else {
completion(storage, nil)
// Error: Escaping closures can only capture inout parameters explicitly by value
}
}
} else {
completion(nil, NSError.unhandledError(ResultCollection.self))
}
}
Can someone help me to fix that?
Using an inout parameter exclusively for an asynchronous task is an abuse of inout – as when calling the function, the caller's value that is passed into the inout parameter will not be changed.
This is because inout isn't a pass-by-reference, it's just a mutable shadow copy of the parameter that's written back to the caller when the function exits – and because an asynchronous function exits immediately, no changes will be written back.
You can see this in the following Swift 2 example, where an inout parameter is allowed to be captured by an escaping closure:
func foo(inout val: String, completion: (String) -> Void) {
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue()) {
val += "foo"
completion(val)
}
}
var str = "bar"
foo(&str) {
print($0) // barfoo
print(str) // bar
}
print(str) // bar
Because the closure that is passed to dispatch_async escapes the lifetime of the function foo, any changes it makes to val aren't written back to the caller's str – the change is only observable from being passed into the completion function.
In Swift 3, inout parameters are no longer allowed to be captured by #escaping closures, which eliminates the confusion of expecting a pass-by-reference. Instead you have to capture the parameter by copying it, by adding it to the closure's capture list:
func foo(val: inout String, completion: #escaping (String) -> Void) {
DispatchQueue.main.async {[val] in // copies val
var val = val // mutable copy of val
val += "foo"
completion(val)
}
// mutate val here, otherwise there's no point in it being inout
}
(Edit: Since posting this answer, inout parameters can now be compiled as a pass-by-reference, which can be seen by looking at the SIL or IR emitted. However you are unable to treat them as such due to the fact that there's no guarantee whatsoever that the caller's value will remain valid after the function call.)
However, in your case there's simply no need for an inout. You just need to append the resultant array from your request to the current array of results that you pass to each request.
For example:
fileprivate func collectAllAvailable(_ storage: [T], nextUrl: String, completion: #escaping CollectAllAvailableCompletion) {
if let client = self.client {
let _ : T? = client.collectionItems(nextUrl) { (resultCollection, error) -> Void in
guard error == nil else {
completion(nil, error)
return
}
guard let resultCollection = resultCollection, let results = resultCollection.results else {
completion(nil, NSError.unhandledError(ResultCollection.self))
return
}
let storage = storage + results // copy storage, with results appended onto it.
if let nextUrlItr = resultCollection.links?.url(self.nextResourse) {
self.collectAllAvailable(storage, nextUrl: nextUrlItr, completion: completion)
} else {
completion(storage, nil)
}
}
} else {
completion(nil, NSError.unhandledError(ResultCollection.self))
}
}
If you want to modify a variable passed by reference in an escaping closure, you can use KeyPath. Here is an example:
class MyClass {
var num = 1
func asyncIncrement(_ keyPath: WritableKeyPath<MyClass, Int>) {
DispatchQueue.main.async {
// Use weak to avoid retain cycle
[weak self] in
self?[keyPath: keyPath] += 1
}
}
}
You can see the full example here.
If you are sure that your variable will be available the whole time just use a true Pointer (same what inout actually does)
func foo(val: UnsafeMutablePointer<NSDictionary>, completion: #escaping (NSDictionary) -> Void) {
val.pointee = NSDictionary()
DispatchQueue.main.async {
completion(val.pointee)
}
}