I'm trying to fetch object by object ID in a simple core data implementation. Using this api
let targetObj = CoreDataManager.sharedInstance.privateQueueContext.object(with: self.objectID) as! MyObj
but it seems object id changes. Here is the console log
(lldb) po self.objectID
0xd000000000280000 <x-coredata://551DDB76-537D-41FA-B923-F772E5EE5D29/MyObj/p10>
(lldb) po CoreDataManager.sharedInstance.privateQueueContext.object(with: self.objectID).objectID
0xd000000000280006 <x-coredata://551DDB76-537D-41FA-B923-F772E5EE5D29/MyObj/p10>
Please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. Actually I'm book keeping these objectIds in an queue and need to dequeue the object based on these objectIds.
Thanks
Ankit
The only difference you're seeing when you print each object ID is the address in memory where the object ID is stored.
So, if you take those two objects and compare them with == they will be different, because that is testing referential equality.
If you compare those two objects with isEqual:, it will return true, because isEqual: is testing whether the values they each represent are equal.
You can't reliably compare objects by reference, you need to use isEqual:.
Related
How can i add a queryConstraint on a object?
This is my current code but it returns no objects. I guess my current code is actually to query on arrays and not objects. But I can't find a way to do this for objects.
let query = Device.query()
.where(containsString(key: "apps", substring: "Google"))
This is the database
I recommend looking at the playgrounds to see how to use ParseSwift properly. More specifically, finding objects.
The first problem is apps is an object, which is actually a dictionary. You can’t use a substring constraint on a dictionary or other object. The actual way to do it is:
let objectToFind = [“Google”: “300”]
let query = Device.query("apps" == objectToFind),
TL;DR: Is there a way to programmatically read/recall (NOT write!) an instance of a Core Data entity using the p-numbered "serial number" that's tacked on to the instance's x-coredata:// identifier? Is this a good/bad idea?
I'm using a method similar to the following to retrieve the instances of an Entity called from a Core Data data store:
var managedContext: NSManagedObjectContext!
let fetchRequest : NSFetchRequest<TrackInfo> = TrackInfo.fetchRequest()
fetchResults = try! managedContext.fetch(fetchRequest)
for (i, _) in Global.Vars.numberOfTrackButtons! {
let workingTrackInfo = fetchResults.randomElement()!
print("current track is: \(workingTrackInfo)")
The list of tracks comes back in fetchResults as an array, and I can select one of them at random (fetchResults.randomElement()). From there, I can examine the details of that one item by coercing it to a string and displaying it in the console (the print statement). I don't list the code below, but using workingTrackInfo I am able to see that instance, read its properties into other variables, etc.
In the console, iOS/Xcode lists the selected item as follows:
current track is: <MyProjectName.TrackInfo: 0x60000374c2d0> (entity:
TrackInfo; id: 0xa7dc809ab862d89d
<x-coredata://2B5DDCDB-0F2C-4CDF-A7B9-D4C43785FDE7/TrackInfo/p22>;
data: <fault>)
The line beginning with x-coredata: got my attention. It's formatted like a URL, consisting of what I assume is a UUID for the specific Core Data store associated with the current build of the app (i.e. not a stable address that you could hardcode; you'd need to programmatically look up the Core Data store, similar to the functions we use for programmatically locating the Documents Folder, App Bundle, etc.) The third item is the name of the Entity in my Core Data model -- easy enough.
But that last number is what I'm curious about. From examining the SQLite database associated with this data store, it appears to be a sort of "instance serial number" associated with the Z_PK field in the data model.
I AM NOT interested in trying to circumvent Core Data's normal mechanisms to modify the contents of a managed object. Apple is very clear about that being a bad idea.
What I AM interested in is whether it's possible to address a particular Core Data instance using this "serial number".**
In my application, where I'm randomly selecting one track out of what might be hundreds or even thousands of tracks, I'd be interested in, among other things, the ability to select a single track on the basis of that p-number serial, where I simply ask for an individual instance by generating a random p-number, tack it on to a x-coredata:// statement formatted like the one listed above, and loading the result (on a read-only basis!) into a variable for further use elsewhere in the app.
For testing purposes, I've tried simply hardcoding x-coredata://2B5DDCDB-0F2C-4CDF-A7B9-D4C43785FDE7/TrackInfo/p22 as a URL, but XCode doesn't seem to like it. Is there some other data Type (e.g. an NSManagedObject?) that allows you to set an x-coredata:// "URL" as its contents?
QUESTIONS: Has anyone done anything like this; are there any memory/threading considerations why grabbing instance names in this manner is a bad idea (I'm an iOS/Core Data noob, so I don't know what I don't know; please humor me!); what would the syntax/method for these types of statements be?
Thanks!
You are quite close.
x-coredata://2B5DDCDB-0F2C-4CDF-A7B9-D4C43785FDE7/TrackInfo/p22
is the uriRepresentation() of the NSManagedObjectID of the record.
You get this URL from an NSManagedObject with
let workingTrackInfo = fetchResults.randomElement()!
let objectIDURL = workingTrackInfo.objectID.uriRepresentation()
With this URL you can get the managed Object ID from the NSPersistentStoreCoordinator and the coordinator from the managed object context.
Then call object(with: on the context to get the object.
let persistentStoreCoordinator = managedContext.persistentStoreCoordinator!
if let objectID = persistentStoreCoordinator.managedObjectID(forURIRepresentation: objectIDURL) {
let object = managedContext.object(with: objectID) as! TrackInfo
print(object)
}
I have a NSManagedObjectContext where two NSManagedObject are saved.
I'm calling a method in another thread and I need to access those two NSManagedObject so I created a child context like the following:
let childManagedContext = NSManagedObjectContext(concurrencyType: .PrivateQueueConcurrencyType)
childManagedContext.parentContext = self.managedContext
When I do:
let myNSManagedObject1 = childManagedContext.objectWithID(self.myNSManagedObject1.objectID) as! MyNSManagedObject
let myNSManagedObject2 = childManagedContext.objectWithID(self.myNSManagedObject2.objectID) as! MyNSManagedObject
myNSManagedObject1 and myNSManagedObject2 are not the same objects as self.myNSManagedObject1 and self.myNSManagedObject2. Can someone explain me why?
Plus if I use existingObjectWithID instead of objectWithID, it seems I still have a fault object for my relationship in myNSManagedObject1 and myNSManagedObject2:
relationShipObject = "<relationship fault: 0x170468a40 'relationShipObject'>"
Understand that they are the "same" in the sense that they refer to the same object in your object graph. If you compare all attributes, you will find that they are equal.
However, because they are in different contexts, they will be two separate instances of this object. So the machine address you see will be different. I hope that clears up the confusion.
As for the "fault", that only means that the underlying object (or attribute) has not yet been fetched into memory. This is simply an optimization mechanism to minimize memory footprint. If you were to log the object or attribute explicitly, it would be fetched from the store and displayed as expected. See "Faulting and Uniquing" in the Core Data Programming Guide.
You have one object, that is the version that's in Core Data. When you use objectWithID: you create an instance of that object. So, if you do it twice you get two instances of the same object. (Much in the same way that you can create two objects of the same class.)
Of course, if you try to save your context, having changed one but not the other, weird things might happen.
A common pattern is where you create a new "editing" managed object context and create a new instance there. Then if the user pressed Cancel, you can just delete the context and not have to worry about rolling back any changes. I can't think where having two instances on the same context would be useful.
So long story short, there's a discrepancy between the output of a NSMutableDictionary's contents and the result of calling allValues on the same object. Below is some debugger output after inspecting the object which demonstrates my problem: (made generic of course)
(lldb) po self.someDict.allKeys
<__NSArrayI 0xa5a2e00>(
<SomeObject: 0xa5a2dc0>,
<SomeObject: 0xa5a2de0>
)
(lldb) po self.someDict.allValues
<__NSArrayI 0xa895ca0>(
0.5,
0.5
)
(lldb) po self.someDict
{
"<SomeObject: 0xa5a2dc0>" = (null);
"<SomeObject: 0xa5a2de0>" = (null);
}
So as we can see, the actual output of the NSMutableDictionary contains null values for both its entries, but the contents of .allValues contains the proper data. These three outputs were taken at the same time in execution.
I'm not sure why this is happening, but I think it may have something to do with the fact that I'm encoding/decoding the object which this dictionary is a property of using CoreData. I believe I'm doing this properly:
[aCoder encodeObject:self.someDict forKey:#"someDict"];
and to decode
self.someDict = [aDecoder decodeObjectForKey:#"someDict"];
The weird thing is that if I inspect the dictionary before it ever gets encoded, it is still in the state described at the beginning of the post, so this is why I'm doubtful the CoreData actions are screwing with the contents.
As always, please don't hesitate to request additional information.
EDIT: The problem was as answered below. I was using a custom class which didn't cooperate with isEqual, so my solution was to change the storage and structure of my logic, which made using a Dictionary unnecessary.
I have not been able to duplicate the problem using NSString as keys and NSNumber as values. I suspect that your custom class does not properly implement hash and/or isEqual. Specifically, the results from those two methods must be consistent, meaning that if isEqual returns true, then the hash values for the two objects must be identical.
You also need to ensure that your class implements NSCopying properly and that a copy is equal to the original.
As a general rule, don't use custom objects for dictionary keys. Just use strings and be done with it.
As user3386109 points out, custom objects must properly implement the -hash and -isEqual methods in order to be used as dictionary keys, and even then, custom objects don't work correctly for dictionary keys for things like key/value coding.
Problem: Need Unique Identifier
I'm saving a custom object using NSArchiver. It retains all of my objects data, however, everytime I archive and unarchive it gives them new addresses
"<Item: 0x17005d070>",
"<Item: 0x17005e4b0>",
"<Item: 0x17005e4e0>"
"<Item: 0x170059fe0>",
"<Item: 0x170059ec0>",
"<Item: 0x17005a0a0>"
For the same 3 objects.
This causes problems because I need to hold a copy of some of the items and persist this copy, and later compare the copy to the original for equality [currentItem isEqual:oldItem]; Even when this should return true (i.e. the object is the same in terms of name, location, etc.) it will return false because the pointers are different. What's the solution to this? I've thought about adding a uniqueID to each object and then just storing that uniqueID, but that seems like overkill for what I'm trying to do.
Solution:
You can't rely on an objects memory address as a unique identifier. Use NSUUID.
The problem is that you have not implemented isEqual: for your Item class. Implement it. Otherwise, as you've observed, we fall back on NSObject's definition of isEqual:, which is identicality (i.e. these are one and the same object). It is up to you to tell Cocoa that an Item should return true if the object is the same in terms of name, location, etc.; it doesn't magically know this.