I am trying to implement objects similar to CNContact and CNMutableContact such that I can retrieve my immutable objects from a custom store and make editions only to mutable copies of the objects.
To tackle this I have taken a look at the CNContact source available through Xcode to find this:
open class CNContact : NSObject, NSCopying, NSMutableCopying, NSSecureCoding {
/*! The identifier is unique among contacts on the device. It can be saved and used for fetching contacts next application launch. */
open var identifier: String { get }
open var contactType: CNContactType { get }
...
}
However when I try something similar I get an error:
class MyModel: NSObject, NSCoding, NSSecureCoding {
// MARK: - Properties
var name: String { get }
...
}
The error being Expected '{' to start a getter definition. What am I doing wrong here?
The next step then would be to have a mutable subclass, very similar to CNMutableContact which would looks like this:
class MutableMyModel: MyModel {
// MARK: - Properties
var name: String
...
}
If my approach to this problem is sensible then why am I seeing this syntax error, and why is it valid within the Apple written code but not my own?
Finally am I going to hit any issues within my subclass where I am essentially redefining the name property?
var name: String { get } is only a definition in the protocol. A conforming class, such as MyModel needs to implement the definition, like so:
class MyModel: NSObject, NSCoding, NSSecureCoding {
var name: String { return "String Value here" }
}
Related
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#>)
}
}
Scenario
I am working on an SDK that will be used in two separate projects. Both projects will be using CoreData and the SDK needs to be fed data that is present in both project's managed object model. To do this I am employing a protocol-oriented design to get the SDK the data it needs.
The project will start out with a NSManagedObject base class that contains it's properties...
// Project
class Tag: NSManagedObject {
var name: String!
var code: String!
var items: [Any]!
...
}
These names are basic and simple. It would be nice to not have to change these when we conform this class to the protocol.
The SDK declares two protocols. The first protocol will be the data source the SDK will need to populate it's views. Some class in the project will conform to this and be the delegate...
// SDK
protocol SDKDataSource {
func getTaggableObjects() -> [Taggable]
}
var delegate: SDKDataSource!
The second protocol will be the ultimatum the SDK will make to it's project that the NSManagedObject it will be fed should conform to...
// SDK
protocol Taggable {
var name: String { get }
var code: String { get }
var items: [Any] { get }
}
In the project I will create an extension of the class and agree to conform that class to the Taggable protocol...
// Extension (in Project w/ SDK included)
extension Tag: Taggable {
var name: String {
get {
self.name
}
}
var code: String {
get {
self.code
}
}
var items: [Any] {
get {
self.items
}
}
}
This way when the SDK asks it's datasource to getTaggableObjects() the SDK will receive the objects from the Project's CoreData model that it can understand.
Question
Does the name of property in the protocol extension have to be different than the name of the property that is in the base class, or will doing the above work? It would be nice if I knew this is okay before I implement my design.
I can confirm that using the same name is not allowed.
I tried and it's yes.
protocol MyArray {
var count: Int {get}
}
extension Array: MyArray {
}
But you can't make different implementations for different protocols that have the same function or property.
Update
If protocol and base class have property with the same name but different type. You can make different implementations.
protocol MyArray {
var count: Float {get}
}
extension Array: MyArray {
var count: Float {
get {
return 0.0
}
}
}
I'm using Swift and trying to make some collection objects. These collection objects have a backing Dictionary to hold custom objects. For example, an object might be of type Cat and the collection object would be of type Cats. Cats would have a private dictionary containing values of type Cat. I have other types that also need respective collections (each collection type has specific logic for the type it holds).
I created a protocol to ensure each collection has a few common characteristics. These common functions and subscripts are generally passthroughs to the backing dictionary. Here is the protocol:
protocol ObjectDictionaryProtocol {
// These are necessary for generics to work in protocols
typealias Key: Hashable
typealias Value
// MARK: - Properties
var count: Int { get }
var isEmpty: Bool { get }
var keys: LazyMapCollection<Dictionary<Key, Value>, Key> { get }
var values: LazyMapCollection<Dictionary<Key, Value>, Value> { get }
// MARK: - Subscripts
subscript(key: Key) -> Value? { get set }
}
When I go to actually use the protocol as a type, for instance:
var objects: ObjectDictionaryProtocol
or
init(objs: ObjectDictionaryProtocol) {
...
}
I get the error:
Protocol 'ObjectDictionaryProtocol' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
I've searched around and it looks like the Hashable protocol I'm conforming to for my Key typealias is causing this. What is the best way to get around this? Is there a way to change the protocol such that I don't need the Hashable, or do I need to do something in the class that is using ObjectDictionaryProtocol? Or maybe there's a better way to effectively 'subclass' a Swift Dictionary (quotes because I realize the Dictionary struct cannot be subclassed)?
A protocol with associated types is less a type and more a template for a type. The actual type exists when the protocol's associated types are specified. Thus ObjectDictionaryProtocol 'becomes' a type when you specify:
ObjectDictionaryProtocol<String,Cat>
but the above is not valid Swift...
So you asked... '[is there] a better way to effectively 'subclass' a Swift Dictionary'. You might get by with an extension with something like:
class Cat {}
extension Dictionary where Value : Cat {
func voice (name: Key) {
if let _ = self[name] {
print ("\(name): Meow")
}
}
}
var someCats = Dictionary<String,Cat>()
someCats["Spot"] = Cat()
someCats.voice("Spot")
// Spot: Meow
Or you may need to actually implement the protocol.
class ObjectDiciontary<Key:Hashable, Value> : ObjectDictionaryProtocol {
var backingDictionary = Dictionary<Key,Value>()
// implement protocol
}
var object : ObjectDictionary<String,Cat> = ...
// ...
The reason is because when you're using typealias you're effectivly making your Protocol into a generic protocol as Protocol<T>. Bear with me here, I'll explain why and how to fix it.
The issue here is that Apple has decided to make typealias the keyword for defining associated types. This is fixed in Swift 2.2 (Xcode 7.3)
You can read more about it on https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0011-replace-typealias-associated.md
It's being renamed to associatedtype which makes more sense.
This means your protocol has to be adopted, and there define its associated types.
In your case it would look something like
protocol ObjectDictionaryProtocol {
associatedtype Value
}
extension String : ObjectDictionaryProtocol {
associatedtype = Double
}
The init could look like
init<T : ObjectDictionaryProtocol>(objs: ObjectDictionaryProtocol)
or
init<T : ObjectDictionaryProtocol
where T.Value == Double>(objs: ObjectDictionaryProtocol)
Now for typealias Key: Hashable it means that whatever type that is assigned to Key has to conform or be Hashable
This will give you an error that String isn't conforming to ObjectDictionaryProtocol as it can't fulfil the requirements.
protocol ObjectDictionaryProtocol {
associatedtype Value : FloatingPointType
}
extension String : ObjectDictionaryProtocol {
associatedtype = Int
}
Int isn't a FloatingPointType (but Double is)
I have a CoreDataStore class which has two generic placeholders and can be used for each entity type in the model. The idea is that it fetches an NSManagedObject subclass (based on one of the generic types) from the store, converts it into the appropriate object (based on the other generic type) and returns that object.
The purpose of this behaviour is so I'm keeping the Core Data aspects encapsulated and avoiding passing NSManagedObject instances all around the app.
Example potential usage
This is purely how the usage might look to further demonstrate what I am trying to achieve.
let personStore = CoreDataStore<ManagedPerson, Person>()
let personData = personStore.fetchSomeObject() // personData is a value type Person
I have the following code, separated over several files but shown here in a modified fashion for simplicity.
import Foundation
import CoreData
// MARK: - Core Data protocol and managed object
protocol ManagedObjectProtocol { }
class ManagedPerson: NSManagedObject, ManagedObjectProtocol {
var title: String?
}
class ManagedDepartment: NSManagedObject, ManagedObjectProtocol {
var name: String?
}
// MARK: - Simple struct representations
protocol DataProtocol {
typealias ManagedObjectType: ManagedObjectProtocol
init(managedObject: ManagedObjectType)
}
struct Person {
var title: String?
}
struct Department {
var name: String?
}
extension Person: DataProtocol {
typealias ManagedObjectType = ManagedPerson
init(managedObject: ManagedPerson) {
self.title = managedObject.title
}
}
extension Department: DataProtocol {
typealias ManagedObjectType = ManagedDepartment
init(managedObject: ManagedDepartment) {
self.name = managedObject.name
}
}
class CoreDataStore<ManagedObject: ManagedObjectProtocol, DataObject: DataProtocol> {
func fetchSomeObject() -> DataObject {
var managedObject: ManagedObject // fetch an NSManagedObject
// Error here
return DataObject(managedObject: managedObject)
}
}
The error I am receiving is when I try to initialise the struct in fetchSomeObject:
Cannot invoke initializer for type 'DataObject' with an argument list of type '(managedObject: ManagedObject)'
Obviously the compiler can't figure out that the DataObject (which is restricted to types conforming to DataProtocol) can be initialised with a ManagedObject (which is restricted to types conforming to ManagedObjectProtocol) despite it being declared as such in DataProtocol.
Is there any way to achieve this functionality? Additionally is this a reasonable approach or am I completely off the wall with this?
Update
After a bit of digging it seems that Swift generics are invariant which I believe is causing what I'm running into.
Think your CoreDataStore again, for example, CoreDataStore<ManagedPerson, Department> doesn't make any sense. Why not? Because the Department is a DataProtocol without problem, but its corresponding typealias ManagedObjectType is not ManagedPerson.
The reason why your code won't compile is just the same. Here return DataObject(managedObject: managedObject) you can't initialize an DataObject from an armbitary ManagedObject, only a DataObject.ManagedObjectType is acceptable.
So what you need is a type constraint, add this where clause, your code should work:
class CoreDataStore<ManagedObject: ManagedObjectProtocol, DataObject: DataProtocol
where DataObject.ManagedObjectType == ManagedObject>
I am currently working on an iOS app using Swift. I have a custom DataSource that needs to know the Type of the model that it has to provide. I have a custom Protocol, that has one method.
protocol JSONModel {
init(json: JSON)
}
Then, there are several models that implement the protocol. All of them have different properties, but are the same otherwise.
class CurrentDownload: JSONModel {
let someProperty: String
required init(json: JSON) {
someProperty = json["someProperty"].stringValue
}
}
My DataSource has a property that is of type JSONModel.Type
private let modelClass: JSONModel.Type
When i try to initialize a new instance of my modelClass i get a segmentation fault. Initialization of the model is done by
let model = modelClass(json: modelJSON)
Unfortunately, the compiler crashes on that line.
Swift Compiler Error
Command failed due to signal: Segmentation fault: 11
1. While emitting IR SIL function
#_TFC14pyLoad_for_iOS21RemoteTableDataSourceP33_56149C9EC30967B4CD75284CC9032FEA14handleResponsefS0_FPSs9AnyObject_T_ for 'handleResponse' at RemoteTableDataSource.swift:59:13
Does anybody have an idea on how to fix this or on how to work around this issue?
I believe this problem isn't too hard.
Usually with Swift segmentation faults are when you try to set the value of a constant (let) quantity, or try to set the value of something that hasn't been properly declared.
I can spot one such instance here:
required init(json: JSON) {
bytesLeft = json["someProperty"].stringValue
}
There's two things wrong with this example. You have a (designated) initialiser which terminates without setting the property someProperty and you haven't declared the variable bytesLeft.
So now the problem (which I really should have spotted before) is that * modelClass* just is not a class (or otherwise initialisable type). To cannot directly access a protocol, you can only access a class conforming to a protocol. The compiler didn't spot this because you did something sneaky with .Type.
When I say access, I mean functions and properties, including initialisers.
Only a class can create an instance of a class, which has itself as the type of the instance, and protocols can't have bonafide instances themselves.
If you think carefully about it, it is impossible to well-define what you are trying to do here. Suppose we had the protocol
protocol JSONModel {
init(json: JSON)
}
but then two classes:
class CurrentDownload: JSONModel {
let someProperty: String
required init(json: JSON) {
//Some other code perhaps.
someProperty = json["someProperty"].stringValue
}
}
class FutureDownload: JSONModel {
let differentProperty: String
required init(json: JSON) {
//Different code.
differentProperty = json["differentProperty"].stringValue
}
}
whereas before one might argue that
JSONModel.Type(json: JSON)
(this code is equivalent to your code) should compile and run because we have given an implementation of init, we now can't deny that there is confusion - which implementation should we use here?? It can't choose one, and most would argue that it shouldn't try, and so it doesn't.
What you need to do is initialise with some class.
If you are looking for a minimal class that adheres to JSONModel and no more, you'll need to write such a class e.g.
class BasicJSONModel: JSONModel {
let someProperty: String
required init(json: JSON) {
//Some other code perhaps.
someProperty = json["someProperty"].stringValue
}
}
Then do
private let modelClass: BasicJSONModel//.Type not needed with a class
let model = modelClass(json: modelJSON)
of course this is probably silly and one may just write
let model = BasicJSONModel(json: modelJSON)
Or you could just write a common superclass if the protocol's only use is for this:
class SuperJSONModel {
let someProperty: String//This is not needed of course and you could just strip down to the init only.
init(json: JSON) {
//Some other code perhaps.
someProperty = json["someProperty"].stringValue
}
}
and then is you wanted to check that some object is "conforming" to the what was the JSONModel, you simply check that it is a subclass of SuperJSONModel.