I'm sorry the title may mislead you, since I'm not so good at English. Let me describe my problem as below (You may skip to the TL;DR version at the bottom of this question).
In Coredata, I design a Product entity. In app, I download products from a server. It return JSON string, I defragment it then save to CoreData.
After sometimes has passed, I search a product from that server again, having some interaction with server. Now, I call the online product XProduct. This product may not exist in CoreData, and I also don't want to save it to CoreData since it may not belong to this system (it come from other warehouse, not my current warehouse).
Assume this XProduct has the same properties as Product, but not belong to CoreData, the developer from before has designed another Object, the XProduct, and copy everything (the code) from Product. Wow. The another difference between these two is, XProduct has some method to interact with server, like: - (void)updateStock:(NSInteger)qty;
Now, I want to upgrade the Product properties, I'll have to update the XProduct also. And I have to use these two separately, like:
id product = anArrayContainsProducts[indexPath.row];
if ([product isKindOfClass:[XProduct class]] {
// Some stuff with the xproduct
}
else {
// Probably the same display to the cell.
}
TL;DR
Basically, I want to create a scenario like this:
Get data from server.
Check existed in CoreData.
2 == true => add to array (also may update some data from server).
2 == false => create object (contains same structure as NSManagedObject from JSON dictionary => add to array.
The object created in step 4 will never exist in CoreData.
Questions
How can I create an NSManagedObject without having it add to NSMangedObjectContext and make sure the app would run fine?
If 1 is not encouragement, please suggest me a better approach to this. I really don't like to duplicate so many codes like that.
Update
I was thinking about inheritance (XProduct : Product) but it still make XProduct the subclass of NSManagedObject, so I don't think that is a good approach.
There are a couple of possibilities that might work.
One is just to create the managed objects but not insert them into a context. When you create a managed object, the context argument is allowed to be nil. For example, calling insertNewObjectForEntityForName(_:inManagedObjectContext:) with no context. That gives you an instance of the managed object that's not going to be saved. They have the same lifetime as any other object.
Another is to use a second Core Data stack for these objects, with an in-memory persistent store. If you use NSInMemoryStoreType when adding the persistent store (instead of NSSQLiteStoreType), you get a complete, working Core Data stack. Except that when you save changes, they only get saved in memory. It's not really persistent, since it disappears when the app exits, but aside from that it's exactly the same as any other Core Data stack.
I'd probably use the second approach, especially if these objects have any relationships, but either should work.
Related
I'm having some issues with the app, that I'm making, which I thought would be a lot easier to explain with some photos, so ... :
Ofcourse the "Create New Person-button" in nr. 1 leads you to number two.
Now, I'm having issues figuring out how to save this data about the person in the "People Diary". The goal is, that when you enter a person's name, add a photo (an enable-camera feature, I will struggle with at a later time...) and add an answer to the question - then you only need to press "Save this person", and then you will be redirected to the AllPersonsInYourDiaryViewController, where there is now a new tableViewCell with this new person's name (maybe with a subtitle containing the answer and the photo shown in miniature in the cell too).
(Naturally you can then enter this cell with the data about the person too - but that comes next.)
So far in the app, I have used NSUserDefault, when allowing the user to create this specifik Diary by the Name "Antons Diary" with the specifik question and so on. But now it came to my attention, that maybe it is smarter to use something else? I tried with dictionaries, but couldn't get this to work properly.
So...: Before I spend hours and hours playing around with one of these ways, will someone smarter than me, tell me what the best approach would be?
If I can give my two cents, the first thing you have to do is to “design” how to represent a person programmatically. You can create a struct or class to do so, even though a struct is more suitable:
struct Person {
var name: String?
var answer: String?
var photo: String?
}
Then you can decide how to save the data of such an object persistently. If you want to use a database, then I would recommend using SQLite with FMDB library. It’s really easy and fast to learn how to use it, and it's also quite handy. I've used it big projects and it works smoothly. I find CoreData too complicated and an overkill based on what you need.
If you don’t want to use a database, your only other way is to save to files, but still, you’ve got options here too. If you encode (see Codable protocol in Swift), you can use NSKeyedArchiver to convert to Data object and write then to disk. If you like using dictionaries, and since the properties you’re going to have for a person are not going to be too many, you could create a dictionary by assigning the properties and their values, and then convert and save as JSON data, or even Plist files. Without any intension to do promotion here, but just to provide some additional help, if you want take a look to a library that I’ve written and that can do all these automatically for you. It’s a protocol that you have to adopt, and then you can instantly convert your struct to a dictionary, JSON or plist and save to files.
No matter which way you’re going to select, save the images as single files to documents directory, and keep their file names only stored to database/file. Based on them, you can build the path to each image (or the URL) easily when needed. Warning: Do not save the full path to the documents directory, especially if you’re testing on Simulator; paths are changing on each build. Save the file name only.
Additionally, if you’re going to use a struct like the one shown above, you could implement small but super convenient functions that will be responsible for saving, loading, or updating your data to the solution (database/file) you’ll eventually select. That way, you’ll have related stuff gathered in one place, and easily accessible (i.e., person.save()).
struct Person {
var name: String?
var answer: String?
var photo: String?
func save() {
…
}
func load() {
…
}
// More functions…
}
Lastly, avoid using UserDefaults, or at least keep just a few non-critical data there. UserDefaults are not meant to keep all data produced by your app. Most importantly, do not use it for saving sensitive data, especially passwords or other stuff like that.
I hope the above will help you make your mind.
I can give you the logic behind coreData and NSUserDefaults, but you will decide which one should be used.
CoreData is usually used as a database. you can create entities and attributes for every entity. Moreover, you can create relations between these entities.
When extracting data from coreData, you can arrange this data using NSSortDescriptor or select a specific record using NSPredicate.
So as you can see CoreData is a database.
While NSUserDefaults is usually used to save a password, username, userID... and such issues that you will regularly use in the app. NSUserDefaults gives you a direct access to the saved variables at any time. However, CoreData will take more time and lines of code to access the entity and make the query.
Now, check which method suits your case more.
This question is poorly phased but this can be better explained in code.
We have a Core Data Stack with private and main contexts as defined by Marcus Zarra here: http://martiancraft.com/blog/2015/03/core-data-stack/
We call a separate class to do a fetch request (main context) and return an array of NSManagedObjects:
NSArray *ourManagedObjects = [[Client sharedClient].coreDataManager fetchArrayForClass:[OurObject class] sortKey:#"name" ascending:YES];
We then do some processing and store a reference:
self.ourObjects = processedManagedObjects
Our view contains a UITableView and this data is used to populate it and that works just fine.
We change the data on our CMS, pull to refresh on the UITableView to trigger a sync (private context) and then call this same function to retrieve the updated data. However, the fetch request returns the exact same data as before even though when I check the sqlite db directly it contains the new data. To get the new values to display I have to reload the app.
I have discovered that if I don't assign the processedManagedObjects to self, the fetch request does indeed return the correct data, so it looks like holding a reference to the NSManagedObject stops it from getting new data from the main context. However I have no idea why that would be.
To clarify, we're pretty sure there's nothing wrong with our Core Data Stack, even when these managed objects are not being updated, other are being updated just fine, it's only this one where we store a local reference.
It sounds like what's going on is:
Managed objects don't automatically update themselves to reflect the latest data in the persistent store when changes are made via a different managed object context.
As a result, if you keep a reference to the objects, they keep whatever data they already had.
On the other hand if you don't keep a reference but instead re-fetch them, you get the new data because there was no managed object hanging around with its old data.
You have a few options:
You could keep the reference and have your context refresh the managed objects, using either the refresh(_, mergeChanges:) method or refreshAllObjects().
If it makes sense for your app, use an NSFetchedResultsController and use its delegate methods to be notified of changes.
Don't keep the reference.
The first is probably best-- refreshAllObjects() is probably what you want. Other options might be better based on other details of your app.
Try setting the shouldRefreshRefetchedObjects property of the fetch request to true. According to the documentation:
By default when you fetch objects, they maintain their current property values, even if the values in the persistent store have changed. Invoking this method with the parameter true means that when the fetch is executed, the property values of fetched objects are updated with the current values in the persistent store.
I am in a situation where I allow the user to download a PFObject and modify it locally, and they can then either cancel the changes or hit Done, which will dismiss the editing interface but NOT upload the changes to Parse yet. They need to hit Save on the previous screen to write all changes to the database at once.
The problem is once the PFObject is modified, you cannot revert it to its prior state without refetching from the database. But I cannot always refetch the data from the database every time they hit Cancel because the prior state may not be uploaded to Parse yet (and that's a bad UX making them wait to discard changes that are only stored locally).
For example, imagine the user taps to edit the PFObject, they make changes then hit Done, then tap on it again and further edit the object, then hit Cancel. In this case, the object needs to be reverted to its prior state, but that state has not been uploaded to Parse yet. So I cannot refetch the data from the database to revert changes otherwise it would overwrite the changes they made the first time.
To solve this problem, I would simply fetch the PFObject and store a copy of it. I'd call that the transient object. I would have another property that stores the real object. The user would modify the transient object, and when they hit Cancel I would simply set that to nil, if they instead hit Done I would set the real object equal to the transient object, and once they finally hit Save I would save the real object to the database. That way I can be sure changes aren't being made to the real object until the user commits the changes. The problem is, PFObject does not adopt the NSCopying protocol (not sure why), therefore I cannot create a copy of the PFObject. Any change I make to it affects the real object.
How can this be resolved, without modifying the app's design that allows control over when the data is committed and later saved? Is there a way to extend PFObject and adopt NSCopying, has it been done before?
I did consider storing the attributes of the object in a dictionary and allow the user to edit that instead, then upon commit set each of those attributes on the PFObject. The problem with this solution arises with complex structures. In this app, I allow the user to modify multiple arrays that contain multiple PFObjects. It's just infeasible to try to recreate and later merge changes with complex structures like this beyond a single simple PFObject.
I ran into this same problem. I did not make any changes directly to the PFObject, but rather, saved the updates in an NSDictionary. When the user clicks the done button, I then update the PFObject and saveInBackground. I don't think there is a "discard local changes" option for PFObject. If you don't do this, the only option is to throw out the existing PFObject and fetch again.
Regarding the NSDictionary comment, perhaps NSArray would be better. The implementation really depends on your specific program, but I'll give a quick example. The NSArray we'll call instructionArray. Imagine there are 3 sections in a tableView. Also assume that the data source for each section is an NSArray of PFObjects. Now say you want to set the age property of each PFObject in Section 2 to 35.
Add an NSArray object (corresponding to an instruction to carry out) to the instructionArray. This instruction to carry out could have the form
Section to update
Property to update
Value to update to
So the object you'll add is #[#(2),#"age",#(35)];
Given that the user is probably carrying out a finite amount of instructions, it might not be that performance heavy to loop through the instructionArray in cellForRowAtIndexPath so when a cell uses its corresponding PFObject to figure out what to display, it can loop through the instructions after and change what is displayed as if the PFObject was updated.
When the save button is touched, loop through the instructions and actually edit the PFObjects themselves.
If you need the instructions to handle specific objects rather than sections, then you just have to update the structure of the instructionArray. Maybe you could include an identifier to indicate what type of instruction it is.
So, in an app we have two NSManagedObjectContext's, lets call them context1 and context2. We have a situation in which an object, with customId=1, is inserted into context2, and context2 is never saved. At some point in the future an object is added to context1, with customId=1 also. context1 is then saved and when the completion notification is received the fun begins! We try to merge the changes from the save into context2 via:
[context2 mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification:notification];
This works fine, it does the merge and then there are two objects in context2 both with customId=1. However, what I want to happen is, on merge, it somehow realises that both of the objects have the same customId and so instead of doing an insert, it just updates the existing object and internally makes the two the same object (or something to that effect :/). I had thought this may be possible by overriding isEqual and hash, but this is strictly forbidden for NSManagedObjects!
Another thought was to use validateInsert: and when it tries to insert the new object tell it not to and copy over the values. This however, causes another problem. We now have a persistent store with one object and context2 has a different object. We would then have to delete the object from context1 and save that change to remove the object from the persistent store... But since we never want to save context2 (this may seem odd, but we have valid reasons... I promise !) that object would then never be saved.
We basically want to be able to tell CoreData that after two inserts have been made they are actually supposed to be the same object! If anyone has ideas on how we may be able to do this, any help at this point would be greatly appreciated!
That type of merge strategy is something you need to deal with and is outside of the scope of the framework. Basically you have a dirty sandbox and a clean sandbox. When a change is made in the clean sandbox it will get propagated to the dirty one.
It is the responsibility of the owner of the dirty sandbox to watch for changes coming in and react to them. You can listen for the NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification and check for a collision. From there it is your business logic that determines what happens next.
I have a Reminder entity that needs to update its date property whenever a certain entity B is deleted. I've spent some days coding thinking I could do some useful things in my managed object subclass on deletion time. I tried
- (void)willSave
{
if (self.isDeleted)
// use self.managedObjectContext
}
The context was nil. Relationships were also torn down there. Fair enough.
So... I started writing cumbersome code for prepareForDeletion to circumvent the fact that the object hadn't been deleted yet, but then Core Data throws self.managedObjectContext == nil in my face. The documentation says that this is where I do stuff "before relationships are torn down". So what is the point in self.managedObjectContext == nil if self.relationshipA.managedObjectContext is accessible (as the docs suggest)? And more importantly, why does my not yet deleted object not have its context?
I read a comment here regarding that problem
its not 'fault' as much as it is a 'disown', the context has disowned your object (he was deleted and save was committed to the database) and so your object was disowned. don't save in methods that are changing and object as the save should probably be committed/saved after the operation anyway. – Dan Shelly May 21 at 19:05
My code was:
[moc deleteObject:obj]
[moc save:NULL]
When I removed the save operation my self.managedObjectContext existed in prepareForDeletion. That is, until auto-save, when it was nil again. Probably because the parent context also deleted it, followed by a save by the UIManagedDocument.
I'm starting to think that my only options are to make a custom delete method (that works until Core Data cascades a deletion, in which case it won't be called), or make a new class that listens to NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification.
Update:
The user wants to keep in touch with a person, and wants to be reminded after a certain interval (stored in ContactWish) if no contact has been made. What I'm trying to accomplish is that when the latest ContactOccasion for a certain person is deleted, the corresponding occasion->person->wish->reminder gets updated (using the interval).
Since this is a learning experience for me I wanted to find out the right way (one that works with cascade deletion etc.) and not just call for an update manually from every place in my code where I do [MOContext deleteObject:occasion]. Suggestions are welcome.
(the reminder entity has also been prepared for more manual use)
Would it not be much more logical to have the Reminder entity manage its date property? It could "listen" (maybe via changedValues:) to its relationship entities being deleted and perform the update.
This seems more consistent, as the B entity should not really be concerned with the logic of the Reminder entity updates.
Edit
Pursuant to the discussion below and based on my opinion that you cannot load up the database cascade delete model too much with update logic:
Rather than react to a deletion you can introduce an attribute that you set and listen to in order to do the changes.
I really do not see how relying on core data delete mechanisms is easier or more elegant than just writing your own "deleteOccasion" method that handles this logic.