As a preface, this might be an incredibly simple and/or ignorant question.
In ReactiveCocoa 2.x, we were able to use RACObserve and RAC to observe properties of an object. From the documentation I can find in Reactive 3 and 4, we now use PropertyType to observe changes to an object property. I have so far been unsuccessful in being able to observe any property change when using MutableProperty or DynamicProperty.
class TempObject {
var property: String
}
let tempObject = TempObject()
let propertyObserver: MutableProperty<String> = MutableProperty(tempObject.property)
From what I understand, I should be able to use propertyObserver to view changes to tempObject.property. I tried adding a map function to the signal producer from propertyObserver to see if it was firing, but don't see anything when updating tempObject.property. Again, could be a trivial thing that I am missing, thanks so much.
Edit
NachoSoto nailed it - I needed to make my property KVO compliant. I also ended doing this:
let tempObjectSignal: MutableProperty<TempObject> = MutableProperty(tempObject)
let propertyObserver: MutableProperty<String> <~ tempObjectSignal.producer.map({ $0.property })
And whenever tempObject.property is updated I make sure to call
tempObjectSignal.value = tempObject
This fires off all the necessary signals. I don't know if this breaks any best practices, though. Let me know what you think!
MutableProperty(value) creates a mutable property but only with value that as the initial value.
What you want to use is DynamicProperty, which will use the Objective-C runtime and KVO to detect changes to an object's property:
let property = DynamicProperty(tempObject, "property")
For that reason, however, you need to make sure that the property you want to observe is part of the Objective-C runtime, by making the class a subclass of NSObject, and by either using the dynamic keyword:
class TempObject: NSObject {
dynamic var property: String
}
Or using #objc to ensure that it gets exported to the runtime:
class TempObject: NSObject {
#objc var property: String
}
Related
What's the main difference between property observers and property wrappers? They seem to be very similar in that they manage how the properties are stored. The only thing I can think of is that you can reuse property wrappers since there is a layer of separation between code that manages how a property is stored and the code that defines a property.
Property Wrapper
#propertyWrapper
struct TwelveOrLess {
private var number: Int
init() { self.number = 0 }
var wrappedValue: Int {
get { return number }
set { number = min(newValue, 12) }
}
}
struct Rectangle {
#TwelveOrLess var height: Int
#TwelveOrLess var width: Int
}
Property Observer
struct Rectangle {
var height: Int {
didSet {
if oldValue > 12 {
height = 12
} else {
height = oldValue
}
}
}
var width: Int {
didSet {
if oldValue > 12 {
width = 12
} else {
width = oldValue
}
}
}
}
The two cases above accomplish pretty much the same thing, which is to set the properties to be equal to or less than 12.
You say:
The only thing I can think of is that you can reuse property wrappers since there is a layer of separation between code that manages how a property is stored and the code that defines a property.
Your example (and some of your text) appears to be lifted from the Swift Programming Language: Property Wrapper manual:
A property wrapper adds a layer of separation between code that manages how a property is stored and the code that defines a property. For example, if you have properties that provide thread-safety checks or store their underlying data in a database, you have to write that code on every property. When you use a property wrapper, you write the management code once when you define the wrapper, and then reuse that management code by applying it to multiple properties.
So, yes, the virtue of the property wrapper is the reuse achieved by separating the “code that manages how a property is stored and the code that defines a property.” This resulting reuse is the whole m.o. of property wrappers.
You clearly, you can write your own setters and getters (which is better, IMHO, than a pattern of writing an observer that mutates itself), too, but you lose the reuse and abstraction that the property wrappers offer.
You go on to say:
The two cases above accomplish pretty much the same thing, which is to set the properties to be equal to or less than 12.
Sure, but if you want to do this for ten different properties, the wrapper avoids you from needing to repeat this code ten times. It also abstracts the details of this “equal to or less than 12” logic away from where you declare the property.
Another big difference betwixt property observers and property wrappers is that property observers can access self, whilst property wrappers cannot yet (as of this writing) access self using a stable, documented interface.
You can work around this limitation by manually passing self to the property wrapper in init. This workaround is described in the property wrapper proposal.
You can access self in a property wrapper using an undocumented, unstable interface which you can learn about by typing “property wrapper _enclosingInstance” into your favorite search engine.
I have a NSManagedObject class with two relationships: courseAand courseB.
These relationships should be represented in a dynamic variable. How is it possible to change this variable from outside the class?
#objc(Universtity)
public class Universtity: NSManagedObject {
dynamic var name: String {
get {
let name = self.courseA?.name
return name!
}
}
}
For example from within a ViewController like University.name = University.courseB.name ?
I was thinking about a Notifikation, but this seems maybe a little more complicated as it could be.
And if there is no other way, how should I implement the observer inside the University class?
Thank you for every idea.
Looking at your code, you have declared a "computed" or "ready-only" variable. This is a variable whose value comes from another variable or combination of variables.
I can't see your data model, so it's not clear if you have defined a name parameter in the Core Data model. Regardless, if you have the logic is somewhat confused, because the getter you have defined means any value it may hold would be ignored anyway. You would need to define a setter to set self.courseA.name if you want to ensure the value can be written to. You don't need to worry about key-value coding notifications, because they will be triggered by the Core Data Managed Object.
public class Universtity: NSManagedObject {
dynamic var name: String {
get {
let name = self.courseA?.name
return name!
}
set(newValue) {
courseA!.name = newValue
}
}
}
Also the pattern you have used to force unwrap a non-optional value in your getter isn't optimal. I haven't edited this because that is another discussion, but I would suggest asking yourself the question am I sure why I am doing this? for every "?" and "!" you use.
So I have a custom view touchableView inside a ViewController.
touchableView informs ViewController of changes in its properties through a delegate protocol (ViewController being the delegate).
What is the best method to change properties of touchableView from ViewController (so the other way around)?
Is there a way to create a two-way delegate relationship between two classes?
Simply:
Assuming that you are already have touchableView instance in the ViewController, you should be able to set -or get-/call its properties and methods.
For instance, assume that you have the following method in touchableView class:
class func fromNib() -> TouchableView {
return Bundle.main.loadNibNamed(String(describing: self), owner: nil, options: nil)![0] as! TouchableView
}
You should simply be able to:
let touchableView = TouchableView.fromNib()
thus:
// for example
touchableView.myProperty = "Hello"
I assumed that TouchableView has a string property called myProperty...
Remark:
For some reason, I suggest to implement some of property observers in TouchableView:
Property observers observe and respond to changes in a property’s
value. Property observers are called every time a property’s value is
set, even if the new value is the same as the property’s current
value.
They might be -somehow- useful to be implemented in your custom class. For clarity, let's consider -for instance- that if editing the value of myProperty should be effecting the background color of the view, it might be implemented as:
var myProperty: String = "Initial Value" {
willSet {
print("About to set value to: \(newValue)")
}
didSet {
backgroundColor = UIColor.red
}
}
Further Reading:
If you are looking for an advanced approach for two way bindings (Implementing MVVM), you might want to check this article.
I would also suggest to take a look at some frameworks that will be so helpful for such an approach, such as RxSwift, for a more simple framework, you might want to check ReactiveKit/Bond.
I'm having trouble grasping the proper way of instantiating variables that always need to be set before an object is fully functional but may need to be instantiated after the constructor. Based on Swift's other conventions and restrictions it seems like there is a design pattern I'm unaware of.
Here is my use case:
I have a class that inherits from UIViewController and will programmatically create views based on user actions
I need to attach these views to this class, but to do so I need to retrieve their content based on configuration data supplied by another controller
I don't care if this configuration data is passed to the constructor (in which case it would always be required) or supplied by a secondary call to this object before it is used
My problem seems to be that both of the approaches in bullet 3 seem flawed.
In the first case, there is only one legitimate constructor this class can be called with, yet I'm forced to override other constructors and initialize member variables with fake values even if the other constructors are never intended to be used (I'm also trying to keep these variables as let types based on Swift's best practices).
In the second case, I'm effectively splitting my constructor into two parts and introduce an additional point of failure in case the second part fails to be called prior to class being used. I also can't move this second part to a method that's guaranteed to be called prior to usage (such as viewDidLoad) because I still need to pass in additional arguments from the config. While I can make sure to call the initPartTwo manually, I'd prefer to have a mechanism that better groups it with the actual constructor. I can't be the first one to run into this and it seems like there is a pattern I'm not seeing to make this cleaner.
UPDATE:
I ended up going with a modified version of the pattern matt suggested:
struct Thing {
let item1: String
let item2: String
struct Config {
let item3: String
let item4: String
}
var config:Config! {
willSet {
if self.config != nil {
fatalError("tried to initialize config twice")
}
}
}
init() {
self.item1 = ...
self.item2 = ...
...
}
public func phaseTwoInit(item3: String, item4: String) {
self.item3 = item3
self.item4 = item4
...
}
}
var t = Thing()
...
t.phaseTwoInit(...)
...
// start using t
If an initial instance variable property value can't be supplied at object initialization time, the usual thing is to declare it as an Optional. That way it doesn't need to be initialized by the class's initializers (it has a value - it is nil automatically), plus your code subsequently can distinguished uninitialized (nil) from initialized (not nil).
If the Optional if an implicitly unwrapped Optional, this arrangement need have no particular effect on your code (i.e. it won't have to be peppered with unwrappings).
If your objection is that you are forced to open the door to multiple settings of this instance variable because now it must be declared with var, then close the door with a setter observer:
struct Thing {
var name:String! {
willSet {
if self.name != nil {
fatalError("tried to set name twice")
}
}
}
}
var t = Thing()
t.name = "Matt" // no problem
t.name = "Rumplestiltskin" // crash
I came across a strange behaviour in Swift while programming a Master-Detail application.
Here's the scenario:
It's a simple Task Manager application. I have two text controls (TaskName, TaskDescription) on the TaskDetailView and two string variables with the same name but in lowerCamelCase (taskName, taskDescription) declared in the TaskDetailViewController.
#IBOutlet var TaskName:UITextField! //UpperCamelCase
#IBOutlet var TaskDescription:UITextView! //UpperCamelCase
var taskName:String? //lowerCamelCase
var taskDescription:String? //lowerCamelCase
I am setting the values of Text controls on ViewDidLoad() as usual:
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
TaskName.text = taskName
TaskDescription.text = taskDescription
}
And I am passing the data in prepareForSegue (from TaskListViewController) as usual:
override func prepareForSegue(segue: UIStoryboardSegue!, sender: AnyObject!) {
if(segue.identifier == "TaskListSegue"){
let detailViewController = segue.destinationViewController as ToDoTaskViewController
let (task, desc) = m_ToDoListManager.GetTask(TaskListView.indexPathForSelectedRow().row)
println("selected \(task) \(desc)")
detailViewController.taskName = task
detailViewController.taskDescription = desc
}
}
The way everything is implemented is correct.
But now when you run the application, the values of text controls are not set.
In fact, the values of the variables also are not set.
What must be happening here?
I have already investigated this problem and also came up with a solution (see my answer below). Please also see Martin R's answer below for a detailed explanation. I just wanted to share this with everyone. I am not sure if anyone has come across this issue.
Update:
Here's the actual code:https://github.com/Abbyjeet/Swift-ToDoList
Here is an explanation:
Your Swift class is (ultimately) a subclass of NSObject.
Therefore the properties are Objective-C properties with getter and setter method.
The name of the setter method for a property is built by capitalizing the first
letter of the property name, e.g. property "foo" has the setter method setFoo:
As a consequence, the setter method for both properties TaskName and taskName is called setTaskName:.
In an Objective-C file, you would get a compiler error
synthesized properties 'taskName' and 'TaskName' both claim setter 'setTaskName:' - use of this setter will cause unexpected behavior
but the Swift compiler does not notice the conflict.
A small demo of the problem:
class MyClass : NSObject {
var prop : String?
var Prop : String?
}
let mc = MyClass()
mc.prop = "foo"
mc.Prop = "bar"
println(mc.prop) // bar
println(mc.Prop) // nil
In your case
TaskName.text = ...
sets the "taskName" property, not the "TaskName". The properties have different type,
so that the behavior is undefined.
Note that the problem does only occur for "Objective-C compatible" properties. If you remove the
NSObject superclass in above example, the output is as expected.
Conclusion: You cannot have two Objective-C properties that differ only in the
case of the first letter. The Swift compiler should fail with an error here (as the
Objective-C compiler does).
The problem you were facing with was not connected to the swift language. Method prepareForSegue is called before loadView. That mean UITextField and UITextView are not initialized yet. That's why fields were not initialized.
You also asked: Why compiler doesn't show any error? That's because any selector performed on nil object doesn't throw an exception. So for example (sorry for obj-c):
UITextField *tf = nil;
[tf setText:#"NewText"];
Will not show any error.
As you said on your own answer to solve your problem you need to add additional fields to your destination controller (copy-paste):
var tAskName:String? //cUstomCamelCase
var tAskDescription:String? //cUstomCamelCase
Why is it happening?
I believe that internally Swift is using lowerCamelCase for text controls names which are not yet initialized and thus failing to set the values. But it is also strange that I didn't get any kind of error.
How did I solve it?
I know that the Swift is case-sensitive. So that was not the issue. So I just changed the case of one letter and named the variables as (tAskName, tAskDescription) and the values were set as expected.
#IBOutlet var TaskName:UITextField! //UpperCamelCase
#IBOutlet var TaskDescription:UITextView! //UpperCamelCase
var tAskName:String? //cUstomCamelCase
var tAskDescription:String? //cUstomCamelCase
So the conclusion is that if I have a control named TaskName, I cannot have a variable named as taskName