I'm trying to save a high score in my spritekit game. Based on all the tutorials I've watched and the stack overflow answers i've read, the following code should work:
NSUserDefaults.standardUserDefaults().setInteger(highScore, forKey: "highScore")
NSUserDefaults.synchronize()
however I keep encountering an error with the
NSUserDefaults.synchronize()
portion.The error states "Missing argument for parameter #1 in call" All the places i've looked seem to use that code with no error. I'm aware that there is going to be/ was recently an update to swift. Did this update cause something to change with the synchronize function, how do I fix this?
You need to call synchronize on standardUserDefaults.
NSUserDefaults.standardUserDefaults().synchronize();
Keep in mind that there is no need to call synchronize.
synchronize is an instance method, so you should call it on an instance, not the class:
NSUserDefaults.standardUserDefaults().synchronize()
However, you shouldn't need to do this.
In the CoreFoundation release notes for OS X 10.8, it was stated:
CFPreferences Synchronization
CFPreferencesSynchronize() (and therefore CFPreferencesAppSynchronize() and -[NSUserDefaults synchronize]) is now automatic in virtually all cases. The only remaining reason to call it is if you need a separate process to be able to synchronously access the values you just set; for example if you set a preference, then post a notification which another process receives and reads the same preference. Most regular applications will never need to do this, and applications that do are encouraged to use an inter-process communication API (for example XPC) to communicate with the other process rather than using the preferences system for IPC.
CFPreferencesSynchronize() is also much faster in 10.8, and will avoid doing any work if there are no outstanding changes to read or write.
And the Foundation release notes for 10.9:
-[NSUserDefaults synchronize] is not generally useful
You should only need to call -synchronize if a separate application will be reading the default that you just set, or if a process that does not use AppKit is terminating. In most applications neither of these should ever occur, and -synchronize should not be called. Note that prior to Mac OS X 10.8.4 there was a bug that caused AppKit to automatically synchronize slightly prematurely during application termination, so preferences set in response to windows closing while the application is terminating might not be saved; this has been fixed.
Related
Is there a way to take action, thus execute code, when an iOS application crashes? Specifically, I would like to save the core data storage. Is this possible? I would say that this is possible since, for example, Firebase has to send information online for making crashlytics work. How can this be achieved? Thanks
Yes, but it is very difficult, and "save core data storage" would be far too much (and very dangerous, to boot).
Most crashes result from a signal (often SIGSEGV, but also SIGABRT, SIGILL or others), and you can install a signal handler to run code in that case. However, that code must be very, very carefully written because you will be in a special execution state. There are a small number of C functions you are permitted to use (see the man page for sigaction for the list). Most notably, you can't allocate memory. Allocating memory in a signal catching function can deadlock the program in a tight spinlock (done that myself when I tried to write my own crash handler in my more naive days; it's really bad).
The way that crash handlers like Crashlytics do it is that they do as little as possible during the signal handler, mostly just writing the stack trace to storage (using pre-allocated buffers). When you restart, they see that there's an unhandled stack trace from a previous run, and then they do all the complicated stuff like uploading it to a server, or displaying UI, or whatever.
But even if you could write to Core Data in the middle of a signal handler, you would never want to do that. During a signal handler, the system is in an undefined state. Various invariants may not currently hold (such as whether the object graph is consistent). The fact that you're crashing this way indicates that something illegal has happened. The last thing you should do in that state is take data that is highly untrustworthy and overwrite the good data on disk.
Description
I would like to catch all exceptions that are occurring in iOS app and log them to file and eventually send them to back-end server used by the app.
I've been reading about this topic and found usage of signals sent by device and handling them, but I'm not sure if it's gonna break App Store Review guidelines or it may introduce additional issues.
I've added following to AppDelegate:
NSSetUncaughtExceptionHandler { (exception) in
log.error(exception)
}
signal(SIGABRT) { s in
log.error(Thread.callStackSymbols.prettified())
exit(s)
}
signal(SIGILL) { s in
log.error(Thread.callStackSymbols.prettified())
exit(s)
}
signal(SIGSEGV) { s in
log.error(Thread.callStackSymbols.prettified())
exit(s)
}
Questions
Is this good approach, any other way?
Will it break App Store Review guidelines because of usage of exit()
Is it better to use kill(getpid(), SIGKILL) instead of exit()?
Resources
https://github.com/zixun/CrashEye/blob/master/CrashEye/Classes/CrashEye.swift
https://www.plcrashreporter.org/
https://chaosinmotion.blog/2009/12/02/a-useful-little-chunk-of-iphone-code/
former Crashlytics iOS SDK maintainer here.
The code you've written above does have a number of technical issues.
The first is there are actually very few functions that are defined as safe to invoke inside a signal handler. man sigaction lists them. The code you've written is not signal-safe and will deadlock from time to time. It all will depend on what the crashed thread is doing at the time.
The second is you are attempting to just exit the program after your handler. You have to keep in mind that signals/exception handlers are process-wide resources, and you might not be the only one using them. You have to save pre-existing handlers and then restore them after handling. Otherwise, you can negatively affect other systems the app might be using. As you've currently written this, even Apple's own crash reporter will not be invoked. But, perhaps you want this behavior.
Third, you aren't capturing all threads stacks. This is critical information for a crash report, but adds a lot of complexity.
Fourth, signals actually aren't the lowest level error system. Not to be confused with run time exceptions (ie NSException) mach exceptions are the underlying mechanism used to implement signals on iOS. They are a much more robust system, but are also far more complex. Signals have a bunch of pitfalls and limitations that mach exceptions get around.
These are just the issues that come to me off the top of my head. Crash reporting is tricky business. But, I don't want you to think it's magic, of course it's not. You can build a system that works.
One thing I do want to point out, is that crash reporters give you no feedback on failure. So, you might build something that works 25% of the time, and because you are only seeing valid reports, you think "hey, this works great!". Crashlytics had to put in effort over many years to identify the causes of failure and try to mitigate them. If this is all interesting to you, you can check out a talk I did about the Crashlytics system.
Update:
So, what would happen if you ship this code? Well, sometimes you'll get useful reports. Sometimes, your crash handling code will itself crash, which will cause an infinite loop. Sometimes your code will deadlock, and effectively hang your app.
Apple has made exit public API (for better or worse), so you are absolutely within the rules to use it.
I would recommend continuing down this road for learning purposes only. If you have a real app that you care about, I think it would be more responsible to integrate an existing open-source reporting system and point it to a backend server that you control. No 3rd parties, but also no need to worry about doing more harm than good.
Conclusion
It is possible to create custom crash reporter but it is definitely not recommended because there is a lot going on in background that could be easily forgotten and can introduce a lot of undefined behaviors. Even usage of third party frameworks can be troublesome but it is generally better way to go.
Thanks to everyone for providing information regarding this topic.
Answers to questions
Is this good approach, any other way?
Approach I mentioned in original question will have influence on Apple's own crash reporter and it introduces undefined behavior because of bad handling of signals. UNIX signals are not covering every error and API handling work with async signal safe functions. Mach exception handling which is used by Apple's crash reporter is better option but it is more complex.
Will usage of exit() break Apple App Store review?
No. Usage of exit() is more related to the normal operation of app. If app is crashing anyway, calling exit() isn't problem.
Is it better to use kill(getpid(), SIGKILL) instead of exit()?
Quote from Eskimo:
You must not call exit. There’s two problems with doing that:
exit is not async signal safe. In fact, exit can run arbitrary code
via handlers registered with atexit. If you want to exit the process,
call _exit.
Exiting the process is a bad idea anyway, because it will either
prevent the Apple crash reporter from running or cause it to log
incorrect state (the state of your signal handler rather than the
state of the crashed thread).
A better solution is to unregister your signal handler (set it to
SIG_DFL) and then return
Additional details (full context)
Since I cross posted this questions to Apple's official support forum and got really long and descriptive answer from well known Eskimo I would like to share it with anyone who decides to go same path as I did and starts researching this approach.
Quote from Eskimo
Before we start I’d like you to take look at my shiny new Implementing
Your Own Crash Reporter post. I’ve been meaning to write this up for
a while, and your question has give me a good excuse to allocate the
time.
You wrote:
I've got a requirement to catch all exceptions that are occuring in
iOS app and log them to file and eventually send them to back-end
server used by the app.
I strongly recommend against doing this. My Implementing Your Own
Crash Reporter post explains why this is so hard. It also has some
suggestions for how to avoid problems, but ultimately there’s no way
to implement a third-party crash reporter that’s reliable, binary
compatible, and sufficient to debug complex problems
With that out of the way, let’s look at your specific questions:
Is this good approach at all?
No. The issue is that your minimalist crash reporter will disrupt the
behaviour of the Apple crash reporter. The above-mentioned post
discusses this problem in gory detail.
Will it break App Store Review guidelines because of usage of exit()?
No. iOS’s prohibition against calling exit is all about the normal
operation of your app. If your app is crashing anyway, calling exit
isn’t a problem.
However, calling exit will exacerbate the problem I covered in the
previous point.
Is it better to use kill(getpid(), SIGKILL) instead?
That won’t improve things substantially.
callStackSymbols are not symbolicated, is there a way to symbolicate
callStackSymbols?
No. On-device symbolication is extremely tricky and should be
avoided. Again, I go into this in detail in the post referenced
above.
Share and Enjoy
Since links can break I will also quote post.
Implementing Your Own Crash Reporter
I often get questions about third-party crash reporting. These
usually show up in one of two contexts:
Folks are trying to implement their own crash reporter.
Folks have implemented their own crash reporter and are trying to debug a problem based on the report it generated.
This is a complex issue and this post is my attempt to untangle some
of that complexity.
If you have a follow-up question about anything I've raised here,
please start a new thread in .
IMPORTANT All of the following is my own direct experience. None of it should be considered official DTS policy. If you have questions
that need an official answer (perhaps you’re trying to convince your
boss that implementing your own crash reporter is a very bad idea :-),
you should open a DTS tech support
incident and we can
discuss things there.
Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” Apple Developer Relations,
Developer Technical Support, Core OS/Hardware let myEmail = "eskimo"
+ "1" + "#apple.com"
Scope
First, I can only speak to the technical side of this issue. There
are other aspects that are beyond my remit:
I don’t work for App Review, and only they can give definitive answers about what will or won’t be allowed on the store.
Doing your own crash reporter has significant privacy implications.
IMPORTANT If you implement your own crash reporter, discuss the privacy impact with a lawyer.
This post assumes that you are implementing your own crash reporter.
A lot of folks use a crash reporter from another third party. From my
perspective these are the same thing. If you use a custom crash
reporter, you are responsible for its behaviour, both good and bad,
regardless of where the actual code came from.
Note If you use a crash reporter from another third party, run the tests outlined in Preserve the Apple Crash Report to verify that
it’s working well.
General Advice
I strongly advise against implementing your own crash reporter. It’s very easy to implement a basic crash reporter that works well
enough to debug simple problems. It’s impossible to create a good
crash reporter, one that’s reliable, binary compatible, and sufficient
to debug complex problems.
“Impossible?”, I hear you ask, “That’s a very strong word for Quinn to
use. He’s usually a lot more circumspect.” And yes, that’s true, I
usually am more circumspect, but in this case I’m extremely
confident of this conclusion.
There are two fundamental problems with implementing your own crash
reporter:
On iOS (and the other iOS-based platforms, watchOS and tvOS) your crash reporter must run inside the crashed process. That means it can
never be 100% reliable. If the process is crashing then, by
definition, it’s in an undefined state. Attempting to do real work in
that state is just asking for problems 1.
To get good results your crash reporter must be intimately tied to system implementation details. These can change from release to
release, which invalidates the assumptions made by your crash
reporter. This isn’t a problem for the Apple crash reporter because
it ships with the system. However, a crash reporter that’s built in
to your product is always going to be brittle.
I’m speaking from hard-won experience here. I worked for DTS during
the PowerPC-to-Intel transition, and saw a lot of folks with custom
crash reporters struggle through that process.
Still, this post exists because lots of folks ignore my general
advice, so the subsequent sections contain advice about specific
technical issues.
WARNING Do not interpret any of the following as encouragement to implement your own crash reporter. I strongly advise against that.
However, if you ignore my advice then you should at least try to
minimise the risk, which is what the rest of this document is about.
1 On macOS it’s possible for your crash reporter to run out of
process, just like the Apple crash reporter. However, that presents
its own problems: When running out of process you can’t access various
bits of critical state for the crashed process without being tightly
bound to implementation details that are not considered API.
Preserve the Apple Crash Report
You must ensure that your crash reporter doesn’t disrupt the Apple
crash reporter. Some fraction of your crashes will not be caused by
your code but by problems in framework code, and a poorly written
crash reporter will disrupt the Apple crash reporter and make it
harder to diagnose those issues.
Additionally, when dealing with really hard-to-debug problems, you
really need the more obscure info that’s shown in the Apple crash
report. If you disrupt that info, you end up making the hard problems
harder.
To avoid these issues I recommend that you test your crash reporter’s
impact on the Apple crash reporter. The basic idea is:
Create a program that generates a set of specific crashes.
Run through each crash.
Verify that your crash reporter produces sensible results.
Verify that the Apple crash reporter also produces sensible results.
With regards step 1, your test suite should include:
An un-handled language exception thrown by your code
An un-handled language exception thrown by the OS (accessing an NSArray out of bounds is an easy way to get this)
A memory access exception
An illegal instruction exception
A breakpoint exception
Make sure to test all of these cases on both the main thread and a
secondary thread.
With regards step 4, check that the resulting Apple crash report
includes correct values for:
The exception info
The crashed thread
That thread’s state
Any application-specific info, and especially the last exception backtrace
Signals
Many third-party crash reporters use UNIX signals to catch the crash.
This is a shame because using Mach exception handling, the mechanism
used by the Apple crash reporter, is generally a better option.
However, there are two reasons to favour UNIX signals over Mach
exception handling:
On iOS-based platforms your crash reporter must run in-process, and doing in-process Mach exception handling is not feasible.
Folks are a lot more familiar with UNIX signals. Mach exception handling, and Mach messaging in general, is pretty darned obscure.
If you use UNIX signals for your crash reporter, be aware that this
API has some gaping pitfalls. First and foremost, your signal handler
can only use async signal safe functions 1. You can find a list
of these functions in the sigaction man
page
2.
WARNING This list does not include malloc. This means that a crash reporter’s signal handler cannot use Objective-C or Swift, as
there’s no way to constrain how those language runtimes allocate
memory. That means you’re stuck with C or C++, but even there you
have to be careful to comply with this constraint.
The Operative: It’s worse than you know.
Many crash reports use functions like backtrace (see its man
page)
to get a backtrace from their signal handler. There’s two problems
with this:
backtrace is not an async signal safe function.
backtrace uses a naïve algorithm that doesn’t deal well with cross signal handler stack frames [3].
The latter example is particularly worrying, because it hides the
identity of the stack frame that triggered the signal.
If you’re going to backtrace out of a signal, you must use the crashed
thread’s state (accessible via the handlers uapparameter) to start
your backtrace.
Apropos that, if your crash reporter wants to log the state of the
crashed thread, that’s the place to get it.
Finally, there’s the question of how to exit from your signal handler.
You must not call exit. There’s two problems with doing that:
exit is not async signal safe. In fact, exit can run arbitrary code via handlers registered with atexit. If you want to exit the
process, call _exit.
Exiting the process is a bad idea anyway, because it will either prevent the Apple crash reporter from running or cause it to log
incorrect state (the state of your signal handler rather than the
state of the crashed thread).
A better solution is to unregister your signal handler (set it to
SIG_DFL) and then return. This will cause the crashed process to
continue execution, crash again, and generate a crash report via the
Apple crash reporter.
1 While the common signals caught by a crash reporter are not
technically async signals (except SIGABRT), you still have to treat
them as async signals because they can occur on any thread at any
time.
2 It’s reasonable to extend this list to other routines that are
implemented as thin shims on a system call. For example, I have no
qualms about calling vm_read (see below) from a signal handler.
[3] Cross signal handler stack frames are pushed on to the stack by
the kernel when it runs a signal handler on a thread. As there’s no
API to learn about the structure of these frames, there’s no way to
backtrace across one of these frames in isolation. I’m happy to go
into details but it’s really not relevant to this discussion. If
you’re interested, start a new thread in and we can chat there.
Reading Memory
A signal handler must be very careful about the memory it touches,
because the contents of that memory might have been corrupted by the
crash that triggered the signal. My general rule here is that the
signal handler can safely access:
Its code
Its stack
Its arguments
Immutable global state
In the last point, I’m using immutable to mean immutable after
startup. I think it’s reasonable to set up some global state when
the process starts, before installing your signal handler, and then
rely on it in your signal handler.
Changing any global state after the signal handler is installed is
dangerous, and if you need to do that you must be careful to ensure
that your signal handler sees a consistent state, even though a crash
might occur halfway through your change.
Note that you can’t protect this global state with a mutex because
mutexes are not async signal safe (and even if they were you’d
deadlock if the mutex was held by the thread that crashed). You
should be able to use atomic operations for this, but atomic
operations are notoriously hard to use correctly (if I had a dollar
for every time I’ve pointed out to a developer they’re using atomic
operations incorrectly, I’d be very badly paid (-: but that’s still a
lot of developers!).
If your signal handler reads other memory, it must take care to avoid
crashing while doing that read. There’s no BSD-level API for this
1, so I recommend that you use vm_read.
1 The traditional UNIX approach for doing this is to install a
signal handler to catch any memory exceptions triggered by the read,
but now we’re talking signal handling within a signal handler and
that’s just silly.
Writing Files
If your want to write a crash report from your signal handler, you
must use low-level UNIX APIs (open, write, close) because only
those low-level APIs are documented to be async signal safe. You must
also set up the path in advance because the standard APIs for
determining where to write the file (NSFileManager, for example) are
not async signal safe.
Offline Symbolication
Do not attempt to do symbolication from your signal handler. Rather,
write enough information to your crash report to support offline
symbolication. Specifically:
The addresses to symbolicate
For each Mach-O image in the process:
The image path
The image UUID
The image load address
You can get most of the Mach-O image information using the APIs in
<mach-o/dyld.h> 1. Be aware, however, that these APIs are not
async signal safe. You’ll need to get this information in advance and
cache it for your signal handler to record.
This is complicated by the fact that the list of Mach-O images can
change as you process loads and unloads code. This requires you to
share mutable state with your signal handler, which is exactly what I
recommend against in Reading Memory.
Note You can learn about images loading and unloading using _dyld_register_func_for_add_image
and_dyld_register_func_for_remove_image respectively.
1 I believe you’ll need to parse the Mach-O load commands to get the
image UUID.
So I've had a look at the apple documentation on the NSUserDefaults's synchronize() method. See below for reference:
https://developer.apple.com/reference/foundation/userdefaults/1414005-synchronize
The page currently reads:
Because this method is automatically invoked at periodic intervals, use this method only if you cannot wait for the automatic synchronization (for example, if your application is about to exit) or if you want to update the user defaults to what is on disk even though you have not made any changes.
However, what I still don't understand is when should this method be called? For example, should it be called every time the user changes the app's settings? Or should I just trust that the background api is going to handle that? And does the leaving of the view immediately after a settings change in memory result in that change being lost?
Also, when might a failure to call synchronize() result in user settings not getting changed correctly?
Furthermore, what is the cost (performance, memory or otherwise) of calling this method? I know it involves reading and writing from/to the disk but does that really take that much effort on phones?
There seems to be so much confusion about user defaults. Think of it this way. It's essentially the same as you having a global dictionary available throughout your app. If you add/edit/remove a key/value to the global dictionary, that change is immediately visible anywhere in your code. Since this dictionary is in memory, all would be lost when your app terminates if it wasn't persisted to a file. NSUserDefaults automatically persists the dictionary to a file every once in a while.
The only reason there is a synchronize method is so your app can tell NSUserDefaults to persist the dictionary "now" instead of waiting for the automatic saving that will eventually happen.
And the only reason you ever need to do that is because your app might be terminated (or crash) before the next automatic save.
In my own apps, the only place I call synchronize is in the applicationDidEnterBackground delegate method. This is to ensure the latest unsaved changes are persisted in case the app is terminated while in the background.
I think much of the confusion comes from debugging an app during development. It's not uncommon during development that you kill the app with the "stop" button in the debugger. And many times this happens before the most recent NSUserDefaults changes have been persisted. So I've developed the habit of putting my app in the background by pressing the Home button before killing the app in the debugger whenever I want to make sure the latest updates are persisted.
Given the above summary, let's review your questions:
should it be called every time the user changes the app's settings?
No. As described above, any change is automatically available immediately.
Or should I just trust that the background api is going to handle that?
Yes, trust the automatic persistence with the exception of calling synchronize when your app enters the background.
And does the leaving of the view immediately after a settings change in memory result in that change being lost?
This has no effect. Once you add/edit/delete a key/value in NSUserDefaults, the change is made.
Also, when might a failure to call synchronize() result in user settings not getting changed correctly?
The only time a change can be lost is if your app is terminated before the latest changes have been persisted. Calling synchronize when your app enters the background solves most of these issues. The only remaining possible problem is if your app crashes. Any unsaved changes that have not yet been persisted will be lost. Fix your app so it doesn't crash.
Furthermore, what is the cost (performance, memory or otherwise) of calling this method? I know it involves reading and writing from/to the disk but does that really take that much effort on phones?
The automatic persistence is done in the background and it simply writes a dictionary to a plist file. It's very fast unless you are not following recommendations. It will be slower if you are misusing NSUserDefaults to store large amounts of data.
Apple's documentation for synchronize() has been updated and now reads:
Waits for any pending asynchronous updates to the defaults database and returns; this method is unnecessary and shouldn't be used.
UPDATE
As anticipated, it has been deprecated as mentioned in Apple Doc
synchronize()
Waits for any pending asynchronous updates to the defaults database and returns; this method is unnecessary and shouldn't be used.
Original Answer
-synchronize is deprecated and will be marked with the NS_DEPRECATED macro in a future release.
-synchronize blocks the calling thread until all in-progress set operations have completed. This is no longer necessary. Replacements for previous uses of -synchronize depend on what the intent of calling synchronize was. If you synchronized…
— …before reading in order to fetch updated values: remove the synchronize call
— …after writing in order to notify another program to read: the other program can use KVO to observe the default without needing to notify
— …before exiting in a non-app (command line tool, agent, or daemon) process: call CFPreferencesAppSynchronize(kCFPreferencesCurrentApplication)
— …for any other reason: remove the synchronize call
As far i know, synchronize is used to sync the data immediately but iOS can handle that in smart way. So you dont need to call it everytime. If you call it everytime then it will turn to performance issue.
Check apple documentation:
Official Link
Please, anyone, help me: Is calling NSUserDefaults's synchronize() method mandatory?. If I don't call it, what will happen? My application is working fine without it.
No.
Since iOS12, it isn't mandatory anymore.
Apple says:
This method is unnecessary and shouldn't be used.
You can find more information on iOS12 release note:
UserDefaults
NSUserDefaults has several bug fixes and improvements:
Removed synchronization requirements. It's no longer necessary to use synchronize, CFPreferencesAppSynchronize, or CFPreferencesSynchronize. These methods will be deprecated in a future version of the OS.
Now that you don't need to call these synchronization methods, the performance characteristics of NSUserDefaults and Preferences Utilities are slightly different: The time taken for enqueueing write operations is now paid by the writing thread, rather than by the next thread to call synchronize or do a read operation.
From the docs:
Because this method is automatically invoked at periodic intervals, use this method only if you cannot wait for the automatic synchronization (for example, if your application is about to exit) or if you want to update the user defaults to what is on disk even though you have not made any changes.
Meaning that if you kill the app right after something is written to the defaults without the periodic interval catching it, it will get lost. You probably did not kill the app right after a write event yet which is why your app seems to work fine so far.
Normally it works perfectly fine and you only have to use it in special cases, for example when the app will close directly after writing to NSUserDefaults. So you can simply add the synchronize method to the corresponding AppDelegate-method.
As others have said, you don't normally have to call synchronize at all.
Normally the system calls it for you so your defaults changes get written.
However, when working with Xcode it's pretty common to terminate your app by pressing command period or clicking the stop button. In that case it terminates the app without warning and your user defaults changes will quite likely not be written out, and will be lost.
This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what you want. It's certainly confusing.
You can "fix" it by calling synchronize each time you make a change, or on some time interval. However that does slow your app down and increase it's power requirements (both by very small amounts.) If you are in a loop, writing changes to 10,000 server or Core Data records, and you change user defaults after each pass, then calling synchronize after each one might have a measurable effect on app speed and on battery life. In most cases you're not likely to notice the difference however.
I recall that one should not bother calling NSUserDefaults' synchronize method on iOS 8 and above. I also read from a one non-Apple source and another a hint of the same. However, I am having trouble finding an authoritative source from Apple. Was it a WWDC video from a couple years back? What was the Apple authoritative source?
Read this: NSUserDefaults
and skimmed through some of this: WWDC 2014 Videos
Well, after reading you comment (please add that link to your post) I came to this conclusion:
The article states you shouldn't call -[NSUserDefaults synchronize] because it is a performance drawback.
I only use this when I really need the defaults to be written, for example when needing it up to date in a different class. I never felt like needing to.
To sum it up; better don't call it, for performance reasons. If you need the data to be up to date immediately, call it.
The most accurate source I've seen is the following tweet and blog post from David Smith, a developer at Apple who works on NSUserDefaults: https://twitter.com/catfish_man/status/674727133017587712 and http://dscoder.com/defaults.html
Reminder that the only thing -[NSUserDefaults synchronize] does is wait. That’s not useless, but the situations it’s useful in are uncommon.
The blog post elaborates:
If you find yourself to do anything else to set a preference, again, you probably don't need to. It is almost never necessary to call -synchronize after setting a preference (see Sharing Defaults Between Programs below), and users are generally not capable of changing settings fast enough for any sort of "batching" to be useful for performance. The actual write to disk is asynchronous and coalesced automatically by NSUserDefaults.
If one process sets a shared default, then notifies another process to read it, then you may be in one of the very few remaining situations that it's useful to call the -synchronize method in: -synchronize acts as a "barrier", in that it provides a guarantee that once it has returned, any other process that reads that default will see the new value rather than the old value. For applications running on iOS 9.3 and later / macOS Sierra and later, -synchronize is not needed (or recommended) even in this situation, since Key-Value Observation of defaults works between processes now, so the reading process can just watch directly for the value to change. As a result of that, applications running on those operating systems should generally never call synchronize.