I have following protocol:
#objc protocol SomeProtocol {
func someMethod()
}
and then some class conforming to that protocol:
class SomeClass: SomeProtocol {
...
func someMethod() {
// do something
}
}
My question: how to test (I'm testing in Objective-C with OCMock) that e.g. method call written in someMethod() implemented by SomeClass is actually called?
Many thanks.
I'm not that knowledgeable in Swift, so I cannot give you a completely accurate answer, however, for Obj-C, I do something like this:
id mockDelegate = OCMProtocolMock(#protocol(CallViewControllerDelegate));
self.cVC.delegate = mockDelegate;
OCMExpect([mockDelegate callOutcomeSuccessful:OCMOCK_ANY]);
OCMVerifyAll(mockDelegate);
With this, you set up an expectation for a mock delegate object, on which you can later verify the call to the delegate method.
Related
I've encountered a problem that is explained in the code below (Swift 3.1):
protocol MyProtocol {
func methodA()
func methodB()
}
extension MyProtocol {
func methodA() {
print("Default methodA")
}
func methodB() {
methodA()
}
}
// Test 1
class BaseClass: MyProtocol {
}
class SubClass: BaseClass {
func methodA() {
print("SubClass methodA")
}
}
let object1 = SubClass()
object1.methodB()
//
// Test 2
class JustClass: MyProtocol {
func methodA() {
print("JustClass methodA")
}
}
let object2 = JustClass()
object2.methodB()
//
// Output
// Default methodA
// JustClass methodA
So I would expect that "SubClass methodA" text should be printed after object1.methodB() call. But for some reason default implementation of methodA() from protocol extension is called. However object2.methodB()call works as expected.
Is it another Swift bug in protocol method dispatching or am I missing something and the code works correctly?
This is just how protocols currently dispatch methods.
A protocol witness table (see this WWDC talk for more info) is used in order to dynamically dispatch to implementations of protocol requirements upon being called on a protocol-typed instance. All it is, is really just a listing of the function implementations to call for each requirement of the protocol for a given conforming type.
Each type that states its conformance to a protocol gets its own protocol witness table. You'll note that I said "states its conformance", and not just "conforms to". BaseClass gets its own protocol witness table for conformance to MyProtocol. However SubClass does not get its own table for conformance to MyProtocol – instead, it simply relies on BaseClass's. If you moved the : MyProtocol down to the definition of SubClass, it would get to have its own PWT.
So all we have to think about here is what the PWT for BaseClass looks like. Well, it doesn't provide an implementation for either of the protocol requirements methodA() or methodB() – so it relies on the implementations in the protocol extension. What this means is that the PWT for BaseClass conforming to MyProtocol just contains mappings to the extension methods.
So, when the extension methodB() method is called, and makes the call out to methodA(), it dynamically dispatches that call through the PWT (as it's being called on a protocol-typed instance; namely self). So when this happens with a SubClass instance, we're going through BaseClass's PWT. So we end up calling the extension implementation of methodA(), regardless of the fact that SubClass provides an implementation of it.
Now let's consider the PWT of JustClass. It provides an implementation of methodA(), therefore its PWT for conformance to MyProtocol has that implementation as the mapping for methodA(), as well as the extension implementation for methodB(). So when methodA() is dynamically dispatched via its PWT, we end up in its implementation.
As I say in this Q&A, this behaviour of subclasses not getting their own PWTs for protocols that their superclass(es) conform to is indeed somewhat surprising, and has been filed as a bug. The reasoning behind it, as Swift team member Jordan Rose says in the comments of the bug report, is
[...] The subclass does not get to provide new members to satisfy the conformance. This is important because a protocol can be added to a base class in one module and a subclass created in another module.
Therefore if this was the behaviour, already-compiled subclasses would lack any PWTs from superclass conformances that were added after the fact in another module, which would be problematic.
As others have already said, one solution in this case is to have BaseClass provide its own implementation of methodA(). This method will now be in BaseClass's PWT, rather than the extension method.
Although of course, because we're dealing with classes here, it won't just be BaseClass's implementation of the method that's listed – instead it will be a thunk that then dynamically dispatches through the class' vtable (the mechanism by which classes achieve polymorphism). Therefore for a SubClass instance, we'll wind up calling its override of methodA().
A very short answer that a friend shared with me was:
Only the class that declares the conformance gets a protocol witness table
Meaning a subclass having that function has no effect on how the protocol witness table is setup.
The protocol witness is a contract only between the protocol, it's extensions, and the concrete class that implements it.
Well I suppose the subclass method A is not polymorphic because you can't put the override keyword on it, since the class doesn't know the method is implemented in an extension of the protocol and thus doesn't let you override it. The extension method is probably stepping on your implementation in runtime, much like 2 exact category methods trump each other with undefined behavior in objective C. You can fix this behavior by adding another layer in your model and implementing the methods in a class rather than the protocol extension, thus getting polymorphic behavior out of them. The downside is that you cannot leave methods unimplemented in this layer, as there is no native support for abstract classes (which is really what you're trying to do with protocol extensions)
protocol MyProtocol {
func methodA()
func methodB()
}
class MyProtocolClass: MyProtocol {
func methodA() {
print("Default methodA")
}
func methodB() {
methodA()
}
}
// Test 1
class BaseClass: MyProtocolClass {
}
class SubClass: BaseClass {
override func methodA() {
print("SubClass methodA")
}
}
let object1 = SubClass()
object1.methodB()
//
// Test 2
class JustClass: MyProtocolClass {
override func methodA() {
print("JustClass methodA")
}
}
let object2 = JustClass()
object2.methodB()
//
// Output
// SubClass methodA
// JustClass methodA
Also relevante answer here: Swift Protocol Extensions overriding
In your code,
let object1 = SubClass()
object1.methodB()
You invoked methodB from an instance of SubClass, but SubClass does not have any method named methodB. However its super class, BaseClass conform to MyProtocol, which has a methodB methodB.
So, it will invoke the methodB from MyProtocal. Therefore it will execute the methodA in extesion MyProtocol.
To reach what you expect, you need implement methodA in BaseClass and override it in SubClass, like the following code
class BaseClass: MyProtocol {
func methodA() {
print("BaseClass methodA")
}
}
class SubClass: BaseClass {
override func methodA() {
print("SubClass methodA")
}
}
Now, output would become
//Output
//SubClass methodA
//JustClass methodA
Although the method can reach what you expect, but I'm not sure this kind of code struct is recommended.
TL;DR
How can I define optional methods in a swift protocol that accept custom typed parameters?
The case
I understand that the way to define optional methods in a swift protocol is using the #objc flag. Like so:
#objc protocol someSweetProtocol {
optional func doSomethingCool()
}
But when I wanted to use my custom type for the parameter, like so:
#objc protocol someSweetProtocol {
optional func doSomethingCool(🚶🏼: HSCoolPerson)
}
I got this error:
Which is not cool.
How can this problem be solved? Also can you explain why this is happening?
Addendum
This is how HSCoolPerson is defined:
class HSCoolPerson {
...
...
...
}
Nothing special there...
The problem is this:
class HSCoolPerson {
// ...
}
As the error message plainly tells you, that type, the class HSCoolPerson, is completely invisible to Objective-C. And a protocol optional method is an Objective-C language feature; Swift merely borrows it, as it were. (That's why you have to say #objc protocol to get this feature.) So any time you want to define a protocol optional method, you have to do it in a way that Objective-C can understand, because it is Objective-C that is going to do the work for you.
To expose this class to Objective-C, simply derive it from NSObject:
class HSCoolPerson : NSObject {
// ...
}
Problem solved.
Put the default implementations in an extension, like so:
class HSCoolPerson {}
protocol SomeSweetProtocol {
func doSomethingCool()
}
extension SomeSweetProtocol {
func doSomethingCool(🚶🏼: HSCoolPerson) {
// default implementation here
}
}
class SomeSweetClass: SomeSweetProtocol {
// no implementation of doSomethingCool(_:) here, and no errors
}
you can declare func like that in protocol
#objc optional func doSomethingCool(🚶🏼: HSCoolPerson)
I'm writing a factory class that is trying to work with custom protocol defined functions. The compiler throws an error, because I don't know how to add a protocol definition to a function parameter.
Example:
protocol MyCustomFunctions {
func customFunction()
}
class MyVC: UIViewController, MyCustomFunctions {
func customFunction() {}
}
class Factory {
func createButton(specificVC: UIViewController) // need protocol here
{
specificVC.customFunction() // error thrown
}
}
How can one specific a protocol during a variable definition?
Or is there another way?
First of all ,convention says classes start with a Capital letter.
class MyVC: UIViewController, MyCustomFunctions {
func customFunction() {}
}
Then what you need is the correct type in the argument
class factory: NSObject {
func createButton(specificVC: MyVC) // you need a class that conforms to protocol here.
{
specificVC.customFunction() // no error anymore
}
}
You have another option. You can simply promise in the argument that you won't disclose the full type of the object ,you will only say it's an opaque object that conforms to protocol.
class factory: NSObject {
func createButton(specificVC: MyCustomFunctions) // you need a class that conforms to protocol here.
{
specificVC.customFunction() // no error anymore
}
}
BONUS:
The way you could have reasoned about this and find an answer is this>
Error is thrown when I call specificVC.customFunction()...Hmmm...so this object can only run this function if it is of type that actually HAS the function. So let's take a look at the argument type - UIViewController - ..UIViewController certainly doesn't have this function. It's the MyVC or the Protocol.
Type safety in Swift is very strict. Just "follow the type flow" and you will be good.
I had following confusion. As far as I know the main difference between static and class keywords when declaring method is that the second one could be overridden in subclasses.
The problem
However when I declare a protocol in Swift 1.2 like this:
protocol MyProtocol
{
class func dummyClassMethod()
}
compiler gives an error:
Class methods are only allowed within classes; use 'static' to declare
a static method
The error is pretty descriptive as obviously MyProtocol is not a class, however I want to make a class func part of the protocol.
What I've tried
I've found that if I declare interface in protocol as static, compiler is happy and I could use this static method in all classes that adopt this protocol:
protocol MyProtocol
{
static func dummyClassMethod()
}
The question
So my question basically is is this right? This declaration states that my class method cannot be overridden in children, however in my implementation I could write and use the following:
class ClassA: MyProtocol
{
class func dummyClassMethod() {
}
}
class ClassB: ClassA
{
override class func dummyClassMethod() {
}
}
and now my dummyClassMethod is not static anymore...
Compiler is Ok and everything works - but why?
Is it specific to the fact that interface itself is static, however
it's implementation is not?
Is there a better alternative for class func in protocols?
Objective-C solution
In ObjC this is pretty easy and compile & run flawlessly:
#protocol MyProtocol
+(void)dummyClassMethod;
#end
You can review Apple's Documentation (subsection Method Requirements).
There says:
As with type property requirements, you always prefix type method requirements with the static keyword when they are defined in a protocol. This is true even though type method requirements are prefixed with the class or static keyword when implemented by a class
In practice, You can do it as follow:
First, declare your protocol:
protocol SomeProtocol {
static func someMethod()
}
Then, in your class you've 2 options:
First:
class SomeClass : SomeProtocol {
class func someMethod()
}
Second:
class SomeClass : SomeProtocol {
static func someMethod()
}
I hope, this may clarify your doubt..
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Protocols.html
A protocol defines a blueprint of methods, properties, and other
requirements that suit a particular task or piece of functionality.
The protocol doesn’t actually provide an implementation for any of
these requirements—it only describes what an implementation will look
like. The protocol can then be adopted by a class, structure, or
enumeration to provide an actual implementation of those requirements.
After this protocol definition it becomes reasonable that
As with type property requirements, you always prefix type method
requirements with the static keyword when they are defined in a
protocol. This is true even though type method requirements are
prefixed with the class or static keyword when implemented by a class...
To make protocol method static and final implement that method with static keyword
class ClassA: MyProtocol{
static func dummyClassMethod() {
}
}
and now you cant override dummyClassMethod function anymore. If you want to prevent overriding only you must declare protocol method as final. About class functions, they were not fully supported in Swift 1.0 and now in Swift 1.2 I think that they are moving towards static functions
I'm trying to call an instance method from a class method in Swift, but I keep getting the error "Missing argument for parameter #1 in call" on the "someMethod()" call.
Do you know why?
Here's the code:
class ViewController: UIViewController {
class func updateData() {
someMethod()
}
func someMethod() {
NSLog("someMethod")
}
}
updateData is declared as a class method (i.e. static), and it's executed in the context of the class type and not a class instance. On the other hand, someMethod is an instance method.
You cannot execute an instance method from a static method, unless you provide an instance.
Without knowing the logic of your app, it's hard to figure out how the problem should be solved. Some possible solutions:
make uploadData an instance method, by removing class from its signature:
func updateData() { ...
make someMethod a static method:
class func someMethod() { ...