My question is very similar to several others here but I just can't get it to work. I'm making an API call via a helper class that I wrote.
First I tried a standard function with a return value and the result was as expected. The background task completed after I tired to assign the result.
Now I'm using a closure and I can get the value back into my view controller but its still stuck in the closure, I have the same problem. I know I need to use GCD to get the assignment to happen in the main queue.
this is what I have in my view controller
var artists = [String]()
let api = APIController()
api.getArtistList("foo fighters") { (thelist) -> Void in
if let names = thelist {
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue()) {
artists = names
print("in the closure: \(artists)")
}
}
}
print ("method 1 results: \(artists)")
as the results are:
method 1 results: []
in the closure: [Foo Fighters & Brian May, UK Foo Fighters, John Fogerty with Foo Fighters, Foo Fighters, Foo Fighters feat. Norah Jones, Foo Fighters feat. Brian May, Foo Fighters vs. Beastie Boys]
I know why this is happening, I just don't know how to fix it :( The API calls need to be async, so what is the best practice for capturing these results? Based on what the user selects in the table view I'll be making subsequent api calls so its not like I can handle everything inside the closure
I completely agree with the #Craig proposal of the use of the GCD, but as your question involves the request of the API call every time you select a row, you can do the following:
Let's suppose you use the tableView:didSelectRowAtIndexPath: method to handle the selection, then you can do the following inside it:
func tableView(tableView: UITableView, didSelectRowAtIndexPath indexPath: NSIndexPath) {
// it is just a form to get the item
let selectedItem = items.objectAtIndex(indexPath.row) as String
api.getArtistList(selectedItem) { (thelist) -> Void in
if let names = thelist {
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue()) {
artists = names
}
}
}
}
And then you can observe the property and handle do you want inside it :
var artists: [String] = [] {
didSet {
self.tableView.reloadData() // or anything you need to handle.
}
}
It just another way to see it. I hope this help you.
The easy solution is to do whatever you're doing at your print(), inside the closure.
Since you're already dispatch_asyncing to the main queue (the main/GUI thread), you can complete any processing there. Push a new view controller, present some modal data, update your current view controller, etc.
Just make sure that you don't have multiple threads modifying/accessing your local/cached data that is being displayed. Especially if it's being used by UITableViewDelegate / UITableViewDataSource implementations, which will throw fits if you start getting wishy-washy or inconsistent with your return values.
As long as you can retrieve the data in the background, and the only processing that needs to occur on the main thread is an instance variable reassignment, or some kind of array appending, just do that on the main thread, using the data you retrieved on the back end. It's not heavy. If it is heavy, then you're going to need more sophisticated synchronization methods to protect your data.
Normally the pattern looks like:
dispatch_async(getBackgroundQueue(), {
var theData = getTheDataFromNetwork();
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue() {
self.data = theData // Update the instance variable of your ViewController
self.tableView.reloadData() // Or some other 'reload' method
});
})
So where you'd normally refresh a table view or notify your ViewController that the operation has completed (or that local data has been updated), you should continue your main-thread processing.
Related
I'm building a Kotlin library to use in my iOS app using Kotlin/Native. After I call some methods in the library from Swift, which works, I also want to call methods in Swift from the library. To accomplish this I implemented an interface in the library:
class Outbound {
interface HostInterfaceForTracking {
fun calcFeatureVector(bitmap: Any?): Array<Array<FloatArray>>?
}
var hostInterface: HostInterfaceForTracking? = null
fun registerInterface(hostInterface: HostInterfaceForTracking) {
this.hostInterface = hostInterface
instance.hostInterface = hostInterface
}
}
This is implemented on the Swift side like this:
class HostInterfaceForTracking : OutboundHostInterfaceForTracking {
var t : Outbound? = nil
init() {
TrackingWrapper.instance?.runOnMatchingLibraryThread {
self.t = Outbound()
self.t!.registerInterface(hostInterface: self)
}
}
func calcFeatureVector(bitmap: Any?) -> KotlinArray<KotlinArray<KotlinFloatArray>>? {
do {
var test : Any? = (bitmap as! Bitmap).bitmap
return nil
} catch {
return nil
}
}
}
The TrackingWrapper looks like this:
class TrackingWrapper : NSObject {
static var instance: TrackingWrapper? = nil
var inbound: Inbound? = nil
var worker: Worker
override init() {
self.worker = Worker()
super.init()
initInboundInterface()
}
func initInboundInterface() {
runOnMatchingLibraryThread {
TrackingWrapper.instance = self
self.inbound = Inbound()
HostInterfaceForTracking()
}
}
func runOnMatchingLibraryThread(block: #escaping() -> Void) {
worker.enqueue {
block()
}
}
}
The function runOnMatchingLibraryThread is needed because every call to the TrackingLibrary needs to be called from the exact same thread, so the Worker class initializes a thread and enqueues every method to that thread.
The Bitmap in this case is simply a wrapper for an UIImage, which I already accessed with the .bitmap call, so I've tried to access the wrapped UIImage and save it in the test variable. The library gets the current camera frame from the Swift side every few frames and sends the current image wrapped as a Bitmap to the method calcFeatureVector depicted here.
Problem: My memory load starts increasing as soon as the app starts until the point it crashes. This is not the case if I don't access the wrapped UIImage (var test : Any? = (bitmap as! Bitmap)). So there is a huge memory leak, just by accessing the wrapped variable on the Swift side. Is there anything I've missed or is there any way to release the memory?
Looks like you have a circular dependency here:
TrackingWrapper.instance?.runOnMatchingLibraryThread {
self.t = Outbound()
self.t!.registerInterface(hostInterface: self)
}
You are asking a property inside HostInterfaceForTracking to maintain a strong reference to the same instance of HostInterfaceForTracking. You should be using [weak self] to avoid the circular reference.
EDIT:
Ok after seeing the rest of you code theres a lot to unpack. There is a lot of unnecessary bouncing back and forth between classes, functions and threads.
There is no need to use runOnMatchingLibraryThread to just create an instance of something. You only need to use that for the code processing the image itself (I would assume, I haven't seen anything so far that requires being split off into another thread). Inside TrackingWrapper, you can create a singleton more easily, and matching the swift pattern by simply doing this as the first line:
static let shared = TrackingWrapper()
And everywhere you want to use it, you can just call TrackingWrapper.shared. This is more common and will avoid one of the levels of indirection in the code.
I'm not sure what Worker or Inbound are, but again these can and should be created inside the TrackingWrapper init, rather than branching Inbound's init, to use another thread.
Inside initInboundInterface you are creating an instance of HostInterfaceForTracking() which doesn't get stored anywhere. The only reason HostInterfaceForTracking is continuing to stay in memory after its creation, is because of the internal circular dependency inside it. This is 100% causing some form of a memory issue for you. This should probably also be a property on TrackingWrapper, and again, its Init should not be called inside runOnMatchingLibraryThread.
Having HostInterfaceForTracking's init, also using runOnMatchingLibraryThread is problematic. If we inline all the code whats happening is this:
TrackingWrapper
init() {
self.runOnMatchingLibraryThread {
TrackingWrapper.instance = self
self.inbound = Inbound()
TrackingWrapper.instance?.runOnMatchingLibraryThread {
self.t = Outbound()
self.t!.registerInterface(hostInterface: self)
}
}
}
Having all these classes unnecessarily keep coming back to TrackingWrapper is going to cause issues.
Inside HostInterfaceForTracking 's init, no need to be creating Outbound on a separate thread. First line in this class can simply be:
var t : Outbound = OutBound()
Or do it in the init if you prefer. Either way will also remove the issue of needing to unwrap Outbound before using it.
Inside Outbound you are storing 2 references to the hostInterface instance:
this.hostInterface = hostInterface
instance.hostInterface = hostInterface
I would have imagined there should only be 1. If there are now multiple copies of a class that has a circular dependency, which has multiple calls to separate threads. This again will cause issues.
I'm still not sure on the differences between Swift and Kotlin. In Swift when passing self into a function to be stored, the class storing it would mark the property as weak, like so:
weak var hostInterface: ......
Which will avoid any circular dependency from forming. A quick google says this isn't how things work in Kotlin. It might be better to look into the swift side passing in a closure (lambda on kotlin) and the kotlin side executing that. This might avoid the need to store a strong reference. Otherwise you need to be looking into some part of your code setting hostInterface back to null. Again its a bit hard to say only seeing some of the code and not knowing how its working.
In short, it looks like the code is very over complicated, and needs to be simplified, so that all these moving pieces can be tracked easier.
I am new to Reactive programming, and I'm trying to observe a boolean value from my ViewModel in order to let my ViewController know when to start/stop the app's loader screen.
It's fairly simple and I want to use this method to avoid unnecessary delegates, since my ViewModel holds the business logic and my ViewController handles the UI.
My problem is this compiler error: Ambiguous reference to member 'subscribe'.
It also adds the two possible candidates, as you can see in the image below:
In my ViewModel, I've declared the observable as PublishSubject:
let done = PublishSubject<Bool>()
And I use it while observing another stream:
func subscribe() {
done.onNext(false)
anotherObservable.subscribe(
// other events observed here but not relevant to this matter
onCompleted: {
self.done.onNext(true)
}).addDisposableTo(rx_disposeBag)
}
And, finally, this is how I'm trying to handle it in the ViewController:
self.model.done.subscribe(
.onNext { isDone in
if isDone {
self.removeLoader()
}
}).addDisposableTo(rx_disposeBag)
I believe there is something simple I'm probably missing, so any help is appreciated.
In your second subscribe should be:
self.model.done.subscribe(onNext: { isDone in
if isDone {
self.removeLoader()
}
}).addDisposableTo(rx_disposeBag)
I need request different types of models from network and then combine them into one model.
How is it possible to chain multiple observables and return another observable?
I have something like:
func fetchDevices() -> Observable<DataResponse<[DeviceModel]>>
func fetchRooms() -> Observable<DataResponse<[RoomModel]>>
func fetchSections() -> Observable<DataResponse<[SectionModel]>>
and I need to do something like:
func fetchAll() -> Observable<(AllModels, Error)> {
fetchSections()
// Then if sections is ok I need to fetch rooms
fetchRooms()
// Then - fetch devices
fetchDevices()
// And if everything is ok create AllModels class and return it
// Or return error if any request fails
return AllModels(sections: sections, rooms: rooms, devices:devices)
}
How to achieve it with RxSwift? I read docs and examples but understand how to chain observables with same type
Try combineLatest operator. You can combine multiple observables:
let data = Observable.combineLatest(fetchDevices, fetchRooms, fetchSections)
{ devices, rooms, sections in
return AllModels(sections: sections, rooms: rooms, devices:devices)
}
.distinctUntilChanged()
.shareReplay(1)
And then, you subscribe to it:
data.subscribe(onNext: {models in
// do something with your AllModels object
})
.disposed(by: bag)
I think the methods that fetching models should reside in ViewModel, and an event should be waiting for start calling them altogether, or they won't start running.
Assume that there's a button calls your three methods, and one more button that will be enabled if the function call is succeeded.
Consider an ViewModel inside your ViewController.
let viewModel = ViewModel()
In ViewModel, declare your abstracted I/O event like this,
struct Input {
buttonTap: Driver<Void>
}
struct Output {
canProcessNext: Driver<Bool>
}
Then you can clearly transform your Input into Output by making function like this in ViewModel.
func transform(input: Input) -> Output {
// TODO: transform your button tap event into fetch result.
}
At viewDidLoad,
let output = viewModel.transform(input: yourButton.rx.tap.asDriver())
output.drive(nextButton.rx.isEnabled).disposed(by: disposeBag)
Now everything's ready but combining your three methods - put them in ViewModel.
func fetchDevices() -> Observable<DataResponse<[DeviceModel]>>
func fetchRooms() -> Observable<DataResponse<[RoomModel]>>
func fetchSections() -> Observable<DataResponse<[SectionModel]>>
Let's finish the 'TODO'
let result = input.buttonTap.withLatestFrom(
Observable.combineLatest(fetchDevices(), fetchRooms(), fetchSections()) { devices, rooms, sections in
// do your job with response data and refine final result to continue
return result
}.asDriver(onErrorJustReturn: true))
return Output(canProcessNext: result)
I'm not only writing about just make it work, but also considering whole design for your application. Putting everything inside ViewController is not a way to go, especially using Rx design. I think it's a good choice to dividing VC & ViewModel login for future maintenance. Take a look for this sample, I think it might help you.
Many posts seem to advise against notifications when trying to synchronize functions, but there are also other posts which caution against closure callbacks because of the potential to inadvertently retain objects and cause memory issues.
Assume inside a custom view controller is a function, foo, that uses the Bar class to get data from the server.
class CustomViewController : UIViewController {
function foo() {
// Do other stuff
// Use Bar to get data from server
Bar.getServerData()
}
}
Option 1: Define getServerData to accept a callback. Define the callback as a closure inside CustomViewController.
Option 2: Use NSNotifications instead of a callback. Inside of getServerData, post a NSNotification when the server returns data, and ensure CustomViewController is registered for the notification.
Option 1 seems desirable for all the reasons people caution against NSNotification (e.g., compiler checks, traceability), but doesn't using a callback create a potential issue where CustomViewController is unnecessarily retained and therefore potentially creating memory issues?
If so, is the right way to mitigate the risk by using a callback, but not using a closure? In other words, define a function inside CustomViewController with a signature matching the getServerData callback, and pass the pointer to this function to getServerData?
I'm always going with Option 1 you just need to remember of using [weak self] or whatever you need to 'weakify' in order to avoid memory problems.
Real world example:
filterRepository.getFiltersForType(filterType) { [weak self] (categories) in
guard let strongSelf = self, categories = categories else { return }
strongSelf.dataSource = categories
strongSelf.filteredDataSource = strongSelf.dataSource
strongSelf.tableView?.reloadData()
}
So in this example you can see that I pass reference to self to the completion closure, but as weak reference. Then I'm checking if the object still exists - if it wasn't released already, using guard statement and unwrapping weak value.
Definition of network call with completion closure:
class func getFiltersForType(type: FilterType, callback: ([FilterCategory]?) -> ()) {
connection.getFiltersCategories(type.id).response { (json, error) in
if let data = json {
callback(data.arrayValue.map { FilterCategory(attributes: $0) } )
} else {
callback(nil)
}
}
}
I'm standing for closures in that case. To avoid unnecessary retains you just need to ensure closure has proper capture list defined.
I am writing an iOS Swift application that, upon startup, needs to get 2 (or more) sets of data from a server. During initialization, I must do some processing on the sets of data - kind of merging them together. And only then can I start my view controller and interact with the user. The data obtained during initialization is an array of objects that I reuse everywhere in my app.
At first, I put the code in the viewDidLoad of the view controller, but it became messy very quickly. Now, I am putting all this code inside a "singleton" class so that all my view controllers can reuse the same data. My singleton class is defined using the following code excerpt:
class Teams {
var teams: [Team]
static var sharedInstance = Teams()
private init() {
teams = []
let queryText = "CardTypeOWSTEXT:Root"
//The first async call (DataManager invokes the http REST to the server)
DataManager.spSearch (queryText, success: { teamsJson -> Void in
let json = JSON(data: teamsJson)
...
// all the code to handle the data received from the server
...
})
//The second async call
DataManager.spSocialFollowedSites ({ sitesJson -> Void in
let json = JSON(data: sitesJson)
...
// all the code to handle the data received from the server
...
})
I am very new to iOS development, and I try to replicate an existing app I wrote in AngularJS. In that app, it is very simple to invoke the REST calls to the server and using promises, all I have to do is wait for both to complete to execute the matching with a statement like:
$q.all([promise1, promise2]).then(...)
but this is javascript/angular, not Swift! I know there are promises libraries (eg. PromiseKit), but I am wondering if this is the right way to do it? Would it be simpler/better with GCD? Also, does my approach using a singleton makes sense? Its purpose is to hold data shared by all the other classes, and in angular, the same concept is a factory and works quite well...
I have read many places and could not get any good guidance, so any help would be appreciated!
I use PromiseKit in my code and I'm very satisfied, that said - you can always synchronise without it. It's called a semaphore. Basically:
Set a counter to 2.
when a function is done - decrement it by one and save the value.
When it hits zero, call a function.
Basically, something like:
var counter = 2
var firstResult: teamsJsonType?
var secondResult: sitesJsonType?
let handler = ... ; // function code that runs when both results are ready
DataManager.spSearch (queryText, success: { teamsJson -> Void in
firstResult = teamsJson
counter -= 1
if counter == 0 { handler() }
})
DataManager.spSocialFollowedSites ({ sitesJson -> Void in
secondResult = sitesJson
counter -= 1
if counter == 0 { handler() }
})