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.
Related
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'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.
I'm currently using iCloud and CoreData to sync data across my app, so every time notification fires, I update my local array of data. The problem I am running into is that my data set is getting large and I don't want to update the entire set of data every time there is a new notification.
Basically, I have an Entity called Photo, and every time the user makes an update to one Photo object on device A, it gets synced with iCloud, which then gets pushed to device B. The device receives the notification through:
persistentStoreDidImportUbiquitousContentChanges:
which looks like this:
notification.userInfo.description:
{
deleted = "{(\n)}";
inserted = "{(\n 0x17045c80 56E70CB19352/Photo/p8431>\n)}";
updated = "{(\n)}";
}
I'd like to grab that specific insertion, update, or deletion and apply it to my local array instead of iterating through the entire set of fetchedObjects.
I tried casting the insertion object to a Photo object, but that didn't work. Any thoughts on how to extract that info?
Thanks!
The objects in that notification are instances of NSManagedObjectID. You can use those with your NSManagedObjectContext to retrieve the managed objects. Use existingObjectWithID:error: (safe, potentially slow) or objectWithID: (fast, potentially less safe).
You probably don't need to do that, though. You can take that notification and pass it to mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification: to merge any changes it contains. If you need to do manual merging, you can, but it's usually not needed.
I have an object that can be selected by a user click. With the current requirements of the app, at any time, there is no more than one of these items selected at any point during app execution.
I implemented a mechanism to enforce this, as follows:
Each of these objects has a unique identifier as a property.
When each object is created, it subscribes to the NSNotificationCenter listening for the MY_OBJECT_SELECTED notification.
When each object is selected, it posts the MY_OBJECT_SELECTED notification, with its unique Id as part of the userInfo dictionary.
Then, when each object receives the notification, it checks to see if its id is the same as the one in the userInfo. If it is, it does nothing, but if it isn't, it sets itself to unselected.
Is this a decent approach to the problem? If not, how would you do it?
It is a decent way of doing it, although it is not very efficient. The more objects you have, the more time you spend comparing IDs. The easiest way is to store your object pointers and IDs in a map table (or similar) and remember the last selected object. Whenever you select a new object, you clear the selection flag of the last selected object, then look up the new object and set its selection flag. It requires you to keep a collection of your objects, though.
The time required to update selections with this approach is independent of the number of objects you have.
If the object is spread all over the app,i.e. if it is a member in various classes. You can have a global object of same type and assign it to only that object which has been touched. In steps it will be like:
Have a global variable of object type.
At any object touch assign globalObject = currentObject;
do all operations on globalObject throughout app like calling methods and modifying object members(have a check for nil to ensure safety).
Reassign to different object with new touch.
I'm losing my mind around this question.
So I have a Core Data setup in my iOS app done this way:
http://www.cocoanetics.com/2012/07/multi-context-coredata/
I then insert an object by creating a temporary MOC (as explained in the blog post) and perform saves on all 3 contexts in performBlock: methods.
In a view controller I have an NSFetchedResultsController and it gets notified that I did indeed insert a new object. The problem is that the NSFetchedResultsChangeInsert is fired twice and each time the object that is passed trough has a different objectID (it also is a different object instance in memory). What happens is that I then have 2 rows inserted in my table view but un the SQL database there is only one new. It then of course crashes when I scroll to the bottom of the table view.
If I also perform some updates on the object I get NSFetchedResultsChangeUpdate called only once and with the objectID that was passed in the second NSFetchedResultsChangeInsert call.
The first ID looks like this:
<x-coredata:///ReceivedMessage/t605BB9A7-A04E-4B89-B568-65B12E8C259A2>
The second (and all consequent ones) like this:
<x-coredata://02A917C5-850F-4C67-B8E4-1C5790CF3919/ReceivedMessage/p28>
What could this be? Am I missing out something obvious?
PS: I also checked if the notification comes from the same context, thread, etc. It does.
The two IDs you are seeing may very well represent one object. The difference between them is just that the first one is a temporary object ID, assigned to the object on creation, and the second one is the permanent object ID, assigned to the object when it gets stored to the managed object store (see NSManagedObjectID's isTemporaryID).
To work around this issue you could call NSManagedObjectContext's obtainPermanentIDsForObjects:error: just before you save the temporary MOC. This way the inserted object will have just one ID during the save propagation and the NSFetchedResultsControllerDelegate methods should get called just once.