I'm using NSOperation to perform two operations. The first operation is loading the data from Internet, while the second operation is updating the UI.
However, if the viewDidDisappear function is triggered by user, how can I stop the data loading process?
I tried
[taskQueue cancellAllOperations],
but this function only marks every operation inside as cancelled while not literally cancel the executing process.
Could anyone please give some suggestions? Thanks in Advance.
AFAIK, there's no direct way to cancel an already executing NSOperation. But you can cancel the taskQueue like you're doing.
[taskQueue cancellAllOperations];
And inside the operation block, periodically (in between logically atomic block of code) check for isCancelled to decide whether to proceed further.
NSBlockOperation *loadOp = [[NSBlockOperation alloc]init];
__weak NSBlockOperation *weakRefToLoadOp = loadOp;
[loadOp addExecutionBlock:^{
if (!weakRefToLoadOp.cancelled) {
// some atomic block of code 1
}
if (!weakRefToLoadOp.cancelled) {
// some atomic block of code 2
}
if (!weakRefToLoadOp.cancelled) {
// some atomic block of code 3
}
}];
The NSOperation's block should be carefully divided into sub-block, such that it is safe to discontinue the execution of rest of the block. If required, you should also rollback the effects of sub-blocks executed so far.
if (!weakRefToLoadOp.cancelled) {
// nth sub-block
}
else {
//handle the effects of so-far-executed (n-1) sub-blocks
}
Thanks sincerely for your answer. But I find out that actually
[self performSelectorInBackground:#selector(httpRetrieve) withObject:nil];
solve my problem. The process don't have to be cancelled. And feels like NSOpertaions is not running in the background. Thus, back to super navigation view while the nsoperation is still running, the UI will become stuck!
Related
In objective C,
I am making my program to wait using while loop
doInitialize()
{
dispach_group_t loadDataGroup=dispatch_group_create();
dispatch_group_async(loadDataGroup,...get_global_queue(..),0),^{
renewauth();
}
dispatch_group_notify(loadDataGroup,...get_global_queue(..),0),^{
//Do other tasks once renew session has completed...
}
}
renewauth()
{
RenewAuthTokenInProgress=true;
startRenewThread();
**while (RenewAuthTokenInProgress);**
}
In turn startRenewThread() function also performs dispatch_async operation inside. So I have to make renewAuth() wait.
And async task in startRenewThread will update the bool variable once renewal is successful.
Is there any better approach of doing it other than dispatch_groups?
And is it good to make other threads wait with while (true) statement?
Manoj Kumar,
using a while loop to wait till the boolean variable change is not the correct approach to solve the problem. Here are few of the issues with this method
Your CPU is un-necessarily burdened with checking the variable regularly.
This will clearly show that developer isn't much equipted with basic skills of coding and features available with language.
If for any reason your variable will never change then your CPU will never stop checking the value of bool in while loop and blocks the execution of further code on the same thread.
Here are few of the correct approach :
Blocks or closures : Make use of blocks to execute the code asynchronously when the RenewAuthToken is done.
Delegates : if blocks are harder to understand, Make use of delegates and trigger the delegate when you are done with RenewAuthToken.
Notifications : Add observer for notifications in classes which needs to respond when RenewAuthToken is done and throw notification from the asynctask and let the class to catch it execute the code.
Locks : If it is necessary to block the execution of the thread till the response comes use locks to control the thread execution rather than using while loop
EDIT
As pointed out by fogmeister in comments
If you block the main thread for too long with a while(true) loop then
the app will actually be terminated by the iOS Watchdog as it will
assume it has crashed
Please have a look at the link : understand iOS watchdog termination reasons provided by fogmeister
Hope it helps.
I believe what you need it's a semaphore like:
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_LOW, 0), ^{
dispatch_semaphore_t sem = dispatch_semaphore_create(0);
__block BOOL done = FALSE;
while (true) {
[self someCompletionMethod completion:^(BOOL success) {
if(success) { // Stop condition
done = TRUE;
}
// do something
dispatch_semaphore_signal(sem); // This will let a new iteration
}];
dispatch_semaphore_wait(sem, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER);
if(done) {
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
// Dispatch to main
NSLog(#"Done!");
break;
});
}
}
});
Semaphores are an old-school threading concept introduced to the world by the ever-so-humble Edsger W. Dijkstra. Semaphores are a complex topic because they build upon the intricacies of operating system functions.
You can see a tutorial here about semaphore and check it out more links: https://www.raywenderlich.com/63338/grand-central-dispatch-in-depth-part-2
I hope this can help you.
What you do is absolutely lethal. It blocks the running thread (presumably the main thread) so the UI is frozen. It runs one core at 100% load for no reason whatsoever which empties the battery rapidly and heats up the phone. This will get you some very, very unhappy customers or very, very happy ex-customers.
Anything like this has to run in the background: startRenewThread should trigger some action that sets RenewAuthTokenInProgress = NO and sets whether there is a new token or not, and then triggers further action.
This is an absolutely essential programming pattern on iOS (and Android as far as I know).
I've been using NSOperationQueue's addOperationWithBlock: to run code in background threads, like so:
self.fetchDataQueue = NSOperationQueue()
for panel in self.panels {
self.fetchDataQueue.addOperationWithBlock() {
() -> Void in
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0)) {
//Background code
}
}
}
I'm concerned that I may be doing this wrong. I can't see a way that the fetch queue would be able to know when an operation is done, since there's no completion to call, and I'm not confident it's tracking activity across threads to make sure it's still going.
And the point of using this is so that I don't queue them up in single file and take much longer to process, and so I don't run them all at once and use too much memory.
EDIT: I'm aware that I don't need to be doing dispatch_async, but it's simply an example of some block-based code I may call which may do the same thing, or a web request which may get back after a delay.
Well, your code will run in a background block. If you are using a queue to make sure that one operation only starts when the next one is finished, you may be in trouble: The block that you happen to the NSOperationQueue has finished as soon as it has dispatched the background code to GCD, not when the background code has actually finished which may be much later.
I have a method that at times can be invoked throughout my code. Below is a very basic example, as the code processes images and files off of the iphone photo gallery and marks them already processed when done with the method.
#property (nonatomic, assign) dispatch_queue_t serialQueue;
....
-(void)processImages
{
dispatch_async(self.serialQueue, ^{
//block to process images
NSLog(#"In processImages");
....
NSLog(#"Done with processImages");
});
}
I would think that each time this method is called I would get the below output...
"In processImages"
"Done with processImages"
"In processImages"
"Done with processImages"
etc...
but I always get
"In processImages"
"In processImages"
"Done with processImages"
"Done with processImages"
etc...
I thought a serial queue would wait till the first block is done, then start. To me it seems it is starting the method, then it gets called again and starts up before the first call even finishes, creating duplicates of images that normally would not be processed due to the fact that if it really executed serially the method would know they were already processed. Maybe my understanding of serial queues is not concrete. Any input? Thank you.
EDIT:MORE Context below, this is what is going on in the block...Could this cause the issue???
#property (nonatomic, assign) dispatch_queue_t serialQueue;
....
-(void)processImages
{
dispatch_async(self.serialQueue, ^{
//library is a reference to ALAssetsLibrary object
[library enumerateGroupsWithTypes:ALAssetsGroupSavedPhotos usingBlock:^(ALAssetsGroup *group, BOOL *stop)
{
[group enumerateAssetsUsingBlock:^(ALAsset *asset, NSUInteger index, BOOL *stop)
{
....
//Process the photos here
}];
failureBlock:^(NSError *error) { NSLog(#"Error loading images from library");
}];
});
}
-(id)init
{
self = [super init];
if(self)
{
_serialQueue = dispatch_queue_create("com.image.queue",NULL);
}
return self;
}
this object is only created once, and as far as I can tell can never be created again based off my code...I will run tests to make sure though.
UPDATE 2: WHAT I THINK IS HAPPENING, please comment on this if you agree/disagree....
Obviously my main issue is that it seems this block of code is being executed concurrently, creating duplicate entries (importing the same photo twice) when it wouldn't normally do this if it was run serially. When a photo is processed a "dirty" bit is applied to it ensuring the next time the method is invoked it skips this image, but this is not happening and some images are processed twice. Could this be due to the fact I am enumerating the objects in a second queue using enumerategroupswithtypes: within that serialQueue?
call processImages
enumerateObjects
immediately return from enumerateObjects since it is async itself
end call to processImages
processImages is not really done though due to the fact that enumerategroups is probably still running but the queue might thing it is done since it reaches the end of the block before enumerategroups is finished working. This seems like a possibility to me?
Serial Queues ABSOLUTELY will perform serially. They are not guaranteed to perform on the same thread however.
Assuming you are using the same serial queue, the problems is that NSLog is NOT guaranteed to output results in the proper order when called near simultaneously from different threads.
here is an example:
SQ runs on thread X, sends "In processImages"
log prints "In proc"
SQ on thread X, sends "Done with processImages"
SQ runs on thread Y, sends "In processImages"
log prints "essImages\n"
After 5., NSLog doesn't necessarily know which to print, 3. or 4.
If you absolutely need time ordered logging, You need a dedicated queue for logging. In practice, I've had no problems with just using the main queue:
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
NSLog(#"whatever");
});
If all NSlog calls are the on the same queue, you shouldn't have this problem.
enumerateGroupsWithTypes:usingBlock:failureBlock: does its work asynchronously on another thread and calls the blocks passed in when it's done (on the main thread I think). Looking at it from another perspective, if it completed all the synchronously by the time the method call was complete, it could just return an enumerator object of the groups instead, for instance, for a simpler API.
From the documentation:
This method is asynchronous. When groups are enumerated, the user may be asked to confirm the application's access to the data; the method, though, returns immediately. You should perform whatever work you want with the assets in enumerationBlock.
I'm not sure why you're trying to accomplish by using the serial queue, but if you just want to prevent simultaneous access, then you could just add a variable somewhere that keeps track of whether we're currently enumerating or not and check that at first, if you don't have to worry about synchronization issues. (If you do, perhaps you should look into using a GCD group, but it's probably overkill for this situation.)
If the question is "Can serial queue perform tasks asynchronously?" then the answer is no.
If you think that it can, you should make sure that all tasks are really performing on the same queue. You can add the following line in the block and compare the output:
dispatch_async(self.serialQueue, ^{
NSLog(#"current queue:%p current thread:%#",dispatch_get_current_queue(),[NSThread currentThread]);
Make sure that you write NSLog in the block that performs on your queue and not in the enumerateGroupsWithTypes:usingBlock:failureBlock:
Also you can try to create your queue like this
dispatch_queue_create("label", DISPATCH_QUEUE_SERIAL);
but I don't think that will change anything
EDIT:
By the way, method
enumerateGroupsWithTypes:usingBlock:failureBlock:
is asynchronous, why do you call it on another queue?
UPDATE 2:
I can suggest something like this:
dispatch_async(queue, ^{
NSLog(#"queue");
pthread_mutex_t mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER, *pmutex = &mutex;
pthread_mutex_lock(pmutex);
ALAssetsLibraryGroupsEnumerationResultsBlock listGroupBlock = ^(ALAssetsGroup *group, BOOL *stop) {
NSLog(#"block");
if (group) {
[groups addObject:group];
} else {
[self.tableView performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(reloadData) withObject:nil waitUntilDone:NO];
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_current_queue(), ^{
pthread_mutex_unlock(pmutex);
});
}
NSLog(#"block end");
};
[assetsLibrary enumerateGroupsWithTypes:groupTypes usingBlock:listGroupBlock failureBlock:failureBlock];
pthread_mutex_lock(pmutex);
pthread_mutex_unlock(pmutex);
pthread_mutex_destroy(pmutex);
NSLog(#"queue end");
});
I hit an issue like this, and the answer for me was to realize that asynchronous calls from a method on the serialized queue goes to another queue for processing -- one that is not serialized.
So you have to wrap all the calls inside the main method with explicit dispatch_async(serializedQueue, ^{}) to ensure that everything is done in the correct order...
Using Swift and semaphores to illustrate an approach to serialization:
Given: a class with an asynchronous ‘run’ method that will be run on multiple objects at once, and the objective is that each not run until the one before it completes.
The issue is that the run method allocates a lot of memory and uses a lot of system resources that can cause memory pressure among other issues if too many are run at once.
So the idea is: if a serial queue is used then only one will run at a time, one after the other.
Create a serial queue in the global space by the class:
let serialGeneratorQueue: DispatchQueue = DispatchQueue(label: "com.limit-point.serialGeneratorQueue", autoreleaseFrequency: DispatchQueue.AutoreleaseFrequency.workItem)
class Generator {
func run() {
asynchronous_method()
}
func start() {
serialGeneratorQueue.async {
self.run()
}
}
func completed() {
// to be called by the asynchronous_method() when done
}
}
The ‘run’ method of this class for which very many objects will be created and run will be processed on the serial queue:
serialGeneratorQueue.async {
self.run()
}
In this case an autoreleaseFrequency is .workItem to clean up memory after each run.
The run method is of some general form:
func run() {
asynchronous_method()
}
The problem with this: the run method exits before the asynchronous_method completes, and the next run method in the queue will run, etc. So the objective is not being achieved because each asynchronous_method is running in parallel, not serially after all.
Use a semaphore to fix. In the class declare
let running = DispatchSemaphore(value: 0)
Now the asynchronous_method completes it calls the ‘completed’ method:
func completed() {
// some cleanup work etc.
}
The semaphore can be used to serialized the chain of asynchronous_method’s by add ‘running.wait()’ to the ‘run’ method:
func run() {
asynchronous_method()
running.wait()
}
And then in the completed() method add ‘running.signal()’
func completed() {
// some cleanup work etc.
running.signal()
}
The running.wait() in ‘run’ will prevent it from exiting until signaled by the completed method using running.signal(), which in turn prevents the serial queue from starting the next run method in the queue. This way the chain of asynchronous methods will indeed be run serially.
So now the class is of the form:
class Generator {
let running = DispatchSemaphore(value: 0)
func run() {
asynchronous_method()
running.wait()
}
func start() {
serialGeneratorQueue.async {
self.run()
}
}
func completed() {
// to be called by the asynchronous_method() when done
running.signal()
}
}
I thought a serial queue would wait [until] the first block is done ...
It does. But your first block simply calls enumerateGroupsWithTypes and the documentation warns us that the method runs asynchronously:
This method is asynchronous. When groups are enumerated, the user may be asked to confirm the application's access to the data; the method, though, returns immediately.
(FWIW, whenever you see a method that has a block/closure parameter, that’s a red flag that the method is likely performing something asynchronously. You can always refer to the relevant method’s documentation and confirm, like we have here.)
So, bottom line, your queue is serial, but it is only sequentially launching a series of asynchronous tasks, but obviously not waiting for those asynchronous tasks to finish, defeating the intent of the serial queue.
So, if you really need to have each tasks wait for the prior asynchronous task, there are a number of traditional solutions to this problem:
Use recursive pattern. I.e., write a rendition of processImage that takes an array of images to process and:
check to see if there are any images to process;
process first image; and
when done (i.e. in the completion handler block), remove the first image from the array and then call processImage again.
Rather than dispatch queues, consider using operation queues. Then you can implement your task as an “asynchronous” NSOperation subclass. This is a very elegant way of wrapping an asynchronous task This is illustrated in https://stackoverflow.com/a/21205992/1271826.
You can use semaphores to make this asynchronous task behave synchronously. This is also illustrated in https://stackoverflow.com/a/21205992/1271826.
Option 1 is the simplest, option 2 is the most elegant, and option 3 is a fragile solution that should be avoided if you can.
You might have more than one object, each with its own serial queue. Tasks dispatched to any single serial queue are performed serially, but tasks dispatched to different serial queues will absolutely be interleaved.
Another simple bug would be to create not a serial queue, but a concurrent queue...
I'm googling like crazy and still confused about this.
I want to download an array of file urls to disk, and I want to update my view based on the bytes loaded of each file as they download. I already have something that will download a file, and report progress and completion via blocks.
How can I do this for each file in the array?
I'm ok doing them one at a time. I can calculate the total progress easily that way:
float progress = (numCompletedFiles + (currentDownloadedBytes / currentTotalBytes)) / totalFiles)
I mostly understand GCD and NSOperations, but how can you tell an operation or dispatch_async block to wait until a callback is called before being done? It seems possible by overriding NSOperation, but that seems like overkill. Is there another way? Is it possible with just GCD?
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but perhaps you need dispatch semaphores to achieve your goal. In one of my projects I use a dispatch semaphore to wait until another turn by another player is completed. This is partially the code I used.
for (int i = 0; i < _players.count; i++)
{
// a semaphore is used to prevent execution until the asynchronous task is completed ...
dispatch_semaphore_t sema = dispatch_semaphore_create(0);
// player chooses a card - once card is chosen, animate choice by moving card to center of board ...
[self.currentPlayer playCardWithPlayedCards:_currentTrick.cards trumpSuit:_trumpSuit completionHandler:^ (WSCard *card) {
BOOL success = [self.currentTrick addCard:card];
DLog(#"did add card to trick? %#", success ? #"YES" : #"NO");
NSString *message = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"Card played by %#", _currentPlayer.name];
[_messageView setMessage:message];
[self turnCard:card];
[self moveCardToCenter:card];
// send a signal that indicates that this asynchronous task is completed ...
dispatch_semaphore_signal(sema);
DLog(#"<<< signal dispatched >>>");
}];
// execution is halted, until a signal is received from another thread ...
DLog(#"<<< wait for signal >>>");
dispatch_semaphore_wait(sema, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER);
dispatch_release(sema);
DLog(#"<<< signal received >>>");
dispatch groups are the GCD facility designed to track completion of a set of independent or separately async'd blocks/tasks.
Either use dispatch_group_async() to submit the blocks in question, or dispatch_group_enter() the group before triggering the asynchronous task and dispatch_group_leave() the group when the task has completed.
You can then either get notified asynchronously via dispatch_group_notify() when all blocks/tasks in the group have completed, or if you must, you can synchronously wait for completion with dispatch_group_wait().
I just wanted to note that I did get it working by subclassing NSOperation and making it a "concurrent" operation. (Concurrent in this context means an async operation that it should wait for before marking it as complete).
http://www.dribin.org/dave/blog/archives/2009/05/05/concurrent_operations/
Basically, you do the following in your subclass
override start to begin your operation
override isConcurrent to return YES
when you finish, make sure isExecuting and isFinished change to be correct, in a key-value compliant manner (basically, call willChangeValueForKey: and didChangeValueForKey: for isFinished and isExecuting
And in the class containing the queue
set the maxConcurrentOperationCount on the NSOperationQueue to 1
add an operation after all your concurrent ones which will be triggered once they are all done
I've got a bunch of NSOperations added to a NSOperationQueue. The operation queue has the maxConcurrentOperationCount set to 1, so that the NSOperations run one after the other.
Now, in the completionBlock of a NSOperation I want to cancel all pending NSOperations by calling cancelAllOperations on the NSOperationQueue.
Is it safe to do this? Can I be sure that the start-method of the next operation is called only after the completionBlock of the previous operation has been fully executed? Or do the completionBlock of the previous operation and the task of the current operation run concurrently?
The reason why I'm asking: I use AFNetworking to execute a batch of AFHTTPRequestOperations and want to perform one request only if all previous requests of the batch were successful.
My findings below no longer seem to be true. I've re-run the tests on iOS 8 and iOS 9 and the completion block of an operation always runs concurrently with the next operation. Currently, I don't see a way to make an operation wait for the previous completion block to finish.
I just tried this scenario in a sample project. Here is the result:
If the NSOperationQueue's maxConcurrentOperationCount is set to 1, an NSOperation's completionBlock and the next NSOperation in the queue run simultaneously.
But, if every NSOperation is linked to its previous operation by calling addDependency:, the execution of an operation waits until the previous operation's completionBlock has finished.
So, if you want to cancel the next operation in the completionBlock of the current operation and be sure that it is cancelled before it is started, you have to set dependencies between the NSOperations by calling addDependency:
NSOperation establishes dependency only based on the completion states of operations, and not on the results of completed operations.
However, most of the scenarios that I encounter are such that, the execution of operations depend not only on the completion of some other operations, but also based on the results obtained from the completed operations.
I ended up doing like the below method, but still exploring if there is a better way:
1) Operation-A runs
2) Operation-A compeletes and its completionBlock runs
3) In the OperationA's completion block, check for the result obtained from Operation-A.
If result is X, create Operation-B and add to the queue.
If result is Y, create Operation-C and add to the queue.
If result is error, create Operation-D (usually an alert operation) and add to the queue
So, this ends up as a sequence of operations, that are dynamically added to the queue, depending on the result of completed operations.
I came up with another seemingly better way to ensure that an operaion is executed only if certain conditions (based on the results of previously finished operations) are met, else, the operation is cancelled.
One important consideration here is that the condition check for running an operation should not be coded inside the operation subclass, thus allowing the operation subclass to be poratble across different scenarios and apps.
Solution:
- Have a condition block property inside the subclass, and set whatever condition form where the operation is instantiated.
- Override "isReady" getter of the NSOperation subclass, check the condition there, and thus determine if its ready for execution.
- If [super isReady] is YES, which means the dependent operations are all finished, then evaluate the necessary condition.
- If the condition check is passed, return YES. Else, set isCancelled to YES and return YES for isReady
Code:
In the interface file have the block property:
typedef BOOL(^ConditionBlock)(void);
#property (copy) ConditionBlock conditionBlock;
In the implementation, override isReady, and cancelled:
#implementation ConditionalOperation
- (BOOL)isReady {
if([super isReady]) {
if(self.conditionBlock) {
if(!self.conditionBlock()) {
[self setCancelled:YES];
}
return YES;
} else {
return YES;
}
} else {
return NO;
}
}