The iOS application that I work on has an apple watch app that goes along with it. We recently started getting complaints that the GPS distance updates have slowed down and the watch is a few seconds behind the phone. I have been looking into this and wrote some test code, the reply block from [[WCSession defaultSession] sendMessage:message
replyHandler:replyHandler
errorHandler:errorHandler
is definitely twice as slow in watchOS 2.2 vs 2.1. I have attached the test code below.
#pragma mark - Location Update.
/**
* #description Provides an NSBlockOperation to be executed in an operation queue. This is an attempt to force serial
* processing
*/
- (NSBlockOperation*)distanceUpdateBlock {
NSBlockOperation *blockOp = [[NSBlockOperation alloc] init];
__weak NSBlockOperation * weakOp = blockOp;
__weak typeof(self) weakSelf = self;
[blockOp addExecutionBlock:^{
typeof(weakSelf) blockSafeSelf = weakSelf;
typeof(weakOp) blockSafeOp = weakOp;
if (!blockSafeOp.isCancelled) { // Make sure we haven't already been cancelled.
__block NSDate *startDate = [NSDate date];
__block BOOL completed = NO;
void (^replyBlock)(NSDictionary*) = ^(NSDictionary *message){
if (!blockSafeOp.isCancelled) {
[blockSafeSelf processUserLocationOnWatch:message];
double replyTime = [[NSDate date] timeIntervalSinceDate:startDate];
NSLog(#"Reply Time: %.03f", replyTime);
completed = YES;
}
};
void (^failBlock)(NSError*) = ^(NSError *error) {
if (!blockSafeOp.isCancelled) {
double replyTime = [[NSDate date] timeIntervalSinceDate:startDate];
NSLog(#"Reply Time Fail: %.03f", replyTime);
completed = YES;
}
};
[self fetchUserLocationFromIphoneWithReplyHandler:replyBlock errorHandler:failBlock];
do {
usleep(10000); // 1/100th second wait to throttle evaluations (Don't worry - in final code I will subclass NSOperation and control when it actually finishes - this is for easy testing.)
} while (!completed && !blockSafeOp.isCancelled && [blockSafeSelf isWatchReachable]); //(isWatchReachable just makes sure we have a session with the phone and it is reachable).
}
}];
blockOp.completionBlock = ^{
typeof(weakSelf) blockSafeSelf = weakSelf;
typeof(weakOp) blockSafeOp = weakOp;
if (!blockSafeOp.isCancelled) {
[blockSafeSelf addOperationForLocationUpdate]; // since we are finished - add another operation.
}
};
return blockOp;
}
- (void)addOperationForLocationUpdate {
[distanceUpdateOperationQueue addOperation:[self distanceUpdateBlock]];
}
- (void)startUpdatingLocation {
[self addOperationForLocationUpdate];
}
- (void)stopUpdatingLocation {
[distanceUpdateOperationQueue cancelAllOperations];
}
- (void)fetchUserLocationFromIphoneWithReplyHandler:(nullable void (^)(NSDictionary<NSString *, id> *replyMessage))replyHandler errorHandler:(nullable void (^)(NSError *error))errorHandler {
if (self.isSessionActive) {
NSDictionary *message = #{kWatchSessionMessageTag:kWatchSessionMessageUserLocation};
if (self.isWatchReachable) {
[[WCSession defaultSession] sendMessage:message
replyHandler:replyHandler
errorHandler:errorHandler
];
} else {
errorHandler(nil);
}
} else {
[self activateSession];
errorHandler(nil);
}
}
The handler on the iPhone side simply get's the User location and calls the replyHandler with the encoded information.
The logs for time on 2.2 look like (consistently about a second)
Reply Time: 0.919
Reply Time: 0.952
Reply Time: 0.991
Reply Time: 0.981
Reply Time: 0.963
Same code on 2.1 looks like
Reply Time: 0.424
Reply Time: 0.421
Reply Time: 0.433
Reply Time: 0.419
Also, I've noticed that after 5 mins (300 seconds) the error handlers start getting called on the messages that have already had the reply handler called. I saw another thread where someone mentioned this as well, is anyone else having this happen and know why?
So, Q1 - has anyone run into this performance slow down and figured out how to keep the replyHandler running faster, or found a faster way to get updates?
Q2 - Solution for the errorHandler getting called after 5 mins.
Just a few things to eliminate - I have done my due diligence on testing the iOS code between receiving the message and calling the replyHandler. There is no change in the time to process between iOS 9.2/9.3. I have narrowed it down to this call. In fact, the way we did this in previous versions is now backing up the sendMessage's operationQueue. So now I am forcing a one at a time call with this test code. We don't get backed up anymore, but the individual calls are slow.
So, I was running tests today on the same piece of code, using the same devices, and although the code has not changed, it is now running twice as fast as it initially did (in 2.1). Logs are coming in the range of .12 - .2 seconds. Only thing that has happened since then is software updates. Also, the fail block is no longer called after 5 mins. So both parts of this question are magically working. I am currently using iOS 9.3.4(13G35) and watch is at 2.2.2. Seems to have been an OS issue somewhere in the chain of processing the queue between the watch and the phone. All is good now.
I'm using RACCommand for my UI button click event. I'm using MVVM architecture. In my ViewModel I have this:
#property (strong, nonatomic) RACCommand *executeRegistration;
Inside "init" I have this:
self.executeRegistration = [[RACCommand alloc] initWithSignalBlock:^RACSignal *(id input)
{
return [self executeSearchSignal];
}];
Execute search signal is this:
- (RACSignal *)executeSearchSignal {
return [[[self.services insertUserRegistration]
registerUserName:self.userName]
logAll];
}
My "[self.services insertUserRegistration]
registerUserName:self.userName" is this:
#weakify(self);
return [RACSignal createSignal:^RACDisposable *(id<RACSubscriber> subscriber)
{
#strongify(self);
Manager *manager = [Manager sharedManager];
manager._delegate = self;
RACSignal *successSignal =
[self rac_signalForSelector:#selector(manager:didSuccesWithoutError:)
fromProtocol:#protocol(ManagerDelegate)];
RACSignal *failSignal =
[self rac_signalForSelector:#selector(manager:didFailWithError:)
fromProtocol:#protocol(ManagerDelegate)];
[[successSignal map:^id(RACTuple *tuple)
{
return tuple.second;
}] subscribeNext:^(id x) {
[subscriber sendNext:x];
[subscriber sendCompleted];
}];
[[failSignal map:^id(RACTuple *tuple)
{
return tuple.second;
}] subscribeNext:^(id x) {
[subscriber sendError:x];
}];
[manager insertUserRegistration:name];
return nil;
}];
My ViewController has this in BindViewModel method:
[self.finishRegistrationButton.rac_command.executionSignals subscribeNext:^(RACSignal *loginSignal) {
// Log a message whenever we log in successfully.
[loginSignal subscribeCompleted:^{
NSLog(#"I'm here.");
}];
}];
self.finishRegistrationButton.rac_command = self.viewModel.executeRegistration;
With my "logAll" atribute I can see everything executing, the problem is it never goes into subsrcibeCompleted after everything is ok. I want to show error message if there is an error or perform segue if everything is ok. What am I doing wrong? Can you please explain how to to that properly? I'm stuck here for quite some time now.
I did it. RACCommand 'does not have subscribeError'. Signals sent does not include error events. There is special property 'errors'. In that property, every signal that sends error sends is as 'next'. so, solution is to use this:
[self.executeRegistration.executionSignals subscribeNext:^(RACSignal *signal){
[signal subscribeCompleted:^{
NSLog(#"Registered");
}];
}];
[self.executeRegistration.errors subscribeNext:^(id x) {
NSLog(#"Error");
}];
This is ok. There is no need to subscribeNext if you don't want every new value. This is actually really cool stuff, but I've read that it is too confusing why it is not sending errors as in classic implementation (it was for me :)). That will be included in 3.0 if I'm not mistaken.
self.finishRegistrationButton.rac_command.executionSignals returns a signal of signals, so you'll want to make use of switchToLatest, like so:
self.finishRegistrationButton.rac_command.executionSignals.switchToLatest
This function intercepts signals and switches to the latest received, sending next, errors and completes from that signal instead of the signal operated on. It's very handy for operations that send signals over time.
This code will only work for executionSignals that hold a single signal, if you want multiple targets then you'll need something a bit more complex. If you ever need to change your code to work that way, you might want to have a look at flattenMap:.
In my reactive cocoa, I want to block calls to a function if a previous call to itis still progress. I have achieved this as follows, but it seems more like a hack.
__block RACSignal * performSync = [[self performSync:connectionClient] take:1];
[[[self rac_signalForSelector:#selector(forceSync:)]]]
flattenMap:^RACStream *(id value) {
NSLog(kMILogLevelDebug, #"Perform sync requested");
return performSync;
}]
subscribeNext:^(id x) {
NSLog(kMILogLevelDebug,#"Sync is performed", [NSDate date]);
}
error:^(NSError *error) {
[self performSyncCompleted:error];
}
completed:^{
[self performSyncCompleted:nil];
performSync = [[self performSync:connectionClient] take:1];
}];
So, I created a performSync signal, which is executed only once, and once it completes, I recreate the signal. Any better way to accomplish the above?
You should in my opinion use RACCommand :
RACCommand* command = [[RACCommand alloc] initWithSignalBlock:^(id _) {
return [#mysignal];
}];
// then later
[command execute:nil];
// or
[[command execute:nil] take:1];// synchronous but be careful ! here be dragons
You can call execute as many time as you want, it wont subscribe the signal more than once at a time. It makes extensive use of multicasted signals in the default setup.
Moreover you can know if the command is executing by using:
[command executing];
here is a blog article talking about RACCommands
Method waitUntilCompleted from RACSignal could do the trick.
I'm working on some code that interacts with a remote API via websockets. My data layer is responsible for establishing and monitoring the websocket connection. It also contains methods that can be used by the application to enqueue websocket messages to be sent. The application code should not be responsible for inspecting the state of the websocket connection, aka fire-and-forget.
Ideally, I'd like to data layer to function as follows:
When the data layer does not have a connection to the websocket endpoint (self.isConnected == NO), messages are buffered internally.
When a connection is becomes available (self.isConnected == YES), buffered messages are immediately sent, and any subsequent messages are sent immediately.
Here's what I've been able to come up with:
#import "RACSignal+Buffering.h"
#implementation RACSignal (Buffering)
- (RACSignal*)bufferWithSignal:(RACSignal*)shouldBuffer
{
return [RACSignal createSignal:^RACDisposable *(id<RACSubscriber> subscriber) {
RACCompoundDisposable *disposable = [RACCompoundDisposable compoundDisposable];
NSMutableArray* bufferedValues = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
__block BOOL buffering = NO;
void (^bufferHandler)() = ^{
if (!buffering)
{
for (id val in bufferedValues)
{
[subscriber sendNext:val];
}
[bufferedValues removeAllObjects];
}
};
RACDisposable* bufferDisposable = [shouldBuffer subscribeNext:^(NSNumber* shouldBuffer) {
buffering = shouldBuffer.boolValue;
bufferHandler();
}];
if (bufferDisposable)
{
[disposable addDisposable:bufferDisposable];
}
RACDisposable* valueDisposable = [self subscribeNext:^(id x) {
[bufferedValues addObject:x];
bufferHandler();
} error:^(NSError *error) {
[subscriber sendError:error];
} completed:^{
[subscriber sendCompleted];
}];
if (valueDisposable)
{
[disposable addDisposable:valueDisposable];
}
return disposable;
}];
}
#end
Lastly, this is pseudo-code for how it would be used:
#interface APIManager ()
#property (nonatomic) RACSubject* requests;
#end
#implementation WebsocketDataLayer
- (id)init
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
RACSignal* connectedSignal = RACObserve(self, connected);
self.requests = [[RACSubject alloc] init];
RACSignal* bufferedApiRequests = [self.requests bufferWithSignal:connectedSignal];
[self rac_liftSelector:#selector(sendRequest:) withSignalsFromArray:#[bufferedApiRequests]];
}
return self;
}
- (void)enqueueRequest:(NSString*)request
{
[self.requests sendNext:request];
}
- (void)sendRequest:(NSString*)request
{
DebugLog(#"Making websocket request: %#", request);
}
#end
My question is: Is this the right approach for buffering values? Is there a more idiomatic RAC way of handling this?
Buffering can be thought of as something that applies to individual requests, which leads to a natural implementation using -flattenMap: and RACObserve:
#weakify(self);
RACSignal *bufferedRequests = [self.requests flattenMap:^(NSString *request) {
#strongify(self);
// Waits for self.connected to be YES, or checks that it already is,
// then forwards the request.
return [[[[RACObserve(self, connected)
ignore:#NO]
take:1]
// Replace the property value with our request.
mapReplace:request];
}];
If ordering is important, you can replace -flattenMap: with -map: plus -concat. These implementations avoid the need for any custom operators, and work without manual subscriptions (which are notoriously messy).
You do almost exactly the same as what is implemented in the bufferWithTime: operation and I can't think of any existing operations that would implement it more idiomatically. (Probably this is the reason why bufferWithTime was implemented in this way.) Reviewing your code using that implementation may reveal some faults you didn't think of.
But to be honest, this should not be so hard. There should exist a buffering operation that buffers the output and spews the contents when the trigger signal fires. Probably most buffering can be implemented in terms of this functionality, so having it would add value to the framework.
I'm working on an application that create contents and send it to an existing backend. Content is a title, a picture and location. Nothing fancy.
The backend is a bit complicated so here is what I have to do :
Let the user take a picture, enter a title and authorize the map to use its location
Generate a unique identifier for the post
Create the post on the backend
Upload the picture
Refresh the UI
I've used a couple of NSOperation subclasses to make this work but I'm not proud of my code, here is a sample.
NSOperation *process = [NSBlockOperation blockOperationWithBlock:^{
// Process image before upload
}];
NSOperation *filename = [[NSInvocationOperation alloc] initWithTarget: self selector: #selector(generateFilename) object: nil];
NSOperation *generateEntry = [[NSInvocationOperation alloc] initWithTarget: self selector: #selector(createEntry) object: nil];
NSOperation *uploadImage = [[NSInvocationOperation alloc] initWithTarget: self selector: #selector(uploadImageToCreatedEntry) object: nil];
NSOperation *refresh = [NSBlockOperation blockOperationWithBlock:^{
// Update UI
[SVProgressHUD showSuccessWithStatus: NSLocalizedString(#"Success!", #"Success HUD message")];
}];
[refresh addDependency: uploadImage];
[uploadImage addDependency: generateEntry];
[generateEntry addDependency: filename];
[generateEntry addDependency: process];
[[NSOperationQueue mainQueue] addOperation: refresh];
[_queue addOperations: #[uploadImage, generateEntry, filename, process] waitUntilFinished: NO];
Here are the things I don't like :
in my createEntry: for example, I'm storing the generated filename in a property, which mees with the global scope of my class
in the uploadImageToCreatedEntry: method, I'm using dispatch_async + dispatch_get_main_queue() to update the message in my HUD
etc.
How would you manage such workflow ? I'd like to avoid embedding multiple completion blocks and I feel like NSOperation really is the way to go but I also feel there is a better implementation somewhere.
Thanks!
You can use ReactiveCocoa to
accomplish this pretty easily. One of its big goals is to make this kind of
composition trivial.
If you haven't heard of ReactiveCocoa before, or are unfamiliar with it, check
out the Introduction
for a quick explanation.
I'll avoid duplicating an entire framework overview here, but suffice it to say that
RAC actually offers a superset of promises/futures. It allows you to compose and
transform events of completely different origins (UI, network, database, KVO,
notifications, etc.), which is incredibly powerful.
To get started RACifying this code, the first and easiest thing we can do is put
these separate operations into methods, and ensure that each one returns
a RACSignal. This isn't strictly necessary (they could all be defined within
one scope), but it makes the code more modular and readable.
For example, let's create a couple signals corresponding to process and
generateFilename:
- (RACSignal *)processImage:(UIImage *)image {
return [RACSignal startEagerlyWithScheduler:[RACScheduler scheduler] block:^(id<RACSubscriber> subscriber) {
// Process image before upload
UIImage *processedImage = …;
[subscriber sendNext:processedImage];
[subscriber sendCompleted];
}];
}
- (RACSignal *)generateFilename {
return [RACSignal startEagerlyWithScheduler:[RACScheduler scheduler] block:^(id<RACSubscriber> subscriber) {
NSString *filename = [self generateFilename];
[subscriber sendNext:filename];
[subscriber sendCompleted];
}];
}
The other operations (createEntry and uploadImageToCreatedEntry) would be very similar.
Once we have these in place, it's very easy to compose them and express their
dependencies (though the comments make it look a bit dense):
[[[[[[self
generateFilename]
flattenMap:^(NSString *filename) {
// Returns a signal representing the entry creation.
// We assume that this will eventually send an `Entry` object.
return [self createEntryWithFilename:filename];
}]
// Combine the value with that returned by `-processImage:`.
zipWith:[self processImage:startingImage]]
flattenMap:^(RACTuple *entryAndImage) {
// Here, we unpack the zipped values then return a single object,
// which is just a signal representing the upload.
return [self uploadImage:entryAndImage[1] toCreatedEntry:entryAndImage[0]];
}]
// Make sure that the next code runs on the main thread.
deliverOn:RACScheduler.mainThreadScheduler]
subscribeError:^(NSError *error) {
// Any errors will trickle down into this block, where we can
// display them.
[self presentError:error];
} completed:^{
// Update UI
[SVProgressHUD showSuccessWithStatus: NSLocalizedString(#"Success!", #"Success HUD message")];
}];
Note that I renamed some of your methods so that they can accept inputs from
their dependencies, giving us a more natural way to feed values from one
operation to the next.
There are huge advantages here:
You can read it top-down, so it's very easy to understand the order that
things happen in, and where the dependencies lie.
It's extremely easy to move work between different threads, as evidenced by
the use of -deliverOn:.
Any errors sent by any of those methods will automatically cancel all the
rest of the work, and eventually reach the subscribeError: block for easy
handling.
You can also compose this with other streams of events (i.e., not just
operations). For example, you could set this up to trigger only when a UI
signal (like a button click) fires.
ReactiveCocoa is a huge framework, and it's unfortunately hard to distill the
advantages down into a small code sample. I'd highly recommend checking out the
examples for when to use
ReactiveCocoa
to learn more about how it can help.
A couple of thoughts:
I would be inclined to avail myself of completion blocks because you probably only want to initiate the next operation if the previous one succeeded. You want to make sure that you properly handle errors and can easily break out of your chain of operations if one fails.
If I wanted to pass data from operation to another and didn't want to use some property of the caller's class, I would probably define my own completion block as a property of my custom operation that had a parameter which included the field that I wanted to pass from one operation to another. This assumes, though, that you're doing NSOperation subclassing.
For example, I might have a FilenameOperation.h that defines an interface for my operation subclass:
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
typedef void (^FilenameOperationSuccessFailureBlock)(NSString *filename, NSError *error);
#interface FilenameOperation : NSOperation
#property (nonatomic, copy) FilenameOperationSuccessFailureBlock successFailureBlock;
#end
and if it wasn't a concurrent operation, the implementation might look like:
#import "FilenameOperation.h"
#implementation FilenameOperation
- (void)main
{
if (self.isCancelled)
return;
NSString *filename = ...;
BOOL failure = ...
if (failure)
{
NSError *error = [NSError errorWithDomain:... code:... userInfo:...];
if (self.successFailureBlock)
self.successFailureBlock(nil, error);
}
else
{
if (self.successFailureBlock)
self.successFailureBlock(filename, nil);
}
}
#end
Clearly, if you have a concurrent operation, you'll implement all of the standard isConcurrent, isFinished and isExecuting logic, but the idea is the same. As an aside, sometimes people will dispatch those success or failures back to the main queue, so you can do that if you want, too.
Regardless, this illustrates the idea of a custom property with my own completion block that passes the appropriate data. You can repeat this process for each of the relevant types of operations, you can then chain them all together, with something like:
FilenameOperation *filenameOperation = [[FilenameOperation alloc] init];
GenerateOperation *generateOperation = [[GenerateOperation alloc] init];
UploadOperation *uploadOperation = [[UploadOperation alloc] init];
filenameOperation.successFailureBlock = ^(NSString *filename, NSError *error) {
if (error)
{
// handle error
NSLog(#"%s: error: %#", __FUNCTION__, error);
}
else
{
generateOperation.filename = filename;
[queue addOperation:generateOperation];
}
};
generateOperation.successFailureBlock = ^(NSString *filename, NSData *data, NSError *error) {
if (error)
{
// handle error
NSLog(#"%s: error: %#", __FUNCTION__, error);
}
else
{
uploadOperation.filename = filename;
uploadOperation.data = data;
[queue addOperation:uploadOperation];
}
};
uploadOperation.successFailureBlock = ^(NSString *result, NSError *error) {
if (error)
{
// handle error
NSLog(#"%s: error: %#", __FUNCTION__, error);
}
else
{
[[NSOperationQueue mainQueue] addOperationWithBlock:^{
// update UI here
NSLog(#"%#", result);
}];
}
};
[queue addOperation:filenameOperation];
Another approach in more complicated scenarios is to have your NSOperation subclass employ a technique analogous to how the standard addDependency method works, in which NSOperation sets the isReady state based upon KVO on isFinished on the other operation. This not only allows you to not only establish more complicated dependencies between operations, but also to pass database between them. This is probably beyond the scope of this question (and I'm already suffering from tl:dr), but let me know if you need more here.
I wouldn't be too concerned that uploadImageToCreatedEntry is dispatching back to the main thread. In complicated designs, you might have all sorts of different queues dedicated for particular types of operations, and the fact that UI updates are added to the main queue is perfectly consistent with this mode. But instead of dispatch_async, I might be inclined to use the NSOperationQueue equivalent:
[[NSOperationQueue mainQueue] addOperationWithBlock:^{
// do my UI update here
}];
I wonder if you need all of these operations. For example, I have a hard time imagining that filename is sufficiently complicated to justify its own operation (but if you're getting the filename from some remote source, then a separate operation makes perfect sense). I'll assume that you're doing something sufficiently complicated that justifies it, but the names of those operations make me wonder, though.
If you want, you might want to take a look at couchdeveloper's RXPromise class which uses promises to (a) control the logical relationship between separate operations; and (b) simplify the passing of data from one to the next. Mike Ash has a old MAFuture class which does the same thing.
I'm not sure either of those are mature enough that I'd contemplate using them in my own code, but it's an interesting idea.
I'm probably totally, biased - but for a particular reason - I like #Rob's approach #6 ;)
Assuming you created appropriate wrappers for your asynchronous methods and operations which return a Promise instead of signaling the completion with a completion block, the solution looks like this:
RXPromise* finalResult = [RXPromise all:#[[self filename], [self process]]]
.then(^id(id filenameAndProcessResult){
return [self generateEntry];
}, nil)
.then(^id(id generateEntryResult){
return [self uploadImage];
}, nil)
.thenOn(dispatch_get_main_queue() , ^id(id uploadImageResult){
[self refreshWithResult:uploadImageResult];
return nil;
}, nil)
.then(nil, ^id(NSError*error){
// Something went wrong in any of the operations. Log the error:
NSLog(#"Error: %#", error);
});
And, if you want to cancel the whole asynchronous sequence at any tine, anywhere and no matter how far it has been proceeded:
[finalResult.root cancel];
(A small note: property root is not yet available in the current version of RXPromise, but its basically very simple to implement).
If you still want to use NSOperation, you can rely on ProcedureKit and use the injection properties of the Procedure class.
For each operation, specify which type it produces and inject it to the next dependent operation. You can also at the end wrap the whole process inside a GroupProcedure class.