I used to develop iOS apps using the Objective-C language, and relied on the dealloc method to perform some cleanup/unregister tasks in my application. Now on the MonoTouch (garbage collected) it is not an option anymore.
Suppose I have a UIViewController that adds as a subview of it's View property an instance of MyView (UIView subclass). MyView in turn registers itself to receive some events from another manager/global object so that it knows how to update itself accordingly (e.g.: onlineProfilesManager.Refreshed += () => <update UI with the new state>;).
As long as MyView is on screen, everything is fine. However I must know when it's removed from the screen so that I can unregister MyView from the event handler.
In Obj-C this could be simply done in the dealloc method because when the screen changes the UIViewController is deallocated --> MyView is removed from it's superview and then MyView dealloc method is called.
In Monotouch I don't have this 'deterministic' flow anymore. I tried to put some print statements in the UIViewController and MyView destructors but they are never called (the reason is because the MyView is still registered for the event handler, since I don't know when/how to unregister it, it will never be deallocated).
Does anyone know what is the 'pattern' to handle such situations in MonoTouch? I think I'm missing a fundamental concept and getting into trouble developing my apps.
Thanks in advance.
EDIT
I'm editing my question because looks like the solution for my problem is using the Weak Event Pattern but I didn't find an implementation for the MonoTouch platform.
Does anyone know how can I use the Weak Event Pattern in MonoTouch ?
The best way to handle events is to unregister them in ViewWillDisappear and register them in ViewWillAppear. This means that you can't use anonymous methods though as you don't have a reference to the method to unregister it.
If that doesn't suit what you need, you can do something similar to this http://sgmunn.com/blog/2012/05/non-gcd-event-handlers/
Cheers.
If you are looking for weak events, you can try my "Messenger" implementation here.
It is inspired by what is available in TinyIoC, but I re-implemented it so it used less reflection, etc.
Related
For analytic purposes, I would like to do the following:
When a UIVIewController's viewDidLoad() is triggered, I would like to trigger a custom function vcWasLoaded(vc:UIViewController).
Similarly, when a UIButton is tapped, I would like to trigger a custom function btnWasTapped(bt:UIButton).
I would like to achieve the above without subclasses. Anyway to achieve the above using protocols, extensions, or reactive frameworks?
Method swizzling is the only thing I can think of that you could use that would let you do this without subclassing. You'd replace the implementation of viewDidLoad, and one of the lower-level button methods, and then call the original implementation in yours. (I've only dabbled in method swizzling, and it was many years ago, before Swift existed. I don't know much about Objective-C method swizzling, and know exactly zero about method swizzling in Swift.)
This would be much simpler and cleaner if you created a subclass of UIViewController and made it the base class of all of your view controllers.
I placed my code for iAd/AdMob ads in...
-(void)viewWillAppear:(BOOL)animated{}
Ads work perfectly fine the way I have them now on all iOS devices.
When I connected my iPhone to Xcode and clicked on Product -->Analyze a message states...
The viewWillAppear:instance method in UIViewController subclass 'iPhoneSIX' is missing a [super viewWillAppear:] call
I just accidentally stumbled upon this Product-->Analyze thing. Do I really need to add [super viewWillAppear] even though everything works perfectly fine on all devices as it currently is. Will Apple reject my app if I don't pay attention to the Product-->Analyze issue navigator?
Also, what does ...
[super viewWillAppear:YES];
What does calling this do?
According to Apple: (emphasis mine)
This method is called before the receiver's view is about to be
added to a view hierarchy and before any animations are configured for
showing the view. You can override this method to perform custom tasks
associated with displaying the view. For example, you might use this
method to change the orientation or style of the status bar to
coordinate with the orientation or style of the view being presented.
If you override this method, you must call super at some point in your
implementation.
Apple doesn't gets that specific when deciding to Accept or Reject your app. It only follows the guidelines, which doesn't get that much into the weeds of your specific methods.
Calling [super viewWillAppear:YES] is a best practice, and I would recommend it. Always including super ensures that any code in the super classes get called before executing any additional code. So if you or someone else coded a super class that expected some code to be executed, you are guaranteed to still execute it, rather than just overwriting the whole method in the subclass.
Say you have a view controller of type MyViewController which is a subclass of UIViewController. Then say you have another view controller of type MyOtherViewController, which is a subclass of MyViewController. Say you're coding now some things in viewWillAppear in MyOtherViewController. If you call super first, it will call viewWillAppear in MyViewController before executing any code. If viewWillAppear in MyViewController calls super first, then it will call viewWillAppear in UIViewController before executing any code.
I'm quite certain Apple will not reject your app for failing to call super on an overridden method, primarily because there are cases where you may specifically want to avoid calling super.
That said, as Josh Gafni mentions it is definitely a best practice to do so, unless you have a very good reason for not. Also bear in mind some view controller subclasses (can't recall specifically which ones, but maybe UICollectionViewController) will only work properly if their view lifecycle methods get called appropriately, so not calling super can definitely break some classes (sometimes in subtle ways you may not realize).
Therefore my suggestion is add the call to super (generally as the first line in the method) and see if things continue to work fine. If not, spend a bit of time trying to understand what is happening differently and see if you can solve it in a different way. In general you should always (as a force of habit) provide calls to super on any view lifecycle methods you override whenever possible.
Is it possible to set up a custom UIResponder subclass? I need to implement a listener for UIEvents (specifically remote control events) that will be delivered through out the course of the app's lifecycle.
I am trying to avoid using UIViewControllers (will be dealloced at some point) and AppDelegate (would like to not burden it if possible) if possible.
Obviously you can subclass UIResponder and you can make an instance of that subclass. The problem is getting that instance into the responder chain, so that its UIResponder methods are actually called, and in such a way that the rest of the responder chain doesn't break. This might be possible — I've certainly done it in Cocoa on the desktop, though never in UIKit on an iOS device — but you would do much better, in my opinion, to give some introspective thought to why you have this peculiar aversion to putting the code where it obviously wants to go (in a UIViewController or in the app delegate).
Recently I wrote some code where I tried to refer to an outlet on a UIViewController I'd just instantiated with [storyboard instantiateViewControllerWithIdentifier] and modify the subview that the outlet pointed to before presenting the ViewController. It didn't work because the ViewController's view hadn't loaded its subviews yet, including the one that my outlet referred to, so the property just gave me a null pointer.
After (with some struggle) tracking down the cause of my issue in the debugger, I Googled around and learned, through answers like this one, that I can cause the view to load its subviews without being displayed by calling the myViewController.view getter. After that, I can access my outlet without any problems.
It's a clear hack, though, and Xcode - quite rightly - doesn't like it, and angrily protests with this warning:
Property access result unused - getters should not be used for side effects
Is there a non-hacky alternative way to do this that doesn't involved abusing the .view getter? Alternatively, are there canonical/idiomatic patterns for this scenario involving something like dynamically adding a handler to be called as soon as the subviews are loaded?
Or is the standard solution just to replace myViewController.view with [myViewController view] to shut up Xcode's warning, and then live with the hack?
On iOS 9 or newer, one can use:
viewController.loadViewIfNeeded()
Docs: https://developer.apple.com/reference/uikit/uiviewcontroller/1621446-loadviewifneeded
I agree that forcing a view to load should be avoided but I ran into a case where it seemed the only reasonable solution to a problem (popping a UINavigationController containing a UISearchController that had yet to be invoked causes a nasty console says warning).
What I did was use new iOS9 API loadViewIfNeeded and for pre-iOS9 used viewController.view.alpha = 1.0. Of course a good comment above this code will prevent you (or someone else) removing this code later thinking it is unneeded.
The fact that Apple is now providing this API signals it can be needed from time to time.
Not sure how much cleaner this way, but it still works fine:
_ = vc.view
UPD: for your convenience, you can declare extension like below:
extension UIViewController {
func preloadView() {
let _ = view
}
}
You can read explaination by following URL: https://www.natashatherobot.com/ios-testing-view-controllers-swift/
merged Rudolph/Swany answers for pre ios9 deployment targets
if #available(iOS 9.0, *) {
loadViewIfNeeded()
}
else {
// _ = self.view works but some Swift compiler genius could optimize what seems like a noop out
// hence this perversion from this recipe http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17279604/clean-way-to-force-view-to-load-subviews-early
view.alpha = 1
}
If I understand you correctly, I think there's another fairly standard solution: move the outlet modification/configuration code into a viewDidLoad method (of the recently instantiated VC).
The topic is also discussed in this question.
It would require some restructuring, but it might give you a "cleaner" design in terms of MVC if your incoming VC handled its own configuration, and it would avoid the "You should never call this method directly" stricture on loadView.
You can call [myViewController loadView] to explicitly load the view, instead of abusing the .view getter. The .view getter actually calls loadView if necessary when called.
It's still not a very nice solution, since the UIView Documentation's section on loadView explicitly instructs that
You should never call this method directly
Whenever I create a UI object such as UITextField programmatically, I do this:
txt.delegate = self;
A compiler warning appears and asks me to add UITextFieldDelegate in the .h file.
I noticed though that it makes no difference with or without, the code works fine either way.
But the compiler warning disappears. Why is this?
You don't actually need to set the delegate property on your objects unless you are actually using the delegate methods. For example, if you need to know when the UITextField is about to begin editing. If you don't need to know when these things occur, you don't need to set the delegate.
Looking at it the other way, if you make your class conform to a delegate method (by adding <SomeClassDelegate> in the .h file), and then forget to implement required delegate methods, you'll get a warning from the compiler, and a crash when the app runs (and sends a required delegate message to your object).
To answer your question about not adding UITextFieldDelegate to your .h file, imagine your friend is looking for a French translator. You find a foreign looking man and introduce him. Your friend asks "But can he speak French?" You reply "I don't know". This is your warning.