CoreData Entity "A" has a one-to-many relationship to a collection of CoreData Entries "B", using a Cascade delete rule.
In an iCloud environment, while device 1 shows a detail view of one of the "B" entries, device 2 deletes the "A" entry.
When the NSPersistentStoreDidImportUbiquitousContentChangesNotification notification is received in device 1, its App Delegate calls mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification and then broadcasts an internal notification which is captured by the view controller showing the details of entry "B" (the code uses performBlock where it should).
However, although entry "A" is indeed nullified when the detail view controller receives the internal notification, entry "B" still exists as a valid CoreData object. It seems that the Cascade rule hasn't completed its operation yet. Therefore the view controller in device 1 isn't aware of the delete, which may lead to unexpected results.
mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification appears to return prematurely, when the base data has been merged but the Cascade rule hasn't completed yet.
I tried to refresh entry "B" when the notification arrives while temporarily setting the stalenessInterval of the managed object context to zero so a cached object won't be used, but I still get a valid entry "B" from the store.
Checking for a null entry "A" at this point is not an option, because the situation is somewhat more complex than what I described here and a null entry "A" can be valid in some cases.
I tried to introduce a delay after merging the changes and before sending the internal notification to the view controllers. I found out that a 2-second delay doesn't help, but a 10-second delay works.
But I don't want to rely on this delay. This is a test environment without much data, and I don't know what will happen in a production environment. Relying on an experimental delay doesn't seem the right thing to do.
Is there a right thing? Or am I doing something wrong to begin with?
From experience, listening to notifications other than NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification is a big mess and can lead to relying on properties not yet updated. The detail view controller should listen to NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification notifications, which are thrown after cascade is applied. You can then check by several means if the current object is valid or not (you can check to see if the current object's managed object context is nil or you can perform a fetch and see if the object exists in the store).
Related
We have a breeze client solution in which we show parent entities with lists of their children. We do hard deletes on some child entities. Now when the user is the one doing the deletes, there is no problem, but when someone else does, there seems to be no way to invalidate the children already loaded in cache. We do a new query with the parent and expanding to children, but breeze attaches all the other children it has already heard of, even if the database did not return them.
My question: shouldn't breeze realize we are loading through expand and thus completely remove all children from cache before loading back the results from the db? How else can we accomplish this if that is not the case?
Thank you
Yup, that's a really good point.
Deletion is simply a horrible complication to every data management effort. This is true no matter whether you use Breeze or not. It just causes heartache up and down the line. Which is why I recommend soft deletes instead of hard deletes.
But you don't care what I think ... so I will continue.
Let me be straight about this. There is no easy way for you to implement a cache cleanup scheme properly. I'm going to describe how we might do it (with some details neglected I'm sure) and you'll see why it is difficult and, in perverse cases, fruitless.
Of course the most efficient, brute force approach is to blow away the cache before querying. You might as well not have caching if you do that but I thought I'd mention it.
The "Detached" entity problem
Before I continue, remember the technique I just mentioned and indeed all possible solutions are useless if your UI (or anything else) is holding references to the entities that you want to remove.
Oh, you'll remove them from cache alright. But whatever is holding references to them now will continue to have a reference to an entity object which is in a "Detached" state - a ghost. Making sure that doesn't happen is your responsibility; Breeze can't know and couldn't do anything about it if it did know.
Second attempt
A second, less blunt approach (suggested by Jay) is to
apply the query to the cache first
iterate over the results and for each one
detach every child entity along the "expand" paths.
detach that top level entity
Now when the query succeeds, you have a clear road for it to fill the cache.
Here is a simple example of the code as it relates to a query of TodoLists and their TodoItems:
var query = breeze.EntityQuery.from('TodoLists').expand('TodoItems');
var inCache = manager.executeQueryLocally(query);
inCache.slice().forEach(function(e) {
inCache = inCache.concat(e.TodoItems);
});
inCache.slice().forEach(function(e) {
manager.detachEntity(e);
});
There are at least four problems with this approach:
Every queried entity is a ghost. If your UI is displaying any of the queried entities, it will be displaying ghosts. This is true even when the entity was not touched on the server at all (99% of the time). Too bad. You have to repaint the entire page.
You may be able to do that. But in many respects this technique is almost as impractical as the first. It means that ever view is in a potentially invalid state after any query takes place anywhere.
Detaching an entity has side-effects. All other entities that depend on the one you detached are instantly (a) changed and (b) orphaned. There is no easy recovery from this, as explained in the "orphans" section below.
This technique wipes out all pending changes among the entities that you are querying. We'll see how to deal with that shortly.
If the query fails for some reason (lost connection?), you've got nothing to show. Unless you remember what you removed ... in which case you could put those entities back in cache if the query fails.
Why mention a technique that may have limited practical value? Because it is a step along the way to approach #3 that could work
Attempt #3 - this might actually work
The approach I'm about to describe is often referred to as "Mark and Sweep".
Run the query locally and calculate theinCache list of entities as just described. This time, do not remove those entities from cache. We WILL remove the entities that remain in this list after the query succeeds ... but not just yet.
If the query's MergeOption is "PreserveChanges" (which it is by default), remove every entity from the inCache list (not from the manager's cache!) that has pending changes. We do this because such entities must stay in cache no matter what the state of the entity on the server. That's what "PreserveChanges" means.
We could have done this in our second approach to avoid removing entities with unsaved changes.
Subscribe to the EntityManager.entityChanged event. In your handler, remove the "entity that changed" from the inCache list because the fact that this entity was returned by the query and merged into the cache tells you it still exists on the server. Here is some code for that:
var handlerId = manager.entityChanged.subscribe(trackQueryResults);
function trackQueryResults(changeArgs) {
var action = changeArgs.entityAction;
if (action === breeze.EntityAction.AttachOnQuery ||
action === breeze.EntityAction.MergeOnQuery) {
var ix = inCache.indexOf(changeArgs.entity);
if (ix > -1) {
inCache.splice(ix, 1);
}
}
}
If the query fails, forget all of this
If the query succeeds
unsubscribe: manager.entityChanged.unsubscribe(handlerId);
subscribe with orphan detection handler
var handlerId = manager.entityChanged.subscribe(orphanDetector);
function orphanDetector(changeArgs) {
var action = changeArgs.entityAction;
if (action === breeze.EntityAction.PropertyChange) {
var orphan = changeArgs.entity;
// do something about this orphan
}
}
detach every entity that remains in the inCache list.
inCache.slice().forEach(function(e) {
manager.detachEntity(e);
});
unsubscribe the orphan detection handler
Orphan Detector?
Detaching an entity can have side-effects. Suppose we have Products and every product has a Color. Some other user hates "red". She deletes some of the red products and changes the rest to "blue". Then she deletes the "red" Color.
You know nothing about this and innocently re-query the Colors. The "red" color is gone and your cleanup process detaches it from cache. Instantly every Product in cache is modified. Breeze doesn't know what the new Color should be so it sets the FK, Product.colorId, to zero for every formerly "red" product.
There is no Color with id=0 so all of these products are in an invalid state (violating referential integrity constraint). They have no Color parent. They are orphans.
Two questions: how do you know this happened to you and what do your do?
Detection
Breeze updates the affected products when you detach the "red" color.
You could listen for a PropertyChanged event raised during the detach process. That's what I did in my code sample. In theory (and I think "in fact"), the only thing that could trigger the PropertyChanged event during the detach process is the "orphan" side-effect.
What do you do?
leave the orphan in an invalid, modified state?
revert to the equally invalid former colorId for the deleted "red" color?
refresh the orphan to get its new color state (or discover that it was deleted)?
There is no good answer. You have your pick of evils with the first two options. I'd probably go with the second as it seems least disruptive. This would leave the products in "Unchanged" state, pointing to a non-existent Color.
It's not much worse then when you query for the latest products and one of them refers to a new Color ("banana") that you don't have in cache.
The "refresh" option seems technically the best. It is unwieldy. It could easily cascade into a long chain of asynchronous queries that could take a long time to finish.
The perfect solution escapes our grasp.
What about the ghosts?
Oh right ... your UI could still be displaying the (fewer) entities that you detached because you believe they were deleted on the server. You've got to remove these "ghosts" from the UI.
I'm sure you can figure out how to remove them. But you have to learn what they are first.
You could iterate over every entity that you are displaying and see if it is in a "Detached" state. YUCK!
Better I think if the cleanup mechanism published a (custom?) event with the list of entities you detached during cleanup ... and that list is inCache. Your subscriber(s) then know which entities have to be removed from the display ... and can respond appropriately.
Whew! I'm sure I've forgotten something. But now you understand the dimensions of the problem.
What about server notification?
That has real possibilities. If you can arrange for the server to notify the client when any entity has been deleted, that information can be shared across your UI and you can take steps to remove the deadwood.
It's a valid point but for now we don't ever remove entities from the local cache as a result of a query. But.. this is a reasonable request, so please add this to the breeze User Voice. https://breezejs.uservoice.com/forums/173093-breeze-feature-suggestions
In the meantime, you can always create a method that removes the related entities from the cache before the query executes and have the query (with expand) add them back.
There are several view controllers in my app where I need to sync the local contents with server using a method running in a background thread. Sometimes I need to insert data to my database on server if user has created any. The approach I am using here is to set a flag(something like isSynced = NO) on objects that I need to sync with server (there objects are in Core Data). When the syncing is complete my method will get rid of the flag(e.g. isSynced = YES) so it won't be sent again next time.
Now the problems is that the syncing method takes very long to complete(1 or 2seconds.). If now user pops out this particular view controller and swiftly comes back the previous call is still in progress and next one will be kicked off. The consequence is that there might be duplication in database.
My approach now is the make the syncing method to be called by a Singleton object:
#property (nonatomic) BOOL isSyncing;
//every time before syncing. check if object is available for syncing
if (!isSyncing) {
isSyncing = YES;
// sync server
// when complete
isSyncing = NO;
// post notification to view controller to reload table
} else {
// cancel because previous call is not finished
}
My concern is that if the call is cancelled my view controller will not be able to receive the notification is waiting for. I can fix this by posting another notification in the event of cancelation. I am wondering if this is the right to do this because I think that this problem should be pretty common in iOS development and there should be a standard way to deal with it
Your singleton approach may not be necessary. I don't see the harm in sending a database insert for each new object. You will still need to ensure each object is synched. That is, update the "isSynched" flag. Keep each object that needs to be synced in a "need to synch" list.
Then, update the "isSynced" flag by performing a background query on the database to check if the object exits. Then, use the result of the query to set the isSynched flag.
If the query result indicates the object is not in the database you then resend the object and leave it's "isSynced" flag set to NO.
If the query result indicates the object is in the database, set the "isSynced" flag to YES and remove it from your "need to synch" list.
An approach for preventing duplicate database entries is to make a unique key. For example, tag each with a hash based on the time and date. Then configure the table to ensure each key is unique.
I have a Reminder entity that needs to update its date property whenever a certain entity B is deleted. I've spent some days coding thinking I could do some useful things in my managed object subclass on deletion time. I tried
- (void)willSave
{
if (self.isDeleted)
// use self.managedObjectContext
}
The context was nil. Relationships were also torn down there. Fair enough.
So... I started writing cumbersome code for prepareForDeletion to circumvent the fact that the object hadn't been deleted yet, but then Core Data throws self.managedObjectContext == nil in my face. The documentation says that this is where I do stuff "before relationships are torn down". So what is the point in self.managedObjectContext == nil if self.relationshipA.managedObjectContext is accessible (as the docs suggest)? And more importantly, why does my not yet deleted object not have its context?
I read a comment here regarding that problem
its not 'fault' as much as it is a 'disown', the context has disowned your object (he was deleted and save was committed to the database) and so your object was disowned. don't save in methods that are changing and object as the save should probably be committed/saved after the operation anyway. – Dan Shelly May 21 at 19:05
My code was:
[moc deleteObject:obj]
[moc save:NULL]
When I removed the save operation my self.managedObjectContext existed in prepareForDeletion. That is, until auto-save, when it was nil again. Probably because the parent context also deleted it, followed by a save by the UIManagedDocument.
I'm starting to think that my only options are to make a custom delete method (that works until Core Data cascades a deletion, in which case it won't be called), or make a new class that listens to NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification.
Update:
The user wants to keep in touch with a person, and wants to be reminded after a certain interval (stored in ContactWish) if no contact has been made. What I'm trying to accomplish is that when the latest ContactOccasion for a certain person is deleted, the corresponding occasion->person->wish->reminder gets updated (using the interval).
Since this is a learning experience for me I wanted to find out the right way (one that works with cascade deletion etc.) and not just call for an update manually from every place in my code where I do [MOContext deleteObject:occasion]. Suggestions are welcome.
(the reminder entity has also been prepared for more manual use)
Would it not be much more logical to have the Reminder entity manage its date property? It could "listen" (maybe via changedValues:) to its relationship entities being deleted and perform the update.
This seems more consistent, as the B entity should not really be concerned with the logic of the Reminder entity updates.
Edit
Pursuant to the discussion below and based on my opinion that you cannot load up the database cascade delete model too much with update logic:
Rather than react to a deletion you can introduce an attribute that you set and listen to in order to do the changes.
I really do not see how relying on core data delete mechanisms is easier or more elegant than just writing your own "deleteOccasion" method that handles this logic.
I have a NSFetchedResultsController tied to my main managed object context. It is in charge of keeping data for a table view in my main view.
I have an NSOperation running on a background thread that refreshes/deletes the managed objects that the fetched results controller is keeping track of. I create a child context (private concurrency type / parent = main managed object context) in the nsoperation and insert/delete objects. When it is finished, it saves its context, as well as the parent context.
What's interesting and very frustrating is that this works fine in iOS 6. When I insert or delete objects, my fetched results controller is notified of the changes and everything works as expected. However, on iOS 5, everything works except for deletes. The fetched results controller is not notified of a delete. However... if I manually refresh the fetched results controller (making it nil and refetching the same predicate) then it will show the expected result.
Also, when I register for change/save notifications on the main context, I can see that the user info dictionary contains the objects that I've deleted... even in iOS 5!
One issue that I thought it may be, but I don't think holds because I've removed the factors, is that this object is in a many to one relationship with another object. The object I am deleting/inserting is an "employee" and it has a relationship with a "department". The employee is set to nullify and the department is set to cascade.
As I said, this works fine in iOS6 but not in iOS5.
Any tips would be very helpful.
This bug is due to saving to the persistent store. This child context saves itself, then calls perform block on it's parent, the main managed object context. When the main managed object context saves, it triggers a background context to write to the persistent store. When I removed the background context save, the fetched results controller updated as expected.
Something interesting that I found that was probably causing this was that the managed object was leaking every time I tried saving to the store. Not exactly sure how to fix this yet, but it's good to know the reason for it.
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.