In my NSManagedObject subclass I have an NSString ivar that splits up into an NSSet of entities. I'd like to be able to set the string and during a call to save, do the split, however, only setting the string will not trigger a dirty flag or a need to save.
You can implement the + (BOOL)contextShouldIgnoreUnmodeledPropertyChanges on you NSManagedObject subclass and return NO rather than the default (YES).
This should then cause the NSManagedObjectContext to be notified of changes properties even if they aren't represented by actual columns in the database.
I assume you mean "attribute" instead of "ivar". Your scheme of having a string being split into a set and then saving the set is perhaps debatable, but I guess that is not the issue here.
Why do you need to have the Managed Object marked as "dirty"? This is really not necessary. Just save it, dirty or not!
I do not know how you check the "dirtiness" of your managed object, but I assume you want this to trigger a save at a certain point. At that point you might just as well as check your own BOOL "dirtyFlag" which you can set as appropriate and keep available for checking.
It is always better to make these kinds of things explicit. Your code will become more readable and transparent.
Related
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 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.
In my data model, some of the attributes have regular expressions used for data validation. There are places in my code that I would like to use those same regular expressions.
In the interest of keeping my common regular expressions in one place, I was hoping either to set these regexes in code or to retrieve them from the data model in code.
Is there a way to do this?
I want to access the Reg. Ex. property, shown below, in code.
From a NSEntityDescription you can get its attributes with the method attributesByName. Then you can use the NSPropertyDescription methods validationPredicates and setValidationPredicates:withValidationWarnings:. I assume that a predicate is created under the hood when you set the validation regex in your datamodel file...
I am not completely sure about this, but I think you can only set these values when you are creating your core data model, not once you have your core data stack set up. Is that what you want to do?
Absolutely. Everything you do in the model editor can be done or modified in code by manipulating your NSManagedObjectModel object.
Locate where the model is retrieved in your core data stack setup (maybe in your app delegate). Before returning the model, modify it in code, using constants you can #define in a central include file.
Read all about the object model's API here. More precisely, you set the model's entities after modifying an entity description, by changing the validationPredicates of one of its attributes.
I marked e1985's answer as accepted, since that's the answer that led me here. Here's the code I used to get the predicate. It's in a category for NSEntityDescription.
- (NSPredicate*)getValidationPredicateForAttribute:(NSString*)attributeName
{
NSAttributeDescription* emailAttribute = [self.attributesByName objectForKey:attributeName];
NSArray* validationPredicates = [emailAttribute validationPredicates];
if(validationPredicates.count > 0)
{
return [validationPredicates objectAtIndex:0];
}
return nil;
}
I have a Core Data stack based on the NSInMemoryStoreType store. And I've noticed that deleting objects doesn't really remove them or make them nil, bur rather simply turns them into faults.
For example, (MyManagedObjectEntityClass as well as the <> identifier are placeholders):
MyManagedObjectEntityClass *o = [NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:#"<MyManagedObjectEntityClass Entity Name>" inManagedObjectContext:self.localContext];
NSLog(#"\n%#", o);
[self.localContext deleteObject:o];
NSLog(#"\n%#", o);
Will log that the object is still there only that it's data is a fault.
And adding [self.localContext save:nil]; after the delete doesn't change this either.
I was hoping I could at some point test the o variable for nil, in which case I'd reload the object - but it seems I can't.
Just in case, yes, I know I could instead test o for -isFault. But thing is, extrapolate this test to an NSSet and I can't just rely on [[set anyObject] isFault] to conclude that all objects in that set have been removed (Ideally the set's count would be 0, but all objects are still there as faults).
So I'm wondering if it's possible at all or what alternate approach could I take to be able to test that objects have been deleted in a way transparent to the fact that they are managed objects.
This is not actually a Core Data issue. C (and by extension Objective-C) doesn't work like that.
The deleteObject: method takes one argument, a pointer to an object. It can change the object (like setting its isDeleted flag), or it can do other things related to the object (like deleting it from its managed object context). It cannot change the value of the pointer itself. So whatever it does or should do, C says that once it's done, the pointer that you pass in still points to the same location in memory. As a result it's actually impossible for that method to force that pointer to be nil in this language. If you want it to be nil, you have to change that yourself. (As an aside, it would have been possible to implement the method to take a pointer to pointer argument, which could modify your pointer. This would have no effect on other references such as those in arrays, though, so it would be kind of pointless).
This is why the isDeleted method is public, so that if you have a pointer to this object in some other location, you can check whether it has been deleted before attempting to use it.
If that's not convenient enough (and it often isn't), Core Data also provides NSManagedObjectContextObjectsDidChangeNotification and NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification. You can use these anywhere in your app to get notified of changes to the context and respond in whatever way is appropriate (updating an array, for example). These notifications both try to help you out by providing lists of inserted, updated, and deleted objects. Use those when possible to check whether you actually need to update your references.
An object needs to be submitted to the server, and I want to indicate to the user that the object needs to be submitted by displaying the lastModified date/time, and lastSubmitted date/time.
(Yes, the record must be manually submitted.)
I'm currently listening for NSManagedObjectContextObjectsDidChangeNotification, checking if the object's entity is RetailLocation, and if so, setting its lastModified date/time (of course, only if lastModified is not the only property being modified). Since this seems to highly confuse the undo manager, I use performSelector:SOMESEL withObject:retailLocation afterDelay:0.0 to set the lastModified property.
Sadly, this is almost even worse: this results in two actions being added to the undo stack!
Can someone recommend a nice way to implement a lastModified attribute in a Core Data-managed record? Alternatively, what am I missing?
If you don't want the modification date to be undoable, you can call disableUndoRegistration on your NSUndoManager before making changes, and enableUndoRegistration when you're done.
If you need one, you can get a pointer to the NSUndoManager by calling undoManager on your NSManagedObjectContext, but if you're working in iOS you should have one already.
Also, note Apple recommends using the NSManagedObjectContextWillSaveNotification notification for this, since changes might not necessarily be saved.