I use multiple contexts in my Core Data app, and have recently had some core data concurrency crashes. I have added -com.apple.CoreData.ConcurrencyDebug 1 to help track these down, but I am not understanding how to fix the issue that is shown.
Here is what I am doing:
- (void)getEvents:(void (^)(NSArray *fetchedItems))completionBlock {
// Initialize Fetch Request
NSFetchRequest *request = [[NSFetchRequest alloc] initWithEntityName:#"ZSSCDEvent"];
// Initialize Asynchronous Fetch Request
NSAsynchronousFetchRequest *asynchronousFetchRequest = [[NSAsynchronousFetchRequest alloc] initWithFetchRequest:request completionBlock:^(NSAsynchronousFetchResult *result) {
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
// Dismiss Progress HUD
[SVProgressHUD dismiss];
// Process Asynchronous Fetch Result
if (result.finalResult) {
NSArray *results = result.finalResult;
completionBlock(results);
// Reload Table View
[self.activityIndicator stopAnimating];
[self.tableViewList reloadData];
}
});
}];
// Execute Asynchronous Fetch Request
[self.managedObjectContext performBlock:^{
// Execute Asynchronous Fetch Request
NSError *asynchronousFetchRequestError = nil;
NSAsynchronousFetchResult *asynchronousFetchResult = (NSAsynchronousFetchResult *)[self.managedObjectContext executeRequest:asynchronousFetchRequest error:&asynchronousFetchRequestError];
if (asynchronousFetchRequestError) {
NSLog(#"Unable to execute asynchronous fetch result.");
NSLog(#"%#, %#", asynchronousFetchRequestError, asynchronousFetchRequestError.localizedDescription);
}
}];
}
This gives me a Enqueued from com.apple.main-thread (Thread 1) error. This is where I am confused, since I am running this on the main thread and didn't think I needed to use my private context here.
Any ideas on why I am getting a concurrency issue here?
EDIT: It looks like someone else had the exact issue and thinks it is an Xcode bug: CoreData asynchronous fetch causes concurrency debugger error
Every managedObject has a context. Each context has one and only one thread that it can run on. ManagedObjects are NOT thread safe - not even for reading. Passing managedObjects around with completions blocks is a bad practice. It can be hard to figure out which managedObjects are supposed to be on which thread. Also, even if you are passing it around on the correct thread it is still a bad practice. When you do a dispatch_async the entity may have deleted from the database in the interim and accessing the managedObject will cause a crash. A good practice is that any method that does a fetch should be explicitly told which context to use and return synchronously. In your code the method is using self.managedObjectContext, but I have no way to know looking at you code what thread that is related to. Furthermore the pointer to the context may change and that can cause bugs that are very hard to track down.
NSAsynchronousFetchResult contains managedObjects, so is not thread safe and can only be used inside that completion block (which is running on the correct thread for the objects). You cannot pass them to another thread. If you return them in a block then that code must also not pass them to another thread. You should just do whatever you need to do with them inside the block and then discard them.
If you need to display the information to the user, then generally it is better to just do the fetch on the main thread synchronously and get managedObjects that are associated with a main thread context. If your fetch is taking to long then you should fix that - there is no reason for a fetch to take so long. In your case you appear to be fetching ALL the items in you database. That is a mistake. You should use a predicate to only get the ones that you need.
Another possibility is to copy the values of managedObjects into a thread safe object (a dictionary or a NSObject subclass).
TL;DR You probably don't need a NSAsynchronousFetchRequest. Use a regular fetch request on the main thread and return synchronously. Use a predicate to limit the results only to the objects you are actually displaying.
Updated: I have prepared the sample which is reproduce the issue without magical record.Please download the test project using following URL:
https://www.dsr-company.com/fm.php?Download=1&FileToDL=DeadLockTest_CoreDataWithoutMR.zip
The provided project has following problem: deadlock on fetch
in performBlockAndWait called from main thread.
The issue is reproduced if code is compiled using XCode version > 6.4.
The issue is not reproduced if code is compiled using xCode == 6.4.
Old question was:
I am working on the support of IOS mobile application.
After the recent update of Xcode IDE from version 6.4 to version 7.0 ( with IOS 9 support ) I have faced with critical issue - application hangup.
The same build of the application ( produced from the same sources ) with xCode 6.4 works OK.
So, if the application is built using xCode > 6.4 - application hangs up on some cases.
if the application is built using xCode 6.4 - application works OK.
I have spent some time to research the issue and as the result I have prepared the test application with similar case like in my application which reproduces the problem.
The test application hangup on the Xcode >= 7.0 but works correctly on the Xcode 6.4
Download link of test sources:
https://www.sendspace.com/file/r07cln
The requirements for the test application is:
1. cocoa pods manager must be installed in the system
2. MagicalRecord framework of version 2.2.
Test application works in the following way:
1. At the start of the application it creates test database with 10000 records of simple entities and saves them to persistent store.
2. At the first screen of the application in the method viewWillAppear: it runs the test which causes deadlock.
Following algorithm is used:
-(NSArray *) entityWithId: (int) entityId inContext:(NSManagedObjectContext *)localContext
{
NSArray * results = [TestEntity MR_findByAttribute:#"id" withValue:[ NSNumber numberWithInt: entityId ] inContext:localContext];
return results;
}
…..
int entityId = 88;
NSManagedObjectContext *childContext1 = [NSManagedObjectContext MR_context];
childContext1.name = #"childContext1";
NSManagedObjectContext *childContext2 = [NSManagedObjectContext MR_context];
childContext2.name = #"childContext2";
NSArray *results = [self entityWithId:entityId inContext: childContext2];
for(TestEntity *d in results)
{
NSLog(#"e from fetchRequest %# with name = '%#'", d, d.name); /// this line is the reason of the hangup
}
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^
{
int entityId2 = 11;
NSPredicate *predicate2 = [NSPredicate predicateWithFormat:#"id=%d", entityId2];
NSArray *a = [ TestEntity MR_findAllWithPredicate: predicate2 inContext: childContext2];
for(TestEntity *d in a)
{
NSLog(#"e from fetchRequest %# with name = '%#'", d, d.name);
}
});
Two managed object contexts are created with concurrency type == NSPrivateQueueConcurrencyType (please check the code of MR_context of magical record framework). Both contexts has parent context with
concurrency type = NSMainQueueConcurrencyType. From the main thread application performs fetch in sync manner ( MR_findByAttribute and MR_findAllWithPredicate
are used performBlockAndWait with fetch request inside ). After the first fetch the second fetch is schedule on the main thread using dispatch_async().
As a result the application hangs up. It seems that deadlock has happened, please check the screenshot of the stack:
 here is the link, my reputation is too low to post images. https://cdn.img42.com/34a8869bd8a5587222f9903e50b762f9.png)
If to comment the line
NSLog(#"e from fetchRequest %# with name = '%#'", d, d.name); /// this line is the reason of the hangup
(which is the line 39 in ViewController.m of the test project ) the application becomes working OK. I believe this is because there is no read of name field of the test entity.
So with the commented line
NSLog(#"e from fetchRequest %# with name = '%#'", d, d.name);
there is no hangup on binaries built both with Xcode 6.4 and Xcode 7.0.
With the uncommented line
NSLog(#"e from fetchRequest %# with name = '%#'", d, d.name);
there is hangup on binary built with Xcode 7.0 and there is no hangup on binary built with Xcode 6.4.
I believe the issue is happens because of lazy-loading of entity data.
Has anybody problem with the described case? I will be grateful for any help.
This is why I don't use frameworks that abstract (i.e., hide) too many details of core data. It has very complex use patterns, and sometimes you need to know the details of how they interoperate.
First, I know nothing about magical record except that lots of people use it so it must be pretty good at what it does.
However, I immediately saw several completely wrong uses of core data concurrency in your examples, so I went and looked at the header files to see why your code made the assumptions that it does.
I don't mean to bash you at all, though this may seem like it at first blush. I want to help educate you (and I used this as an opportunity to take a peek at MR).
From a very quick look at MR, I'd say you have some misunderstandings of what MR does, and also core data's general concurrency rules.
First, you say this...
Two managed object contexts are created with concurrency type ==
NSPrivateQueueConcurrencyType (please check the code of MR_context of
magical record framework). Both contexts has parent context with
concurrency type = NSMainQueueConcurrencyType.
which does not appear to be true. The two new contexts are, indeed, private-queue contexts, but their parent (according to the code I glanced at on github) is the magical MR_rootSavingContext, which itself is also a private-queue context.
Let's break down your code example.
NSManagedObjectContext *childContext1 = [NSManagedObjectContext MR_context];
childContext1.name = #"childContext1";
NSManagedObjectContext *childContext2 = [NSManagedObjectContext MR_context];
childContext2.name = #"childContext2";
So, you now have two private-queue MOCs (childContext1 and childContext2), both children of another anonymous private-queue MOC (we will call savingContext).
NSArray *results = [self entityWithId:entityId inContext: childContext2];
You then perform a fetch on childContext1. That code is actually...
-(NSArray *) entityWithId:(int)entityId
inContext:(NSManagedObjectContext *)localContext
{
NSArray * results = [TestEntity MR_findByAttribute:#"id"
withValue:[NSNumber numberWithInt:entityId]
inContext:localContext];
return results;
}
Now, we know that the localContext in this method is, in this case, another pointer to childContext2 which is a private-queue MOC. It is 100% against the concurrency rules to access a private-queue MOC outside of a call to performBlock. However, since you are using another API, and the method name offers no assistance to know how the MOC is being accessed, we need to go look at that API and see if it hides the performBlock to see if you are accessing it correctly.
Unfortunately, the documentation in the header file offers no indication, so we have to look at the implementation. That call ends up calling MR_executeFetchRequest... which does not indicate in the documentation how it handles the concurrency either. So, we go look at its implementation.
Now, we are getting somewhere. This function does try to safely access the MOC, but it uses performBlockAndWait which will block when it is called.
This is an extremely important piece of information, because calling this from the wrong place can indeed cause a deadlock. Thus, you must be keenly aware that performBlockAndWait is being called anytime you execute a fetch request. My own personal rule is to never use performBlockAndWait unless there is absolutely no other option.
However, this call here should be completely safe... assuming it is not being called from within the context of the parent MOC.
So, let's look at the next piece of code.
for(TestEntity *d in results)
{
NSLog(#"e from fetchRequest %# with name = '%#'", d, d.name); /// this line is the reason of the hangup
}
Now, this is not the fault of MagicalRecord, because MR isn't even being used directly here. However, you have been trained to use those MR_ methods, which require no knowledge of the concurrency model, so you either forget or never learn the concurrency rules.
The objects in the results array are all managed objects that live in the childContext2 private-queue context. Thus, you may not ever access them without paying homage to the concurrency rules. This is a clear violation of the concurrency rules. While developing your application, you should enable concurrency debugging with the argument -com.apple.CoreData.ConcurrencyDebug 1.
This code snippet must be wrapped in either performBlock or performBlockAndWait. I hardly ever use performBlockAndWait for anything because it has so many drawbacks - deadlocks being one of them. In fact, just seeing the use of performBlockAndWait is a very strong indication that your deadlock is happening in there and not on the line of code that you indicate. However, in this case, it is at least as safe as the previous fetch, so let's make it a bit safer...
[childContext2 performBlockAndWait:^{
for (TestEntity *d in results) {
NSLog(#"e from fetchRequest %# with name = '%#'", d, d.name);
}
}];
Next, you dispatch to the main thread. Is that because you just want something to occur on a subsequent event loop cycle, or is it because this code is already running on some other thread? Who knows. However, you have the same problem here (I reformatted your code for readability as a post).
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
int entityId2 = 11;
NSPredicate *predicate2 = [NSPredicate predicateWithFormat:#"id=%d", entityId2];
NSArray *a = [TestEntity MR_findAllWithPredicate:predicate2
inContext:childContext2];
for (TestEntity *d in a) {
NSLog(#"e from fetchRequest %# with name = '%#'", d, d.name);
}
});
Now, we know that code starts out running on the main thread, and the search will call performBlockAndWait but your subsequent access in the for-loop again violates the core data concurrency rules.
Based on that, the only real problems I see are...
MR seems to honor the core data concurrency rules within their API, but you must still follow the core data concurrency rules when accessing your managed objects.
I really don't like the use of performBlockAndWait as it's just a problem waiting to happen.
Now, let's take a look at the screenshot of your hang. Hmmm... it's a classic deadlock, but it makes no sense because the deadlock happens between the main thread and the MOC thread. That can only happen if the main-queue MOC is a parent of this private-queue MOC, but the code shows that is not the case.
Hmmm... it didn't make sense, so I downloaded your project, and looked at the source code in the pod you uploaded. Now, that version of the code uses the MR_defaultContext as the parent of all MOCs created with MR_context. So, the default MOC is, indeed, a main-queue MOC, and now it all makes perfect sense.
You have a MOC as a child of a main-queue MOC. When you dispatch that block to the main queue, it's is now running as a block on the main queue. The code then calls performBlockAndWait on a context that is a child of a MOC for that queue, which is a huge no-no, and your are almost guaranteed to get a deadlock.
So, it seems that MR has since changed their code from using a main-queue as the parent of new contexts to using a private-queue as the parent of new contexts (most likely due to this exact problem). So, if you upgrade to the latest version of MR you should be fine.
However, I would still warn you that if you want to use MR in multithreading ways, you must know exactly how they handle the concurrency rules, and you must also make sure you obey them anytime you are accessing any core-data objects that are not going through the MR API.
Finally, I'll just say that I've done tons and tons of core data stuff, and I've never used an API that tries to hide the concurrency issues from me. The reason is that there are too many little corner cases, and I'd rather just deal with them in a pragmatic way up front.
Finally, you should almost never use performBlockAndWait unless you know exactly why its the only option. Having it be used as part of an API underneath you is even more scary... to me at least.
I hope this little jaunt has enlightened and helped you (and possible some others). It certainly shed a little bit of light for me, and helped reestablish some of my previous unfounded skittishness.
Edit
This is in response to the "non-magical-record" example you provided.
The problem with this code is the exact same problem I described above, relative to what was happening with MR.
You have a private-queue context, as a child to a main-queue context.
You are running code on the main queue, and you call performBlockAndWait on the child context, which has to then lock its parent context as it tries to execute the fetch.
It is called a deadlock, but the more descriptive (and seductive) term is deadly embrace.
The original code is running on the main thread. It calls into a child context to do something, and it does nothing else until that child complete.
That child then, in order to complete, needs the main thread to do something. However, the main thread can't do anything until the child is done... but the child is waiting for the main thread to do something...
Neither one can make any headway.
The problem you are facing is very well documented, and in fact, has been mentioned a number of times in WWDC presentations and multiple pieces of documentation.
You should NEVER call performBlockAndWait on a child context.
The fact that you got away with it in the past is just a "happenstance" because it's not supposed to work that way at all.
In reality, you should hardly every call performBlockAndWait.
You should really get used to doing asynchronous programming. Here is how I would recommend you rewrite this test, and whatever it is like that prompted this issue.
First, rewrite the fetch so it works asynchronously...
- (void)executeFetchRequest:(NSFetchRequest *)request
inContext:(NSManagedObjectContext *)context
completion:(void(^)(NSArray *results, NSError *error))completion
{
[context performBlock:^{
NSError *error = nil;
NSArray *results = [context executeFetchRequest:request error:&error];
if (completion) {
completion(results, error);
}
}];
}
Then, you change you code that calls the fetch to do something like this...
NSFetchRequest *request = [[NSFetchRequest alloc] init];
[request setEntity: testEntityDescription ];
[request setPredicate: predicate2 ];
[self executeFetchRequest:request
inContext:childContext2
completion:^(NSArray *results, NSError *error) {
if (results) {
for (TestEntity *d in results) {
NSLog(#"++++++++++ e from fetchRequest %# with name = '%#'", d, d.name);
}
} else {
NSLog(#"Handle this error: %#", error);
}
}];
We switched over to XCode7 and I just ran into a similar deadlock issue with performBlockAndWait in code that works fine in XCode6.
The issue seems to be an upstream use of dispatch_async(mainQueue, ^{ ... to pass back the result from a network operation. That call was no longer needed after we added concurrency support for CoreData, but somehow it was left and never seemed to cause a problem until now.
It's possible that Apple changed something behind the scenes to make potential deadlocks more explicit.
I’m having a Core Data issue while using 2 NSManagedObjectContext, running on different threads, and migrating changes from the parent to the child. In essence, I’m able to pull the changes from parent to child, but immediately after doing so, the changes are lost.
The app I’m building is a test for syncing a model between multiple devices and a server.
The context that holds the objects the user interacts with is on the main thread and is configured as a child of the sync context and is created like this (error checks omitted)
NSManagedObjectContext *parentMOC = self.syncManagedObjectContext;
_managedObjectContext = [[NSManagedObjectContext alloc] initWithConcurrencyType:NSMainQueueConcurrencyType];
[_managedObjectContext performBlockAndWait:^() {
[_managedObjectContext setParentContext:parentMOC];
}];
The syncManagedObjectContext is the parent context and is where the syncManager performs the sync with the server. It gathers up objects modified by the user, sends the changes to the server and merges changes received back. The syncManagedObjectContext also sends its data to the PersistentStoreCoordinator to be stored in SQLite.The context runs on a background “thread” so that syncing and storing does not block the main thread. Here’s how it is created:
NSPersistentStoreCoordinator *coordinator = [self persistentStoreCoordinator];
_syncManagedObjectContext = [[NSManagedObjectContext alloc] initWithConcurrencyType:NSPrivateQueueConcurrencyType];
[_syncManagedObjectContext performBlockAndWait:^(){
[_syncManagedObjectContext setPersistentStoreCoordinator:coordinator];
}];
Sync Logic Flow
The syncing is kicked off when the syncManager handles the NSManagedObjectContextObjectsDidChangeNotification from the main context. Here is a rough flow of what happens:
syncManager handles NSManagedObjectContextObjectsDidChangeNotification which lets it know that objects have been changed in the main thread context. It calls save on the main context which saves the changes to syncMOC.
When the syncManager receives NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification to indicate the save has been completed, it gathers up the newly changed objects from the sync context and sends the changes to the server. It then does a save on the sync MOC which sends the data to SQLite. Note that each object has a uuid field which I create as a portable id - not be confused with Core Data’s objectID, as well as a lastSynced timestamp that is provided by the server.
The server responds back with updated timestamps for the objects sent, as well as any other changes that have happened. In the simplest case that illustrates the issue, what is received is a set of records that consists of the uuid and the updated lastSynced time for the objects that the syncManager just sent.
For each update, the syncManager updates the object in the syncContext and stores the NSManagedObject objectID for the object (not the uuid) in an array.
The syncManager then does a save on the on the sync MOC to write the data to disk and posts a message to provide the main MOC with the array of objectID’s for updated objects. At this point, if I do a fetch for all Entities in the syncMOC and dump them to the log, they all have the correct values. Further, if I look at the SQLite database on disk, it too has the correct values.
Here’s abbreviated code (some error checking and non-essential stuff removed) for how the updates are merged in on the main thread, with comments as to what’s happening: (Note: I’ve been careful in the code to use performBlock and it appears from tracing in the debugger that everything is happening on the correct thread.)
-(void)syncUpdatedObjects: (NSNotification *)notification
{
NSDictionary *userInfo = notification.userInfo;
NSArray *updates = [userInfo objectForKey:#"updates"];
NSManagedObjectContext *ctx = self.managedObjectContext;
[ctx performBlock:^() {
NSError *error = nil;
for (NSManagedObjectID *objID in updates) {
NSManagedObject *o = [ctx existingObjectWithID:objID error:&error];
// if I print out o or inspect in the debugger, it has the correct, updated values.
if (o) {
[ctx refreshObject:o mergeChanges:YES];
// refreshObject causes o to be replaced by a fault, though the NSLog statement will pull it back.
// NOTE: I’ve used mergeChanges:NO and it doesn’t matter
NSLog(#"uuid=%#, lastSynced = %#", [o valueForKey:#"uuid”], [o valueForKey:#"lastSynced"]);
// Output: uuid=B689F28F-60DA-4E78-9841-1B932204C882, lastSynced = 2014-01-15 05:36:21 +0000
// This is correct. The object has been updated with the lastSynced value from the server.
}
}
NSFetchRequest *request = [[NSFetchRequest alloc] init];
NSEntityDescription *entity = [NSEntityDescription entityForName:#“MyItem"
inManagedObjectContext:ctx];
request.entity = entity;
NSArray *results = [ctx executeFetchRequest:request error:&error];
for (MyItem *item in results)
NSLog(#"Item uuid %# lastSynced %# ", item.uuid, item.lastSynced);
// Output: uuid B689F28F-60DA-4E78-9841-1B932204C882 lastSynced 1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000
// Now the objects have incorrect values!
}];
}
In case you missed it, the issue is there in the comments after the NSLog statements. The object initially has the correct values from the parent context, but then they become incorrect. Look at the timestamp, specifically.
Does anyone have any idea why this would happen? I should note that the business of doing the fetch at the end was part of debugging. I was noticing that the NSManagedObjects being held on to in the program did not have the correct values, even though I was seeing that things were updated correctly in the above code and through uniquing, they should be updated too. I thought that what might be happening is that I was creating “extra” objects with the correct values while the old ones were still around. However, the fetch showed that the right objects and only the right ones were around, only with bad values.
One more thing, if I do the same fetch in the parent context after this function runs, it shows the correct values as does SQLite.
Any help is much appreciated!
I finally found the answer to this issue and hope it might help others.
What I noticed at some point is that the object ID coming back to the main context had incorrect
Core Data ID - they should have been permanent, but were not. And in fact, during the merge, I
realized that the ID for a given object in my main MOC and the ID for the changes to merge for
that object were both temporary, but different. But neither were the permanent ID that they should have been.
A search on Stack Overflow for that issue led me to
this answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/11996957/1892468 which gives a workaround for a known Core
Data bug.
So the problem wasn't that I was doing it wrong, it was that Core Data was not doing what it
said it would do. The workaround is that during the save operation on the main object context I added the following
code prior to calling save.
if ctx.insertedObjects.count > 0 {
do {
try ctx.obtainPermanentIDsForObjects(Array(ctx.insertedObjects))
} catch {
log.error("Unable toobtain permanent ids for inserts")
}
}
That fixed it! So what I had originally been observing was that the merge was not actually taking
place. There were 2 objects alive for what was supposed to be one.
You could simply subscribe to NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification of the sync context and then merge changes into UI context by calling -mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification:.
I have a problem/crash merging the data of different NSManagedObjectContexts (iOS 6.1, Xcode 4.6).
Most of the time the error that rises is the following:
CoreData: error: Serious application error. Exception was caught during Core Data change processing. This is usually a bug within an observer of NSManagedObjectContextObjectsDidChangeNotification. statement is still active with userInfo (null)
One time i got this error:
An observer of NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification illegally threw an exception. Objects saved = { $OBJLIST } and exception = statement is still active with userInfo = (null)
Sadly there is no value in the stacktraces i got. They just show symbols that are CoreData internal (if any).
Our CoreData stack:
1 NSPersistentStoreLocator shared by all threads
1 unique MOC per thread ( created on first need )
All MOCs are saved in a Dictionary
An observer is added for the notification NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification to update the MOCs when one is saving to the store. The defined selector is calling mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification on every other thread/context except the one that did the save operation.
+ (void)mergeChanges:(NSNotification *)notification {
NSManagedObjectContext *ctx;
for ( NSNumber *threadId in [__managedObjectContexts keyEnumerator] ) {
ctx = [__managedObjectContexts objectForKey:threadId];
if ( notification.object != ctx ) {
[ctx mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification:notification];
}
}
}
Steps to produce the error:
In a background thread CoreData data objects that arent needed anymore (unreferenced by other objects) are being deleted.
[[CDUtils managedObjectContext] deleteObject:obj];
[[CDUtils managedObjectContext] save:&error];
While this is happening the user can navigate throughout the application. Userinteraction (i.e. opening a tableview) can trigger executeFetch calls on the moc of the main thread.
Every thread uses the same NSPersistentStoreLocator but a different/unique MOC.
We tried different methods of locking with NSLocks and the lock on the NSPersistentStoreLocator for threadsafety. I.e. enclosing the mergeChanges Method and the save operation each by a lock/unlock or enclosing both methods in the same lock/unlock. Sadly we had no succes thus far.
[__storeCoordinator lock];
[__storeCoordinator unlock];
I'd be thankful for every piece of advice you can give me to approach a solution. Thank you for your time!
For the people interested. I managed to make things work with multiple threads / MOCs. I basicly solved the original problem / those errors i had by locking PSC and MOCs correctly. The next problem that arose was how to know if its save to mergeChanges on a context. I cant lock nor should mergeChanges on a MOC that has no running thread anymore. But how do i know if the thread is running or not? If i just check for NSThreads "isExecuting"-Method it might happen that the thread exits just after i checked the BOOL. Im trying an easier approach now where i just merge into the main thread.
I have researched a ton of posts regarding Core Data on background threads, and I feel like I understand (on paper) what needs to be going on. I guess we'll see. I am working on migrating an existing OS X app to Core Data, and am having issues making new instances of my NSManagedObject on an async thread.
Here is a sample of the code I am running right after I have moved onto a background thread:
NSLog(#"JSON 1");
NSManagedObjectContext * context = [[NSManagedObjectContext alloc] init];
[context setPersistentStoreCoordinator:[[NSApp delegate] persistentStoreCoordinator]];
asset = (MTAssetInfo*)[NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:#"Info" inManagedObjectContext:context];
NSLog(#"JSON 2");
The result is that the first log message (#"JSON 1") gets called 31 times, and the second one (#"JSON 2") is never called. The object isn't being made and returned correctly.
The model for this Info entity is quite complex with a few transformable attributes that may or may not be setup correctly. The weird thing is that similar code run on the main thread and the main MOC works great. No issues.
EDIT - Some more context
The async call originates from here:
for (NSNumber *sectionID in sectionsToShow) {
dispatch_group_async(group, queue, ^{
MTAssetInfo *asset = [self assetWithRefID:[sectionID unsignedIntegerValue]];
if (asset != nil) {
[sectionsLock lock];
[sectionsTemp addObject:asset];
[sectionsLock unlock];
}
});
}
The assetWithRefID method never returns with an object because of the other code snippet. It never successfully pulls an NSManagedObject out of the context on the background thread.
You are going to have to provide more information to get real help, but I bet your problem is an error happening in the NSManagedDocument background thread.
I'd register a NSNotificationCenter for ALL messages (name:nil object:nil) and just print them out. I bet you see a status change or error message in there that is failing.
You might want to try a #try/#catch block around it just to see if exceptions are being thrown.
Maybe it will give you more to go on.
One other suggestion... Swizzling isn't necessarily the right tool for production stuff, but it's almost unbeatable for debugging. I have method-swizled several entire classes, so that it sends a detailed NSNotification before/after each invocation.
It has saved me tons of time, and helped me track down some wicked bugs. Now, when something is going on in CoreData, I take out my set of classes, link them in, and see all the detail I want.
I know that does not exactly answer you question, but hopefully it will put you on the track so you can provide some more information and get it all fixed.
If that's too much for you, create a subclass and instantiate that, with a similar method for calling super. You can get a real idea of the entire flow pretty easily.