Found this issue while working with the new Swift concurrency tools.
Here's the setup:
class FailedDeinit {
init() {
print(#function, id)
task = Task {
await subscribe()
}
}
deinit {
print(#function, id)
}
func subscribe() async {
let stream = AsyncStream<Double> { _ in }
for await p in stream {
print("\(p)")
}
}
private var task: Task<(), Swift.Error>?
let id = UUID()
}
var instance: FailedDeinit? = FailedDeinit()
instance = nil
Running this code in a Playground yields this:
init() F007863C-9187-4591-A4F4-BC6BC990A935
!!! The deinit method is never called!!!
Strangely, when I change the code to this:
class SuccessDeinit {
init() {
print(#function, id)
task = Task {
let stream = AsyncStream<Double> { _ in }
for await p in stream {
print("\(p)")
}
}
}
deinit {
print(#function, id)
}
private var task: Task<(), Swift.Error>?
let id = UUID()
}
var instance: SuccessDeinit? = SuccessDeinit()
instance = nil
By moving the code from the method subscribe() directly in the Task, the result in the console changes to this:
init() 0C455201-89AE-4D7A-90F8-D6B2D93493B1
deinit 0C455201-89AE-4D7A-90F8-D6B2D93493B1
This may be a bug or not but there is definitely something that I do not understand. I would welcome any insight about that.
~!~!~!~!
This is crazy (or maybe I am?) but with a SwiftUI macOS project. I still DON'T get the same behaviour as you. Look at that code where I kept the same definition of the FailedDeinit and SuccessDeinit classes but used them within a SwiftUI view.
struct ContentView: View {
#State private var failed: FailedDeinit?
#State private var success: SuccessDeinit?
var body: some View {
VStack {
HStack {
Button("Add failed") { failed = .init() }
Button("Remove failed") { failed = nil }
}
HStack {
Button("Add Success") { success = .init() }
Button("Remove Success") { success = nil }
}
}
}
}
class FailedDeinit {
init() {
print(#function, id)
task = Task { [weak self] in
await self?.subscribe()
}
}
deinit {
print(#function, id)
}
func subscribe() async {
let stream = AsyncStream<Double> { _ in }
for await p in stream {
print("\(p)")
}
}
private var task: Task<(), Swift.Error>?
let id = UUID()
}
Consider the following:
task = Task {
await subscribe()
}
It is true that introduces a strong reference to self. You can resolve that strong reference with:
task = Task { [weak self] in
await self?.subscribe()
}
But that is only part of the problem here. This [weak self] pattern only helps us in this case if either the Task has not yet started or if it has finished.
The issue is that as soon as subscribe starts executing, despite the weak reference in the closure, it will keep a strong reference to self until subscribe finishes. So, this weak reference is prudent, but it is not the whole story.
The issue here is more subtle than appears at first glance. Consider the following:
func subscribe() async {
let stream = AsyncStream<Double> { _ in }
for await p in stream {
print("\(p)")
}
}
The subscribe method will keep executing until the stream calls finish. But you never finish the stream. (You don’t yield any values, either. Lol.) Anyway, without anything in the AsyncStream, once subscribe starts it will never complete and thus will never release self.
So let us consider your second rendition, when you create the Task, bypassing subscribe:
task = Task {
let stream = AsyncStream<Double> { _ in }
for await p in stream {
print("\(p)")
}
}
Yes, you will see the object be deallocated, but you are neglecting to notice that this Task will never finish, either! So, do not be lulled into into a false sense of security just because the containing object was released: The Task never finishes! The memory associated with that Task will never get released (even if the parent object, FailedDeinit in your example, is).
This all can be illustrated by changing your stream to actually yield values and eventually finish:
task = Task {
let stream = AsyncStream<Double> { continuation in
Task {
for i in 0 ..< 10 {
try await Task.sleep(nanoseconds: 1 * NSEC_PER_SECOND)
continuation.yield(Double(i))
}
continuation.finish()
}
}
for await p in stream {
print("\(p)")
}
print("all done")
}
In this case, if you dismiss it while the stream is underway, you will see that the AsyncStream continues until it finishes. (And, if you happen to be doing this inside a method, the object in question will also be retained until the task is canceled.)
So, what you need to do is to cancel the Task if you want the AsyncStream to finish. And you also should implement onTermination of the continuation in such a manner that it stops the asynchronous stream.
But, the result is that if I cancel this when the view controller (or whatever) is released, then my example yielding values 0 through 9 will stop and the task will be freed.
It all comes down to what your AsyncStream is really doing. But in the process of simplifying the MCVE and removing the contents of the AsyncStream, you simultaneously do not handle cancelation and never call finish. Those two, combined, manifest the problem you describe.
This doesn't really have anything to do with async/await or AsyncStream. It's a perfectly normal retain cycle. You (the FailedDeinit instance) are retaining the task, but the task refers to subscribe which is a method of you, i.e. self, so the task is retaining you. So simply break the retain cycle just like you would break any other retain cycle. Just change
task = Task {
await subscribe()
}
To
task = Task { [weak self] in
await self?.subscribe()
}
Also, be sure to test in a real project, not a playground, as playgrounds are not indicative of anything in this regard. Here's the code I used:
import UIKit
class FailedDeinit {
init() {
print(#function, id)
task = Task { [weak self] in
await self?.subscribe()
}
}
deinit {
print(#function, id)
}
func subscribe() async {
let stream = AsyncStream<Double> { _ in }
for await p in stream {
print("\(p)")
}
}
private var task: Task<(), Swift.Error>?
let id = UUID()
}
class ViewController: UIViewController {
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
var instance: FailedDeinit? = FailedDeinit()
instance = nil
}
}
Related
I'm having trouble making async functions run in background threads (to prevent blocking the main thread).
Below is a method that takes about 5 seconds to run.
From what I've learned, it seemed like making the function async and marking it with await on function call would be enough. But it doesn't work as intended and still freezes up the UI.
EDIT
Since it's stated that Swift 5.5 concurrency can replace DispatchQueue, I am trying to find a way to do this with only Async/Await.
EDIT_2
I did try removing the #MainActor wrapper, but it still seem to run on the main thread.
NumberManager.swift
#MainActor class NumberManager: ObservableObject {
#Published var numbers: [Double]?
func generateNumbers() async {
var numbers = [Double]()
numbers = (1...10_000_000).map { _ in Double.random(in: -10...10) }
self.numbers = numbers
// takes about 5 seconds to run...
} }
ContentView
struct ContentView: View {
#StateObject private var numberManager = NumberManager()
var body: some View{
TabView{
VStack{
DetailView(text: isNumbersValid ? "First number is: \(numberManager.numbers![0])" : nil)
.onAppear() {
Task {
// Runs in the main thread, freezing up the UI until it completes.
await numberManager.generateNumbers()
}
}
}
.tabItem {
Label("One", systemImage: "list.dash")
}
Text("Hello")
.tabItem {
Label("Two", systemImage: "square.and.pencil")
}
}
}
var isNumbersValid: Bool{
numberManager.numbers != nil && numberManager.numbers?.count != 0
} }
What I've tried...
I've tried a few things, but the only way that made it run in the background was changing the function as below. But I know that using Task.detached should be avoided unless it's absolutely necessary, and I didn't think this is the correct use-case.
func generateNumbers() async {
Task.detached {
var numbers = [Double]()
numbers = (1...10_000_000).map { _ in Double.random(in: -10...10) }
await MainActor.run { [numbers] in
self.numbers = numbers
}
}
Writing async on a function doesn’t make it leave the thread. You need a continuation and you need to actually leave the thread somehow.
Some ways you can leave the thread using DispatchQueue.global(qos: .background).async { or use Task.detached.
But the most important part is returning to the main thread or even more specific to the Actor's thread.
DispatchQueue.main.async is the "old" way of returning to the main thread it shouldn't be used with async await. Apple as provided CheckedContinuation and UncheckedContinuation for this purpose.
Meet async/await can elaborate some more.
import SwiftUI
struct ConcurrentSampleView: View {
//Solution
#StateObject var vm: AsyncNumberManager = .init()
//Just to create a project that can show both scenarios.
//#StateObject var vm: NumberManager = .init()
#State var isLoading: Bool = false
var body: some View {
HStack{
//Just to visualize the thread being released
//If you use NumberManager the ProgressView won't appear
//If you use AsyncNumberManager the ProgressView WILL appear
if isLoading{
ProgressView()
}
Text(vm.numbers == nil ? "nil" : "\(vm.numbers?.count.description ?? "")")
}
//.task is better for iOS 15+
.onAppear() {
Task{
isLoading = true
await vm.generateNumbers()
isLoading = false
}
}
}
}
struct ConcurrentSampleView_Previews: PreviewProvider {
static var previews: some View {
ConcurrentSampleView()
}
}
#MainActor
class AsyncNumberManager: ObservableObject {
#Published var numbers: [Double]?
func generateNumbers() async {
numbers = await concurrentGenerateNumbers()
}
private func concurrentGenerateNumbers() async -> [Double] {
typealias Cont = CheckedContinuation<[Double], Never>
return await withCheckedContinuation { (cont: Cont) in
// This is the asynchronous part, have the operation leave the current actor's thread.
//Change the priority as needed
//https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swift/taskpriority
Task.detached(priority: .utility){
var numbers = [Double]()
numbers = (1...10_000_000).map { _ in Double.random(in: -10...10) }
//This tells the function to return to the actor's thread
cont.resume(returning: numbers)
}
}
}
//Or something like this it just depends on the true scenario
private func concurrentGenerateNumbers2() async -> [Double] {
// This is the asynchronous part, have the operation leave the actor's thread
//Change the priority as needed
//https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swift/taskpriority
return await Task.detached(priority: .utility){
var numbers = [Double]()
numbers = (1...10_000_000).map { _ in Double.random(in: -10...10) }
return numbers
}.value
}
}
//Incorrect way of applying async/await. This doesn't actually leave the thread or mark when to return. Left here to highlight both scenarios in a reproducible example.
#MainActor
class NumberManager: ObservableObject {
#Published var numbers: [Double]?
func generateNumbers() async {
var numbers = [Double]()
numbers = (1...10_000_000).map { _ in Double.random(in: -10...10) }
self.numbers = numbers
}
}
You have answered your own question - You can use structured concurrency to solve your problem.
Your problem occurs because you have use the #MainActor decorator on your class. This means that it executes on the main queue.
You can either remove this decorator or, as you have found, use structured concurrency to explicitly create a detached task and the use a main queue task to provide your result.
Which approach you use depends on what else this class does. If it does a lot of other work that needs to be on the main queue then #MainActor is probably a good approach. If not then remove it.
The #MainActor property wrapper is not (just) what makes your observable object run on the main thread. #StateObject is what's doing it. Which is logical, since changes to the object will update the UI.
Removing the #MainActor wrapper is not the solution, because any changes to #Published properties will have to be done on the main thread (since they update the UI). You also don't want to run Task.detached, at least not if the task is going to change any #Published property, for the same reason.
By marking your generateNumbers function as async, a method from the main thread can call it with await - which allows the task to suspend and not block the main thread. That's what makes it concurrent.
extension NumberManager {
func loadNumbers() {
// This task will run on the main thread
Task {
// `await` tells the Swift executor that this method can run in the background,
// and the main thread can continue doing other things while it waits for its result
self.numbers = await self.generateNumbers()
}
}
func generateNumbers() async -> [Double] {
return (1...10_000_000).map { _ in Double.random(in: -10...10)
}
}
struct ContentView: View {
#StateObject private var numberManager = NumberManager()
var body: some View {
TabView{
VStack{
DetailView(text: isNumbersValid ? "First number is: \(numberManager.numbers![0])" : nil)
}
}
.onAppear { numberManager.loadNumbers() }
}
}
A more complete loadNumbers method could also store a reference to the task allowing you to cancel or restart a running task. However nowadays we have the excellent .task(priority:_:) to do all of that for you. It manages the task's lifecycle automatically, which means less boilerplate code.
struct ContentView: View {
#StateObject private var numberManager = NumberManager()
var body: some View {
TabView{
VStack{
DetailView(text: isNumbersValid ? "First number is: \(numberManager.numbers![0])" : nil)
}
}
// generate numbers
.task(.priority: .high) {
numberManager.numbers = await numberManager.generateNumbers
}
}
}
As far as I know this is the most succinct way to do expensive calculations on a background thread in Swift 5.7.
I am creating a game where, after a user signs in, I want to send their playerID to my backend. Since this is in SwiftUI, I have the following (btw I know we're not supposed to be using playerID anymore but this is just a minimal reproducible example):
import SwiftUI
import GameKit
struct SampleView: View {
let localPlayer = GKLocalPlayer.local
func authenticateUser() async {
localPlayer.authenticateHandler = { vc, error in
guard error == nil else {
print(error?.localizedDescription ?? "")
return
}
if localPlayer.isAuthenticated {
let playerID = localPlayer.playerID
GKAccessPoint.shared.isActive = localPlayer.isAuthenticated
// here is where I would like to make an async call
}
}
}
var body: some View {
VStack {
Text("Sample View")
}
.task {
await authenticateUser()
}
}
}
struct SampleView_Previews: PreviewProvider {
static var previews: some View {
SampleView()
}
}
In the comment indicating where I'd like to place an async call, I have tried something like
await myBackendCall(playerID)
but this throws the error
Invalid conversion from 'async' function of type '(UIViewController?, (any Error)?) async -> Void' to synchronous function type '(UIViewController?, (any Error)?) -> Void'
which makes sense given that the authenticateHandler function isn't an async function.
What is the best approach here? I'd like to wait until I have the value for PlayerID, and then call await myBackendCall(playerID). Any advice here would be much appreciated, thank you!
To make a completion handler async use a continuation, it returns true if the user is authenticated, otherwise false.
func authenticateUser() async -> Bool {
return await withCheckedContinuation { continuation in
localPlayer.authenticateHandler = { vc, error in
if let error {
print(error.localizedDescription)
continuation.resume(returning: false)
} else {
continuation.resume(returning: localPlayer.isAuthenticated)
}
}
}
}
and in the task scope write
.task {
let isAuthenticated = await authenticateUser()
if isAuthenticated {
let playerID = localPlayer.playerID
GKAccessPoint.shared.isActive = localPlayer.isAuthenticated
// here is where I would like to make an async call
}
}
When you have a callback closure (like authenticateHandler), it invariably means that the closure may possibly be called multiple times. The appropriate async-await pattern would be an AsyncSequence (e.g., an AsyncStream or an AsyncThrowingStream).
So, you might wrap authenticateHandler in an asynchronous sequence, like so:
func viewControllers() -> AsyncThrowingStream<UIViewController, Error> {
AsyncThrowingStream<UIViewController, Error> { continuation in
GKLocalPlayer.local.authenticateHandler = { viewController, error in
if let viewController {
continuation.yield(viewController)
} else {
continuation.finish(throwing: error ?? GKError(.unknown))
}
}
}
}
Then you could do things like:
.task {
do {
for try await _ in viewControllers() {
GKAccessPoint.shared.isActive = GKLocalPlayer.local.isAuthenticated
// do your subsequent `async` call here
}
} catch {
GKAccessPoint.shared.isActive = false
print(error.localizedDescription)
}
}
For more information, see WWDC 2021 video Meet AsyncSequence. But the idea is that withCheckedContinuation (or withThrowingCheckedContinuation) is designed for completion handler patterns, where it must be called once, and only once. If you use a checked continuation and the closure is called again, it will be “logging correctness violations”, because “You must call a resume method exactly once on every execution path throughout the program.”
Instead, in cases where it may be called multiple times, consider handling it as an asynchronous sequence.
I understand the new async syntax in Swift in the sense that if I call it, then it will handle a pool of asynchronous queues / threads (whatever) to do the work. What I don't understand is how we return to the main thread once it's all over.
// On main thread now
let manager = StorageManager()
let items = await manager.fetch // returns on main thread?
struct StorageManager {
private func read() throws -> [Item] {
let data = try file.read()
if data.isEmpty { return [] }
return try JSONDecoder().decode([Item].self, from: data)
}
func fetch() async {
fetchAndWait()
}
func fetchAndWait() {
if isPreview { return }
let items = try? read()
fetchedItems = items ?? []
}
func save() throws {
let data = try JSONEncoder().encode(fetchedItems)
try file.write(data)
}
}
I want to make sure that I read and write from/to disk in the correct way i.e. is thread safe when necessary and concurrent where possible. Is it best to declare this struct as a #MainActor ?
There is nothing in the code you've given that uses async or await meaningfully, and there is nothing in the code you've given that goes onto a "background thread", so the question as posed is more or less meaningless. If the question did have meaning, the answer would be: to guarantee that code doesn't run on the main thread, put that code into an actor. To guarantee that code does run on the main thread, put that code into a #MainActor object (or call MainActor.run).
The async methods do not return automatically to the main thread, they either:
complete in the background whatever they are doing
or
explicitly pass at a certain moment the execution to the main thread through a #MainActor function/ class. (edited following #matt's comment)
In the code above you can start by correcting the fact that fetch() does not return any value (items will receive nothing based on your code).
Example of your code for case 1 above:
let manager = StorageManager()
let items = await manager.fetch // not on the main thread, the value will be stored in the background
struct StorageManager {
private func read() throws -> [Item] {
let data = try file.read()
if data.isEmpty { return [] }
return try JSONDecoder().decode([Item].self, from: data)
}
func fetch() async -> [Item] {
if isPreview { return }
let items = try? read()
return items ?? []
}
func save() throws {
let data = try JSONEncoder().encode(fetchedItems)
try file.write(data)
}
}
Example for case 2 above (I created an #Published var, which should only be written on the main thread, to give you the example):
class ViewModel: ObservableObject {
let manager = StorageManager()
#Published var items = [Item]() // should change value only on main thread
func updateItems() {
Task { // Enter background thread
let fetchedItems = await self.manager.fetch()
// Back to main thread
updateItemsWith(fetchedItems)
}
}
#MainActor private func updateItemsWith(newItems: [Item]) {
self.items = newItems
}
}
struct StorageManager {
private func read() throws -> [Item] {
let data = try file.read()
if data.isEmpty { return [] }
return try JSONDecoder().decode([Item].self, from: data)
}
func fetch() async -> [Item] {
if isPreview { return }
let items = try? read()
return items ?? []
}
func save() throws {
let data = try JSONEncoder().encode(fetchedItems)
try file.write(data)
}
}
I recently started to study the Combine and ran into a certain problem.
First, I will describe what I am doing.
I trying to use Clean Architecture
Here you can see my Repository
protocol Repository {
func test()
}
class MockRepository: Repository {
func test() {
sleep(3)
}
}
Then I created UseCase
class UseCaseBase<TInput, TOutput> {
var task: TOutput? { return nil }
var repository: Repository
init(_ repository: Repository) {
self.repository = repository
}
func execute(with payload: TInput) -> AnyPublisher<TOutput, Never> {
return AnyPublisher(Future<TOutput, Never> { promise in
promise(.success(self.task!))
})
.eraseToAnyPublisher()
}
}
class MockUseCase: UseCaseBase<String, Int> {
override var task: Int? {
repository.test()
return 1
}
}
And then in a init block ContentView I did something like that
init() {
let useCase = MockUseCase(MockRepository())
var cancellables = Set<AnyCancellable>()
useCase.execute(with: "String")
.sink(receiveValue: { value in
print(value)
})
.store(in: &cancellables)
print("Started")
}
At first, I want to get
"Started"
and then after sleep(3)
value "1"
Now I get
"1" and then "Started"
Your sleep(3) call runs on the main thread, which means that it blocks any other operations, including the code that prints the "Started" text.
I won't be rambling about how bad it is to block the main thread, this is well known information, but this is the reason you see the behaviour you asked about.
I don't see any thread switching code in your question, so if you wish to achieve some kind of asynchronicity, then you can either go with Rob's solution of using dispatch(after:), or do the locomotion (the sleep) on another thread:
func execute(with payload: TInput) -> AnyPublisher<TOutput, Never> {
return AnyPublisher(Future<TOutput, Never> { promise in
DispatchQueue.global().async {
promise(.success(self.task!))
}
})
.eraseToAnyPublisher()
}
The first thing I'll mention is that you need to hold a reference to cancellables or your publisher will automatically be cancelled when you add async processing to the chain. Move it out of your init method and into a property.
You can also get rid of the sleep and simply chain to a Delay publisher on a queue of your choice. I chose main.
struct SomeThing {
var cancellables = Set<AnyCancellable>()
init() {
MockUseCase(MockRepository())
.execute(with: "String")
.delay(for: 3.0, scheduler: DispatchQueue.main)
.sink(receiveValue: { print($0) } )
.store(in: &cancellables)
print("Started")
}
}
class MockRepository: Repository {
func test() {
// sleep(3)
}
}
Another option is to get rid of the delay, get rid of the sleep and fulfill your promise asynchronously:
struct SomeThing {
var cancellables = Set<AnyCancellable>()
init() {
MockUseCase(MockRepository())
.execute(with: "String")
.sink(receiveValue: { print($0) } )
.store(in: &cancellables)
print("Started")
}
}
class MockRepository: Repository {
func test() {
// sleep(3)
}
}
func execute(with payload: TInput) -> AnyPublisher<TOutput, Never> {
return Future<TOutput, Never> { promise in
DispatchQueue.main.asyncAfter(deadline: .now() + 3) {
promise(.success(self.task!))
}
}
.eraseToAnyPublisher()
}
I load books from API, show activity indicator while loading, update label after server response.
activityView.isHidden = false
let task = detach {
do {
let books = try await self.bookService.fetchBooks()
DispatchQueue.main.async {
self.show(books: books)
}
} catch {
DispatchQueue.main.async {
self.resultLabel.text = error.localizedDescription
}
}
DispatchQueue.main.async {
self.activityView.isHidden = true
}
}
//...
My question is what is better approach to update UI on the main queue? DispatchQueue.main.async look ugly and I guess there is a better approach to do the same.
I must use it, because all UI updates should be on the main thread and I get compiler errors without DispatchQueue.main.async something like
Property 'text' isolated to global actor 'MainActor' can not be mutated from a non-isolated context
or
Property 'isHidden' isolated to global actor 'MainActor' can not be mutated from a non-isolated context
P.S. Use Xcode 13.0b2
Use #MainActor like this -
self.updateAcitivityIndicator(isHidden: false)
let task = detach {
do {
let books = try await self.bookService.fetchBooks()
self.showBooks(books)
} catch {
self.showError(error)
}
self.updateAcitivityIndicator(isHidden: true)
}
#MainActor
private func showBooks(_ books: [Book]) {
}
#MainActor
private func showError(_ error: Error) {
self.resultLabel.text = error.localizedDescription
}
#MainActor
private func updateAcitivityIndicator(isHidden: Bool) {
self.activityView.isHidden = isHidden
}