I have a function as follows which adds an operation to the operation queue, how do I test the block of code that is being added to the operation queue, I tried using an expectation by passing an analytics observer spy and check if the value is set but it does not seem to work, please point me in the right direction
func firePendingEvent() {
for analyticItem in eventQueue {
eventPriorityQueue.addOperationToQueue (operation: BlockOperation {
self.analyticsObserver?.logEvent(event: analyticItem) // write test to check the event inside this function
}, priority: .normal)
if eventQueue.count > 0 {
eventQueue.remove(at: 0)
}
}
}
The basic idea is that your test has to create an expectation:
let e = expectation(description: "testGetUsers")
And then when your asynchronous method is done, fulfill that expectation:
e.fulfill()
And then, of course, your test has to, after initiating the asynchronous tasks, wait for the expectations:
waitForExpectations(timeout: 10)
But, obviously, you need to know when your function is done. I would suggest giving it an optional completion handler:
func firePendingEvent(completion: (() -> Void)? = nil) {
let group = DispatchGroup()
for analyticItem in eventQueue {
group.enter()
eventPriorityQueue.addOperationToQueue(operation: BlockOperation {
self.analyticsObserver?.logEvent(event: analyticItem)
group.leave()
}, priority: .normal)
}
eventQueue.removeAll()
if let completion = completion {
group.notify(queue: .main, execute: completion)
}
}
(Note, I personally refrain from mutating an array as I iterate through it, so I add all the tasks to the queue and defer the removeAll until I am no longer iterating.)
Anyway, you can now write your test:
func testFirePendingEvents() {
let e = expectation(description: "testGetUsers")
foo.firePendingEvent {
XCAssert(…) // do whatever tests are appropriate
e.fulfill()
}
waitForExpectations(timeout: 10)
}
But, because that completion handler is optional, and defaults to nil, you don't have to change the rest of your code that isn't availing itself of the new completion handler.
Personally, I would add a parameter to that completion handler closure to pass back whatever value you want to test, but there wasn’t enough in the question to know what result you are testing.
Related
I have a func that gets a list of Players. When i fetch the players i need only to show those who belongs to the current Team so i am showing only a subset of the original list by filtering them. I don't know in advance, before making the request, how much players belong to the Team selected by the User, so i may need to do additional requests until i can display on the TableView at least 10 rows of Players. The User by pulling up from the bottom of the TableView can request more players to display. To do this i am calling a first async func request which in turn calls, inside a while, another nested async func request. Here a code to give you an idea of what i am trying to do:
let semaphore = DispatchSemaphore(value: 0)
func getTeamPlayersRequest() {
service.getTeamPlayers(...)
{
(result) in
switch result
{
case .success(let playersModel):
if let validCurrentPage = currentPageTmp ,
let validTotalPages = totalPagesTmp ,
let validNextPage = self.getTeamPlayersListNextPage()
{
while self.playersToShowTemp.count < 10 && self.currentPage < validTotalPages
{
self.currentPage = validNextPage //global var
self.fetchMorePlayers()
self.semaphore.wait() //global semaphore
}
}
case .failure(let error):
//some code...
}
})
}
private func fetchMorePlayers(){
// Completion handler of the following function is never called..
service.getTeamPlayers(requestedPage: currentPage, completion: {
(result) in
switch result
{
case .success(let playersModel):
if let validPlayerList = playersList,
let validPlayerListData = validPlayerList.data,
let validTeamModel = self.teamPlayerModel,
let validNextPage = self.getTeamPlayersListNextPage()
{
for player in validPlayerListData
{
if ( validTeamModel.id == player.team?.id)
{
self.playersToShowTemp.append(player)
}
}
}
self.currentPage = validNextPage
self.semaphore.signal() //global semaphore
case .failure(let error):
//some code...
}
}
}
I have tried both with DispatchGroup and Semaphore but i don't get it what i am doing wrong. I debugged the code and saw that the first async call get executed in a different queue (not the main queue) and a different thread. The nested async call getexecuted on a different thread but i don't know if it's the same concurrent queue of the first async call.
The completion handler of thenested call it's never called. Does anyone know why? is the self.semaphore.wait(), even if it get executed after the fetchMorePlayers() return, blocking/preventing the nested async completion handler to be called?
I am noticing through the Debugger that the completion() in the Xcode vars window has the note "swift partial apply forwarder for closure #1"
If we inline the function call in your loop, it looks something like this:
while self.playersToShowTemp.count < 10 && self.currentPage < validTotalPages
{
self.currentPage = validNextPage //global var
nbaService.getTeamPlayers(requestedPage: currentPage, completion: { ... })
self.semaphore.wait() //global semaphore
}
So nbaService.getTeamPlayers schedules a request, probably on the main DispatchQueue and immediately returns. Then you call wait on your semaphore, which blocks, probably before GCD even tries to run the task scheduled by nbaService.getTeamPlayers.
That's a problem on DispatchQueue.main, which is a serial queue. It has to be a serial queue for UI updates to work. What normally happens is on some iteration of the run loop you make a request, and return.. that bubbles back up to the run loop, which checks for more events and queued tasks. In this case, when your completion handler in getTeamPlayersRequest is waiting to be run, the run loop (via GCD) executes it for that iteration. Then you block the main thread, so the run loop can't continue. If you do need to block always do it on a different DispatchQueue, preferably a .concurrent one.
There is sometimes confusion about what .async does. It only means "run this later and right now return control back to the caller". That's all. It does not guarantee that your closure will run concurrently. It merely schedules it to be run later (possibly soon) on whatever DispatchQueue you called it on. If that queue is a serial queue, then it will be queued to run in its turn in that dispatch queue's run loop. If it's a concurrent queue (ie one you specifically set the attributes to include .concurrent). Then it will run, possibly at the same time as other tasks on that same DispatchQueue.
To avoid that instead of using a loop you can use async-chaining.
private func fetchMorePlayers(while condition: #autoclosure #escaping () -> Bool){
guard condition() else { return }
nbaService.getTeamPlayers(requestedPage: currentPage, completion: {
(result) in
switch result
{
case .success(let playersModel):
if let validPlayerList = playersList,
let validPlayerListData = validPlayerList.data,
let validTeamModel = self.teamPlayerModel,
let validNextPage = self.getTeamPlayersListNextPage()
{
for player in validPlayerListData
{
if ( validTeamModel.id == player.team?.id)
{
self.playersToShowTemp.append(player)
}
}
}
self.currentPage = validNextPage
// Chain to next call
self.fetchMorePlayers(while: condition))
case .failure(let error):
//some code...
}
}
}
Then in getTeamPlayersRequest you can do this:
func getTeamPlayersRequest() {
service.getTeamPlayers(...)
{
(result) in
switch result
{
case .success(let playersModel):
if let validCurrentPage = currentPageTmp ,
let validTotalPages = totalPagesTmp ,
let validNextPage = self.getTeamPlayersListNextPage()
{
self.currentPage = validNextPage //global var
self.fetchMorePlayers(while: self.playersToShowTemp.count < 10 && self.currentPage < validTotalPages)
}
case .failure(let error):
//some code...
}
})
}
This avoids the need to block on a semaphore, because each subsequent request happens in the completion handler of the previously completed one. The only issue is if you need for the completion handler in getTeamPlayersRequest to block while the fetchMorePlayers requests are being fetched, because now it won't you can re-introduce the semaphore. In that case the guard statement in fetchMorePlayers becomes:
guard condition() else
{
self.semaphore.signal()
return
}
That way it only signals on the last completion handler in the chain. You may need to block in a different DispatchQueue though. I think if you need to block, you probably have something about your design that needs to be reconsidered.
If you find yourself reaching for semaphores, it is almost always a mistake. Semaphores are inefficient at best, and introduce deadlock risks if misused. Semaphores should generally be avoided. (Don't get me wrong: Semaphores can be useful in some very narrow use cases, but this is not one of them.)
Use asynchronous patterns. One simple approach might be to recursively call the routine, calling the completion handler when done:
func startFetching(#escaping completion: () -> Void) {
fetchPlayers(page: 0, completion: completion)
}
private func fetchPlayers(page: Int, #escaping completion: () -> Void) {
// prepare request
// now perform request
performRequest(...) { ...
if let error = error {
completion()
return
}
...
if doesNeedMorePlayers {
fetchPlayers(page: page + 1, completion: completion)
} else {
completion()
}
}
}
Personally, I might probably add another closure to emit the players retrieved as we go along, e.g. like, if not actually, a Combine Publisher. Or if you want to update the UI all at once at the very end, just pass the players retrieved thus far as additional parameter in this recursive routine and pass the whole array back in the completion handler. But avoid globals or other state properties.
But the broader idea is to scrupulously avoid semaphores and instead embrace asynchronous patterns.
We can use a DispatchGroup in swift to add many tasks to the group. The group will wait until all the tasks are complete before proceeding to the next codes.
let dg = DispatchGroup()
dg.notify(queue: .global()) {
// run code here on completion
}
Is there a way to add a timeout for this dispatchGroup in case the tasks are taking too long to complete?
[Edit]
I am aware that DispatchGroup.wait(timeout:) adds a timeout. But this makes it synchronously wait. Is there a way that it is asynchronous using the notify method, but still have a timeout?
If you want the DispatchGroup to have a timeout asynchronously try:
var dg: DispatchGroup? = DispatchGroup()
DispatchQueue.main.asyncAfter(deadline: .now() + 10) {
self.dg = nil // after time out group is removed asynchronously
}
dg?.notify(queue: .global()) {
// run code here on completion
}
Just to add an alternative way; to easily reuse this in multiple parts of your code, you could provide a DispatchGroup extension like this:
extension DispatchGroup {
func notify(queue: DispatchQueue, timeout: TimeInterval, execute work: #escaping () -> ()) {
var selfDestructingCompletion: (() -> ())?
selfDestructingCompletion = {
selfDestructingCompletion = nil
work()
}
self.notify(queue: queue) {
selfDestructingCompletion?()
}
queue.asyncAfter(deadline: .now() + timeout) {
selfDestructingCompletion?()
}
}
}
Which then you would just use like this:
// 1. something you need to have for the dispatch group anyway
let someSerialQueue = DispatchQueue(label: "someQueue")
let group = DispatchGroup()
for someApi in apiList {
group.enter()
someApi.call() {
group.leave()
}
}
// 2. the new method, just with the timeout parameter
group.notify(queue: someSerialQueue, timeout: 5.0) {
// Run the completion for completing the tasks or for timeout in one place
}
This has the added benefits of:
having no thread issues as long as you pass a serial queue (not true for the accepted answer)
calling the completion only in one place when it's used
Just be sure to prefix the name of the method to some specific namespace of yours if you plan to insert this in a public library, to avoid clashes with other similar implementations of this extension.
I'm kind of new to programming in general, so I have this maybe simple question. Actually, writing helps me to identify the problem faster.
Anyway, I have an app with multiple asynchronous calls, they are nested like this:
InstagramUnoficialAPI.shared.getUserId(from: username, success: { (userId) in
InstagramUnoficialAPI.shared.fetchRecentMedia(from: userId, success: { (data) in
InstagramUnoficialAPI.shared.parseMediaJSON(from: data, success: { (media) in
guard let items = media.items else { return }
self.sortMediaToCategories(media: items, success: {
print("success")
// Error Handlers
Looks horrible, but that's not the point. I will investigate the Promise Kit once I get this working.
I need the sortMediaToCategories to wait for completion and then reload my collection view. However, in the sortMediaToCategories I have another nested function, which is async too and has a for in loop.
func sortMediaToCategories(media items: [StoryData.Items],
success: #escaping (() -> Swift.Void),
failure: #escaping (() -> Swift.Void)) {
let group = DispatchGroup()
group.enter()
for item in items {
if item.media_type == 1 {
guard let url = URL(string: (item.image_versions2?.candidates?.first!.url)!) else {return}
mediaToStorageDistribution(withImageUrl: url,
videoUrl: nil,
mediaType: .jpg,
takenAt: item.taken_at,
success: { group.notify(queue: .global(), execute: {
self.collectionView.reloadData()
group.leave()
}) },
failure: { print("error") })
//....
I can't afford the collection view to reload every time obviously, so I need to wait for loop to finish and then reload.
I'm trying to use Dispatch Groups, but struggling with it. Could you please help me with this? Any simple examples and any advice will be very appreciated.
The problem you face is a common one: having multiple asynchronous tasks and wait until all are completed.
There are a few solutions. The most simple one is utilising DispatchGroup:
func loadUrls(urls: [URL], completion: #escaping ()->()) {
let grp = DispatchGroup()
urls.forEach { (url) in
grp.enter()
URLSession.shared.dataTask(with: url) { data, response, error in
// handle error
// handle response
grp.leave()
}.resume()
}
grp.notify(queue: DispatchQueue.main) {
completion()
}
}
The function loadUrls is asynchronous and expects an array of URLs as input and a completion handler that will be called when all tasks have been completed. This will be accomplished with the DispatchGroup as demonstrated.
The key is, to ensure that grp.enter() will be called before invoking a task and grp.leave is called when the task has been completed. enter and leave shall be balanced.
grp.notify finally registers a closure which will be called on the specified dispatch queue (here: main) when the DispatchGroup grp balances out (that is, its internal counter reaches zero).
There are a few caveats with this solution, though:
All tasks will be started nearly at the same time and run concurrently
Reporting the final result of all tasks via the completion handler is not shown here. Its implementation will require proper synchronisation.
For all of these caveats there are nice solutions which should be implemented utilising suitable third party libraries. For example, you can submit the tasks to some sort of "executer" which controls how many tasks run concurrently (match like OperationQueue and async Operations).
Many of the "Promise" or "Future" libraries simplify error handling and also help you to solve such problems with just one function call.
You can reloadData when the last item calls the success block in this way.
let lastItemIndex = items.count - 1
for(index, item) in items.enumerated() {
if item.media_type == 1 {
guard let url = URL(string: (item.image_versions2?.candidates?.first!.url)!) else {return}
mediaToStorageDistribution(withImageUrl: url,
videoUrl: nil,
mediaType: .jpg,
takenAt: item.taken_at,
success: {
if index == lastItemIndex {
DispatchQueue.global().async {
self.collectionView.reloadData()
}
}
},
failure: { print("error") })
}
You have to move the group.enter() call inside your loop. Calls to enter and leave have to be balanced. If your callbacks of the mediaToStorageDistribution function for success and failure are exclusive you also need to leave the group on failure. When all blocks that called enter leave the group notify will be called. And you probably want to replace the return in your guard statement with a break, to just skip items with missing URLs. Right now you are returning from the whole sortMediaToCatgories function.
func sortMediaToCategories(media items: [StoryData.Items], success: #escaping (() -> Void), failure: #escaping (() -> Void)) {
let group = DispatchGroup()
for item in items {
if item.media_type == 1 {
guard let url = URL(string: (item.image_versions2?.candidates?.first!.url)!) else { break }
group.enter()
mediaToStorageDistribution(withImageUrl: url,
videoUrl: nil,
mediaType: .jpg,
takenAt: item.taken_at,
success: { group.leave() },
failure: {
print("error")
group.leave()
})
}
}
group.notify(queue: .main) {
self.collectionView.reloadData()
}
}
In my model have function to fetch data which expects completion handler as parameter:
func fetchMostRecent(completion: (sortedSections: [TableItem]) -> ()) {
self.addressBook.loadContacts({
(contacts: [APContact]?, error: NSError?) in
// 1
if let unwrappedContacts = contacts {
for contact in unwrappedContacts {
// handle constacts
...
self.mostRecent.append(...)
}
}
// 2
completion(sortedSections: self.mostRecent)
})
}
It's calling another function which does asynchronous loading of contacts, to which I'm forwarding my completion
The call of fetchMostRecent with completion looks like this:
model.fetchMostRecent({(sortedSections: [TableItem]) in
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue()) {
// update some UI
self.state = State.Loaded(sortedSections)
self.tableView.reloadData()
}
})
This sometimes it works, but very often the order of execution is not the way as I would expect. Problem is, that sometimes completion() under // 2 is executed before scope of if under // 1 was finished.
Why is that? How can I ensure that execution of // 2 is started after // 1?
A couple of observations:
It will always execute what's at 1 before 2. The only way you'd get the behavior you describe is if you're doing something else inside that for loop that is, itself, asynchronous. And if that were the case, you'd use a dispatch group to solve that (or refactor the code to handle the asynchronous pattern). But without seeing what's in that for loop, it's hard to comment further. The code in the question, alone, should not manifest the problem you describe. It's got to be something else.
Unrelated, you should note that it's a little dangerous to be updating model objects inside your asynchronously executing for loop (assuming it is running on a background thread). It's much safer to update a local variable, and then pass that back via the completion handler, and let the caller take care of dispatching both the model update and the UI updates to the main queue.
In comments, you mention that in the for loop you're doing something asynchronous, and something that must be completed before the completionHandler is called. So you'd use a dispatch group to do ensure this happens only after all the asynchronous tasks are done.
Note, since you're doing something asynchronous inside the for loop, not only do you need to use a dispatch group to trigger the completion of these asynchronous tasks, but you probably also need to create your own synchronization queue (you shouldn't be mutating an array from multiple threads). So, you might create a queue for this.
Pulling this all together, you end up with something like:
func fetchMostRecent(completionHandler: ([TableItem]?) -> ()) {
addressBook.loadContacts { contacts, error in
var sections = [TableItem]()
let group = dispatch_group_create()
let syncQueue = dispatch_queue_create("com.domain.app.sections", nil)
if let unwrappedContacts = contacts {
for contact in unwrappedContacts {
dispatch_group_enter(group)
self.someAsynchronousMethod {
// handle contacts
dispatch_async(syncQueue) {
let something = ...
sections.append(something)
dispatch_group_leave(group)
}
}
}
dispatch_group_notify(group, dispatch_get_main_queue()) {
self.mostRecent = sections
completionHandler(sections)
}
} else {
completionHandler(nil)
}
}
}
And
model.fetchMostRecent { sortedSections in
guard let sortedSections = sortedSections else {
// handle failure however appropriate for your app
return
}
// update some UI
self.state = State.Loaded(sortedSections)
self.tableView.reloadData()
}
Or, in Swift 3:
func fetchMostRecent(completionHandler: #escaping ([TableItem]?) -> ()) {
addressBook.loadContacts { contacts, error in
var sections = [TableItem]()
let group = DispatchGroup()
let syncQueue = DispatchQueue(label: "com.domain.app.sections")
if let unwrappedContacts = contacts {
for contact in unwrappedContacts {
group.enter()
self.someAsynchronousMethod {
// handle contacts
syncQueue.async {
let something = ...
sections.append(something)
group.leave()
}
}
}
group.notify(queue: .main) {
self.mostRecent = sections
completionHandler(sections)
}
} else {
completionHandler(nil)
}
}
}
I'm writing an XCTest unit test in Swift.
The idea is that a callback mustn't be called in a certain case.
So what I do, is
func testThatCallbackIsNotFired() {
let expectation = expectationWithDescription("A callback is fired")
// configure an async operation
asyncOperation.run() { (_) -> () in
expectation.fulfill() // if this happens, the test must fail
}
waitForExpectationsWithTimeout(1) { (error: NSError?) -> Void in
// here I expect error to be not nil,
// which would signalize that expectation is not fulfilled,
// which is what I expect, because callback mustn't be called
XCTAssert(error != nil, "A callback mustn't be fired")
}
}
When the callback is called, everything works fine: it fails with a message "A callback mustn't be fired" which is exactly what I need.
But if expectation hasn't been fulfilled, it fails and says
Asynchronous wait failed: Exceeded timeout of 1 seconds, with unfulfilled expectations: "Callback is fired".
Since a not fulfilled expectation is what I need, I don't want to have a failed test.
Do you have any suggestions what can I do to avoid this? Or, maybe, I can reach my goal in a different way? Thanks.
Use isInverted like in this post https://www.swiftbysundell.com/posts/unit-testing-asynchronous-swift-code
class DebouncerTests: XCTestCase {
func testPreviousClosureCancelled() {
let debouncer = Debouncer(delay: 0.25)
// Expectation for the closure we'e expecting to be cancelled
let cancelExpectation = expectation(description: "Cancel")
cancelExpectation.isInverted = true
// Expectation for the closure we're expecting to be completed
let completedExpectation = expectation(description: "Completed")
debouncer.schedule {
cancelExpectation.fulfill()
}
// When we schedule a new closure, the previous one should be cancelled
debouncer.schedule {
completedExpectation.fulfill()
}
// We add an extra 0.05 seconds to reduce the risk for flakiness
waitForExpectations(timeout: 0.3, handler: nil)
}
}
I had this same problem, and I am annoyed that you can't use a handler to override the timeout fail of waitForExpectationsWithTimeout. Here is how I solved it (Swift 2 syntax):
func testThatCallbackIsNotFired() {
expectationForPredicate(NSPredicate{(_, _) in
struct Holder {static let startTime = CACurrentMediaTime()}
if checkSomehowThatCallbackFired() {
XCTFail("Callback fired when it shouldn't have.")
return true
}
return Holder.startTime.distanceTo(CACurrentMediaTime()) > 1.0 // or however long you want to wait
}, evaluatedWithObject: self, handler: nil)
waitForExpectationsWithTimeout(2.0 /*longer than wait time above*/, handler: nil)
}