Swift equivalent of await Promise.all - swift

I'm coming from JS and learning Swift to build an iOS native version of an app.
In JS, I use the following pattern all the time:
...
async function doAyncFunction(item) {
try {
// do async call to fetch data using item
return Promise.resolve(data);
} catch (error) {
return Promise.reject(error);
}
}
const promises = items.map((item) => doAyncFunction(item));
const results = await Promise.all(promises);
...
I've started looking at PromiseKit, but I'm wondering what's are the Swift ways of doing this?
Thanks.

The forthcoming Swift 5.5 in Xcode 13 (still in beta at this point in time) uses a very similar async-await pattern. See The Swift Programming Language: Concurrency.
In the interim, there are a unfortunately dizzying number of alternatives. For example, there are a variety of third-party promise/future frameworks. Or there is the declarative Combine framework, which was launched a few years agar with the advent of the non-imperative patterns of SwiftUI.
All of that having been said, the most common pattern you’ll see in Swift code is the use of escaping “closures” which are effectively units of code that are passed as a parameter to a function, and which the function invokes when the asynchronous task completes. In that pattern you don’t await, but rather just specify what you want to do when the asynchronous task finishes. For example, in this function, it has a parameter called completion which is a closure that is called when the asynchronous task completes:
func fetch(using value: Int, completion: #escaping (Result<Foo, Error>) -> Void) {
let url = …
let task = URLSession.shared.dataTask(with: url) { data, response, error in
// handle errors, if any, e.g.:
if let error == error else {
completion(.failure(error))
return
}
// parse data into `Foo` here, and when done, call the `completion closure:
…
completion(.success(foo))
}
task.resume()
}
And then you would call it like so:
fetch(using: 42, completion: { result in
// this is called when the fetch finishes
switch result {
case .failure(let error): // do something with `error`
case .success(let foo): // do something with `foo`
}
})
// note, execution will continue here, and the above closure will
// be called later, so do not try to use `foo` here
Or, using a more concise “trailing closure” syntax:
fetch(using: 42) { result in
// this is called when the fetch finishes
switch result {
case .failure(let error): // do something with `error`
case .success(let foo): // do something with `foo`
}
}
// note, execution will continue here, and the above closure will
// be called later, so do not try to use `foo` here
And if you wanted to be notified when a series of calls was done, you could use a DispatchGroup, e.g.
let group = DispatchGroup()
for value in values {
group.enter()
fetch(using: value) { result in
// do something with result
group.leave()
}
}
group.notify(queue: .main) {
// this is called when every `enter` call is matched up with a `leave` Call
}
It is up to you whether you stick to the beta version of Swift 5.5 with a very familiar async-await pattern, use a third-party future/promise library, use Combine, or use the traditional closure-based pattern, shown above.
At the very least, I would suggest familiarizing yourself with this latter pattern as it is the predominant technique in Swift right now. But rest assured that the familiar async-await pattern is coming soon, so if you are willing to wait for it to finish going through the beta process (or join that beta process), then check that out.

Using the aforementioned builtin Combine framework, you have several options. The one that you probably want is Publishers.Merge:
let publishers = ... // multiple functions that implement the Publisher protocol
let combined = Publishers.MergeMany(publishers)
Alternatives to MergeMany are Merge, Merge3, Merge4 up to Merge8 when the amount of publishers is set. If the number of outputs is variable, use MergeMany.
Other options include merge on the publishers themselves:
let publisher1 = ...
let publisher2 = ...
publisher1.merge(publisher2)
CombineLatest or, in the case of a publisher that immediately completes, Zip can be used to receive a tuple when everything is done:
let publisher1 = ...
let publisher2 = ...
Publishers.CombineLatest(publisher1, publisher2)

For the moment there is a great framework that is closest to async/await, it's SwiftCoroutine https://github.com/belozierov/SwiftCoroutine (much better than promiseKit, I tested the 2..)
Swift coroutine with your example:
func doFutureFunction() -> CoFuture<Int> {
CoFuture { promise in
myRequest { error, data in
if let error = error {
promise(.failure(error))
} else {
promise(.success(data))
}
}
}
}
let futures = items.map { item in doFutureFunction(item) } // [CoFuture<Int>]
DispatchQueue.main.startCoroutine {
let results = promises.compactMap { try? $0.await() } // [Int]
}
The equivalent of
consts value = await future.value
consts value1 = await future.value
consts value2 = await future.value
console.log("Value " + value + ", value1 " + value1 + ", value2 " + value2)
is
DispatchQueue.main.startCoroutine {
do {
let value = try future.await()
let value1 = try future.await()
let value2 = try future.await()
print("Value \(value), value1 \(value1), value2 \(value2)")
} catch {
print(error.localizedDescription)
}
}
While waiting for swift 5.5 and official async / await from Apple

You can look at PromiseQ it's javascript style promises for Swift. It implements all javascript's Promise features: resolve/reject, then, finally, fetch etc. and appends some additional ones: suspend/resume, cancel, retry, timeout etc.
It also supports all, race, any e.g.:
// Fetch avatars of first 30 GitHub users.
struct User : Codable {
let login: String
let avatar_url: String
}
async {
let response = try fetch("https://api.github.com/users").await()
guard response.ok else {
throw response.statusCodeDescription
}
guard let data = response.data else {
throw "No data"
}
let users = try JSONDecoder().decode([User].self, from: data)
let images =
try Promise.all(
users
.map { $0.avatar_url }
.map { fetch($0) }
).await()
.compactMap { $0.data }
.compactMap { UIImage(data: $0) }
async(.main) {
print(images.count)
}
}
.catch { error in
print(error.localizedDescription)
}
Swift's concurrency such as Dispatch queues, Combine and the newest async\await (Swift 5.5) are different from javascript Promises and you can not find many convenient approaches that you used before.

I'm answering myself here with a solution, using PromiseKit, in case it might help someone.
The below is obviously not a full implementation, but it shows how the pattern can be implemented.
func doManyAsyncRequests(userIds: [String], accessToken: String) -> Promise<Void> {
Promise { seal in
let promises = spotifyUserIds.map {
doSingleAsyncRequest(userId: $0.id, accessToken: accessToken) // this function returns a promise
}
when(fulfilled: promises).done { results in
print("Results: \(results)")
// process results
}.catch { error in
print("\(error)")
// handle error
}
}
}

Related

How to handle priorities in a Swifty JSON Alamofire request?

How can I use the dispatchQueue or something like "await" in Javascript to return a value in self.arrayData (because the end of my loop is ran before the previous content). I am used to R and Python where the code runs line by line, What is the best behavior to adopt in Swift ?
Here is the function :
func fetch2(){
var i:Int = 0
repeat {
AF.request(itemLookUp[i]).validate().responseJSON { response in
switch response.result {
case .failure(let error):
print("\(error) in fetch2")
case .success(let value):
let json = JSON(value)
//Extract the Matiere for ML Extraction
self.matiereInput = json["ResultSet"]["0"]["Result"]["0"]["SpAdditional"].string ?? "none"
let energyCheck:Bool = self.matiereInput.contains("エネルギー") //energy-kcal
if energyCheck==true && self.arrayData[0]==0.0{
//regular expression
var patEnergy = #"(エネルギー)(([^\d]+)(\d+)(\.)(\d+)|([^\d]+)(\d+))"# //avoid the repetition of the pattern within the same matiereinput
let patEnergy2 = self.matches(for: patEnergy, in: self.matiereInput)
patEnergy = patEnergy2.joined(separator:"")
let valueEnergy = self.matches(for: self.regex2, in: patEnergy)
self.arrayData[0] = Double(valueEnergy.joined(separator: "")) ?? 0.0
}
}
}
i = i+1
print(self.arrayData[0])
} while i <= (self.returned-1)
}
Thank you in advance !
The standard pattern is notify with a DispatchGroup, and then use a completion handler to asynchronously notify the caller of the result:
func fetchAll(completion: #escaping (Result<[Double], Error>) -> Void) {
let group = DispatchGroup()
var results: [Double] = []
var errors: [Error] = []
for item in lookupItems {
group.enter() // enter before request
AF.request(item).validate().responseJSON { response in
defer { group.leave() } // leave when this closure is done
switch response.result {
case .failure(let error):
errors.append(error)
case .success(let value):
let result = ...
results.append(result)
}
}
}
group.notify(queue: .main) {
if let error = errors.first { // I don’t know what you want to do if there were multiple errors, so for now I’ll just grab the first one
completion(.failure(error))
} else {
completion(.success(results))
}
}
}
And then you’d use it like so:
fetchAll { result in
switch result {
case .failure(let error):
print(error)
case .success(let values):
print(values)
}
}
Now, I wasn’t able to reverse engineer what you were trying to do (you appear to be updating self.arrayData[0] in every iteration!), so I just returned an array of Double. But you can obviously change the type of results and the parameter of the completion closure to match whatever is relevant in your case.
But don’t get lost in the details of the above example, but rather just focus on a few key observations:
Supply completion handler closure to call when all the requests are done.
Use DispatchGroup to keep track of when all the requests are done.
Supply a notify closure to your DispatchGroup which will be called when all the group.enter() calls are offset by their respective group.leave() calls.
A more subtle observation is that you should refrain from updating properties from within the responseJSON block. Within your asynchronous code, you really want to limit your interaction to local variables if at all possible. Pass the result back in the completion closure (and the caller can update the model and the UI as it sees fit).

using dispatch group in multi for loop with urlsession tasks

I have using a dispatch group wait() that block my a for loop from completing the code until a set of urlsession tasks (in another loop with completion handler) to be completed before appending new element to my array
the current code will finish the first loop before the second loop of urlClass.selectfoodURL is completed
I want to append the array in meal history after my urlfood for loop is completed
on of the problem in my approach of using dispatch groups is the wait(), when my select food is called the urlsession stuck and doesn’t complete with group.wait
func userSnackHistoryArray() {
let group = DispatchGroup()
let Arrays // array of dictionary
for array in Arrays {
var generateMeal = MealDetails() // struct type
do {
let aa = try JSONDecoder().decode(userSnack.self, from: array)
generateMeal.names = convertToJsonFile.type
for name in generateMeal.names!{
group.enter()
urlClass.selectfoodURL(foodName: name){ success in
generateMeal.units!.append(allVariables.selectedUnit)
group.leave()
}
}
// my select food is called but the urlsession stuck and doesnt complete with group.wait is active
// group.wait()
mealHistory.append(generateMeal)
} catch { }
}
group.notify(queue: .main){
print("complete")
}
}
I have shortened my code to focus on the problem ,, I can split my code into two functions and solve the problem , but I want to use only one function
any suggestions or ideas ?
Rather than waiting, you should just create a local array of values to be added, and then add them when it’s done:
func retrieveSnacks() {
var snacksToAdd: [Snack] = []
let group = DispatchGroup()
...
for url in urls {
group.enter()
fetchSnack(with: url) { result in
dispatchPrecondition(condition: .onQueue(.main)) // note, I’m assuming that this closure is running on the main queue; if not, dispatch this appending of snacks (and `leave` call) to the main queue
if case .success(let snack) = result {
snacksToAdd.append(snack)
}
group.leave()
}
}
// when all the `leave` calls are called, only then append the results
group.notify(queue: .main) {
self.snacks += snacksToAdd
// trigger UI update, or whatever, here
}
}
Note, the above does not assure that the objects are added in the original order. If you need that, you can use a dictionary to build the temporary results and then append the results in sorted order:
func retrieveSnacks() {
var snacksToAdd: [URL: Snack] = [:]
let group = DispatchGroup()
...
for url in urls {
group.enter()
fetchSnack(with: url) { result in
if case .success(let snack) = result {
snacksToAdd[url] = snack
}
group.leave()
}
}
group.notify(queue: .main) {
let sortedSnacks = urls.compactMap { snacksToAdd[$0] }
self.snacks += sortedSnacks
// trigger UI update, or whatever, here
}
}
Finally, I might suggest adopting a completion handler pattern:
func retrieveSnacks(completion: #escaping ([Snack]) -> Void) {
var snacksToAdd: [URL: Snack] = [:]
let group = DispatchGroup()
...
for url in urls {
group.enter()
fetchSnack(with: url) { result in
if case .success(let snack) = result {
snacksToAdd[url] = snack
}
group.leave()
}
}
group.notify(queue: .main) {
let sortedSnacks = urls.compactMap { snacksToAdd[$0] }
completion(sortedSnacks)
}
}
retrieveSnacks { addedSnacks in
self.snacks += addedSnacks
// update UI here
}
This pattern ensures that you don’t entangle your network-related code with your UI code.
I apologize that the above is somewhat refactored from your code snippet, but there wasn’t enough there for me to illustrate what precisely it would look like. But hopefully the above illustrates the pattern and you can see how you’d apply it to your code base. So, don’t get lost in the details, but focus on the basic pattern of building records to be added in a local variable and only update the final results in the .notify block.
FWIW, this is the method signature for the method that the above snippets are using to asynchronously fetch the objects in question.
func fetchSnack(with url: URL, completion: #escaping (Result<Snack, Error>) -> Void) {
...
// if async fetch not successful
DispatchQueue.main.async {
completion(.failure(error))
}
// if successful
DispatchQueue.main.async {
completion(.success(snack))
}
}

Unable to infer complex closure return type; add explicit type to disambiguate in RxSwift

I need to make multiple calls.
1. Delete Document Upload
2. Image 1 & server returns URL
3. Upload Image 2 & server returns URL
4. Create Document API contains both URLs & extra
parameters.
The code which I tried to write is in RxSwift,& MVVM.
let resultOfDocumentUpdateWithDelete =
donepressed
.filter{ $0 }
.withLatestFrom(self.existingDocumentIDChangedProperty)
.flatMapLatest {id in
let deleted_document = apiClient.deleteDocument(id).asObservable().materialize()
let upload_frontImage = deleted_document
.withLatestFrom(self.frontImageNameChangedProperty)
.flatMapLatest {image in
apiClient.uploadImage(image: image!).asObservable().materialize()
}
let upload_backImage = upload_frontImage
.withLatestFrom(self.backImageChangedProperty)
.flatMapLatest {image in
apiClient.uploadImage(image: image!).asObservable().materialize()
}
let upload_document = upload_backImage
.withLatestFrom(self.parametersChangedProperty)
.flatMapLatest {parameters in
apiClient.uploadDocument(parameters: parameters)
}
return upload_document.materialize()
}
.share(replay: 1)
Make sure, two responses of server are input in last API, so all of these will be called in a sequence.
how to do in RxSwift.
This was an interesting one! The take-away here is that when you are in doubt, go ahead and make your own operator. If it turns out that you later figure out how to do the job using the built-in operators, then you can replace yours. The only thing with making your own is that they require a lot more testing.
Note, to use the below, you will have to combineLatest of your observables and then flatMap and pass their values into this function.
// all possible results from this job.
enum ProcessResult {
case success
case deleteFailure(Error)
case imageFailue(Error)
case backImageFailure(Error)
case documentFailure(Error)
}
func uploadContent(apiClient: APIClient, documentID: Int, frontImage: UIImage, backImage: UIImage, parameters: Parameters) -> Single<ProcessResult> {
// instead of trying to deal with all the materializes, I decided to turn it into a single process.
return Single.create { observer in
// each api call happens in turn. Note that there are no roll-back semantics included! You are dealing with a very poorly written server.
let deleted = apiClient.deleteDocument(id: documentID)
.asObservable()
.share()
let imagesUploaded = deleted
.flatMap { _ in Observable.zip(apiClient.uploadImage(image: frontImage).asObservable(), apiClient.uploadImage(image: backImage).asObservable()) }
.share()
let documentUploaded = imagesUploaded
.flatMap { arg -> Single<Void> in
let (frontURL, backURL) = arg
var updatedParams = parameters
// add frontURL and backURL to parameters
return apiClient.uploadDocument(parameters: updatedParams)
}
.share()
let disposable = deleted
.subscribe(onError: { observer(.success(ProcessResult.deleteFailure($0))) })
let disposable1 = imagesUploaded
.subscribe(onError: { observer(.success(ProcessResult.imageFailue($0))) })
let disposable2 = documentUploaded
.subscribe(
onNext: { observer(.success(ProcessResult.success)) },
onError: { observer(.success(ProcessResult.documentFailure($0))) }
)
return Disposables.create([disposable, disposable1, disposable2])
}
}

Convert recursive async function to promise

I have a recursive, async function that queries Google Drive for a file ID using the REST api and a completion handler:
func queryForFileId(query: GTLRDriveQuery_FilesList,
handler: #escaping FileIdCompletionHandler) {
service.executeQuery(query) { ticket, data, error in
if let error = error {
handler(nil, error)
} else {
let list = data as! GTLRDrive_FileList
if let pageToken = list.nextPageToken {
query.pageToken = pageToken
self.queryForFileId(query: query, handler: handler)
} else if let id = list.files?.first?.identifier {
handler(id, nil)
} else {
handler(nil, nil) // no file found
}
}
}
}
Here, query is set up to return the nextPageToken and files(id) fields, service is an instance of GTLRDriveService, and FileIdCompletionHandler is just a typealias:
typealias FileIdCompletionHandler = (String?, Error?) -> Void
I've read how to convert async functions into promises (as in this thread) but I don't see how that can be applied to a recursive, async function. I guess I can just wrap the entire method as a Promise:
private func fileIdPromise(query: GTLRDriveQuery_FilesList) -> Promise<String?> {
return Promise { fulfill, reject in
queryForFileId(query: query) { id, error in
if let error = error {
reject(error)
} else {
fulfill(id)
}
}
}
}
However, I was hoping to something a little more direct:
private func queryForFileId2(query: GTLRDriveQuery_FilesList) -> Promise<String?> {
return Promise { fulfill, reject in
service.executeQuery(query) { ticket, data, error in
if let error = error {
reject(error)
} else {
let list = data as! GTLRDrive_FileList
if let pageToken = list.nextPageToken {
query.pageToken = pageToken
// WHAT DO I DO HERE?
} else if let id = list.files?.first?.identifier {
fulfill(id)
} else {
fulfill(nil) // no file found
}
}
}
}
}
So: what would I do when I need to make another async call to executeQuery?
If you want to satisfy a recursive set of promises, at where your "WHAT DO I DO HERE?" line, you'd create a new promise.then {...}.else {...} pattern, calling fulfill in the then clause and reject in the else clause. Obviously, if no recursive call was needed, though, you'd just fulfill directly.
I don't know the Google API and you didn't share your code for satisfying a promise for a list of files, so I'll have to keep this answer a bit generic: Let's assume you had some retrieveTokens routine that returned a promise that is satisfied only when all of the promises for the all files was done. Let's imagine that the top level call was something like:
retrieveTokens(for: files).then { tokens in
print(tokens)
}.catch { error in
print(error)
}
You'd then have a retrieveTokens that returns a promise that is satisfied only when then promises for the individual files were satisfied. If you were dealing with a simple array of File objects, you might do something like:
func retrieveTokens(for files: [File]) -> Promise<[Any]> {
var fileGenerator = files.makeIterator()
let generator = AnyIterator<Promise<Any>> {
guard let file = fileGenerator.next() else { return nil }
return self.retrieveToken(for: file)
}
return when(fulfilled: generator, concurrently: 1)
}
(I know this isn't what yours looks like, but I need this framework to show my answer to your question below. But it’s useful to encapsulate this “return all promises at a given level” in a single function, as it allows you to keep the recursive code somewhat elegant, without repeating code.)
Then the routine that returns a promise for an individual file would see if a recursive set of promises needed to be returned, and put its fulfill inside the then clause of that new recursively created promise:
func retrieveToken(for file: File) -> Promise<Any> {
return Promise<Any> { fulfill, reject in
service.determineToken(for: file) { token, error in
// if any error, reject
guard let token = token, error == nil else {
reject(error ?? FileError.someError)
return
}
// if I don't have to make recursive call, `fulfill` immediately.
// in my example, I'm going to see if there are subfiles, and if not, `fulfill` immediately.
guard let subfiles = file.subfiles else {
fulfill(token)
return
}
// if I got here, there are subfiles and I'm going to start recursive set of promises
self.retrieveTokens(for: subfiles).then { tokens in
fulfill(tokens)
}.catch { error in
reject(error)
}
}
}
}
Again, I know that the above isn't a direct answer to your question (as I'm not familiar with Google Drive API nor how you did your top level promise logic). So, in my example, I created model objects sufficient for the purposes of the demonstration.
But hopefully it's enough to illustrate the idea behind a recursive set of promises.

Best way to handle errors from async closures in Swift 2?

I'm using a lot of async network request (btw any network request in iOS need to by async) and I'm finding way to better handle errors from Apple's dataTaskWithRequest which not supports throws.
I have code like that:
func sendRequest(someData: MyCustomClass?, completion: (response: NSData?) -> ()) {
let request = NSURLRequest(URL: NSURL(string: "http://google.com")!)
if someData == nil {
// throw my custom error
}
let task = NSURLSession.sharedSession().dataTaskWithRequest(request) {
data, response, error in
// here I want to handle Apple's error
}
task.resume()
}
I need to parse my possible custom errors and handle possible connection errors from dataTaskWithRequest. Swift 2 introduced throws, but you can't throw from Apple's closure because they have no throw support and running async.
I see only way to add to my completion block NSError returning, but as I know using NSError is old-style Objective-C way. ErrorType can be used only with throws (afaik).
What's the best and most modern method to handle error when using Apple network closures? There is no way no use throws in any async network functions as I understand?
there are many ways you can solve this, but i would recommend using a completion block which expects a Result Enum. this would probably be the most 'Swift' way.
the result enum has exactly two states, success and error, which a big advantage to the usual two optional return values (data and error) which lead to 4 possible states.
enum Result<T> {
case Success(T)
case Error(String, Int)
}
Using the result enum in a completion block finishes the puzzle.
let InvalidURLCode = 999
let NoDataCode = 998
func getFrom(urlString: String, completion:Result<NSData> -> Void) {
// make sure the URL is valid, if not return custom error
guard let url = NSURL(string: urlString) else { return completion(.Error("Invalid URL", InvalidURLCode)) }
let request = NSURLRequest(URL: url)
NSURLSession.sharedSession().dataTaskWithRequest(request) { data, response, error in
// if error returned, extract message and code then pass as Result enum
guard error == nil else { return completion(.Error(error!.localizedDescription, error!.code)) }
// if no data is returned, return custom error
guard let data = data else { return completion(.Error("No data returned", NoDataCode)) }
// return success
completion(.Success(data))
}.resume()
}
because the return value is a enum, you should switch off of it.
getFrom("http://www.google.com") { result in
switch result {
case .Success(let data):
// handle successful data response here
let responseString = String(data:data, encoding: NSASCIIStringEncoding)
print("got data: \(responseString)");
case .Error(let msg, let code):
// handle error here
print("Error [\(code)]: \(msg)")
}
}
another solution would be to pass two completion blocks, one for success and one for error. something along the lines of:
func getFrom(urlString: String, successHandler:NSData -> Void, errorHandler:(String, Int) -> Void)
It's very similar to Casey's answer,
but with Swift 5, now we have Result (generic enumeration) implementation in standard library,
//Don't add this code to your project, this has already been implemented
//in standard library.
public enum Result<Success, Failure: Error> {
case success(Success), failure(Failure)
}
It's very easy to use,
URLSession.shared.dataTask(with: url) { (result: Result<(response: URLResponse, data: Data), Error>) in
switch result {
case let .success(success):
handleResponse(success.response, data: success.data)
case let .error(error):
handleError(error)
}
}
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swift/result
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0235-add-result.md
There's an elegant approach utilising a JavaScript-like Promise library or a Scala-like "Future and Promise" library.
Using Scala-style futures and promises, it may look as follows:
Your original function
func sendRequest(someData: MyCustomClass?, completion: (response: NSData?) -> ())
may be implemented as shown below. It also shows, how to create a promise, return early with a failed future and how to fulfill/reject a promise:
func sendRequest(someData: MyCustomClass) -> Future<NSData> {
guard let url = ... else {
return Future.failure(MySessionError.InvalidURL) // bail out early with a completed future
}
let request = ... // setup request
let promise = Promise<NSData>()
NSURLSession.sharedSession().dataTaskWithRequest(request) { data, response, error in
guard let error = error else {
promise.reject(error) // Client error
}
// The following assertions should be true, unless error != nil
assert(data != nil)
assert(response != nil)
// We expect HTTP protocol:
guard let response = response! as NSHTTPURLResponse else {
promise.reject(MySessionError.ProtocolError) // signal that we expected HTTP.
}
// Check status code:
guard myValidStatusCodeArray.contains(response.statusCode) else {
let message: String? = ... // convert the response data to a string, if any and if possible
promise.reject(MySessionError.InvalidStatusCode(statusCode: response.statusCode, message: message ?? ""))
}
// Check MIME type if given:
if let mimeType = response.MIMEType {
guard myValidMIMETypesArray.contains(mimeType) else {
promise.reject(MySessionError.MIMETypeNotAccepted(mimeType: mimeType))
}
} else {
// If we require a MIMEType - reject the promise.
}
// transform data to some other object if desired, can be done in a later, too.
promise.fulfill(data!)
}.resume()
return promise.future!
}
You might expect a JSON as response - if the request succeeds.
Now, you could use it as follows:
sendRequest(myObject).map { data in
return try NSJSONSerialization.dataWithJSONObject(data, options: [])
}
.map { object in
// the object returned from the step above, unless it failed.
// Now, "process" the object:
...
// You may throw an error if something goes wrong:
if failed {
throw MyError.Failed
}
}
.onFailure { error in
// We reach here IFF an error occurred in any of the
// previous tasks.
// error is of type ErrorType.
print("Error: \(error)")
}