I have an ObservedObject AppStatus class that has multiple Published classes inside itself. If I have only level in terms of children, everything is working great.
The problem comes when I have a class RecordingTimeManager that has another variable inside (2-levels of children). The variable maxRecordingTime is changing properly when I press the button, it prints '15 fifteenSeconds' but the foregroundColor is not triggering the change. I am not sure if this is a SwiftUI bug or I should structure the relationships in another way:
// AppStatus
// Recording
#Published var recordingTimeManager: RecordingTimeManager = RecordingTimeManager()
// RecordingTimeManager
class RecordingTimeManager {
#Published var maxRecordingTime: TimeSeletedTime = .sixteenSeconds
...
// SwiftUI component that would need to change the opacity based on a maxRecordingTime change (.foregroundColor is not changing)
Button {
appStatus.recordingTimeManager.maxRecordingTime = .fifteenSeconds
print("15 \(appStatus.recordingTimeManager.maxRecordingTime)")
} label: {
Text("15")
.font(Font.custom("BwGradual-Bold", size: 15))
.foregroundColor(appStatus.recordingTimeManager.maxRecordingTime == .fifteenSeconds ? CLAPSOFFWHITE : TRIBESGREY)
}
Many Thanks,
Observable objects don't just work when you have multiple levels of classes. The #Published property wrapper notifies the view when the property has changed, but because this property is a class - a reference type - it doesn't actually change when you change one of its properties. In other words, the reference remains the same.
And the inner #Published doesn't do anything because there's nothing directly observing it (even if RecordingTimeManager conformed to an ObservableObject)
So, you either need to make RecordingTimeManager a value-type - a struct:
struct RecordingTimeManager {
var maxRecordingTime: TimeSeletedTime = .sixteenSeconds
}
Or, if it must be a class (perhaps because it has some internal state and life cycle), then you could create an inner view that directly observes it.
First, it needs to be an ObservableObject:
class RecordingTimeManager: ObservableObject {
#Published var maxRecordingTime: TimeSeletedTime = .sixteenSeconds
and then create a view (could be a private internal view) that observes it:
struct MainView: View {
#StateObject var appStatus: AppStatus = .init()
private struct InnerView: View {
#ObservedObject var recordingManager: RecordingTimeManager
var body: some View {
Button {
recordingManager.maxRecordingTime = .fifteenSeconds
} label: {
Text("15")
.font(Font.custom("BwGradual-Bold", size: 15))
.foregroundColor(
recordingManager.maxRecordingTime == .fifteenSeconds
? CLAPSOFFWHITE : TRIBESGREY)
}
}
}
var body: some View {
InnerView(recordingManager: appStatus.recordingTimeManager)
}
}
Related
Update:
This question is already solved (see responses below). The correct way to do this is to get your Binding by projecting the
ObservableObject For example, $options.refreshRate.
TLDR version:
How do I get a SwiftUI Picker (or other API that relies on a local Binding) to immediately update my ObservedObject/EnvironmentObject. Here is more context...
The scenario:
Here is something I consistently need to do in every SwiftUI app I create...
I always make some class that stores any user preference (let's call this class Options and I make it an ObservableObject.
Any setting that needs to be consumed is marked with #Published
Any view that consumes this brings it in as a #ObservedObject or #EnvironmentObject and subscribes to changes.
This all works quite nicely. The trouble I always face is how to set this from the UI. From the UI, here is usually what I'm doing (and this should all sound quite normal):
I have some SwiftUI view like OptionsPanel that drives the Options class above and allows the user to choose their options.
Let's say we have some option defined by an enum:
enum RefreshRate {
case low, medium, high
}
Naturally, I'd choose a Picker in SwiftUI to set this... and the Picker API requires that my selection param be a Binding. This is where I find the issue...
The issue:
To make the Picker work, I usually have some local Binding that is used for this purpose. But, ultimately, I don't care about that local value. What I care about is immediately and instantaneously broadcasting that new value to the rest of the app. The moment I select a new refresh rate, I'd like immediately know that instant about the change. The ObservableObject (the Options class) object does this quite nicely. But, I'm just updating a local Binding. What I need to figure out is how to immediately translate the Picker's state to the ObservableObject every time it's changed.
I have a solution that works... but I don't like it. Here is my non-ideal solution:
The non-ideal solution:
The first part of the solution is quite actually fine, but runs into a snag...
Within my SwiftUI view, rather than do the simplest way to set a Binding with #State I can use an alternate initializer...
// Rather than this...
#ObservedObject var options: Options
#State var refreshRate: RefreshRate = .medium
// Do this...
#ObservedObject var options: Options
var refreshRate: Binding<RefreshRate>(
get: { self.options.refreshRate },
set: { self.options.refreshRate = $0 }
)
So far, this is great (in theory)! Now, my local Binding is directly linked to the ObservableObject. All changes to the Picker are immediately broadcast to the entire app.
But this doesn't actually work. And this is where I have to do something very messy and non-ideal to get it to work.
The code above produces the following error:
Cannot use instance member 'options' within property initializer; property initializers run before 'self' is available
Here my my (bad) workaround. It works, but it's awful...
The Options class provides a shared instance as a static property. So, in my options panel view, I do this:
#ObservedObject var options: Options = .shared // <-- This is still needed to tell SwiftUI to listen for updates
var refreshRate: Binding<RefreshRate>(
get: { Options.shared.refreshRate },
set: { Options.shared.refreshRate = $0 }
)
In practice, this actually kinda works in this case. I don't really need to have multiple instances... just that one. So, as long as I always reference that shared instance, everything works. But it doesn't feel well architected.
So... does anyone have a better solution? This seems like a scenario EVERY app on the face of the planet has to tackle, so it seems like someone must have a better way.
(I am aware some use an .onDisapear to sync local state to the ObservedObject but this isn't ideal either. This is non-ideal because I value having immediate updates for the rest of the app.)
The good news is you're trying way, way, way too hard.
The ObservedObject property wrapper can create this Binding for you. All you need to say is $options.refreshRate.
Here's a test playground for you to try out:
import SwiftUI
enum RefreshRate {
case low, medium, high
}
class Options: ObservableObject {
#Published var refreshRate = RefreshRate.medium
}
struct RefreshRateEditor: View {
#ObservedObject var options: Options
var body: some View {
// vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Picker("Refresh Rate", selection: $options.refreshRate) {
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Text("Low").tag(RefreshRate.low)
Text("Medium").tag(RefreshRate.medium)
Text("High").tag(RefreshRate.high)
}
.pickerStyle(.segmented)
}
}
struct ContentView: View {
#StateObject var options = Options()
var body: some View {
VStack {
RefreshRateEditor(options: options)
Text("Refresh rate: \(options.refreshRate)" as String)
}
.padding()
}
}
import PlaygroundSupport
PlaygroundPage.current.setLiveView(ContentView())
It's also worth noting that if you want to create a custom Binding, the code you wrote almost works. Just change it to be a computed property instead of a stored property:
var refreshRate: Binding<RefreshRate> {
.init(
get: { self.options.refreshRate },
set: { self.options.refreshRate = $0 }
)
}
If I understand your question correctly, you want
to Set a Published value in an ObservableObject from the UI (Picker, etc.) in SwiftUI.
There are many ways to do that, I suggest you use a ObservableObject class, and use it directly wherever you need a binding in a view, such as in a Picker.
The following example code shows one way of setting up your code to do that:
import Foundation
import SwiftUI
// declare your ObservableObject class
class Options: ObservableObject {
#Published var name = "Mickey"
}
struct ContentView: View {
#StateObject var optionModel = Options() // <-- initialise the model
let selectionSet = ["Mickey", "Mouse", "Goofy", "Donald"]
#State var showSheet = false
var body: some View {
VStack {
Text(optionModel.name).foregroundColor(.red)
Picker("names", selection: $optionModel.name) { // <-- use the model directly as a $binding
ForEach (selectionSet, id: \.self) { value in
Text(value).tag(value)
}
}
Button("Show other view") { showSheet = true }
}
.sheet(isPresented: $showSheet) {
SheetView(optionModel: optionModel) // <-- pass the model to other view, see also #EnvironmentObject
}
}
}
struct SheetView: View {
#ObservedObject var optionModel: Options // <-- receive the model
var body: some View {
VStack {
Text(optionModel.name).foregroundColor(.green) // <-- show updated value
}
}
}
If you really want to have a "useless" intermediate local variable, then use this approach:
struct ContentView: View {
#StateObject var optionModel = Options() // <-- initialise the model
let selectionSet = ["Mickey", "Mouse", "Goofy", "Donald"]
#State var showSheet = false
#State var localVar = "" // <-- the local var
var body: some View {
VStack {
Text(optionModel.name).foregroundColor(.red)
Picker("names", selection: $localVar) { // <-- using the localVar
ForEach (selectionSet, id: \.self) { value in
Text(value).tag(value)
}
}
.onChange(of: localVar) { newValue in
optionModel.name = newValue // <-- update the model
}
Button("Show other view") { showSheet = true }
}
.sheet(isPresented: $showSheet) {
SheetView(optionModel: optionModel) // <-- pass the model to other view, see also #EnvironmentObject
}
}
}
I would like help to further understand the implications of using the following 2 methods for driving data between multiple views.
My situation:
A parent view initialises multiple child views with data passed in.
This data is a big object.
Each view takes a different slice of the data.
Each view can manipulate the initial data (filtering, ordering etc)
Using an observableObeject to store this data and multiple published properties for each view :
can be passed in as an environment object that can be accessed by any view using #EnvironmentObject.
You can create a Binding to the published properties and change them.
Execute a method on the ObservableObject class and manipulate a property value which gets published using objectWillChange.send() inside the method.
I have achieved the desired listed above by using a struct with mutating methods. Once these properties are changed in the struct, the views which bind to these properties causes a re-render.
My struct does not do any async work. It sets initial values. Its properties are modified upon user action like clicking filter buttons.
Example
struct MyStruct {
var prop1 = "hello"
var prop2: [String] = []
init(prop2: [String]) {
self.prop2 = prop2
}
mutating func changeProp2(multiplier: Int) {
let computation = ...
prop2 = computation //<----- This mutates prop2 and so my view Binded to this value gets re-renderd.
}
}
struct ParentView: View {
var initValue: [String] // <- passed in from ContentView
#State private var myStruct: MyStruct
init(initValue: [String]) {
self.myStruct = MyStruct(prop2: initValue)
}
var body: some View {
VStack {
SiblingOne(myStruct: $myStruct)
SiblingTwo(myStruct: $myStruct)
}
}
}
struct SiblingOne: View {
#Binding var myStruct: MyStruct
var body: some View {
HStack{
Button {
myStruct.changeProp2(multiplier: 10)
} label: {
Text("Mutate Prop 2")
}
}
}
}
struct SiblingTwo: View {
#Binding var myStruct: MyStruct
var body: some View {
ForEach(Array(myStruct.prop2.enumerated()), id: \.offset) { idx, val in
Text(val)
}
}
}
Question:
What use cases are there for using an ObservableObject than using a struct that mutates its own properties?
There are overlap use cases however I wish to understand the differences where:
Some situation A favours ObservableObject
Some situation B favours struct mutating properties
Before I begin, when you say "these properties causes a re-render" nothing is actually re-rendered all that happens is all the body that depend on lets and #State vars that have changed are invoked and SwiftUI builds a tree of these values. This is super fast because its just creating values on the memory stack. It diffs this value tree with the previous and the differences are used to create/update/remove UIView objects on screen. The actual rendering is another level below that. So we refer to this as invalidation rather than render. It's good practice to "tighten" the invalidation for better performance, i.e. only declare lets/vars in that View that are actually used in the body to make it shorter. That being said no one has ever compared the performance between one large body and many small ones so the real gains are an unknown at the moment. Since these trees of values are created and thrown away it is important to only init value types and not any objects, e.g. don't init any NSNumberFormatter or NSPredicate objects as a View struct's let because they are instantly lost which is essentially a memory leak! Objects need to be in property wrappers so they are only init once.
In both of your example situations its best to prefer value types, i.e. structs to hold the data. If there is just simple mutating logic then use #State var struct with mutating funcs and pass it into subviews as a let if you need read access or #Binding var struct if you need write access.
If you need to persist or sync the data then that is when you would benefit from a reference type, i.e. an ObservableObject. Since objects are created on the memory heap these are more expensive to create so we should limit their use. If you would like the object's life cycle to be tied to something on screen then use #StateObject. We typically used one of these to download data but that is no longer needed now that we have .task which has the added benefit it will cancel the download automatically when the view dissapears, which no one remembered to do with #StateObject. However, if it is the model data that will never be deinit, e.g. the model structs will be loaded from disk and saved (asynchronously), then it's best to use a singleton object, and pass it in to the View hierarchy as an environment object, e.g. .environmentObject(Store.shared), then for previews you can use a model that is init with sample data rather that loaded from disk, e.g. .environmentObject(Store.preview). The advantage here is that the object can be passed into Views deep in the hierarchy without passing them all down as let object (not #ObservedObject because we wouldn't want body invovked on these intermediary Views that don't use the object).
The other important thing is your item struct should usually conform to Identifiable so you can use it in a ForEach View. I noticed in your code you used ForEach like a for loop on array indices, that's a mistake and will cause a crash. It's a View that you need to supply with Indentifiable data so it can track changes, i.e. moves, insertions, deletions. That is simply not possible with array indices, because if the item moves from 0 to 1 it still appears as 0.
Here are some examples of all that:
struct UserItem: Identifiable {
var username: String
var id: String {
username
}
}
class Store: ObservableObject {
static var shared = Store()
static var preview = Store(preview: true)
#Published var users: [UserItem] = []
init(preview: Bool = false) {
if (preview) {
users = loadSampleUsers()
}
else {
users = loadUsersFromDisk()
}
}
#main
struct TestApp: App {
var body: some Scene {
WindowGroup {
ContentView()
.environmentObject(Store.shared)
}
}
}
struct ContentView: View {
var body: some View {
NavigationView {
List {
ForEach($store.users) { $user in
UserView(user: $user)
}
}
}
}
}
struct ContentView_Previews: PreviewProvider {
static var previews: some View {
ContentView().environmentObject(Store.preview)
}
}
struct UserView: View {
#Binding var user: UserItem
var body: some View {
TextField("Username", text: $user.username)
}
}
Have the following situation. I have a view model that is an observable object with a computed property of type Bool. I want to be able to enable/disable a navigation link based on the computed property, but I need a binding to do so. Here a simplified example:
struct Project {
var name: String
var duration: Int
}
class MyViewModel: Observable Object {
#Published var project: Project
var isProjectValid: Bool {
return project.name != "" && project.duration > 0
}
}
struct MyView: View {
#EnvironmentObject var myVM: MyViewModel
var body: some View {
...
NavigationLink("Click Link", isActive: ?????, destination: NextView())
...
}
}
Since isActive expects a binding I am not able to access computed property such as myVM.isProjectValid. Tried also with the computed property in project class, still same problem.
Also considered creating custom binding related to the computed property, but not quite sure if/how to go about it.
First question I have posted, so if I am missing some details please be kind :)
Make it a #Published property and update it when project is changed
class MyViewModel: ObservableObject {
#Published var project: Project {
didSet {
isProjectValid = project.name != "" && project.duration > 0
}
}
#Published var isProjectValid: Bool
//...
}
The use of the computed property suggests some type of design where the user is not supposed to trigger the NavigationLink directly. But instead the NavigationLink is expected to be triggered programatically as a side-effect of some other mechanism elsewhere in the code. Such as might be done at the completion of a form or similar process by the user.
Not 100% if this is what's being aimed for, but if it is, then one option would be to pass a constant Binding to the NavigationLink, e.g.
NavigationLink("Click Link", isActive: .constant(myVM.isProjectValid), destination: NextView())`
I have an ObservableObject declared on my main view (ContentView.swift).
final class DataModel: ObservableObject {
#AppStorage("stuff") public var notes: [NoteItem] = []
}
Then I declare it in the main entry of the app as (removed extra code not needed for this example):
#main struct The_NoteApp: App {
private let dataModel = DataModel()
var body: some Scene {
WindowGroup {
ContentView()
.environmentObject(self.dataModel)
}
}
In the ContentView.swift, I can use it on the different views I declared there:
struct NoteView: View {
#EnvironmentObject private var data: DataModel
// more code follows...
}
Now, I have a collection of global functions saved on FileFunctions.swift, which essentially are functions that interact with files on disk. One of them is to load those files and their content into my app.
Now, I'm trying to use #EnvironmentObject private var data: DataModel in those functions so at loading time, I can populate the data model with the actual data from the files. And when I declare that either as a global declaration in FileFunctions.swift or inside each function separately, I get two behaviors.
With the first one I get an error:
Global 'var' declaration requires an initializer expression or an explicitly stated getter`,
and
Property wrappers are not yet supported in top-level code
I tried to initialize it in any way, but it goes nowhere. With the second one, adding them to each function, Xcode craps on me with a segfault. Even if I remove the private and try to declare it in different ways, I get nowhere.
I tried the solution in Access environment variable inside global function - SwiftUI + CoreData, but the more I move things around the worse it gets.
So, how would I access this ObservableObject, and how would I be able to modify it within global functions?
Below is an example of a global function and how it's being called.
In FileFunctions.swift I have:
func loadFiles() {
var text: String = ""
var title: String = ""
var date: Date
do {
let directoryURL = try resolveURL(for: "savedDirectory")
if directoryURL.startAccessingSecurityScopedResource() {
let contents = try FileManager.default.contentsOfDirectory(at: directoryURL,
includingPropertiesForKeys: nil,
options: [.skipsHiddenFiles])
for file in contents {
text = readFile(filename: file.path)
date = getModifiedDate(filename: file.absoluteURL)
title = text.components(separatedBy: NSCharacterSet.newlines).first!
// I need to save this info to the DataModel here
}
directoryURL.stopAccessingSecurityScopedResource()
} else {
Alert(title: Text("Couldn't load notes"),
message: Text("Make sure the directory where the notes are stored is accessible."),
dismissButton: .default(Text("OK")))
}
} catch let error as ResolveError {
print("Resolve error:", error)
return
} catch {
print(error)
return
}
}
And I call this function from here:
#main struct The_NoteApp: App {
private let dataModel = DataModel()
var body: some Scene {
WindowGroup {
ContentView()
.environmentObject(self.dataModel)
.onAppear {
loadFiles()
}
}
}
You could change the signature of the global functions to allow receiving the model:
func loadFiles(dataModel: DataModel) { ... }
This way, you have access to the model instance within the function, what's left to do is to pass it at the call site:
var body: some Scene {
WindowGroup {
ContentView()
.environmentObject(self.dataModel)
.onAppear {
loadFiles(dataModel: self.dataModel)
}
You can do the same if the global functions calls originate from the views.
I would do something like this :
final class DataModel: ObservableObject {
public static let shared = DataModel()
#AppStorage("stuff") public var notes: [NoteItem] = []
}
#main struct The_NoteApp: App {
private let dataModel = DataModel.shared
var body: some Scene {
WindowGroup {
ContentView()
.environmentObject(self.dataModel)
}
}
now in your viewModel you can access it like this
class AnyClass {
init (){
print(DataModel.shared.notes)
}
// or
func printNotes(){
print(DataModel.shared.notes)
}
}
As discussed in the comments, here a basic approach which makes some changes to the structure by defining dedicated "components" which have a certain role and which are decoupled as far as necessary.
I usually define a namespace for a "feature" where I put every "component" which is related to it. This offers a couple of advantages which you might recognise soon later:
enum FilesInfo {}
Using a "DataModel" or a "ViewModel" to separate your "Data" from the View
makes sense. A ViewModel - as opposed to DataModel - just obeys the rules from the MVVM pattern. A ViewModel should expose a "binding". I call this "ViewState", which completely describes what the view should render:
extension FilesInfo {
enum ViewState {
struct FileInfo {
var date: Date
var title: String
}
case undefined
case idle([FileInfo])
init() { self = .undefined } // note that!
}
}
Why ViewState is an enum?
Because you might want to represent also a loading state when your load function is asynchronous (almost always the case!) and an error state later. As you can see, you start with a state that's "undefined". You can name it also "zero" or "start", or however you like. It just means: "no data loaded yet".
A view model basically looks like this:
extension FilesInfo {
final class ViewModel: ObservableObject {
#Published private(set) var viewState: ViewState = .init()
...
}
}
Note, that there is a default initialiser for ViewState.
It also may have public functions where you can send "events" to it, which may originate in the view, or elsewhere:
extension FilesInfo.ViewModel {
// gets the view model started.
func load() -> Void {
...
}
// func someAction(with parameter: Param) -> Void
}
Here, the View Model implements load() - possibly in a similar fashion you implemented your loadFiles.
Almost always, a ViewModel operates (like an Actor) on an internal "State", which is not always the same as the ViewState. But your ViewState is a function of the State:
extension FilesInfo.ViewModel {
private struct State {
...
}
private func view(_ state: State) -> ViewState {
//should be a pure function (only depend on state variable)
// Here, you likely just transform the FilesInfo to
// something which is more appropriate to get rendered.
// You call this function whenever the internal state
// changes, and assign the result to the published
// property.
}
}
Now you can define your FileInfosView:
extension FilesInfo {
struct ContentView: View {
let state: ViewState
let action: () -> Void // an "event" function
let requireData: () -> Void // a "require data" event
var body: some View {
...
.onAppear {
if case .undefined = state {
requireData()
}
}
}
}
}
When you look more closely on the ContentView, it has no knowledge from a ViewModel, neither from loadFiles. It only knows about the "ViewState" and it just renders this. It also has no knowledge when the view model is ready, or provides data. But it knows when it should render data but has none and then calls requireData().
Note, it does not take a ViewModel as parameter. Those kind of setups are better done in some dedicated parent view:
extension FilesInfo {
struct CoordinatorView: View {
#ObservedObject viewModel: ViewModel
var body: some View {
ContentView(
state: viewModel.viewState,
action: {},
requireData: viewModel.load
)
}
}
}
Your "coordinator view" deals with separating ViewModel from your specific content view. This is not strictly necessary, but it increases decoupling and you can reuse your ContentView elsewhere with a different ViewModel.
Your CoordinatorView may also be responsible for creating the ViewModel and creating target views for navigation. This depends on what convention you establish.
IMHO, it may make sense, to restrict the access to environment variables to views with a certain role, because this creates a dependency from the view to the environment. We should avoid such coupling.
Also, I would consider mutating environment variables from within Views a "smell". Environment variables should be kind of a configuration which you setup in a certain place in your app (also called "CompositionRoot"). You may end up with an uncontrollable net of variables if you allow that everyone can change any environment variable at any time. When you have "ViewModels" in your environment, these of course get not "mutated" when they change their state - these are classes - for a reason.
Basically, that's it for a very basic but functional MVVM pattern.
I have a class, a “clock face” with regular updates; it should display an array of metrics that change over time.
Because I’d like the clock to also be displayed in a widget, I’ve found that I had to put the class into a framework (perhaps there’s another way, but I’m too far down the road now). This appears to have caused a problem with SwiftUI and observable objects.
In my View I have:
#ObservedObject var clockFace: myClock
In the clock face I have:
class myClock: ObservableObject, Identifiable {
var id: Int
#Publish public var metric:[metricObject] = []
....
// at some point the array is mutated and the display updates
}
I don’t know if Identifiable is needed but it’s doesn’t make any difference to the outcome. The public is demanded by the compiler, but it’s always been like that anyway.
With these lines I get a runtime error as the app starts:
objc[31175] no class for metaclass
So I took off the #Published and changed to a manual update:
public var metric:[metricObject] = [] {
didSet {
self.objectWillChange.send()`
}
}
And now I get a display and by setting a breakpoint I can see the send() is being called at regular intervals. But the display won’t update unless I add/remove from the array. I’m guessing the computed variables (which make up the bulk of the metricObject change isn’t being seen by SwiftUI. I’ve subsequently tried adding a “dummy” Int to the myClock class and setting that to a random value to trying to trigger a manual refresh via a send() on it’s didSet with no luck.
So how can I force a periodic redraw of the display?
What is MetricObject and can you make it a struct so you get Equatable for free?
When I do this with an Int it works:
class PeriodicUpdater: ObservableObject {
#Published var time = 0
var subscriptions = Set<AnyCancellable>()
init() {
Timer
.publish(every: 1, on: .main, in: .default)
.autoconnect()
.sink(receiveValue: { _ in
self.time = self.time + 1
})
.store(in: &subscriptions)
}
}
struct ContentView: View {
#ObservedObject var updater = PeriodicUpdater()
var body: some View {
Text("\(self.updater.time)")
}
}
So it's taken a while but I've finally got it working. The problem seemed to be two-fold.
I had a class defined in my framework which controls the SwiftUI file. This class is sub-classed in both the main app and the widget.
Firstly I couldn't use #Published in the main class within the framework. That seemed to cause the error:
objc[31175] no class for metaclass
So I used #JoshHomman's idea of an iVar that's periodically updated but that didn't quite work for me. With my SwiftUI file, I had:
struct FRMWRKShape: Shape {
func drawShape(in rect: CGRect) -> Path {
// draw and return a shape
}
}
struct ContentView: View {
#ObservedObject var updater = PeriodicUpdater()
var body: some View {
FRMWRKShape()
//....
FRMWRKShape() //slightly different parameters are passed in
}
}
The ContentView was executed every second as I wanted, however the FRMWRKShape code was called but not executed(?!) - except on first starting up - so the view doesn't update. When I changed to something far less D.R.Y. such as:
struct ContentView: View {
#ObservedObject var updater = PeriodicUpdater()
var body: some View {
Path { path in
// same code as was in FRMWRKShape()
}
//....
Path { path in
// same code as was in FRMWRKShape()
// but slightly different parameters
}
}
}
Magically, the View was updated as I wanted it to be. I don't know if this is expected behaviour, perhaps someone can say whether I should file a Radar....