How to recursively iterate over Swift Syntax with SwiftSyntax library? - swift

I would like to iterate in my code over the Swift AST like this, finding the struct keyword.
private func recursion(node: Syntax) -> String {
for child in node.children {
if let tokenKind = (child as? TokenSyntax)?.tokenKind, tokenKind == .structKeyword {
// if type(of: child) == StructDeclSyntax.self {
print ("yeah")
}
recursion(node: child)
}
}
let input = """
public struct cmd_deleteEdge<E: VEdge> : EdgeCommand {
public var keyEquivalent = KeyEquivalent.none
public let title = "Delete Edge"
public let id = "deleteEdge"
public let toolTip = "Delete selected Edge"
public let icon = Icon.delete
//receivers
public let edge: E
public init(edge: E) {
self.edge = edge
}
public func execute() throws -> ActionResult {
edge.deleteYourself()
return .success("deleted edge")
}
}
"""
public func convert(structText: String) throws -> String {
let sourceFile = try SyntaxParser.parse(source: structText)
let result = recursion(node: Syntax(sourceFile))
return result
}
try convert(structText: input)
It just simply doesn't work, I never reach the "Yeah" (which means I cannot do anything useful during the recursion).
I find this library very confusing. Would anyone have a good UML diagram explaining how it really works?
Before you tell me, yes I know I could use a Visitor, but I want to understand how it works by myself.

You can use SyntaxProtocol for iterating all items in AST and then use its _syntaxNode public property to make a target syntax, e.g.:
import SwiftSyntax
import SwiftSyntaxParser
func recursion(node: SyntaxProtocol) {
if let decl = StructDeclSyntax(node._syntaxNode) {
print(decl.identifier)
}
node.children.forEach { recursion(node: $0) }
}
let code = """
struct A {}
class Some {
struct B {}
}
func foo() {
struct C {}
}
"""
let sourceFile = try SyntaxParser.parse(source: code)
recursion(node: sourceFile)
Outputs:
A
B
C
NOTE: It is not recommended to retrieve _syntaxNode property directly and you can use Syntax(fromProtocol: node) instead.
SyntaxVisitor
But the best approach is using Visitor pattern with SyntaxVisitor class to avoid recursion issues for large and complex files:
class Visitor: SyntaxVisitor {
var structs = [StructDeclSyntax]()
init(source: String) throws {
super.init()
let sourceFile = try SyntaxParser.parse(source: source)
walk(sourceFile)
}
// MARK: - SyntaxVisitor
override func visit(_ node: StructDeclSyntax) -> SyntaxVisitorContinueKind {
structs.append(node)
return .skipChildren
}
}
let visitor = try Visitor(source: code)
visitor.structs.forEach {
print($0.identifier)
}

I found it after trial & error and reviewing of the API.
private func recursion(node: Syntax) -> String {
for child in node.children {
if let token = TokenSyntax(child), token.tokenKind == .structKeyword {
print ("yeah")
}
recursion(node: child)
}
return node.description
}
This approach to identify the kind of the token works, and the print statement will be reached. Again, I do wonder how the class diagram for SwiftSyntax would look like.

Related

RxMVVM using Inputs / Outputs and issues with complex mapping

Given the design pattern as described by this post, here is an example view model:
final class SayHelloViewModel: ViewModelType {
let input: Input
let output: Output
struct Input {
let name: AnyObserver<String>
let validate: AnyObserver<Void>
}
struct Output {
let greeting: Driver<String>
}
private let nameSubject = ReplaySubject<String>.create(bufferSize: 1)
private let validateSubject = PublishSubject<Void>()
init() {
let greeting = validateSubject
.withLatestFrom(nameSubject)
.map { name in
return "Hello \(name)!"
}
.asDriver(onErrorJustReturn: ":-(")
self.output = Output(greeting: greeting)
self.input = Input(name: nameSubject.asObserver(), validate: validateSubject.asObserver())
}
}
The above seems like a perfectly good design pattern. My only issue is, what happens when your mapping function from nameSubject -> greeting is more complex than what is shown here and instead needs to be abstracted into it's own function?
In the below scenario, i've abstracted the mapping functionality into its own function called sayHello. Of course, the issue now is that we're referencing self before self is initialised. How is it possible to maintain this design pattern across non-trivial examples?
final class SayHelloViewModel {
let input: Input
let output: Output
struct Input {
let name: AnyObserver<String>
let validate: AnyObserver<Void>
}
struct Output {
let greeting: Driver<String>
}
private let nameSubject = ReplaySubject<String>.create(bufferSize: 1)
private let validateSubject = PublishSubject<Void>()
init() {
let greeting = validateSubject
.withLatestFrom(nameSubject)
.map(sayHello)
.asDriver(onErrorJustReturn: ":-(")
self.output = Output(greeting: greeting)
self.input = Input(name: nameSubject.asObserver(), validate: validateSubject.asObserver())
}
private func sayHello(name: String) -> String {
return "Hello \(name)!"
}
}
Just make your mapping function a private free function instead of a class member. It only needs to be a member itself if it needs access to members, which in this pattern is highly unlikely.
Edit: Also you could clean this up a lot by avoiding subjects and operate on the inputs/outputs directly like so:
final struct SayHelloViewModel {
struct Input {
let name: Observable<String>
let validate: Observable<Void>
}
// An output
let greeting: Driver<String>
init(inputs: Input) {
let greeting = input.validate
.withLatestFrom(input.name)
.map(sayHello)
.asDriver(onErrorJustReturn: ":-(")
}
}
private func sayHello(name: String) -> String {
return "Hello \(name)!"
}
You could take it even further and not use a struct/class at all and make it purely a function that returns a tuple/struct of outputs.

Can you simultaneously define and instantiate implicit types in Swift?

Just messing around with the language thinking of how I want to structure some UserDefaults that automatically generate keys based on the hierarchy. That got me wondering... Is it possible to simultaneously define, and instantiate a type, like this?
let myUserSettings = {
let formatting = {
var lastUsedFormat:String
}
}
let lastUsedFormat = myUserSettings.formatting.lastUsedFormat
Note: I can't use statics because I specifically need instancing so nested structs/classes with static members will not work for my case.
Here's the closest thing I could come up with, but I hate that I have to create initializers to set the members. I'm hoping for something a little less verbose.
class DefaultsScope {
init(_ userDefaults:UserDefaults){
self.userDefaults = userDefaults
}
let userDefaults:UserDefaults
func keyForSelf(property:String = #function) -> String {
return "\(String(reflecting: self)).\(property)"
}
}
let sharedDefaults = SharedDefaults(UserDefaults(suiteName: "A")!)
class SharedDefaults : DefaultsScope {
override init(_ userDefaults:UserDefaults){
formatting = Formatting(userDefaults)
misc = Misc(userDefaults)
super.init(userDefaults)
}
let formatting:Formatting
class Formatting:DefaultsScope {
let maxLastUsedFormats = 5
fileprivate(set) var lastUsedFormats:[String]{
get { return userDefaults.stringArray(forKey:keyForSelf()) ?? [] }
set { userDefaults.set(newValue, forKey:keyForSelf()) }
}
func appendFormat(_ format:String) -> [String] {
var updatedListOfFormats = Array<String>(lastUsedFormats.suffix(maxLastUsedFormats - 1))
updatedListOfFormats.append(format)
lastUsedFormats = updatedListOfFormats
return updatedListOfFormats
}
}
let misc:Misc
class Misc:DefaultsScope {
var someBool:Bool{
get { return userDefaults.bool(forKey:keyForSelf()) }
set { userDefaults.set(newValue, forKey:keyForSelf()) }
}
}
}
So is there a simpler way?
Disclaimer: this is, probably, just an abstract solution that should not be used in real life :)
enum x {
enum y {
static func success() {
print("Success")
}
}
}
x.y.success()
Update: Sorry, folks, I can't stop experimenting. This one looks pretty awful :)
let x2= [
"y2": [
"success": {
print("Success")
}
]
]
x2["y2"]?["success"]?()
Update 2: One more try, this time with tuples. And since tuples must have at least two values, I had to add some dummies in there. Also, tuples cannot have mutating functions.
let x3 = (
y3: (
success: {
print("Success")
},
failure: {
print("Failure")
}
),
z3: 0
)
x3.y3.success()
How about you try nesting some swift structs?
struct x {
struct y {
static func success() {
print("success")
}
}
}
x.y.success()
You cannot have that kind of structure but you cant access y from inside x, since y is only visible inside the scope of x and so is success inside the scope of y. There is no way that you can access them from outside
One other alternative is to have higher order function like so, which return closure which is callable.
let x = {
{
{
print("Success")
}
}
}
let y = x()
let success = y()
success()
or
x()()()
The real world usage of higher order function for userdefaults could be something like this,
typealias StringType = (String) -> ((String) -> Void)
typealias IntType = (String) -> ((Int) -> Void)
typealias BoolType = (String) -> ((Bool) -> Void)
typealias StringValue = (String) -> String?
typealias IntValue = (String) -> Int?
typealias BoolValue = (String) -> Bool?
func userDefaults<T>(_ defaults: UserDefaults) -> (String) -> ((T) -> Void) {
return { key in
return { value in
defaults.setValue(value, forKey: key)
}
}
}
func getDefaultsValue<T>(_ defaults: UserDefaults) -> (String) -> T? {
return { key in
return defaults.value(forKey: key) as? T
}
}
let setStringDefaults: StringType = userDefaults(.standard)
setStringDefaults("Name")("Jack Jones")
setStringDefaults("Address")("Australia")
let setIntDefaults: IntType = userDefaults(.standard)
setIntDefaults("Age")(35)
setIntDefaults("Salary")(2000)
let setBoolDefaults: BoolType = userDefaults(.standard)
setBoolDefaults("Married")(false)
setBoolDefaults("Employed")(true)
let getStringValue: StringValue = getDefaultsValue(.standard)
let name = getStringValue("Name")
let address = getStringValue("Address")
let getIntValue: IntValue = getDefaultsValue(.standard)
let age = getIntValue("Age")
let salary = getIntValue("Salary")
let getBoolValue: BoolValue = getDefaultsValue(.standard)
let married = getBoolValue("Married")
let employed = getBoolValue("Employed")
I am not sure if you like the pattern, but it has some good use cases as you can see from below, setStringDefaults you can set strings value to string key and all of them are typesafe.
You can extend this for your use case. But, you could use struct as well and use imperative code, which could be easier to understand. I see beauty in this as well.
Ok, I think I've figured it out. This first class can go in some common library that you use for all your apps.
class SettingsScopeBase {
private init(){}
static func getKey(setting:String = #function) -> String {
return "\(String(reflecting:self)).\(setting)"
}
}
The next part is a pair of classes:
The 'Scoping' class where you define which user defaults instance to use (along with anything else you may want to specify for this particular settings instance)
The actual hierarchy that defines your settings
Here's the first. I'm setting this up for my shared settings between my application and it's extension:
class SharedSettingsScope : SettingsScopeBase{
static let defaults = UserDefaults(suiteName: "group.com.myco.myappgroup")!
}
And finally, here's how you 'set up' your hierarchy as well as how you implement the properties' bodies.
class SharedSettings:SharedSettingsScope{
class Formatting:SharedSettingsScope{
static var groupsOnWhitespaceOnlyLines:Bool{
get { return defaults.bool(forKey: getKey()) }
set { defaults.set(newValue, forKey: getKey()) }
}
}
}
And here's how you use them...
let x = SharedSettings.Formatting.groupsOnWhitespaceOnlyLines
// x = false
SharedSettings.Formatting.groupsOnWhitespaceOnlyLines = true
let y = SharedSettings.Formatting.groupsOnWhitespaceOnlyLines
// y = true
I'm going to see if I can refine/optimize it a little more, but this is pretty close to where I want to be. No hard-coded strings, keys defined by the hierarchy where they're used, and only setting the specific UserDefaults instance in one place.

Generic class call function

I am trying to create a wrapper for my API return wrapper class for my project.
these are my classes
class Wrapper<T> {
let message = "Hello World"
let wrapped = T.self
public func getData() -> T.Type {
return wrapped
}
}
class Object {
let number = 100
public func getNumber() -> Int {
return number
}
}
class SecondObject {
let name = "Second Object"
public func getName() -> String {
return name
}
}
What I want to achieve is, is there any way I can call the Object function like this
let example = Wrapper<Object>()
example.getData().getNumber() // <<-- This is not working
let secondExample = Wrapper<SecondObject>()
secondExample.getData().getName() // <<-- This is not working
The error in my playground is this
error: instance member 'getNumber' cannot be used on type 'Object'
If you notice the Wrapper class, there is message property which will be used for all my API return object model
So my goal is, I could simply call the Wrapper class together with my object model class and just call the function that is inside the object model class.
I am still learning about generic in swift. What am I missing here?
You don't set wrapped to anything useful. You ned to set it to an instance of T. So you can pass a Tinto the constructor
class Wrapper<T>
{
let wrapped: T
init(wrapped: T)
{
self.wrapped = wrapped
}
}
Or you can have the class construct an instance of T, but if you want to do that, you need to tell it how to construct the instance. For example:
class Wrapper<T>
{
let wrapped: T
init()
{
self.wrapped = T() // << error!
}
}
won't work because the compiler knows nothing about T, not even if it has an init. You can change that with a protocol
protocol Initable
{
init()
}
class Wrapper<T: Initable>
{
let wrapped: T
init()
{
self.wrapped = T()
}
}
And you can apply the protocol to any type you like with an extension. In most cases the extension can be empty because mot types already have an init() method. For example:
class MyClass
{
init() { /* do stuff */ }
}
extension MyClass: Initable {}
class MyOtherClass
{
init(number: Int) { /* do stuff */ }
}
extension MyOtherClass: Initable
{
init() { self.init(number: 0) }
}
Another option is to supply a closure to the wrapper's init.
class Wrapper<T>
{
let wrapped: T
init(factory: ()-> T)
{
self.wrapped = factory()
}
}
let w = Wrapper() { return Array<Int>() }
Normally you'd only do this if you wanted to create multiple instances i.e. you'd keep a reference to the closure and call it each time you needed a new instance.
class Wrapper<T> {
private var wrapped: T // Storing your object of T type
init(value: T) { // init with instance of T
wrapped = value
}
public func getData() -> T { //returning instance of T
return wrapped
}
}
class Object {
let number = 100
public func getNumber() -> Int {
return number
}
}
let o = Object()
let example = Wrapper(value: o) // Here we creating instance of Wrapper with instance of Object
example.getData().getNumber()
How about this , in your example changing the type of wrapped from non-optional to an optional variable type.
class Wrapper {
let message = "Hello World"
var wrapped : T?
public func getData() -> T? {
return wrapped
}
}
class Object {
let number = 100
public func getNumber() -> Int {
return number
}
}
class SecondObject {
let name = "Second Object"
public func getName() -> String {
return name
}
}
and then using it as below
let example = Wrapper()
example.wrapped = Object()
let result1 = example.getData()?.getNumber() // ()
secondExample.wrapped = SecondObject()
let result2 = secondExample.getData()?.getName()
if let val1 = result1 , let val2 = result2 {
print("result1 = \(val1) result2 = \(val2)" )
}

Implementing recursive generator for simple tree structure in Swift

I have a simple tree structure in memory based on an XML document and I am trying to write a recursive generator to support SequenceType, but I am stuck on how to actually do this.
Here was my first attempt:
#objc public class XMLNode: NSObject, SequenceType {
public weak var parentNode: XMLNode?
public var nodeName: String
public var attributes: [String: String]
public var childNodes = [XMLNode]()
public func generate() -> AnyGenerator<XMLNode> {
var childGenerator = childNodes.generate()
var returnedSelf = false
return anyGenerator {
let child = childGenerator.next()
if child != nil {
// I need to somehow recurse on child here
return child
} else if !returnedSelf {
returnedSelf = true
return self
} else {
return nil
}
}
}
}
Since childNodes is an array, I'm calling its own built-in generate() function to create a generator on the child nodes and iterating it, and then returning self at the end. The problem is it's not recursing on each child, so it only ever goes one level deep. I can't figure out how to combine two generators in that way.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how to do this! What do I need to do to make a recursive generator?
I don't know if a generator itself can be recursive.
Will M proved me wrong!
Here is a possible implementation for a pre-order traversal, using a stack for the child nodes which still have to be enumerated:
extension XMLNode : SequenceType {
public func generate() -> AnyGenerator<XMLNode> {
var stack : [XMLNode] = [self]
return anyGenerator {
if let next = stack.first {
stack.removeAtIndex(0)
stack.insertContentsOf(next.childNodes, at: 0)
return next
}
return nil
}
}
}
For a level-order traversal, replace
stack.insertContentsOf(next.childNodes, at: 0)
by
stack.appendContentsOf(next.childNodes)
Here is a recursive post-order generator. Can't say I'd recommend actually using it though.
#MartinR's answer seems a bit more practical
public func generate() -> AnyGenerator<XMLNode> {
var childGenerator:AnyGenerator<XMLNode>?
var childArrayGenerator:IndexingGenerator<[XMLNode]>? = self.childNodes.generate()
var returnedSelf = false
return anyGenerator {
if let next = childGenerator?.next() {
return next
}
if let child = childArrayGenerator?.next() {
childGenerator = child.generate()
return childGenerator?.next()
} else if !returnedSelf {
returnedSelf = true
return self
} else {
return nil
}
}
}
While Martin's answer is certainly more concise, it has the downside of making a lot of using a lot of array/insert operations and is not particularly usable in lazy sequence operations. This alternative should work in those environments, I've used something similar for UIView hierarchies.
public typealias Generator = AnyGenerator<XMLNode>
public func generate() -> AnyGenerator<XMLNode> {
var childGenerator = childNodes.generate()
var subGenerator : AnyGenerator<XMLNode>?
var returnedSelf = false
return anyGenerator {
if !returnedSelf {
returnedSelf = true
return self
}
if let subGenerator = subGenerator,
let next = subGenerator.next() {
return next
}
if let child = childGenerator.next() {
subGenerator = child.generate()
return subGenerator!.next()
}
return nil
}
}
Note that this is preorder iteration, you can move the if !returnedSelf block around for post order.

Creating a generic singleton

This is a bit of a head banger (for me). Basically I want to have 2 different singletons that inherit from the same class. In either I want to use a certain class which itself is derived. So I have Utility and both AUtil:Utility and BUtil:Utility. And Singleton that is used as ASingleton using AUtility in its stomach and B respectively. I failed on all frontiers. The last attempt was a factory pattern which simply got Swift 1.2 to Segfault:
protocol Initializable { init() }
class A:Initializable {
var x = "A"
required init() {}
}
class B:Initializable {
var x = "B"
required init() {}
}
class C {
let t:Initializable
init(t:Initializable) {
self.t = t
println(t)
}
func factory() {
println(t.dynamicType())
}
}
As said I also tried to make the following pattern generic:
private let _SingletonSharedInstance = StaticClass()
class StaticClass {
class var sharedInstance : StaticClass {
return _SingletonSharedInstance
}
}
let s = StaticClass.sharedInstance
(This one isn't generic as you see. But all my attempts failed and so I show my starting point.)
Anyway I seem to be lost between doom and death.
Do you mean something like this?
protocol Initializable: class { init() }
private var instances = [String: Initializable]()
func singletonInstance<T: Initializable>(_ ty: T.Type = T.self) -> T {
let name = NSStringFromClass(ty)
if let o = (instances[name] as? T) {
return o
}
let o = ty()
instances[name] = o
return o
}
An use-side of it, for instance.
class Foo: Initializable { required init() {} }
class Bar: Initializable { required init() {} }
let foo1 = singletonInstance() as Foo // or `singletonInstance(Foo.self)`
let foo2 = singletonInstance() as Foo
assert(foo1 === foo2)
let bar1 = singletonInstance() as Bar
let bar2 = singletonInstance() as Bar
assert(bar1 === bar2)
(I've tested the code above and got it to work in Swift 1.2.)
Inspired by findalls implementation, I build my own singleton generator, which is a little more powerful.
You can create a singleton of any Class or Structure type in Swift. The only thing you have to do is to implement one of two different protocols to your type and use Swift 2.0 or newer.
public protocol SingletonType { init() }
private var singletonInstances = [String: SingletonType]()
extension SingletonType {
// this will crash Xcode atm. it's a Swift 2.0 beta bug. Bug-ID: 21850697
public static var singleton: Self { return singleton { $0 } }
public static func singleton(setter: (_: Self) -> Self) -> Self {
guard let instance = singletonInstances["\(self)"] as? Self else {
return setInstance(self.init(), withSetter: setter, overridable: true)
}
return setInstance(instance, withSetter: setter, overridable: false)
}
private static func setInstance(var instance: Self, withSetter setter: (_: Self) -> Self, overridable: Bool) -> Self {
instance = restoreInstanceIfNeeded(instance1: instance, instance2: setter(instance), overridable: overridable)
singletonInstances["\(self)"] = instance
return instance
}
private static func restoreInstanceIfNeeded(instance1 i1: Self, instance2 i2: Self, overridable: Bool) -> Self {
// will work if the bug in Swift 2.0 beta is fixed !!! Bug-ID: 21850627
guard i1.dynamicType is AnyClass else { return i2 }
return ((i1 as! AnyObject) !== (i2 as! AnyObject)) && !overridable ? i1 : i2
}
}
This may look a little scary, but don't be afraid of this code. The public function inside the protocol extension will create two access points for you.
For example you will be able to write code like this now:
// extend your type: as an example I will extend 'Int' here
extension Int : SingletonType {} // nothing else to do, because Int already has an 'init()' initializer by default
// let the magic happen
Int.singleton // this will generate a singleton Int with 0 as default value
Int.singleton { (_) -> Int in 100 } // should set your Int singleton to 100
Int.singleton { $0 - 55 } // your singleton should be 45 now
// I need to mention that Xcode will produce the setter like this and trow an error
Int.singleton { (yourCustomInstanceName) -> Self in // replace 'Self' with 'Int' and you should be fine
return yourCustomInstanceName
}
// btw. we just ignored the return value everywhere
print(Int.singleton) // will print 45 here
var singleton2 = Int.singleton { $0 + 5 }
singleton2 += 10
print(Int.singleton) // should print 50, because 'singleton2' is just a copy of an Int value type
class A : SingletonType {
var name = "no name"
required init() {}
}
A.singleton { $0; let i = A(); i.name = "hello world"; return i } // custom init on first singleton call for type A
print(A.singleton.name)
print(A.singleton { $0.name = "A"; return $0 }.name)
print(A.singleton.name)
// should print "hello world" and twice the string "A"
If you have any idea how to enhance this code and make it even safer, please let me know. I will push this code on GitHub (MIT License) soon, so everyone can benefit from it.
UPDATE: I modified the code a little so you can now pass a custom initialized instance of a class with the setter function when its called the first time.
UPDATE 2: I removed ClassInstance protocol and modified the private restore function. The Instance protocol is now called SingletonType. The setter function is not optional anymore. Right now Xcode 7 beta 3 will crash and provide an illegal instruction: 4 error when you will call the getter. But this is a confirmed beta bug.