I have a number of notification tokens scattered around my app's classes. I would like to create a class, e.g. a RealmNotificationTokensManager, to keep track of instantiated tokens to be able to know what tokens are active at a specific point of time or view in the app to make sure to invalidate them timely etc.
In total, there are around 35 notification tokens in my app.
Besides having all these tokens as properties of the manager class, I'd like to be able to group them in an array to be able to run queries on it. But if I maintain that array manually, e.g. if I add a new token, I need to make sure I also add it to the array of all tokens. This is a bit error prone since one can forget to add the new token to the array.
As far as I understand there might be away to make it safer by using an enum and maybe CaseIterable protocol but I cannot find a way to do it.
Would anybody give some direction how to achieve it?
If I understand the question correctly, it should be fairly straight forward to create a 'centralized' notification manager. Keep mind this is very bare bones for brevity but it's how we do it.
Suppose we have a PersonClass and DogClass and we want to add observers to those types of objects. We will have a class var that contains the people and dog results as well as a var representing the manager
class ViewController: NSViewController {
var peopleResults: Results<PersonClass>? = nil
var dogResults: Results<DogClass>? = nil
let manager = NotificationManager()
and then somewhere along the way we'll load in the people and dogs into results and add an observer
func observePeople() {
var token = NotificationToken()
token = self.peopleResults!.observe { changes in
switch changes {
...
}
}
self.manager.notificationArray.append(token)
}
and then dogs
func observeDogs() {
var token = NotificationToken()
token = self.dogResults!.observe { changes in
switch changes {
...
}
}
self.manager.notificationArray.append(token)
}
and the notification manager would look like this
class NotificationManager {
var notificationArray = [NotificationToken]()
}
now this next part is use case dependent
if I add a new token, I need to make sure I also add it to the array
of all tokens. This is a bit error prone since one can forget to add
the new token to the array.
I get the gist of that statement so if you know the exact notifications you will be using, those could be implemented into the manager itself. So install of creating tokens everywhere in the app, do it all within the manager
For example
class NotificationManager {
var notificationArray = [NotificationToken]()
func observeDogs() {
let dogResults = realm.objects(DogClass.self)
var token = NotificationToken()
token = dogResults.observe { changes in
switch changes {
//..
}
}
self.notificationArray.append(token)
}
}
then when you want to observe Dogs, one-line will do it
func observeDogs() {
self.manager.observeDogs()
}
If you want to 'lock it down' then using enums is a great idea
enum Observers {
case people
case dogs
}
class NotificationManager {
var notificationArray = [NotificationToken]()
func addObserverTo(whatToObserve: Observers) {
switch whatToObserve {
case .people:
//add people observer
case .dogs:
//add dogs observer
default:
break
}
}
}
and then called like this
self.manager.addObserverTo(whatToObserve: .people)
Related
Best practice for storing temporary data during session? I have an app that allows me to register a customer in a medical service, inserting biometrical and personal data (name, weight, personal measures etch.) once the data are saved, you go to other pages, where you can perform some operation using the data. Only at the very end of this path (after 3-4 controllers), I save the Customer in local database via Realm.
during register phase, I need to store this "TempUser"'s data, with can be accessed from multiple controllers.
I think I could use singletons, but not sure IF and HOW
I fund this but not sure which solution fits better.
my idea:
class AppSession {
static var shared = AppSession()
private init() {}
var currentPatient: Patient?
}
class Patient {
let shared = Patient()
private init() {}
var name: String? = ""
var weight: Double = 0.0
}
and in my textfield delegate:
AppSession.shared.currentPatient?.name = data //text from textfield
otherwise, using Patient as a struct, not a class
It is hard to tell what solution fits for every individual case. It really depends how broadly the data is used in your app. Is it common to every part or just some specific ViewControllers ? How many times it is retrieved and updated ? Also it depends on the architecture pattern you are using and many more factors. So in short, your solution using a singleton pattern may be valid, but can't tell for sure without having a deep look at your project. If you decide to stick with your solution, you can omit the AppSession class and directly access your Patient.
class Patient {
static let shared = Patient()
var name: String? = ""
var weight: Double = 0.0
}
And update it:
Patient.shared.name = ""
Even though your solution using a singleton pattern may be valid as mentioned above, you should also consider the user point of view: Do you want the user to be able to continue the flow even after the app was killed ? If yes, than you should save the data after every step(So maybe to KeyChain as what you describe is kind of sensitive data). Or a better solution is to store the data on the server side, which gives the user the flexibility to continue even on an other device(maybe android).
But you can say, that you really do not care about KeyChain neither communicating with a server, and want to do it locally. In this case personally I would pass the data between the controllers, and avoid Singletons. Let's take your Patient object and create a protocol which will require every UIViewController that conforms to it to have a stored property of Patient.
struct Patient {
var name: String? = ""
var weight: Double = 0.0
}
protocol MyOnboardingProtocol: class {
var data: Patient { get set }
}
With the MyOnboardingProtocol you will mark every controller which will require to hold the Patient data. In this way you will force the ViewControllers to hold the Patient object, and will know for the first glance if your ViewController belongs to the "Onboarding" flow.
In your first UIViewController, where your flow begins, you will initialise your Patient object(maybe also make some update on it from user input), and pass along for the next UIViewController:
class MyFirstViewController: UIViewController, MyOnboardingProtocol {
var data: Patient = Patient()
func nextViewController() {
let viewController = MySecondViewController(data: data)
navigationController?.pushViewController(viewController, animated: true)
}
}
For every other UIViewController down the road you will pass the updated object into the init:
class MySecondViewController: UIViewController, MyOnboardingProtocol {
var data: Patient
init(data: Patient) {
self.data = data
super.init(nibName: nil, bundle: nil)
}
required init?(coder: NSCoder) {
super.init(coder: coder)
}
}
But as I mentioned before, what I described is just one way of doing it. It will really depend on your individual case and business logic. As I want to keep my answer short, I encourage you to discover the topic a bit more, there has been many great articles about this topic.
Swift 5, the "Exclusive Access to Memory" enforcement is now on by default for release builds as mentioned in this Swift.org blog post:
Swift 5 Exclusivity Enforcement
I understand the reasoning behind this feature, but with the new Combine framework I feel as if some very normal design patterns are now going to break and I'm curious how best to work around them.
With Combine it's natural for parts of your code to react to changes in a model such that they might need to read from the very property that the model has just changed. But they can no longer do that because it will trigger a memory exception as you attempt to read a value that is currently being set.
Consider the following example:
struct PasswordProposal {
let passwordPublisher = CurrentValueSubject<String, Never>("1234")
let confirmPasswordPublisher = CurrentValueSubject<String, Never>("1234")
var password:String {
get { passwordPublisher.value }
set { passwordPublisher.value = newValue }
}
var confirmPassword:String {
get { confirmPasswordPublisher.value }
set { confirmPasswordPublisher.value = newValue }
}
var isPasswordValid:Bool {
password == confirmPassword && !password.isEmpty
}
}
class Coordinator {
var proposal:PasswordProposal
var subscription:Cancellable?
init() {
self.proposal = PasswordProposal()
self.subscription = self.proposal.passwordPublisher.sink { [weak self] _ in
print(self?.proposal.isPasswordValid ?? "")
}
}
// Simulate changing the password to trigger the publisher.
func changePassword() {
proposal.password = "7890"
}
}
// --------------------------------
var vc = Coordinator()
vc.changePassword()
As soon as changePassword() is called, the mutual exclusivity enforcement will throw an exception because the property password will attempt to be read from while it's currently being written to.
Note that if you change this example to use a separate backing storage property instead of the CurrentValueSubject it causes the same exception.
However, if you change PasswordProposal from being a struct to a class, then the exception is no longer thrown.
When I consider how I might use Combine in an existing codebase, as well as in SwiftUI, I see this type of pattern coming up in a lot of places. In the old delegate model, it's quite common for a delegate to query the sending object from within a delegate callback. In Swift 5, I now have to be very careful that none of those callbacks potentially read from the property that initiated the notification.
Have others come across this and, if so, how have you addressed it? Apple has routinely suggested that we should be using structs where it makes sense but perhaps an object that has published properties is one of those areas where it doesn't?
The password property is not the problem. It's actually the proposal property. If you add a didSet property observer to proposal, you'll see it's getting reset when you set password, then you access self?.proposal from within your sink while it's being mutated.
I doubt this is the behavior that you want, so it seems to me like the correct solution is to make PasswordProposal a class.
There is a few old thread that discuss the usage of Enums in Realm, and I adopted one them which works fine but I want to make sure that that is still the recommended way of doing it.
Is the following code the current-recommended way to use Enums with Realm?
Realm Object
enum SeatPreference: String {
case Window
case Middle
case Aisle
}
class Ticket:Object{
#objc private dynamic var preference = SeatPreference.Window.rawValue
var seatPreference: SeatPreference {
get { return SeatPreference(rawValue: preference)! }
set { preference = newValue.rawValue }
}
}
Usage:
ticket.seatPreference = .Middle
Again, everything works fine, I just want someone to confirm that there is still not a better way of doing it.
I am writing unit tests for my class. This class preserves its state in some private variables (which I don't want to expose publicly). So the scenario is:
If I call a method, the first time it will keep that state in private properties and call a delegate method with some result.
When I call the same method a second time, the output will be different on the basis of the previous input.
I want to cover all the cases in my tests.
One easy way is to change my private properties to public so that I can mock the previous input in unit test.
The other way is to call the same method with different inputs in the same test twice. Where the first call will keep the state and the next call will be the actual test.
But both these ways seem awkward to me, and I am not sure of the best one.
What is the best way to write unit test for this class?
protocol ZoneUpdateDetectorOutput: class {
func updateZoneState(_ state: ZoneState)
}
class ZoneUpdateDetector {
var zoneChangeTimer: TimerProtocol?
weak var delegate: ZoneUpdateDetectorOutput?
private var previousZoneState: ZoneState?
private var expectedZoneState: ZoneState?
private func updateZoneState() {
// If `expectedZoneState` is not equal to `previousZoneState` then `delegate` will be called
// Otherwise it will just skip
if expectedZoneState != previousZoneState {
delegate?.updateZoneState(expectedZoneState!)
previousZoneState = expectedZoneState
}
}
private func runNotifyZoneStateTimer() {
guard zoneChangeTimer?.isValid() == false else {
return
}
zoneChangeTimer?.start(timeInterval: 5,
onFire: { [weak self] in
guard let strongSelf = self else {
return
}
// On timer fire, it will try to update the state
strongSelf.updateZoneState()
})
}
// When zone changes, this method is invoked
// I basically want to test this method
func zoneStateChanged(_ state: ZoneState) {
expectedZoneState = state
if state != .inZone {
runNotifyZoneStateTimer()
} else {
zoneChangeTimer?.stop()
}
}
}
You should never be testing internal state; you should only test externally (publically) visible behaviour. That way, you can change implementation details of your class without breaking any contracts, and thus without breaking any tests.
So the second option is the preferred one.
After researching and discussing with some experts, I come up with the solution that if we want to test a class which preserve it's state then the functionality which is preserving the state should go under a separate class. Which will serve the same purpose as setting the variables as private. So, ZoneUpdateDetector should have a dependency for example: ZoneUpdateStatePreserver and it should keep the state which was previously inside ZoneUpdateDetector
I try to implement a Security class and a Secret class. In my whole project the Secret class should only called by Security.getSecretInstance().doSomeSecretAction()
So Secret.doSomeSecretAction() should throw an compile error.
I need the Security.getSecretInstance() for an authentication process.
I'm searching for a good pattern or something else, but I think my searching keywords are too bad or my requirement is stupid/or not possible.
At the moment I call Security.getSecretInstance() it returns a singleton instance of Secret, but I could call Secret.doSomeSecretAction() too. There is no difference.
Do you have some pattern, keywords or snippets for me?
Edit
My definition of awesome would be that I have one method like this:
Security.isAuthorized { secret in
secret.doSomeSecretAction
}, failure {
print("permission denied")
}
And I can get secret only with this .isAuthorized-Method
What I would recommend doing is declare Secret nested inside Security, make Secret private and create non-private methods inside Security that can access Secret. Something like this:
class Security {
class func doSomeSecretAction() {
Secret.doSomeSecretAction()
}
private class Secret {
class func doSomeSecretAction(){
print("Private method called")
}
}
}
Security.doSomeSecretAction()
Here, Security.doSomeSecretAction() can be called from outside the Security class, but Secret.doSomeSecretAction() can only be called inside the Security class.
Update based on comments:
A feasible solution would be declaring the initializer of Security private, so it can only be called from inside the Security class and declaring a computed variable (for now I called it shared) which is the only access point to the initializer. This computed variable either returns nil or a new instance of the Secret class based on Security.isAuthorized. This way, every time a function of Secret is called, the authorisation status is checked and the function can only be called if the status is authorised, otherwise the shared variable returns nil and hence the method is not called.
class Security {
static var isAuthorized = false //change this when the authorisation status changes
class Secret {
static var shared: Secret? {
if Security.isAuthorized {
return Secret()
} else {
return nil
}
}
private init(){} //a new instance of Secret can only be created using the `shared` computed variable, the initializer cannot be called directly from outside the Secret class
func doSomeSecretAction(){
print("Private method called")
}
}
}
Security.Secret.shared //nil
//Security.Secret.init() //if you uncomment this line, you'll get an error saying all initializers are inaccessible
Security.Secret.shared?.doSomeSecretAction() //nil
Security.isAuthorized = true
Security.Secret.shared?.doSomeSecretAction() //function is called
Security.isAuthorized = false
Security.Secret.shared?.doSomeSecretAction() //nil
I was working on this answer while Dávid was editing his; I didn't realize he'd posted an update awhile ago. There's a lot of overlap in our answers, so this is just another style of the same approach.
First, I want to be clear that what you're describing can only implement encapsulation, not "security." I mean that you can build a system that makes it easy for developers to use it correctly and difficult to use it incorrectly. That's pretty straightforward. But you won't be able to stop a developer from extracting the secret and running any code they want. It's their machine and you're giving them the code. They can always run it. They have a debugger; you're not going to hide anything.
But, preventing accidental misuse is a fine goal, and pretty straightforward. The first thing is that you should work with instance methods, not class methods. Class methods makes all of this harder than it needs to be. A solution to your problem will look something like this, relying on fileprivate for most of the access control.
class Security {
enum Error: Swift.Error {
case unauthorized
}
// This feels like it should be nested in Security, but doesn't have to be
class Secret {
// No one outside this file can instantiate one of these. It's likely
// that you'll be passing some parameters here of course.
fileprivate init() {}
// I'm assuming you want these to be single use, so people can't store
// a reference to them an reuse them. This is one simple way.
fileprivate var isAuthorized = true
private func validate() {
// I'm treating this kind of reuse as a programming error and
// crashing. You could throw if you wanted, but it feels like it
// should never happen given your design.
guard isAuthorized else {
fatalError("Secrets can only be used once")
}
}
func doSomeSecretAction() {
// Every "protected" method (which may be all of them) needs to
// call validate() before running.
validate()
print("SECRET!")
}
}
// Public so we can test; obviously this would at least private(set)
var isAuthorized = false
func withAuthorization(execute: (Secret) -> Void) throws {
guard isAuthorized else { throw Error.unauthorized }
// We create a new Secret for every access and invalidate it after.
// That prevents them from being stored and reused.
let secret = Secret()
execute(secret)
secret.isAuthorized = false
}
}
// -- Some other file
let security = Security()
security.isAuthorized = true // For testing
var stealingTheSecret: Security.Secret?
do {
try security.withAuthorization {
$0.doSomeSecretAction() // This is good
stealingTheSecret = $0 // Try to steal it for later use
}
} catch Security.Error.unauthorized {
print("Unauthorized")
}
stealingTheSecret?.doSomeSecretAction() // Let's use it: Crash!
In principle you could get rid of the validate() boilerplate by allocating the memory for Secret directly with UnsafeMutablePointer and destroying it at the end, but this is probably more trouble than it's worth to avoid one extra line of code.
(Note that allocating the memory yourself still wouldn't protect you against the caller saving the object; they can always make a copy of the memory and re-instantiate it with .load; any unsafe thing you can do, so can the caller. This also allows them to circumvent validate() by directly modifying the boolean or copying the object before you invalidate it. There is no technique that will prevent unsafe memory access; this is why you cannot protect secrets inside code.)
After research I find a good and simple solution for me:
class SecurityLayer {
private static var authorized: Bool = false
static func makeAuthorizeCheck() -> API2? {
if authorized {
return API2()
}
return nil
}
}
Second class (not subclass)
class Secret {
func test() {
print("test")
}
fileprivate init() {
}
}
Examples
SecurityLayer.makeAuthorizeCheck()?.test() //working
Secret() //forbidden
Secret.test() //compiler find this method, but there are no permissions to use this one
When the constructor inside Secret is private this wouldn't work anymore. For me the benefit of fileprivate is obvious now.
!The classes have to be in one file!