Do all #Published variables need to have an initial value in a view model (I am conforming to MVVM) for SwiftUI?
Why can't I just say that I want the #Published variable of type string with no initial value?
So does that mean that I need to have:
If not how can I get around this?
I was thinking about making an init() for the class, but I would still need to input default values when I initialize the class.
Unlike SwiftUI views, which are Structs, Observable Objects are always classes, and in Swift, all classes must have initializers.
A) Consider making your #Published variable an optional
#Published var title: String?
B) Add an init method
init() { self.title = "" }
Else, there's way to not have an initial value for a class' property.
You may find that force unwrapping with "!" will "solve" your problem, but that's a bad practice, don't do it; if you don't have an initial value for your variable, then it must be optional in your case.
But why are you designing a Model, as an observable object, for SwiftUI, consider using simple Structs if you are not intending on persisting (saving to disk), your data, else use Core Data and it's NSManagedObject class, that is already conforming to ObservableObject.
All stored properties should be initialised somehow. You can delay initialization till construction, like
final class ViewModel: ObservableObject {
#Published var title: String
init(title: String) {
self.title = title
}
}
and later, somewhere in SwiftUI View, create it with value needed in context
ViewModel(title: "some value")
Related
What is the difference between var and let as a parameter in List's Row?
Usually, if I don't change the landmark variable, the compiler will warn me, but there is no warning in that row. I wonder why.
struct LandmarkRow: View {
var landmark: Landmark
var body: some View {
Text(landmark.id)
}
}
struct LandmarkRow: View {
let landmark: Landmark
var body: some View {
Text(landmark.id)
}
}
This looks like a same result:
struct LandmarkList: View {
var body: some View {
List(landmarks, id: \.id) { landmark in
LandmarkRow(landmark: landmark)
}
}
}
var is a variable meaning it is mutable. You can reassign it a value as many time as you wish.
In LandmarkRow and LandmarkList, var body is a computed property that calculates (rather than stores) a value. And it's read-only. Computed properties can only be declared using var.
When you implement a custom view, you must implement a computed
body property to provide the content for your view. Return a view
that's composed of primitive views that SwiftUI provides, plus other composite views that you've already defined. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swiftui/view/body-swift.property
let is used to declare a constant. You can assign it a value exactly once as you have done in LandmarkList. In other words, you can not reassign it a value.
List(landmarks, id: \.id) { landmark in
LandmarkRow(landmark: landmark)
}
Example
struct Example {
// variable that you can change
var name: String
// constant that can only be assigned a value once.
let fileExtension: String
// A computed property that is read-only
var filename: String {
return name + "." + fileExtension
}
}
var example = Example(name: "example", fileExtension: "swift")
You can change name from example to example_2 since it is a variable.
example.name = "example_2"
You can not change fileExtension from swift to js because fileExtension is a constant (let). If you do so, you will get the following error.
Cannot assign to property: 'fileExtension' is a 'let' constant
example.fileExtension = "js"
You can not change fileName because it is a read-only property. If you try to change, you will get this error.
Cannot assign to property: 'filename' is a get-only property
example.filename = "ex.js"
More info
What is the difference between `let` and `var` in swift?
https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/Properties.html
https://www.avanderlee.com/swift/computed-property/
The compiler warns you about local variables which are never been modified or being unused.
But you get never a warning about declared struct members / class properties. And a SwiftUI view is actually a regular struct.
However you get an error if you are going to modify a struct member / class property which is declared as constant.
In a SwiftUI View there is no difference except for semantics.
A struct is immutable therefore having a var vs a let is irrelevant.
let Is semantically correct
I am also new to SwiftUI. I only have backgound in C and C++. I am guessing that it has to do with the fact that you declared landmark but didn't initialized it (or in this case, default value). Here, it assumes that you will initialize landmark when you initialize a LandmarkRow. Getting back to the point, I think the compiler doesn't know if landmark changes or not untill it is run.
var => Variable
By defining var you inform the compiler that this variable will be changed in further execution of code.
var current_day = 6
let => Constant
By defining let you inform the compiler that this is a constant variable and its value stays the same.
Like
let earth_gravity = 9.8
Its just best practise to make unchanging variables constant.
There will be no difference in execution of output.
I am writing my project and wondered.
When I read literature or watch videos, I see that this is bad practice. Why? Is this bad for the system?
What is the difference between this
class SomeClass {
var someView = SomeView()
var someViewModel = SomeViewModel()
// ...
}
and this
class SomeClass {
var someView: SomeView!
var someViewModel: SomeViewModel?
// ...
}
How to get used to it better?
You have to initialize all instance properties somehow. And you have to do it right up front, either in the declaration line or in your init method.
But what if you don't actually have the initial value until later, like in viewDidLoad? Then it is silly to supply a real heavyweight value only to replace it later:
var v = MyView()
override func viewDidLoad() {
self.v = // get _real_ MyView and assign it in place of that
}
Instead, we use an Optional to mark the fact that we have no value yet; until we obtain and assign one, it will be nil:
var v : MyView? // means it is initially `nil`
override func viewDidLoad() {
self.v = // get _real_ MyView and assign it to our property
}
There's nothing wrong with the first way (which is called a "default property value", by the way), and in fact, often times it's preferable. But of course, the devil is in the details:
How would the initialization of a SomeViewModel work? Without acess the initializer parameters of SomeClass, you're stuck with only being able to construct an instance from a parameter-less init, like SomeViewModel(). What exactly could that do? Suppose it was a person view model, and you had PersonViewModel(). What person? Whats their name? What will this default value do at all?
It's not a great pattern if it requires overwriting the default value with some other value in the initializer
It initializes the value up-front, where sometimes a lazy or computed value might be more appropriate.
I want to create MyViewModel which gets data from network and then updates the arrray of results. MyView should subscribe to the $model.results and show List filled with the results.
Unfortunately I get an error about "Type of expression is ambiguous without more context".
How to properly use ForEach for this case?
import SwiftUI
import Combine
class MyViewModel: ObservableObject {
#Published var results: [String] = []
init() {
DispatchQueue.main.asyncAfter(deadline: .now() + 1) {
self.results = ["Hello", "World", "!!!"]
}
}
}
struct MyView: View {
#ObservedObject var model: MyViewModel
var body: some View {
VStack {
List {
ForEach($model.results) { text in
Text(text)
// ^--- Type of expression is ambiguous without more context
}
}
}
}
}
struct MyView_Previews: PreviewProvider {
static var previews: some View {
MyView(model: MyViewModel())
}
}
P.S. If I replace the model with #State var results: [String] all works fine, but I need have separate class MyViewModel: ObservableObject for my purposes
The fix
Change your ForEach block to
ForEach(model.results, id: \.self) { text in
Text(text)
}
Explanation
SwiftUI's error messages aren't doing you any favors here. The real error message (which you will see if you change Text(text) to Text(text as String) and remove the $ before model.results), is "Generic parameter 'ID' could not be inferred".
In other words, to use ForEach, the elements that you are iterating over need to be uniquely identified in one of two ways.
If the element is a struct or class, you can make it conform to the Identifiable protocol by adding a property var id: Hashable. You don't need the id parameter in this case.
The other option is to specifically tell ForEach what to use as a unique identifier using the id parameter. Update: It is up to you to guarentee that your collection does not have duplicate elements. If two elements have the same ID, any change made to one view (like an offset) will happen to both views.
In this case, we chose option 2 and told ForEach to use the String element itself as the identifier (\.self). We can do this since String conforms to the Hashable protocol.
What about the $?
Most views in SwiftUI only take your app's state and lay out their appearance based on it. In this example, the Text views simply take the information stored in the model and display it. But some views need to be able to reach back and modify your app's state in response to the user:
A Toggle needs to update a Bool value in response to a switch
A Slider needs to update a Double value in response to a slide
A TextField needs to update a String value in response to typing
The way we identify that there should be this two-way communication between app state and a view is by using a Binding<SomeType>. So a Toggle requires you to pass it a Binding<Bool>, a Slider requires a Binding<Double>, and a TextField requires a Binding<String>.
This is where the #State property wrapper (or #Published inside of an #ObservedObject) come in. That property wrapper "wraps" the value it contains in a Binding (along with some other stuff to guarantee SwiftUI knows to update the views when the value changes). If we need to get the value, we can simply refer to myVariable, but if we need the binding, we can use the shorthand $myVariable.
So, in this case, your original code contained ForEach($model.results). In other words, you were telling the compiler, "Iterate over this Binding<[String]>", but Binding is not a collection you can iterate over. Removing the $ says, "Iterate over this [String]," and Array is a collection you can iterate over.
I have a class with enum property state. This property's value (by value I mean ReactiveSwift.Property's value) needs to be accessed and observed by other classes, but value change should be private. Currently it is implemented in a such way:
enum State {
case stopped, running, paused
}
var state: Property<State> {
return Property(mutableState)
}
fileprivate let mutableState = MutableProperty<State>(.stopped)
This pattern allows me to modify mutableState property within class file. At the same time outside the class state is available only for reading and observing.
The question is whether there is a way to implement a similar thing using single property? Also probably someone can suggest a better pattern for the same solution?
I can't think of any way to do this with a single property. The only adjustment I would make to your code is to make state a stored property rather than a computed property that gets newly created each time it is accessed:
class Foo {
let state: Property<State>
fileprivate let mutableState = MutableProperty<State>(.stopped)
init() {
state = Property(mutableState)
}
}
Depending where you want to mutate the state, you can try doing either of:
private(set) var state: Property<State>
or if you modify it from an extension but still the same file
fileprivate(set) var state: Property<State>
I understand difference between class and struct in Swift. Now I'm wondering what to use for hierarchy model.
To define a class is pretty simple (setting connections on properties set is now irrelevant).
class XYClass {
var title: String
var subinstances: [XYClass]
weak var superinstance: XYClass?
}
But it looks like pretty fine model for struct. Especially if I need to instantiate a lots of these and frequently. But I'm wondering if I can somehow safely point to superinstance or I need to store whole object graph to every instance on every change... Should I use class or struct and if struct, how to define it?
You are making a linked list. If you were to try to form a linked list of structs of a single type, memory management would not be feasible, and the compiler would stop you dead in your tracks. This won't compile:
struct XYClass {
var title: String
var subinstances: [XYClass]
var superinstance: XYClass?
}
The compiler has spotted the problem. You cannot refer to an instance of a struct as a property of that struct. (The compiler calls this a "recursive value type".)
Thus, for your situation, you must use a class, because only then can you get a weak reference and avoid a retain cycle. Only a reference to a class can be weak (and only if the reference is typed as an Optional).
This will compile, and will give your linked list coherent memory management:
class XYClass {
var title: String = ""
var subinstances: [XYClass] = []
weak var superinstance: XYClass?
}