I've been becoming more familiar with the "copy on write" behavior of Swift structs. I think it's a really nice way to get around having to manage references for structs, but it's a bit cumbersome when dealing with deeply nested structures.
If you want to update a deeply nested value, you need a direct path to that value so you can modify it on a single line:
myStruct.nestedArray[index].nestedValue = 1
The compiler will copy myStruct.nestedArray[index] and set nestedValue to 1 on that new value. It will then copy myStruct.nestedArray and set the new value at index. It will then copy myStruct and replace the previous value with a new one that has all of the above changes.
This works just fine and it's pretty cool that you can do this with a single line of code without having to worry about anything that was referencing myStruct and its children before. However, if there is more complicated logic involved in resolving the path to the value, the logic becomes much more verbose:
struct MyStruct {
var nestedEnum: MyEnum
}
enum MyEnum {
case one([NestedStruct])
case two([NestedStruct])
}
struct NestedStruct {
var id: Int
var nestedValue: Int
}
var myStruct = MyStruct(nestedEnum: .one([NestedStruct(id: 0, nestedValue: 0)]))
if case .one(var nestedArray) = myStruct.nestedEnum {
if let index = nestedArray.firstIndex(where: { $0.id == 0 }) {
nestedArray[index].nestedValue = 1
myStruct.nestedEnum = .one(nestedArray)
}
}
Ideally you'd be able to do something like this:
if case .one(var nestedArray) = myStruct.nestedEnum {
if var nestedStruct = nestedArray.first(where: { $0.id == 0 }) {
nestedStruct.nestedValue = 1
}
}
But as soon as nestedStruct.nestedValue is set, the new value of nestedStruct is swallowed.
What would be nice is if Swift had a way to use inout semantics outside of functions, so I could take a "reference" to nestedArray and then nestedStruct within it and set the inner nestedValue, causing the copy to propagate back up to myStruct the same way as it would if I'd been able to do it in one line.
Does anyone have any nice ways to deal with deeply nested structs that might be able to help me out here? Or am I just going to have to put up with the pattern from my second example above?
The solution I ended up arriving at was pretty SwiftUI specific, but it may be adaptable to other frameworks.
Basically, instead of having a single top-level method responsible for deeply updating the struct, I arranged my SwiftUI hierarchy to mirror the structure of my struct, and passed Bindings down that just manage one node of the hierarchy.
For example, given my struct defined above:
struct MyStruct {
var nestedEnum: MyEnum
}
enum MyEnum {
case one([NestedStruct])
case two([NestedStruct])
}
struct NestedStruct {
var id: Int
var nestedValue: Int
}
I could do this:
struct MyStructView: View {
#Binding var myStruct: MyStruct
var body: some View {
switch myStruct.nestedEnum {
case .one: OneView(array: oneBinding)
case .two: TwoView(array: twoBinding)
}
}
var oneBinding: Binding<[NestedStruct]> {
.init(
get: {
if case .one(array) = myStruct.nestedEnum {
return array
}
fatalError()
},
set: { myStruct.nestedEnum = .one($0) }
)
}
var twoBinding: Binding<[NestedStruct]> { /* basically the same */ }
}
struct OneView: View {
#Binding var array: [NestedStruct]
var body: some View {
ForEach(0..<array.count, id: \.self) {
NestedStructView(nestedStruct: getBinding($0))
}
}
func getBinding(_ index: Int) -> Binding<NestedStruct> {
.init(get: { array[index] }, set: { array[index] = $0 })
}
}
struct NestedStructView: View {
#Binding var nestedStruct: NestedStruct
var body: some View {
NumericInput(title: "ID: \(nestedStruct.id)", value: valueBinding)
}
var valueBinding: Binding<Int> {
.init(get: { nestedStruct.value }, set: { nestedStruct.value = $0 })
}
}
The only annoying bit is that it can be a bit verbose to construct a Binding manually. I wish SwiftUI had some syntax for getting nested Bindings from a Binding containing an array or struct.
Related
I have a View Component (MyViewWrapper) that has a nested enum (Value):
struct MyViewWrapper<Content: View>: View {
#Binding var value: Value
let content: Content
public init(value: Binding<Value>, #ViewBuilder content: #escaping () -> Content) {
self._value = value
self.content = content()
}
var body: some View {
content
}
enum Value {
case percent(Double)
case points(Double)
}
}
Referencing the enum (Value) inside the component isn't an issue, but when I try to instantiate a Value outside of the struct:
struct SampleView: View {
#State var value: MyViewWrapper.Value = .percent(0.5)
var body: some View {
MyViewWrapper(value: $value) {
Color.red
}
}
}
I get a Generic parameter 'Content' could not be inferred error, as the parent struct/type is generic.
Sure, I could just extract the enum and call it something like MyViewWrapperValue. But I would really like to reference like so:
#State var value: MyViewWrapper.Value = .percent(0.5)
Is this possible?
Nested types within generic types are a pitfall in the language. You always have to define a placeholder for the outer type.
If your code is simple enough that you actually know what Content is, you can use the horrible (but compiling) option of using it explicitly:
#State var value: MyViewWrapper<Color>.Value = .percent(0.5)
A more scalable approach is to keep it as a nested type that refers to something concrete. E.g.
struct MyViewWrapper<Content: View>: View {
typealias Value = MyViewWrapper<Never>._Value
extension MyViewWrapper where Content == Never {
enum _Value {
case percent(Double)
case points(Double)
}
}
Then, you can use Value or _Value interchangeably elsewhere.
struct SampleView: View {
#State var value: MyViewWrapper<Never>.Value = .percent(0.5)
Whether that's better than a non-nested namespace-cluttering MyViewWrapperValue is debatable.
I'm getting a weird memory leak in SwiftUI when using List and id: \.self, where only some of the items are destroyed. I'm using macOS Monterey Beta 5.
Here is how to reproduce:
Create a new blank SwiftUI macOS project
Paste the following code:
class Model: ObservableObject {
#Published var objs = (1..<100).map { TestObj(text: "\($0)")}
}
class TestObj: Hashable {
let text: String
static var numDestroyed = 0
init(text: String) {
self.text = text
}
static func == (lhs: TestObj, rhs: TestObj) -> Bool {
return lhs.text == rhs.text
}
func hash(into hasher: inout Hasher) {
hasher.combine(text)
}
deinit {
TestObj.numDestroyed += 1
print("Deinit: \(TestObj.numDestroyed)")
}
}
struct ContentView: View {
#StateObject var model = Model()
var body: some View {
NavigationView {
List(model.objs, id: \.self) { obj in
Text(obj.text)
}
Button(action: {
var i = 1
model.objs.removeAll(where: { _ in
i += 1
return i % 2 == 0
})
}) {
Text("Remove half")
}
}
}
}
Run the app, and press the "Remove half" button. Keep pressing it until all the items are gone. However, if you look at the console, you'll see that only 85 items have been destroyed, while there were 99 items. The Xcode memory graph also supports this.
This seems to be caused by the id: \.self line. Removing it and switching it out for id: \.text fixes the problem.
However the reason I use id: \.self is because I want to support multiple selection, and I want the selection to be of type Set<TestObj>, instead of Set<UUID>.
Is there any way to solve this issue?
If you didn't have to use selection in your List, you could use any unique & constant id, for example:
class TestObj: Hashable, Identifiable {
let id = UUID()
/* ... */
}
And then your List with the implicit id: \.id:
List(model.objs) { obj in
Text(obj.text)
}
This works great. It works because now you are no longer identifying the rows in the list by a reference type, which is kept by SwiftUI. Instead you are using a value type, so there aren't any strong references causing TestObjs to not deallocate.
But you need selection in List, so see more below about how to achieve that.
To get this working with selection, I will be using OrderedDictionary from Swift Collections. This is so the list rows can still be identified with id like above, but we can quickly access them. It's partially a dictionary, and partially an array, so it's O(1) time to access an element by a key.
Firstly, here is an extension to create this dictionary from the array, so we can identify it by its id:
extension OrderedDictionary {
/// Create an ordered dictionary from the given sequence, with the key of each pair specified by the key-path.
/// - Parameters:
/// - values: Every element to create the dictionary with.
/// - keyPath: Key-path for key.
init<Values: Sequence>(_ values: Values, key keyPath: KeyPath<Value, Key>) where Values.Element == Value {
self.init()
for value in values {
self[value[keyPath: keyPath]] = value
}
}
}
Change your Model object to this:
class Model: ObservableObject {
#Published var objs: OrderedDictionary<UUID, TestObj>
init() {
let values = (1..<100).map { TestObj(text: "\($0)")}
objs = OrderedDictionary<UUID, TestObj>(values, key: \.id)
}
}
And rather than model.objs you'll use model.objs.values, but that's it!
See full demo code below to test the selection:
struct ContentView: View {
#StateObject private var model = Model()
#State private var selection: Set<UUID> = []
var body: some View {
NavigationView {
VStack {
List(model.objs.values, selection: $selection) { obj in
Text(obj.text)
}
Button(action: {
var i = 1
model.objs.removeAll(where: { _ in
i += 1
return i % 2 == 0
})
}) {
Text("Remove half")
}
}
.onChange(of: selection) { newSelection in
let texts = newSelection.compactMap { selection in
model.objs[selection]?.text
}
print(texts)
}
.toolbar {
ToolbarItem(placement: .primaryAction) {
EditButton()
}
}
}
}
}
Result:
This is a slightly more abstract version of this question. In the app, these nested Observable Objects are indeed used in a view (so I'd rather use Observable Objects rather than straight Publishers). However, I would like to be able to simply subscribe to the view models in order to test them. The protocol is there so I can mock out Nested in tests.
This is the basic setup:
protocol NestedProtocol: AnyObject {
var string: String { get set }
}
class Nested: ObservableObject, NestedProtocol {
#Published var string = ""
}
class Parent: ObservableObject {
#Published var nested: NestedProtocol
init(nested: NestedProtocol) {
self.nested = nested
}
}
var sinkHole = Set<AnyCancellable>()
let nested = Nested()
let parent = Parent(nested: nested)
parent.$nested.sink { newValue in
print("NEW VALUE \(newValue.string)")
}.store(in: &sinkHole)
Then this command
nested.string = "foo1" outputs "NEW VALUE ", which is expected as the initial value of nested. I would like it to output "NEW VALUE foo1". (TIL published variables seem to be current value publishers.)
Of course I could do
nested.string = "foo1"
parent.nested = nested
and I would get "NEW VALUE foo1", but that's smelly.
I tried
protocol NestedProtocol: ObservableObject {
var string: String { get set }
}
class Nested<T>: ObservableObject where T: NestedProtocol {
...
But in real life, I would like nested to declare some static constants, which is not allowed in generic types. So that doesn't work.
From the cited question/answer, I also tried combinations of
Parent
init() {
nested.objectWillChange.sink { [weak self] (_) in
self?.objectWillChange.send()
}.store(in: sinkHole)
}
Nested
init() {
string.sink { [weak self] (_) in
self?.objectWillChange.send()
}.store(in: sinkHole)
}
No dice. Those methods were getting called but that outer-level sink was still just returning "NEW VALUE "
I also tried calling
parent.nested.string = "foo1"
So now I'm modifying the parent, and that should work, right? Wrong.
There's a bunch to unpack here.
First, you might know that if a property is a value-type, like a struct or String, then marking it as #Published just works:
class Outer {
#Published var str: String = "default"
}
let outer = Outer()
outer.$str.sink { print($0) }
outer.str = "changed"
Will output:
default
changed
Your question, however, is about a nested observable object, which is a reference type. So, the above wouldn't work with a reference-type.
But in your example you're using a protocol as an existential (i.e. in place of an eventual instance), and as you noted, without inheriting from AnyObject, then it really behaves like a value-type:
protocol InnerProtocol {
var str: String { get set }
}
class Inner: InnerProtocol {
#Published var str: String = "default"
}
class Outer {
#Published var inner: InnerProtocol
init(_ inner: InnerProtocol) { self.inner = inner }
}
let inner = Inner()
let outer = Outer(inner)
outer.$inner.sink { print($0.str) }
outer.inner.str = "changed"
This would also output:
default
changed
which looks like what you wanted, but in fact it doesn't really "observe" any changes in the nested object. When you do outer.inner.str, it has value-type semantics, so it's as-if you re-assigned the .inner property. But if you are truly interested in observing changes of the object itself, then this approach wouldn't work at all. For example:
nested.str = "inner changed"
would not cause an output. Neither would there be an output if the inner object changed its own property, e.g.:
init() {
DisplatchQueue.main.asyncAfter(.now() + 1) {
self.str = "async changed"
}
}
So, it's unclear what exactly you're trying to achieve. If you want to observe a reference type property, you'd need to observe it directly.
class Inner: ObservableObject {
#Published var str: String
//...
}
class Outer: ObservableObject {
var inner: Inner
//...
}
//...
outer.inner.$str.sink { ... }
// or
outer.inner.objectWillChange.sink { ... }
You can achieve this with a protocol too, if you insist:
protocol InnerProtocol: ObservableObject {
var str: String { get set }
}
class Inner: InnerProtocol {
#Published var str: String = "default"
}
class Outer<T: InnerProtocol>: ObservableObject {
var inner: T
init(_ inner: T) { self.inner = inner }
}
let inner = Inner()
let outer = Outer(inner)
outer.inner.$str.sink { ... }
inner.str = "changed"
This took me hours and I stumbled upon it by accident while trying to modify my protocol in various ways.
Lesson 1:
protocol NestedProtocol: AnyObject {
var string: String { get set }
}
should be
protocol NestedProtocol {
var string: String { get set }
}
Why? I'm not sure. Apparently, if the Parent cannot assume that the published object is a class, then it watches modifications on it more closely? My instinct tells me the exact opposite, but it goes to show how much I can trust my instinct.
Lesson 2:
Indeed my 4th idea was correct and you need to name the parent in the nested object modification:
nested.string = "foo1"
should be
parent.nested.string = "foo1"
Again, they're all classes so it goes slightly against my understanding, but I don't know all the magic that goes on under #Published.
The final complete version looks like this:
protocol NestedProtocol {
var string: String { get set }
}
class Nested: ObservableObject, NestedProtocol {
#Published var string = ""
}
class Parent: ObservableObject {
#Published var nested: NestedProtocol
init(nested: NestedProtocol) {
self.nested = nested
}
}
var sinkHole = Set<AnyCancellable>()
let nested = Nested()
let parent = Parent(nested: nested)
parent.$nested.sink { newValue in
print("NEW VALUE \(newValue.string)")
}.store(in: &sinkHole)
and
nested.string = "foo1"
parent.nested.string = "foo2"
returns
"NEW VALUE "
"NEW VALUE foo2"
This is my custom data struct:
struct Absence {
var type: String
var date: TimeInterval
}
I have an array of this data struct like this:
var absences: [Absence]
I would like a function to return all the types of an absence. I have written this:
func types() -> [String] {
var types = [String]()
for absence in self.absences {
if !types.contains(absence.type) {
types.append(absence.type)
}
}
return types
}
I was wondering if there was a better way of iterating through using either map, compactMap or flatMap. I am new to mapping arrays. Any help much appreciated.
You could just do the following:
var types = absences.map { $0.type }
If you would like to filter the types:
var types = absences.map { $0.type }.filter { $0.contains("-") }
Or if you simply want to remove all duplicates:
var types = Array(Set(absences.map { $0.type }))
I am trying to have a model which shares a value with the objects it contains. In the below example I have a Model object, a, which contains a Struct, b. I would like them both to have access to a Bool which is referenced by variables a and aa. In order to do this, I have wrapped a Bool in a Box structure.
struct Box<Value> {
var value:Value
}
struct Model {
var a: Box<Bool>
var b:B
struct B {
var aa:Box<Bool>
}
}
struct TestView : View {
#State var model:Model
var body: some View {
VStack {
Text(model.a.value.description)
Text(model.b.aa.value.description)
Button(action: {
self.model.a.value.toggle()
}) {
Text("Button")
}
}
}
}
However, when I run the code as such:
let box = Box<Bool>(value: true)
let contentView = TestView(model: Model(a: box, b: Model.B(aa: box)))
The value in model.b.aa is not updated as I would expect. Is there a different way I should be doing this?
For your purpose, you'd need to wrap the primitive type in a class, and share an instance of that class. There is no raw reference or pointer that can be shared between the structs.