Below is a simplified version of the code that I'm using. But whenever I resetKeyboard() it still shows the previous keyboard. Is there anyway to make it so when I call resetKeyboard() it replaces the keyboard with a fresh KeyboardView?
struct GameView: View {
#State var myKeyboard = KeyboardView()
var body: some View {
VStack{
Button("Change Keyboard") {
myKeyboard.change()
}
myKeyboard
Button("Reset Keyboard") {
resetKeyboard()
}
}
}
func resetKeyboard(){
self.myKeyboard = KeyboardView()
}
}
SwiftUI constructs a view tree from View objects in body of their parents.
So, what SwiftUI got was the initial copy (remember, it's a value-type struct) of myKeyboard, not the copy you are changing.
Under normal usage, you don't keep instances of various View stored as variables (I mean, you can, but you'd need to understand in depth what's going on).
What you probably want is to change the data that drives the child view. Where does (should) this data live? It depends on what you want to do.
In most cases the parent "owns" the state, i.e. has the source of truth of some data that the child relies on. Then it's trivial to change the state and pass the state to the child via its init:
struct ChildView: View {
let number: Int
var body: some View {
Text("\(number)")
}
}
struct ParentView: View {
#State var random: Int = Int.random(1...100)
var body: some View {
VStack() {
ChildView(number: random)
Button("randomize") {
self.random = Int.random(1...100)
}
}
}
}
But, say, the parent doesn't want to do the randomization - i.e. the child should deal with it.
The proper approach is to create a view model for the child, which the parent (or the parent's own view model) could own and pass via init, and then the view model would deal with nuances of randomization.
class ChildVM: ObservableObject {
#Published var random = Int.random(1...100)
func change() {
random = Int.random(1...100)
}
}
The parent creates an instance of ChildVM and passes it to the child:
struct ParentVuew: View {
let childVM = ChildVM()
var body: some View {
VStack() {
ChildView(vm: childVm)
Button("randomize") {
self.childVM.change()
}
}
}
}
And the child view is simply driven by the view model:
struct ChildView: View {
#ObservedObject let vm: ChildVM
var body: some View {
Text("\(vm.random)")
}
}
Obviously, this is a simplified example that could have been achieved in any number of ways.
And there are different ways for the parent to "message" the child.
But the general takeaway should be that Views should be thought of as declarative structures - not living instances - and the data is what drives the changes in those views. You need to decide who is best to own the source of truth.
Related
I'm trying to get into swift/swiftui but I'm really struggling with this one:
I have a MainView containing a ChildView. The ChildView has a function update to fetch the data to display from an external source and assign it to a #State data variable.
I'd like to be able to trigger update from MainView in order to update data.
I've experienced that update is in fact called, however, data is reset to the initial value upon this call.
The summary of what I have:
struct ChildView: View {
#State var data: Int = 0
var body: some View {
Text("\(data)")
Button(action: update) {
Text("update") // works as expected
}
}
func update() {
// fetch data from external source
data = 42
}
}
struct MainView: View {
var child = ChildView()
var body: some View {
VStack {
child
Button(action: {
child.update()
}) {
Text("update") // In fact calls the function, but doesn't set the data variable to the new value
}
}
}
}
When googling for a solution, I only came across people suggesting to move update and data to MainView and then pass a binding of data to ChildView.
However, following this logic I'd have to blow up MainView by adding all the data access logic in there. My point of having ChildView at all is to break up code into smaller chunks and to reuse ChildView including the data access methods in other parent views, too.
I just cannot believe there's no way of doing this in SwiftUI.
Is completely understandable to be confused at first with how to deal with state on SwiftUI, but hang on there, you will find your way soon enough.
What you want to do can be achieved in many different ways, depending on the requirements and limitations of your project.
I will mention a few options, but I'm sure there are more, and all of them have pros and cons, but hopefully one can suit your needs.
Binding
Probably the easiest would be to use a #Binding, here a good tutorial/explanation of it.
An example would be to have data declared on your MainView and pass it as a #Binding to your ChildView. When you need to change the data, you change it directly on the MainView and will be reflected on both.
This solutions leads to having the logic on both parts, probably not ideal, but is up to what you need.
Also notice how the initialiser for ChildView is directly on the body of MainView now.
Example
struct ChildView: View {
#Binding var data: Int
var body: some View {
Text("\(data)")
Button(action: update) {
Text("update") // works as expected
}
}
func update() {
// fetch data from external source
data = 42
}
}
struct MainView: View {
#State var data: Int = 0
var body: some View {
VStack {
ChildView(data: $data)
Button(action: {
data = 42
}) {
Text("update") // In fact calls the function, but doesn't set the data variable to the new value
}
}
}
}
ObservableObject
Another alternative would be to remove state and logic from your views, using an ObservableObject, here an explanation of it.
Example
class ViewModel: ObservableObject {
#Published var data: Int = 0
func update() {
// fetch data from external source
data = 42
}
}
struct ChildView: View {
#ObservedObject var viewModel: ViewModel
var body: some View {
Text("\(viewModel.data)")
Button(action: viewModel.update) {
Text("update") // works as expected
}
}
}
struct MainView: View {
#StateObject var viewModel = ViewModel()
var body: some View {
VStack {
ChildView(viewModel: viewModel)
Button(action: {
viewModel.update()
}) {
Text("update") // In fact calls the function, but doesn't set the data variable to the new value
}
}
}
}
TL;DR: If I have a view containing a NavigationSplitView(sidebar:detail:), with a property (such as a State or StateObject) tracking user selection, how should I make it so that the sidebar and detail views observe the user selection, but the parent view does not?
Using SwiftUI's new NavigationSplitView (or the deprecated NavigationView), a common paradigm is to have a list of selectable items in the sidebar view, with details of the selected item in the detail view. The selection, of course, needs to be observed, usually from within an ObservedObject.
struct ExampleView: View {
#StateObject private var viewModel = ExampleViewModel()
var body: some View {
NavigationSplitView {
SidebarView(selection: $viewModel.selection)
} detail: {
DetailView(item: viewModel.selection)
}
}
}
struct SidebarView: View {
let selectableItems: [Item] = []
#Binding var selection: Item?
var body: some View {
List(selectableItems, selection: $viewModel.selected) { item in
NavigationLink(value: item) { Text(item.name) }
}
}
}
struct DetailView: View {
let item: Item?
var body: some View {
// Details of the selected item
}
}
#MainActor
final class ExampleViewModel: ObservableObject {
#Published var selection: Item? = nil
}
This, however, poses a problem: the ExampleView owns the ExampleViewModel used for tracking the selection, which means that it gets recalculated whenever the selection changes. This, in turn, causes its children SidebarView and DetailView to be redrawn.
Since we want those children to be recalculated, one might be forgiven for thinking that everything is as intended. However, the ExampleView itself should not be recalculated in my opinion, because doing so will not only update the child views (intended), but also everything in the parent view (not intended). This is especially true if its body is composed of other views, modifiers, or setup work. Case in point: in this example, the NavigationSplitView itself will also be recalculated, which I don't think is what we want.
Almost all tutorials, guides and examples I see online use a version of the above example - sometimes the viewModel is passed as an ObservedObject, or as an EnvironmentObject, but they all share the same trait in that the parent view containing the NavigationSplitView is observing the property that should only be observed by the children of NavigationSplitView.
My current solution is to initiate the viewmodel in the parent view, but not observe it:
struct ExampleView: View {
let viewModel = ExampleViewModel()
...
}
#MainActor
final class ExampleViewModel: ObservableObject {
#Published var selection: Item? = nil
nonisolated init() { }
}
This way, the parent view will remain intact (at least in regards to user selection); however, this will cause the ExampleViewModel to be recreated if anything else would cause the ExampleView to be redrawn - effectively resetting our user selection. Additionally, we are unable to pass any of the viewModel's properties as bindings. So while it works for my current use-case, I don't consider this an effective solution.
I have a view that consists of two subviews with 1) separate internal states but 2) a high-level state that’s noteworthy to any associated views i.e. each other. That is, a change in one’s high-level state should trigger the other to reconsider/change its own. Imagine – in the interest of keeping it simple/generalisable - a header that has a set of buttons that change based on the option selected in the footer. On the flip side, there’s a button in the header that exits the active state and reset it back to its original state (and therefore the footer’s too).
I’ve managed to conveniently achieve this by adopting a shared universal instance for each view’s view model. The header for example was observing changes in the footer’s view model, and therefore is able react to a change in the footer’s high-level state. However, considering the footer had other internal states (i.e. irrelevant to the header but necessary for the footer view that was observing changes to its own view model), the header view was being re-rendered every time there was any change, regardless of relevance, to the footer view. In reality, at least to my eyes, I wouldn’t notice any visual hiccups but I’m aware this is a fundamentally inefficient (and wrong) way to manage the flow of states. And that if this misbehavior was widespread, then performance is likely to become compromised (visible).
What I have is something along the lines of:
struct HeaderView: View {
// MARK: Observers
#ObservedObject var viewModel: HeaderViewModel = HeaderViewModel.shared
#ObservedObject var footerViewModel: FooterViewModel = FooterViewModel.shared
// MARK: -
var body: some View {
VStack {
switch footerViewModel.state {
case 1: HeaderState1View()
case 2: HeaderState2View()
case 3: HeaderState3View()
}
Button("EXIT", action: {viewModel.reset()})
}
}
}
struct FooterView: View {
// MARK: Observers
#ObservedObject var viewModel: FooterViewModel = FooterViewModel.shared
// MARK: -
var body: some View {
Button("State 1", action: {viewModel.state(to: 1)})
.background(viewModel.state == 1 ? Color.red : Color.clear)
Button("State 2", action: {viewModel.reset()})
.background(viewModel.state == 2 ? Color.red : Color.clear)
Button("State 3", action: {viewModel.reset()})
.background(viewModel.state == 3 ? Color.red : Color.clear)
}
}
class HeaderViewModel: ObservableObject {
// ...
func reset() {
FooterViewModel.shared.reset()
// and other internal state changes
}
// ...
}
class FooterViewModel: ObservableObject {
#Published var state: Int = 1
// ...
func state(to state: Int) {
self.state = state
}
func reset() {
self.state = 1
}
// ...
}
The view models for each is created inside a root-level ViewModel responsible for creating both (and others).
class ViewModel {
var footer = FooterViewModel()
var header = HeaderViewModel()
// etc.
}
That’s created in #main root struct:
#main
struct myApp: App {
// MARK: Variables
var viewModel = ViewModel()
// MARK: Layout
var body: some Scene {
return WindowGroup {
ContentView()
.environmentObject(viewModel)
}
}
}
struct ContentView: View {
// MARK: -
var body: some View {
VStack {
header
/// other views
footer
}
}
Without depending on shared instances of both header and footers’ view models, as I have above, what would the most appropriate/efficient way to achieve what I’m after?
To be more specific/clear, if, for example, the Header and Footer views create a #StateObject of their respective view models i.e.
#StateObject var viewModel: FooterViewModel = FooterViewModel() /// in FooterView.swift
#StateObject var viewModel: HeaderViewModel = HeaderViewModel() /// in HeaderView.swift
How would I be able let any change in HeaderView communicate back to the instance of FooterViewModel that FooterView created?
EDIT:
I imagine one way to possibly achieve this is if I create a third view model that consists of the published shared state and that it’s passed into both views when they’re initialised. But imagine there was more than one published property that needed to be shared between the views, and that there was another view in the mix that needed access to only one of them – would I create two shared view models then: one with publishers for shared properties between all 3 and another with ones for the 2? Doesn’t seem a practical strategy.
In the code below (a stripped-down version of some code in a project) I'm using a MVVM pattern with two views:
ViewA - displays a value stored in an ObservableObject ViewModel;
ViewB - displays the same value and has a Slider that changes that value, which is passed to the view using Binding.
Inside of ViewModelA I have a computed property which serves both to avoid the View from accessing the Model directly and to perform some other operations when the value inside the model (the one being displayed) is changed.
I'm also passing that computed value to a ViewModelB, using Binding, which acts as a StateObject for ViewB. However, when dragging the Slider to change that value, the value changes on ViewA but doesn't change on ViewB and the slider itself doesn't slide. As expected, when debugging, the wrappedValue inside the Binding is not changing. But how is the change propagated upwards (through the Binding's setters, I imagine) but not downwards back to ViewB?? I imagine this can only happen if the variable is being duplicated somewhere and changed only in one place, but I can't seem to understand where or if that's what's actually happening.
Thanks in advance!
Views:
import SwiftUI
struct ContentView: View {
#StateObject var viewModelA = ViewModelA()
var body: some View {
VStack{
ViewA(value: viewModelA.value)
ViewB(value: $viewModelA.value)
}
}
}
struct ViewA: View {
let value: Double
var body: some View {
Text("\(value)").padding()
}
}
struct ViewB: View {
#StateObject var viewModelB: ViewModelB
init(value: Binding<Double>){
_viewModelB = StateObject(wrappedValue: ViewModelB(value: value))
}
var body: some View {
VStack{
Text("\(viewModelB.value)")
Slider(value: $viewModelB.value, in: 0...1)
}
}
}
ViewModels:
class ViewModelA: ObservableObject {
#Published var model = Model()
var value: Double {
get {
model.value
}
set {
model.value = newValue
// perform other checks and operations
}
}
}
class ViewModelB: ObservableObject {
#Binding var value: Double
init(value: Binding<Double>){
self._value = value
}
}
Model:
struct Model {
var value: Double = 0
}
If you only look where you can't go, you might just miss the riches below
Breaking single source of truth, and breaching local (private) property of #StateObjectby sharing it via Binding are two places where you can't go.
#EnvironmentObject or more generally the concept of "shared object" between views are the riches below.
This is an example of doing it without MVVM nonsense:
import SwiftUI
final class EnvState: ObservableObject {#Published var value: Double = 0 }
struct ContentView: View {
#EnvironmentObject var eos: EnvState
var body: some View {
VStack{
ViewA()
ViewB()
}
}
}
struct ViewA: View {
#EnvironmentObject var eos: EnvState
var body: some View {
Text("\(eos.value)").padding()
}
}
struct ViewB: View {
#EnvironmentObject var eos: EnvState
var body: some View {
VStack{
Text("\(eos.value)")
Slider(value: $eos.value, in: 0...1)
}
}
}
Isn't this easier to read, cleaner, less error-prone, with fewer overheads, and without serious violation of fundamental coding principles?
MVVM does not take value type into consideration. And the reason Swift introduces value type is so that you don't pass shared mutable references and create all kinds of bugs.
Yet the first thing MVVM devs do is to introduce shared mutable references for every view and pass references around via binding...
Now to your question:
the only options I see are either using only one ViewModel per Model, or having to pass the Model (or it's properties) between ViewModels through Binding
Another option is to drop MVVM, get rid of all view models, and use #EnvironmentObject instead.
Or if you don't want to drop MVVM, pass #ObservedObject (your view model being a reference type) instead of #Binding.
E.g.;
struct ContentView: View {
#ObservedObject var viewModelA = ViewModelA()
var body: some View {
VStack{
ViewA(value: viewModelA)
ViewB(value: viewModelA)
}
}
}
On a side note, what's the point of "don't access model directly from view"?
It makes zero sense when your model is value type.
Especially when you pass view model reference around like cookies in a party so everyone can have it.
Really it looks like broken single-source or truth concept. Instead the following just works (ViewModelB might probably be needed for something, but not for this case)
Tested with Xcode 12 / iOS 14
Only modified parts:
struct ContentView: View {
#StateObject var viewModelA = ViewModelA()
var body: some View {
VStack{
ViewA(value: viewModelA.value)
ViewB(value: $viewModelA.model.value)
}
}
}
struct ViewB: View {
#Binding var value: Double
var body: some View {
VStack{
Text("\(value)")
Slider(value: $value, in: 0...1)
}
}
}
Problem
In Order to achieve a clean look and feel of the App's code, I create ViewModels for every View that contains logic.
A normal ViewModel looks a bit like this:
class SomeViewModel: ObservableObject {
#Published var state = 1
// Logic and calls of Business Logic goes here
}
and is used like so:
struct SomeView: View {
#ObservedObject var viewModel = SomeViewModel()
var body: some View {
// Code to read and write the State goes here
}
}
This workes fine when the Views Parent is not being updated. If the parent's state changes, this View gets redrawn (pretty normal in a declarative Framework). But also the ViewModel gets recreated and does not hold the State afterward. This is unusual when you compare to other Frameworks (eg: Flutter).
In my opinion, the ViewModel should stay, or the State should persist.
If I replace the ViewModel with a #State Property and use the int (in this example) directly it stays persisted and does not get recreated:
struct SomeView: View {
#State var state = 1
var body: some View {
// Code to read and write the State goes here
}
}
This does obviously not work for more complex States. And if I set a class for #State (like the ViewModel) more and more Things are not working as expected.
Question
Is there a way of not recreating the ViewModel every time?
Is there a way of replicating the #State Propertywrapper for #ObservedObject?
Why is #State keeping the State over the redraw?
I know that usually, it is bad practice to create a ViewModel in an inner View but this behavior can be replicated by using a NavigationLink or Sheet.
Sometimes it is then just not useful to keep the State in the ParentsViewModel and work with bindings when you think of a very complex TableView, where the Cells themself contain a lot of logic.
There is always a workaround for individual cases, but I think it would be way easier if the ViewModel would not be recreated.
Duplicate Question
I know there are a lot of questions out there talking about this issue, all talking about very specific use-cases. Here I want to talk about the general problem, without going too deep into custom solutions.
Edit (adding more detailed Example)
When having a State-changing ParentView, like a list coming from a Database, API, or cache (think about something simple). Via a NavigationLink you might reach a Detail-Page where you can modify the Data. By changing the data the reactive/declarative Pattern would tell us to also update the ListView, which would then "redraw" the NavigationLink, which would then lead to a recreation of the ViewModel.
I know I could store the ViewModel in the ParentView / ParentView's ViewModel, but this is the wrong way of doing it IMO. And since subscriptions are destroyed and/or recreated - there might be some side effects.
Finally, there is a Solution provided by Apple: #StateObject.
By replacing #ObservedObject with #StateObject everything mentioned in my initial post is working.
Unfortunately, this is only available in ios 14+.
This is my Code from Xcode 12 Beta (Published June 23, 2020)
struct ContentView: View {
#State var title = 0
var body: some View {
NavigationView {
VStack {
Button("Test") {
self.title = Int.random(in: 0...1000)
}
TestView1()
TestView2()
}
.navigationTitle("\(self.title)")
}
}
}
struct TestView1: View {
#ObservedObject var model = ViewModel()
var body: some View {
VStack {
Button("Test1: \(self.model.title)") {
self.model.title += 1
}
}
}
}
class ViewModel: ObservableObject {
#Published var title = 0
}
struct TestView2: View {
#StateObject var model = ViewModel()
var body: some View {
VStack {
Button("StateObject: \(self.model.title)") {
self.model.title += 1
}
}
}
}
As you can see, the StateObject Keeps it value upon the redraw of the Parent View, while the ObservedObject is being reset.
I agree with you, I think this is one of many major problems with SwiftUI. Here's what I find myself doing, as gross as it is.
struct MyView: View {
#State var viewModel = MyViewModel()
var body : some View {
MyViewImpl(viewModel: viewModel)
}
}
fileprivate MyViewImpl : View {
#ObservedObject var viewModel : MyViewModel
var body : some View {
...
}
}
You can either construct the view model in place or pass it in, and it gets you a view that will maintain your ObservableObject across reconstruction.
Is there a way of not recreating the ViewModel every time?
Yes, keep ViewModel instance outside of SomeView and inject via constructor
struct SomeView: View {
#ObservedObject var viewModel: SomeViewModel // << only declaration
Is there a way of replicating the #State Propertywrapper for #ObservedObject?
No needs. #ObservedObject is-a already DynamicProperty similarly to #State
Why is #State keeping the State over the redraw?
Because it keeps its storage, ie. wrapped value, outside of view. (so, see first above again)
You need to provide custom PassThroughSubject in your ObservableObject class. Look at this code:
//
// Created by Франчук Андрей on 08.05.2020.
// Copyright © 2020 Франчук Андрей. All rights reserved.
//
import SwiftUI
import Combine
struct TextChanger{
var textChanged = PassthroughSubject<String,Never>()
public func changeText(newValue: String){
textChanged.send(newValue)
}
}
class ComplexState: ObservableObject{
var objectWillChange = ObservableObjectPublisher()
let textChangeListener = TextChanger()
var text: String = ""
{
willSet{
objectWillChange.send()
self.textChangeListener.changeText(newValue: newValue)
}
}
}
struct CustomState: View {
#State private var text: String = ""
let textChangeListener: TextChanger
init(textChangeListener: TextChanger){
self.textChangeListener = textChangeListener
print("did init")
}
var body: some View {
Text(text)
.onReceive(textChangeListener.textChanged){newValue in
self.text = newValue
}
}
}
struct CustomStateContainer: View {
//#ObservedObject var state = ComplexState()
var state = ComplexState()
var body: some View {
VStack{
HStack{
Text("custom state View: ")
CustomState(textChangeListener: state.textChangeListener)
}
HStack{
Text("ordinary Text View: ")
Text(state.text)
}
HStack{
Text("text input: ")
TextInput().environmentObject(state)
}
}
}
}
struct TextInput: View {
#EnvironmentObject var state: ComplexState
var body: some View {
TextField("input", text: $state.text)
}
}
struct CustomState_Previews: PreviewProvider {
static var previews: some View {
return CustomStateContainer()
}
}
First, I using TextChanger to pass new value of .text to .onReceive(...) in CustomState View. Note, that onReceive in this case gets PassthroughSubject, not the ObservableObjectPublisher. In last case you will have only Publisher.Output in perform: closure, not the NewValue. state.text in that case would have old value.
Second, look at the ComplexState class. I made an objectWillChange property to make text changes send notification to subscribers manually. Its almost the same like #Published wrapper do. But, when the text changing it will send both, and objectWillChange.send() and textChanged.send(newValue). This makes you be able to choose in exact View, how to react on state changing. If you want ordinary behavior, just put the state into #ObservedObject wrapper in CustomStateContainer View. Then, you will have all the views recreated and this section will get updated values too:
HStack{
Text("ordinary Text View: ")
Text(state.text)
}
If you don't want all of them to be recreated, just remove #ObservedObject. Ordinary text View will stop updating, but CustomState will. With no recreating.
update:
If you want more control, you can decide while changing the value, who do you want to inform about that change.
Check more complex code:
//
//
// Created by Франчук Андрей on 08.05.2020.
// Copyright © 2020 Франчук Андрей. All rights reserved.
//
import SwiftUI
import Combine
struct TextChanger{
// var objectWillChange: ObservableObjectPublisher
// #Published
var textChanged = PassthroughSubject<String,Never>()
public func changeText(newValue: String){
textChanged.send(newValue)
}
}
class ComplexState: ObservableObject{
var onlyPassthroughSend = false
var objectWillChange = ObservableObjectPublisher()
let textChangeListener = TextChanger()
var text: String = ""
{
willSet{
if !onlyPassthroughSend{
objectWillChange.send()
}
self.textChangeListener.changeText(newValue: newValue)
}
}
}
struct CustomState: View {
#State private var text: String = ""
let textChangeListener: TextChanger
init(textChangeListener: TextChanger){
self.textChangeListener = textChangeListener
print("did init")
}
var body: some View {
Text(text)
.onReceive(textChangeListener.textChanged){newValue in
self.text = newValue
}
}
}
struct CustomStateContainer: View {
//var state = ComplexState()
#ObservedObject var state = ComplexState()
var body: some View {
VStack{
HStack{
Text("custom state View: ")
CustomState(textChangeListener: state.textChangeListener)
}
HStack{
Text("ordinary Text View: ")
Text(state.text)
}
HStack{
Text("text input with full state update: ")
TextInput().environmentObject(state)
}
HStack{
Text("text input with no full state update: ")
TextInputNoUpdate().environmentObject(state)
}
}
}
}
struct TextInputNoUpdate: View {
#EnvironmentObject var state: ComplexState
var body: some View {
TextField("input", text: Binding( get: {self.state.text},
set: {newValue in
self.state.onlyPassthroughSend.toggle()
self.state.text = newValue
self.state.onlyPassthroughSend.toggle()
}
))
}
}
struct TextInput: View {
#State private var text: String = ""
#EnvironmentObject var state: ComplexState
var body: some View {
TextField("input", text: Binding(
get: {self.text},
set: {newValue in
self.state.text = newValue
// self.text = newValue
}
))
.onAppear(){
self.text = self.state.text
}.onReceive(state.textChangeListener.textChanged){newValue in
self.text = newValue
}
}
}
struct CustomState_Previews: PreviewProvider {
static var previews: some View {
return CustomStateContainer()
}
}
I made a manual Binding to stop broadcasting objectWillChange. But you still need to gets new value in all the places you changing this value to stay synchronized. Thats why I modified TextInput too.
Is that what you needed?
My solution is use EnvironmentObject and don't use ObservedObject at view it's viewModel will be reset, you pass through hierarchy by
.environmentObject(viewModel)
Just init viewModel somewhere it will not be reset(example root view).