I'm using Realm in my iOS app and because of the thread safety issues I have opted to create a realm layer for my data model, as well as a layer that can be converted to and from the realm objects.
There is a lot more complexity to what I'm actually doing, but I was able to create a playground that demonstrates the unexpected issues I'm running into.
Basically I created a protocol called RealmObject. In my actual app this is a protocol which Realm.Object types can conform to which requires all the necessary properties.
I'm just including the UUID part of this protocol in the playground.
//the realm layer
protocol RealmObject {
var uuid: String { get }
}
Next I have my Realm layer model. They all have UUID, but have some other properties that correspond to their non-Realm relatives.
struct NoteObject: RealmObject {
let uuid: String
let noteText: String
}
struct AppointmentObject: RealmObject {
let uuid: String
let time: Date
}
Cacheable is the protocol that types which can be saved in realm must conform to.
For now I've just included the UUID requirement, and the requirement to be initialized from a RealmObject
//Cacheable
protocol Cacheable {
associatedtype T: RealmObject
init(object: T)
}
struct Note: Cacheable {
let noteText: String
let uuid: String
init(object: NoteObject) {
self.uuid = object.uuid
self.noteText = object.noteText
}
}
struct Appointment: Cacheable {
let uuid: String
let time: Date
init(object: AppointmentObject) {
self.uuid = object.uuid
self.time = object.time
}
}
Finally the issue. In my app this function does a lot more than this, but this is as simple as I could make it and still demonstrate the issue.
Basically, T is the generic type which must be a Cacheable object.
U is the RealmObject I want to convert to a cacheable object.
Every Cacheable object has an initializer that accepts an object which is a RealmObject
But it fails
func getCacheable<T: Cacheable, U: RealmObject>(from realmObject: U) -> T {
let thing = T(object: realmObject)
ERROR: Non-nominal type 'T' does not support explicit initialization
return thing
}
let noteObject = NoteObject(uuid: "bobalobla", noteText: "hi how are you")
let note: Note = getCacheable(from: noteObject)
let appointmentObject = AppointmentObject(uuid: "bobloblaw", time: Date())
let appointment: Appointment = getCacheable(from: appointmentObject)
I don't see anything that is so ambiguous the compiler shouldn't be able to easily figure it out
Replacing the generics with the types should be simple
Once the function knows which Cacheable type its working with, the initializer should be easily route to the correct init method. I won't pretend to understand whats actually happening, but this seems like a pretty basic thing to do with generics so I assume I must be doing something wrong. What is going on?
The type system doesn't know, from your list of generics <T: Cacheable, U: RealmObject>, that U is the correct type of RealmObject for T (in other words, you could be passing a Note as T, and an AppointmentObject as U). You just need to update your function signature to:
// The `where T.T == U` is the important part. Because that is defined,
// we can also remove `U: RealmObject` because it's redundant information.
func getCacheable<T: Cacheable, U>(from realmObject: U) -> T where T.T == U {
let thing = T(object: realmObject)
return thing
}
// Alternatively, you can just do:
func getCacheable<T: Cacheable>(from realmObject: T.T) -> T {
let thing = T(object: realmObject)
return thing
}
Is there anyway to use conversion using a variable? I am using object stacking using type of "AnyObject" and I've been able to take the class type and populate a variable. Now I need to populate an array using conversion.
var myString = "Hello World"
var objectStack = [AnyObject]()
objectStack.append(myString)
let currentObject = String(describing: objectStack.last!)
var objectType = String()
let range: Range<String.Index> = currentObject.range(of: ":")!
objectType = currentObject.substring(to: range.lowerBound)
let range2: Range<String.Index> = objectType.range(of: ".")!
objectType = objectType.substring(from: range2.upperBound)
The code above will evaluate the class and set the value of "objectType" to "String". Now I'm trying to go the other way. Something like this:
for obj in objectStack{
obj = newObject as! objectType //this doesn't work
}
Is something like this possible?
There is a simpler, safer way to get the type:
let type = type(of: objectStack.last!) // String.Type
let typeString = String(describing: type) // "String"
The other way around is not possible because the type of the object is not known at compile time. Do you have a number of known types you want to try to cast to? In that case, use optional binding to check if the cast is successful:
let object = objectStack.last!
if let string = object as? String {
// do String stuff
}
else if let i = object as? Int {
// do Int stuff
}
// and so on
If you have a large number of possible types that share some common functionality: Use Protocols. See Swift Documentation for a nice introduction.
You define a protocol for some common functionality that different types can implement:
protocol Stackable {
func doStuff()
// (more methods or properties if necessary)
}
The protocol provides a contract that all types conforming to this protocol have to fulfill by providing implementations for all declared methods and properties. Let's create a struct that conforms to Stackable:
struct Foo: Stackable {
func doStuff() {
print("Foo is doing stuff.")
}
}
You can also extend existing types to make them conform to a protocol. Let's make String Stackable:
extension String: Stackable {
func doStuff() {
print("'\(self)' is pretending to do stuff.")
}
}
Let's try it out:
let stack: [Stackable] = [Foo(), "Cat"]
for item in stack {
item.doStuff()
}
/*
prints the following:
Foo is doing stuff.
'Cat' is pretending to do stuff.
*/
This worked for me:
var instance: AnyObject! = nil
let classInst = NSClassFromString(objectType) as! NSObject.Type
instance = classInst.init()
I have a number of structs which implement a Resource protocol. This defines that they must have a variable extendedInfo which conforms to ExtendedInfo protocol to provide a way to initialise them with json via init(json: [String: AnyObject]. I'm trying to provide a way to dynamically instantiate these, with JSON, providing the right type of ExtendedInfo and assign it to the struct's extendedInfo variable. However, I'm getting a Argument labels '(json:)' do not match any available overloads error when trying to instantiate them via their dynamicType
protocol Resource {
associatedtype ExtendedInfoTypeAlias: ExtendedInfo
var extendedInfo: ExtendedInfoTypeAlias? { get set }
}
protocol ExtendedInfo {
init(json: [String: AnyObject])
}
struct User: Resource {
typealias ExtendedInfoTypeAlias = UserExtendedInfo
let name: String = "Name"
var extendedInfo: UserExtendedInfo?
}
struct UserExtendedInfo: ExtendedInfo {
let age: Int?
init(json: [String: AnyObject]) {
age = json["age"] as? Int
}
}
let user = User()
let sampleJSON = ["age": 50]
let userExtendedInfo = user.extendedInfo.dynamicType.init(json: sampleJSON) // Argument labels '(json:)' do not match any available overloads
user.extendedInfo = userExtendedInfo
Any ideas guys? Thanks
First of all, you don't need to explicitly define the type of ExtendedInfoTypeAlias in your struct implementation – you can just let it be inferred by the type you provide for extendedInfo.
struct User: Resource {
let name: String = "Name"
var extendedInfo: UserExtendedInfo?
}
Second of all, you can just use the protocol's associated type of your given struct's dynamicType in order to use your given initialiser. For example:
user.extendedInfo = user.dynamicType.ExtendedInfoTypeAlias.init(json: sampleJSON)
print(user.extendedInfo) // Optional(Dynamic_Protocols.UserExtendedInfo(age: Optional(50)))
As for why your current code doesn't work, I suspect it's due to the fact that you're getting the dynamicType from an optional – which is preventing you from calling your initialiser on it.
I did find that the following works, even when extendedInfo is nil. (This is a bug).
user.extendedInfo = user.extendedInfo!.dynamicType.init(json: sampleJSON)
Change:
let user = User()
To:
var user = User()
and try this:
user.extendedInfo = UserExtendedInfo(json: sampleJSON)
I have a protocol that uses an associated type, as such:
protocol Populatable {
typealias T
func populateWith(object: T)
}
and classes that implement the protocol:
class DateRowType: Populatable {
func populateWith(object: NSDate) {
print(object.description)
}
}
class StringRowType : Populatable {
func populateWith(object: String) {
print(object)
}
}
but when I try to cast or test for conformance, like this:
let drt = DateRowType()
let srt = StringRowType()
let rowTypes = [drt, srt]
let data = [NSDate(), "foo"]
for (i, p: Populatable) in enumerate(rowTypes) {
p.populateWith(data[i])
}
I get the error:
Protocol 'Populatable' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
What's the correct way to test if the object conforms to the Populatable protocol?
Note: all the code required to try this out is contained in the question, just copy the code blocks into a playground.
As the error says, you cannot cast it to Populatable here. I think the correct way is to cast it to EventRowType.
if let rowController = self.table.rowControllerAtIndex(i) as? EventRowType {
And you already tested that 'EventRowType' class conforms 'Populatable' protocol. Because if the EventRowType doesn't have function named 'populate', swift compiler says,
Type 'EventRowType' does not conform to protocol 'Populatable'
I don't think you will be able to go generic the whole way, unless possibly by using AnyObject and testing the class of the parameter in each populateWith function.
But this will work:
for (i, p) in enumerate(rowTypes) {
if let dateRow = p as? DateRowType {
dateRow.populateWith(data[i] as! NSDate)
}
else if let stringRow = p as? StringRowType {
stringRow.populateWith(data[i] as! String)
}
}
You will just need to expand this for every Populatable class you add.
One of the things that bugs me about Swift and Cocoa together is working with NSUserDefaults, because there is no type information and it is always necessary to cast the result of objectForKey to what you are expecting to get. It is unsafe and impractical. I decided to tackle this problem, making NSUserDefaults more practical in Swift-land, and hopefully learning something along the way. Here were my goals in the beginning:
Complete type safety: each key has one type associated with it. When setting a value, only a value of that type should be accepted and when getting a value the result should come out with the correct type
Global list of keys which are clear in meaning and content. The list should be easy to create, modify and extend
Clean syntax, using subscripts if possible. For example, this would
be perfect:
3.1. set: UserDefaults[.MyKey] = value
3.2. get: let value = UserDefaults[.MyKey]
Support for classes that conform to the NSCoding protocol by
automatically [un]archiving them
Support for all property list types accepted by NSUserDefaults
I started by creating this generic struct:
struct UDKey <T> {
init(_ n: String) { name = n }
let name: String
}
Then I created this other struct that serves as a container for all the keys in an application:
struct UDKeys {}
This can then be extended to add keys wherever needed:
extension UDKeys {
static let MyKey1 = UDKey<Int>("MyKey1")
static let MyKey2 = UDKey<[String]>("MyKey2")
}
Note how each key has a type associated with it. It represents the type of the information to be saved. Also, the name property is the string that is to be used as a key for NSUserDefaults.
The keys can be listed all in one constants file, or added using extensions on a per-file basis close to where they are being used for storing data.
Then I created an "UserDefaults" class responsible for handling the getting/setting of information:
class UserDefaultsClass {
let storage = NSUserDefaults.standardUserDefaults()
init(storage: NSUserDefaults) { self.storage = storage }
init() {}
// ...
}
let UserDefaults = UserDefaultsClass() // or UserDefaultsClass(storage: ...) for further customisation
The idea is that one instance for a particular domain is created and then every method is accessed in this way:
let value = UserDefaults.myMethod(...)
I prefer this approach to things like UserDefaults.sharedInstance.myMethod(...) (too long!) or using class methods for everything. Also, this allows interacting with various domains at the same time by using more than one UserDefaultsClass with different storage values.
So far, items 1 and 2 have been taken care of, but now the difficult part is starting: how to actually design the methods on UserDefaultsClass in order to comply with the rest.
For example, let's start with item 4. First I tried this (this code is inside UserDefaultsClass):
subscript<T: NSCoding>(key: UDKey<T>) -> T? {
set { storage.setObject(NSKeyedArchiver.archivedDataWithRootObject(newValue), forKey: key.name) }
get {
if let data = storage.objectForKey(key.name) as? NSData {
return NSKeyedUnarchiver.unarchiveObjectWithData(data) as? T
} else { return nil }
}
}
But then I find out that Swift doesn't allow generic subscripts!! Alright, then I guess I'll have to use functions then. There goes half of item 3...
func set <T: NSCoding>(key: UDKey<T>, _ value: T) {
storage.setObject(NSKeyedArchiver.archivedDataWithRootObject(value), forKey: key.name)
}
func get <T: NSCoding>(key: UDKey<T>) -> T? {
if let data = storage.objectForKey(key.name) as? NSData {
return NSKeyedUnarchiver.unarchiveObjectWithData(data) as? T
} else { return nil }
}
And that works just fine:
extension UDKeys { static let MyKey = UDKey<NSNotification>("MyKey") }
UserDefaults.set(UDKeys.MyKey, NSNotification(name: "Hello!", object: nil))
let n = UserDefaults.get(UDKeys.MyKey)
Note how I can't call UserDefaults.get(.MyKey). I have to use UDKeys.MyKey. And I can't do that because it's not yet possible to have static variables on a generic struct!!
Next, let's try number 5. Now that has been an headache and that's where I need lots of help.
Property list types are, as per the docs:
A default object must be a property list, that is, an instance of (or
for collections a combination of instances of): NSData, NSString,
NSNumber, NSDate, NSArray, or NSDictionary.
That in Swift means Int, [Int], [[String:Bool]], [[String:[Double]]], etc are all property list types. At first I thought that I could just write this and trust whoever is using this code to remember that only plist types are allowed:
func set <T: AnyObject>(key: UDKey<T>, _ value: T) {
storage.setObject(value, forKey: key.name)
}
func get <T: AnyObject>(key: UDKey<T>) -> T? {
return storage.objectForKey(key.name) as? T
}
But as you'll notice, while this works fine:
extension UDKeys { static let MyKey = UDKey<NSData>("MyKey") }
UserDefaults.set(UDKeys.MyKey, NSData())
let d = UserDefaults.get(UDKeys.MyKey)
This doesn't:
extension UDKeys { static let MyKey = UDKey<[NSData]>("MyKey") }
UserDefaults.set(UDKeys.MyKey, [NSData()])
And this doesn't either:
extension UDKeys { static let MyKey = UDKey<[Int]>("MyKey") }
UserDefaults.set(UDKeys.MyKey, [0])
Not even this:
extension UDKeys { static let MyKey = UDKey<Int>("MyKey") }
UserDefaults.set(UDKeys.MyKey, 1)
The problem is that they are all valid property list types yet Swift obviously interprets arrays and ints as structs, not as their Objective-C class counterparts. However:
func set <T: Any>(key: UDKey<T>, _ value: T)
won't work either, because then any value type, not just the ones that have a class cousin courtesy of Obj-C, is accepted, and storage.setObject(value, forKey: key.name) is no longer valid because value has to be a reference type.
If a protocol existed in Swift that accepted any reference type and any value type that can be converted to a reference type in objective-c (like [Int] and the other examples I mention) this problem would be solved:
func set <T: AnyObjectiveCObject>(key: UDKey<T>, _ value: T) {
storage.setObject(value, forKey: key.name)
}
func get <T: AnyObjectiveCObject>(key: UDKey<T>) -> T? {
return storage.objectForKey(key.name) as? T
}
AnyObjectiveCObject would accept any swift classes and swift arrays, dictionaries, numbers (ints, floats, bools, etc that convert to NSNumber), strings...
Unfortunately, AFAIK this doesn't exist.
Question:
How can I have write a generic function (or collection of overloaded generic functions) whose generic type T can be any reference type or any value type that Swift can convert to a reference type in Objective-C?
Solved: With the help of the answers I got, I arrived at what I wanted. In case anyone wants to take a look at my solution, here it is.
I don't mean to brag but ... oh who am I kidding, I totally do!
Preferences.set([NSData()], forKey: "MyKey1")
Preferences.get("MyKey1", type: type([NSData]))
Preferences.get("MyKey1") as [NSData]?
func crunch1(value: [NSData])
{
println("Om nom 1!")
}
crunch1(Preferences.get("MyKey1")!)
Preferences.set(NSArray(object: NSData()), forKey: "MyKey2")
Preferences.get("MyKey2", type: type(NSArray))
Preferences.get("MyKey2") as NSArray?
func crunch2(value: NSArray)
{
println("Om nom 2!")
}
crunch2(Preferences.get("MyKey2")!)
Preferences.set([[String:[Int]]](), forKey: "MyKey3")
Preferences.get("MyKey3", type: type([[String:[Int]]]))
Preferences.get("MyKey3") as [[String:[Int]]]?
func crunch3(value: [[String:[Int]]])
{
println("Om nom 3!")
}
crunch3(Preferences.get("MyKey3")!)
I'd like to introduce my idea. (Sorry for my poor English in advance.)
let plainKey = UDKey("Message", string)
let mixedKey
= UDKey("Mixed"
, array(dictionary(
string, tuple(
array(integer),
optional(date)))))
let ud = UserDefaults(NSUserDefaults.standardUserDefaults())
ud.set(plainKey, "Hello")
ud.set(plainKey, 2525) // <-- compile error
ud.set(mixedKey, [ [ "(^_^;)": ([1, 2, 3], .Some(NSDate()))] ])
ud.set(mixedKey, [ [ "(^_^;)": ([1, 2, 3], .Some(NSData()))] ]) // <-- compile error
The only difference is that UDKey() now requires #2 argument, a value of BiMap class. I've uncoupled the work originally of UDKey into BiMap which converts a value of a type to/from a value of another type.
public class BiMap<A, B> {
public func AtoB(a: A) -> B?
public func BtoA(b: B) -> A?
}
Consequently, types that set/get can accepts are conducted by BiMap, and no longer limited to types as can automatically cast
from/to AnyObject (more specifically, types NSUserDefaults can accepts.).
Because BiMap is a generic class, you can easily create subtypes of that, interchanging arbitrary two types you want.
Here is full source code. (But there are bugs yet to be fixed..)
https://gist.github.com/hisui/47f170a9e193168dc946