I'm an Android developer learning iOS development and I'm facing this issue that is trivial with Kotlin/Java interfaces, but I can't get through it with Swift protocols.
Say we have this protocol:
protocol ValueStore {
associatedtype Value
var value: Value? { get set }
}
In Kotlin/Java, if I want to use a generic abstraction to define a variable type, I just use a generic interface with type parameter:
val stringStore: ValueStore<String>
Since this is not possible in Swift, I tried to create a specialized sub-protocol that defines the associated type:
protocol StringStore: ValueStore where Value == String { }
with the intent to use the latter like this:
let stringStore: StringStore
The above declaration is what I'm trying to achieve. Yet the compiler tells me Protocol 'StringStore' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements.
Although in type declarations I can use a specialized generic concrete implementation, i.e. UserDefaultsValueStore<String>, this is against the dependency inversion principle.
Is it possible to specialize a protocol with associated type and still maintaining the level of abstraction?
If I understand the question correctly... Try this:
protocol ValueStoreType {
associatedtype Value
var value: Value? { get set }
}
struct ValueStore<T>: ValueStoreType {
var value: T?
}
Then you will be able to do:
var stringStore: ValueStore<String>
Related
Question
I have a protocol defined as follows:
protocol MyProtocol {
associatedtype MySubprotocol
}
Can I require that the associated type MySubprotocol is a protocol as well?
So semantically it would be sth. like this:
protocol MyProtocol {
associatedtype MySubprotocol: AnyProtocol
}
Background
I know that I can do nothing with that protocol inside a given concrete type that implements MyProtocol, but I can use it "from outside" for protocol composition. My ultimate goal would be to define a "Sum protocol" from all the associated types of all MyProtocol implementations, e.g. when I have the following structs that implement MyProtocol,
struct MyImpl_1: MyProtocol {
typealias MySubProtocol = MySubProtocol_1
}
struct MyImpl_2: MyProtocol {
typealias MySubProtocol = MySubProtocol_2
}
...
I want to create a composite protocol like this:
protocol AllRequirements:
MyImpl_1.MySubprotocol,
MyImpl_2.MySubprotocol,
... {}
This requires MyImpl_1.MySubprotocol etc. to be a protocol, otherwise I can't compose it. (I know, I could use the concrete type MySubProtocol_1 instead, but I want compile-time safety when a developer creates a new implementation of MyProtocol (i.e. another MyImpl_n).
Example Use Case
I have a couple of "Worker" objects, each of which performs a specific task. As I want to enforce a common API, I create a common protocol for all of these types:
protocol: Worker {
associatedtype Toolset
func getTheJobDone()
}
Here's an example for a concrete type:
struct Cleaner: Worker {
typealias Toolset = AnyBrush
let brush: AnyBrush
init(brush: AnyBrush) {
self.brush = brush
}
func getTheJobDone() {
brush.applyToFloor()
}
}
In practice, I will have multiple types of this sort to perform different tasks. I want each of these Workers to define their own requirements, i.e. the interface (protocol) they require to get their job done. So in this case, I would create a protocol AnyBrush along with the Cleaner:
protocol AnyBrush {
func applyToFloor()
}
which I then require as the worker's Toolset (see above).
This approach works for me, but when I create a new Worker type, the current protocol definition will allow me to specify any type for the Toolset, so someone could (for some unknown reason) do this:
typealias Toolset = Int
which doesn't make sense at all.
So that's why I'm asking this question. For these two goals:
Force a common interface (API) for all workers.
Use the compiler to enforce that the associated type Toolset is always a protocol.
One might ask me to trust my co-workers and my future self that we're going to use a protocol because if we don't understand that, we got a much more serious problem, but I would still like to see if it's possible to require a protocol.
I have a base protocol that describes the router behavior:
protocol BaseRouterProtocol: AnyObject {
associatedtype View: MainView
func dismiss(viewController: ViewController<View>?)
}
extension BaseRouterProtocol {
func dismiss(viewController: ViewController<View>?) {
viewController?.navigationController?.popViewController(animated: true)
}
}
I want to adopt this protocol to another like this:
protocol StartRouterProtocol: BaseRouterProtocol where View == StartView {
func showTermsVC()
func showSignInVC()
}
But when I create a variable of this type:
let router: StartRouterProtocol
Compiler throws me an error:
Protocol 'StartRouterProtocol' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
Why does this happening if I have described the type that I expect?
Once a protocol has an associated type, that protocol can't be used as a type by itself for instance declarations-- only for generic constraints and declaring conformance.
So in this case, Swift is saying "yeah, but what is the concrete type for StartRouterProtocol's associated type?"
In this case, it's asking you to either:
Use a concrete type directly, i.e. let router: MyStartViewClass with this conformance declaration, elsewhere: class MyStartViewClass: StartRouterProtocol { ... })
OR, push the need for a concrete type up one layer, as a generic constraint i.e.
class MyRouterController<T: StartRouterProtocol> {
let router: T
}
This is probably not what you were hoping for, but unfortunately associated types add complexity to how you use protocols, especially if you're familiar with generics & interfaces from other languages. (i.e. Java/C# interfaces)
You can work around some aspects of associated types by using a concept called "type erasure" -- but that can cause other problems and complexity.
Here's some further reading that may help: https://medium.com/monstar-lab-bangladesh-engineering/swift-from-protocol-to-associatedtype-then-type-erasure-a4093f6a2d08
I'm trying to create an extension on Set that uses a where clause so that it only works on a struct I have that accepts a generic. But I keep running into errors about it the extension wanting the generic to be defined in the struct
In this example I'm getting the following error, with the compiler hint suggesting I use <Any>: Reference to generic type 'Test' requires arguments in <...>
struct Test<T> {
var value : T
func printIt() {
print("value")
}
}
extension Set where Element == Test {
}
However, when I use <Any> in the struct, I'm getting this error: Same-type constraint type 'Test' does not conform to required protocol 'Equatable'
extension Set where Element == Test<Any> {
}
Any suggestions on how to get the where clause to accept the Test struct for any type I'm using in the generic?
Thanks for your help
This is a limitation of Swift's type system. There's no way to talk about generic types without concrete type parameters, even when those type parameters are unrelated to the use of the type. For this particular situation (an extension for all possible type parameters), I don't believe there's any deep problem stopping this. It's a simpler version of parameterized extensions, which is a desired feature. It's just not supported (though there is an implementation in progress).
The standard way to address this today is with a protocol.
First, a little cleanup that's not related to your question (and you probably already know). Your example requires Test to be Hashable:
struct Test<T: Hashable>: Hashable {
var value : T
func printIt() {
print("value")
}
}
Make a protocol that requires whatever pieces you want for the extension, and make Test conform:
protocol PrintItable {
func printIt()
}
extension Test: PrintItable {}
And then use the protocol rather than the type:
extension Set where Element: PrintItable {
func printAll() {
for item in self { item.printIt() }
}
}
let s: Set<Test<Int>> = [Test(value: 1)]
s.printAll() // value
Just one more note on the error messages you're getting. The first error, asking you to add Any is really just complaining that Swift can't talk about unparameterized generics, and suggesting it's fallback type when it doesn't know what type to suggests: Any.
But Set<Any> isn't "any kind of Set." It's a Set where Element == Any. So Any has to be Hashable, which isn't possible. And a Set<Int> isn't a subtype of Set<Any>. There' completely different types. So the errors are a little confusing and take you down an unhelpful road.
This is not possible. The where clause requires a specific data type and simply passing a Test will not work unless I specify something more concrete like Test<String>.
Thank you to Joakim and flanker for answering the question in the comments
If you want to add extension for Set with where clause your Test must confirm to Hashable protocol.
Your Struct must look like this.
struct Test<T: Hashable> : Hashable {
var value : T
func printIt() {
print("value")
}
func hash(into hasher: inout Hasher) {
hasher.combine(value.hashValue)
}
}
So you can't use Any for your extension you must specify type that confirm to Hashable protocol.
I want to know why my SomeResourceRepository is still generic, even though it is only defined in one case only, which is when I set ResourceType = SomeResource, which XCode formats as below with the where clause. Code below which shows the exact setup I'm trying to achieve, written in a Playground.
I am trying to define a generic protocol for any given ResourceType such that the ResourceTypeRepository protocol then automatically requires the same set of functions, without having to copy-paste most of GenericRepository only to manually fill in the ResourceType for each Repository I make. The reason I need this as a protocol is because I want to be able to mock this for testing purposes later. So I'll provide an implementation of said protocol somewhere else in the actual app.
My interpretation of the code below is that it should work, because both SomeResourceLocalRepository and SomeResourceRemoteRepository are concrete, as I have eliminated the associated type by defining them "on top of" SomeResourceRepository, which is only defined where ResourceType == SomeResource.
import Foundation
struct SomeResource: Identifiable {
let id: String
let name: String
}
struct WhateverResource: Identifiable {
let id: UUID
let count: UInt
}
protocol GenericRepository: class where ResourceType: Identifiable {
associatedtype ResourceType
func index() -> Array<ResourceType>
func show(id: ResourceType.ID) -> ResourceType?
func update(resource: ResourceType)
func delete(id: ResourceType.ID)
}
protocol SomeResourceRepository: GenericRepository where ResourceType == SomeResource {}
protocol SomeResourceLocalRepository: SomeResourceRepository {}
protocol SomeResourceRemoteRepository: SomeResourceRepository {}
class SomeResourceLocalRepositoryImplementation: SomeResourceLocalRepository {
func index() -> Array<SomeResource> {
return []
}
func show(id: String) -> SomeResource? {
return nil
}
func update(resource: SomeResource) {
}
func delete(id: String) {
}
}
class SomeResourceService {
let local: SomeResourceLocalRepository
init(local: SomeResourceLocalRepository) {
self.local = local
}
}
// Some Dip code somewhere
// container.register(.singleton) { SomeResourceLocalRepositoryImplementation() as SomeResourceLocalRepository }
Errors:
error: Generic Protocols.xcplaygroundpage:45:16: error: protocol 'SomeResourceLocalRepository' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
let local: SomeResourceLocalRepository
^
error: Generic Protocols.xcplaygroundpage:47:17: error: protocol 'SomeResourceLocalRepository' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
init(local: SomeResourceLocalRepository) {
I will probably have to find another way to accomplish this, but it is tedious and quite annoying as we will produce a lot of duplicate code, and when we decide to change the API of our repositories, we will have to manually change it for all the protocols as we don't follow a generic "parent" protocol in this work-around.
I have read How to pass protocol with associated type as parameter in Swift and the related question found in an answer to this question, as well as Specializing Generic Protocol and others.
I feel like this should work, but it does not. The end goal is a concrete protocol that can be used for dependency injection, e.g. container.register(.singleton) { ProtocolImplementation() as Protocol } as per Dip - A simple Dependency Injection Container, BUT without copy-pasting when the protocol's interface clearly can be made generic, like in the above.
As swift provides a way to declare generic protocols (using associatedtype keyword) it's impossible to declare a generic protocol property without another generic constraint. So the easiest way would be to declare resource service class generic - class SomeResourceService<Repository: GenericRepository>.
But this solution has a big downside - you need to constraint generics everywhere this service would be involved.
You can drop generic constraint from the service declaration by declaring local as a concrete generic type. But how to transit from generic protocol to the concrete generic class?
There's a way. You can define a wrapper generic class which conforms to GenericRepository. It does not really implements its methods but rather passes to an object (which is real GenericRepository) it wraps.
class AnyGenericRepository<ResourceType: Identifiable>: GenericRepository {
// any usage of GenericRepository must be a generic argument
init<Base: GenericRepository>(_ base: Base) where Base.ResourceType == ResourceType {
// we cannot store Base as a class property without putting it in generics list
// but we can store closures instead
indexGetter = { base.index() }
// and same for other methods or properties
// if GenericRepository contained a generic method it would be impossible to make
}
private let indexGetter: () -> [ResourceType] {
indexGetter()
}
// ... other GenericRepository methods
}
So now we have a concrete type which wraps real GenericRepository. You can adopt it in SomeResourceService without any alarm.
class SomeResourceService {
let local: AnyGenericRepository<SomeResource>
}
I'm trying to use Protocol-Oriented Pgrogramming for model layer in my application.
I've started with defining two protocols:
protocol ParseConvertible {
func toParseObject() -> PFObject?
}
protocol HealthKitInitializable {
init?(sample: HKSample)
}
And after implementing first model which conforms to both I've noticed that another model will be basically similar so I wanted to create protocol inheritance with new one:
protocol BasicModel: HealthKitInitializable, ParseConvertible {
var value: AnyObject { get set }
}
A you can see this protocol has one additional thing which is value but I want this value to be type independent... Right now I have models which use Double but who knows what may show up in future. If I leave this with AnyObject I'm sentenced to casting everything I want to use it and if I declare it as Double there's no sense in calling this BasicModel but rather BasicDoubleModel or similar.
Do you have some hints how to achieve this? Or maybe I'm trying to solve this the wrong way?
You probably want to define a protocol with an "associated type",
this is roughly similar to generic types.
From "Associated Types" in the Swift book:
When defining a protocol, it is sometimes useful to declare one or
more associated types as part of the protocol’s definition. An
associated type gives a placeholder name (or alias) to a type that is
used as part of the protocol. The actual type to use for that
associated type is not specified until the protocol is adopted.
Associated types are specified with the typealias keyword.
In your case:
protocol BasicModel: HealthKitInitializable, ParseConvertible {
typealias ValueType
var value: ValueType { get set }
}
Then classes with different types for the value property can
conform to the protocol:
class A : BasicModel {
var value : Int
func toParseObject() -> PFObject? { ... }
required init?(sample: HKSample) { ... }
}
class B : BasicModel {
var value : Double
func toParseObject() -> PFObject? { ... }
required init?(sample: HKSample) { ... }
}
For Swift 2.2/Xcode 7.3 and later, replace typealias in the
protocol definition by associatedtype.