I would like to figure out how to pattern match against an enum-with-associated-value property of an error type in a catch. Everything works as expected with an enum without associated values, but I can't seem to figure out the correct pattern for this situation.
struct MyError: Error {
enum Size {
case big, small
}
enum Solution {
case runAway
case other(String)
}
let size: Size
let solution: Solution
}
func action() {
do {
// ...
}
catch let error as MyError where error.size == .big {
// This works fine, as `size` has no associated values.
}
catch let error as MyError where error.solution == .other {
// I want to handle all cases of `Solution.other` here, regardless of the associated value.
}
catch {
// ...
}
}
The second catch pattern won't compile (as expected due to the enum with associated value). The usual way I'd accomplish this would be a if case .runAway = error.solution {...}, but integrating this in the catch pattern is the problem.
I tried many combinations of if case/let case/case let, but couldn't get this working in a single catch pattern matching statement. This feels like it should be possible given the power and flexibility of pattern matching, so I'm hoping I've just overlooked something.
Thanks for the assistance!
This feels possible, but isn't :/. What you are trying to use is an enum case pattern. According to here, an enum case pattern is only allowed in switch, if, while, guard, and for statements.
You can add an isOther property in Solution:
var isOther: Bool {
if case .other = self {
return true
} else {
return false
}
}
And then use it in the catch:
do {
// ...
}
catch let error as MyError where error.size == .big {
// ...
}
catch let error as MyError where error.solution.isOther {
// ...
}
catch {
// ...
}
There are 2 things which should be fixed in your sample:
To compare cases of an enum it should be equitable, isn't it? For such a simple enum just mark Solution as Equitable.
Default case for a catch isn't handled, so you need to add it, eg:
do {
...
}
catch let error as MyError where error.size == .big {
// This works fine, assizehas no associated values.
}
catch let error as MyError where error.solution == .runAway {
// I want to accomplish this comparison.
}
catch let error {
...
}
Related
Hitting a block on using a guard. Ideally want to do a guard statement that traps all enum states other than one, so would be something like:
guard case .notInUse != foundTransition.validToObject.isInSituation else {
fatalError("Transition: The toObject is already in a situation")
}
But this non matching test does not seem to be allowed. So instead using the below if statement:
if case .notInUse = foundTransition.validToObject.isInSituation {} else {
fatalError("Transition: The toObject is already in a situation")
}
It works but feels a guard would be neater. Any ideas?
It is impossible to negate a case statement.
You either need to use your if statement, or make the enumeration Equatable, in which case you would just drop the case keyword.
guard foundTransition.validToObject.isInSituation != .notInUse
Alternatively, you can use a guard statement that is backed by a switch or if. But you'll never get rid of them! đ
guard ({
if case .notInUse = foundTransition.validToObject.isInSituation {
return false
}
return true
} ()) else {
fatalError("Transition: The toObject is already in a situation")
}
Catch clauses in Swift must be exhaustive. Does it mean I always need to use a wildcard or empty catch clauses whenever I want to avoid error propagation? Example:
enum Oops: Error {
case oh, ouch, meh
}
func troublemaker() {
do { throw Oops.meh }
catch Oops.oh {}
catch Oops.ouch {}
catch Oops.meh {}
// Error: Error is not handled because the enclosing catch is not exhaustive
}
Of course, it is fixed if I add throws to the function. Same goes for adding either catch {} or catch _ {}.
But is there any way to make exhaustive catch blocks other way? Like, perhaps defining the allowed type of the error to throw, so my enum Error would make it exhaustive?
If you simply don't like the multiple catch blocks, catch all errors at once and then switch error types
func troublemaker() {
do { throw Oops.meh }
catch let error{
switch error {
case Oops.meh:
print("It works!")
break
default:
print("Oops something else is wrong")
break
}
}
}
I'm searching for the syntax to do pattern matching with multiple cases in an if case statement.
The example would be this:
enum Gender {
case Male, Female, Transgender
}
let a = Gender.Male
Now I want to check, if a is .Male OR .Female. But I would like to avoid using switch for this. However the switch statement would be like this:
switch a {
case .Male, .Female:
// do something
}
Is it possible to write this with if case?
I would expect this, but it didn't work :(
if case .Male, .Female = a {
}
A simple array does the trick:
if [.Male, .Female].contains(a) {
print("Male or female")
} else {
print("Transgender")
}
I'm simply amazed at Swift's ability to infer type. Here, it gets that .Male and .Female are of type gender from a.
If you have an associated value, you can simply create a Bool variable like this
extension Gender {
var isMaleOrFemale: Bool {
switch self {
case .Male, .Female:
return true
default:
return false
}
}
And usage:
if a.isMaleOrFemale {
// Your code here
}
You should use a collection. In JavaScript I would write something like this:
if ([Gender.Male, Gender.Female].includes(actualGender))
console.log(actualGender);
Note that I have not a clue about swift, or how to do the same in that language, so here is a relevant answer in the topic: https://stackoverflow.com/a/25391725/607033 :D
EDIT: This is the Swift version:
if [.Male, .Female].contains(a) {
}
For pattern matching, what you describe will not work yet. You could do this in your case. But if it cannot be convert into a hashValue. Then this would not work either.
// Using Pattern Matching for more than one case.
if case 0...2 = a.hashValue {
print("Hello")
}
//Normal if else
if a == .Male || a == .Female {
print("Hello")
}
See this error:
enum MyError: ErrorType {
case Foo
case Bar
}
func couldThrow(string: String) throws {
if string == "foo" {
throw MyError.Foo
} else if string == "bar" {
throw MyError.Bar
}
}
func asdf() {
do {
//Error: Errors thrown from here are not handled
//because the enclosing catch is not exhaustive.
try couldThrow("foo")
} catch MyError.Foo {
print("foo")
} catch MyError.Bar {
print("bar")
}
}
Yet my catches cover all the possibilities. Why doesn't Swift "deeply" analyze all the possibilities and tell me nothing is wrong?
For instance, search for "catch VendingMachineError.InvalidSelection" here: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/ErrorHandling.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014097-CH42-ID508
You will see in there that Apple is doing it my way. Is their code wrong?
It's very hard for the compiler to know exactly which exceptions a piece of code could result in, because any exceptions which aren't handled at a deeper level are propagated up. While your situation is relatively simple it's generically a very difficult problem.
Note that nowhere does the code say which exceptions it can throw, only that it can throw something...
Key statement:
For example, the following code handles all three cases of the VendingMachineError enumeration, but all other errors have to be handled by its surrounding scope
So, in their example, though they don't show it, the container for that piece of code must also be capable of throwing. This is because it doesn't handle all possible exceptions.
For your case, asdf needs to be defined throws or it needs a catch all.
Although Wain's answer is correct, there is another way to eliminate the error: use try! to treat any unhandled errors as fatal runtime errors.
func asdf() {
try! {
do {
//Error: Errors thrown from here are not handled
//because the enclosing catch is not exhaustive.
try couldThrow("foo")
} catch MyError.Foo {
print("foo")
} catch MyError.Bar {
print("bar")
}
}()
}
I give it a try to understand new error handling thing in swift 2. Here is what I did: I first declared an error enum:
enum SandwichError: ErrorType {
case NotMe
case DoItYourself
}
And then I declared a method that throws an error (not an exception folks. It is an error.). Here is that method:
func makeMeSandwich(names: [String: String]) throws -> String {
guard let sandwich = names["sandwich"] else {
throw SandwichError.NotMe
}
return sandwich
}
The problem is from the calling side. Here is the code that calls this method:
let kitchen = ["sandwich": "ready", "breakfeast": "not ready"]
do {
let sandwich = try makeMeSandwich(kitchen)
print("i eat it \(sandwich)")
} catch SandwichError.NotMe {
print("Not me error")
} catch SandwichError.DoItYourself {
print("do it error")
}
After the do line compiler says Errors thrown from here are not handled because the enclosing catch is not exhaustive. But in my opinion it is exhaustive because there is only two case in SandwichError enum.
For regular switch statements swift can understands it is exhaustive when every case handled.
There are two important points to the Swift 2 error handling model: exhaustiveness and resiliency. Together, they boil down to your do/catch statement needing to catch every possible error, not just the ones you know you can throw.
Notice that you don't declare what types of errors a function can throw, only whether it throws at all. It's a zero-one-infinity sort of problem: as someone defining a function for others (including your future self) to use, you don't want to have to make every client of your function adapt to every change in the implementation of your function, including what errors it can throw. You want code that calls your function to be resilient to such change.
Because your function can't say what kind of errors it throws (or might throw in the future), the catch blocks that catch it errors don't know what types of errors it might throw. So, in addition to handling the error types you know about, you need to handle the ones you don't with a universal catch statement -- that way if your function changes the set of errors it throws in the future, callers will still catch its errors.
do {
let sandwich = try makeMeSandwich(kitchen)
print("i eat it \(sandwich)")
} catch SandwichError.NotMe {
print("Not me error")
} catch SandwichError.DoItYourself {
print("do it error")
} catch let error {
print(error.localizedDescription)
}
But let's not stop there. Think about this resilience idea some more. The way you've designed your sandwich, you have to describe errors in every place where you use them. That means that whenever you change the set of error cases, you have to change every place that uses them... not very fun.
The idea behind defining your own error types is to let you centralize things like that. You could define a description method for your errors:
extension SandwichError: CustomStringConvertible {
var description: String {
switch self {
case NotMe: return "Not me error"
case DoItYourself: return "Try sudo"
}
}
}
And then your error handling code can ask your error type to describe itself -- now every place where you handle errors can use the same code, and handle possible future error cases, too.
do {
let sandwich = try makeMeSandwich(kitchen)
print("i eat it \(sandwich)")
} catch let error as SandwichError {
print(error.description)
} catch {
print("i dunno")
}
This also paves the way for error types (or extensions on them) to support other ways of reporting errors -- for example, you could have an extension on your error type that knows how to present a UIAlertController for reporting the error to an iOS user.
I suspect this just hasnât been implemented properly yet. The Swift Programming Guide definitely seems to imply that the compiler can infer exhaustive matches 'like a switch statement'. It doesnât make any mention of needing a general catch in order to be exhaustive.
You'll also notice that the error is on the try line, not the end of the block, i.e. at some point the compiler will be able to pinpoint which try statement in the block has unhandled exception types.
The documentation is a bit ambiguous though. Iâve skimmed through the âWhatâs new in Swiftâ video and couldnât find any clues; Iâll keep trying.
Update:
Weâre now up to Beta 3 with no hint of ErrorType inference. I now believe if this was ever planned (and I still think it was at some point), the dynamic dispatch on protocol extensions probably killed it off.
Beta 4 Update:
Xcode 7b4 added doc comment support for Throws:, which âshould be used to document what errors can be thrown and whyâ. I guess this at least provides some mechanism to communicate errors to API consumers. Who needs a type system when you have documentation!
Another update:
After spending some time hoping for automatic ErrorType inference, and working out what the limitations would be of that model, Iâve changed my mind - this is what I hope Apple implements instead. Essentially:
// allow us to do this:
func myFunction() throws -> Int
// or this:
func myFunction() throws CustomError -> Int
// but not this:
func myFunction() throws CustomErrorOne, CustomErrorTwo -> Int
Yet Another Update
Appleâs error handling rationale is now available here. There have also been some interesting discussions on the swift-evolution mailing list. Essentially, John McCall is opposed to typed errors because he believes most libraries will end up including a generic error case anyway, and that typed errors are unlikely to add much to the code apart from boilerplate (he used the term 'aspirational bluff'). Chris Lattner said heâs open to typed errors in Swift 3 if it can work with the resilience model.
Swift is worry that your case statement is not covering all cases, to fix it you need to create a default case:
do {
let sandwich = try makeMeSandwich(kitchen)
print("i eat it \(sandwich)")
} catch SandwichError.NotMe {
print("Not me error")
} catch SandwichError.DoItYourself {
print("do it error")
} catch Default {
print("Another Error")
}
I was also disappointed by the lack of type a function can throw, but I get it now thanks to #rickster and I'll summarize it like this: let's say we could specify the type a function throws, we would have something like this:
enum MyError: ErrorType { case ErrorA, ErrorB }
func myFunctionThatThrows() throws MyError { ...throw .ErrorA...throw .ErrorB... }
do {
try myFunctionThatThrows()
}
case .ErrorA { ... }
case .ErrorB { ... }
The problem is that even if we don't change anything in myFunctionThatThrows, if we just add an error case to MyError:
enum MyError: ErrorType { case ErrorA, ErrorB, ErrorC }
we are screwed because our do/try/catch is no longer exhaustive, as well as any other place where we called functions that throw MyError
enum NumberError: Error {
case NegativeNumber(number: Int)
case ZeroNumber
case OddNumber(number: Int)
}
extension NumberError: CustomStringConvertible {
var description: String {
switch self {
case .NegativeNumber(let number):
return "Negative number \(number) is Passed."
case .OddNumber(let number):
return "Odd number \(number) is Passed."
case .ZeroNumber:
return "Zero is Passed."
}
}
}
func validateEvenNumber(_ number: Int) throws ->Int {
if number == 0 {
throw NumberError.ZeroNumber
} else if number < 0 {
throw NumberError.NegativeNumber(number: number)
} else if number % 2 == 1 {
throw NumberError.OddNumber(number: number)
}
return number
}
Now Validate Number :
do {
let number = try validateEvenNumber(0)
print("Valid Even Number: \(number)")
} catch let error as NumberError {
print(error.description)
}
Error can be handle using switch case in catch
func checkAge(age:Int) throws {
guard !(age>0 && age < 18) else{
throw Adult.child
}
guard !(age >= 60) else{
throw Adult.old
}
guard (age>0) else{
throw Adult.notExist
}
}
do{
try checkAge(age:0)
}
catch let error {
switch error{
case Adult.child : print("child")
case Adult.old : print("old")
case Adult.notExist : print("not Exist")
default:
print("default")
}
}
enum Adult:Error {
case child
case old
case notExist
}
Create enum like this:
//Error Handling in swift
enum spendingError : Error{
case minus
case limit
}
Create method like:
func calculateSpending(morningSpending:Double,eveningSpending:Double) throws ->Double{
if morningSpending < 0 || eveningSpending < 0{
throw spendingError.minus
}
if (morningSpending + eveningSpending) > 100{
throw spendingError.limit
}
return morningSpending + eveningSpending
}
Now check error is there or not and handle it:
do{
try calculateSpending(morningSpending: 60, eveningSpending: 50)
} catch spendingError.minus{
print("This is not possible...")
} catch spendingError.limit{
print("Limit reached...")
}