I'm writing a logging function that also calls a CocoaLumberjack function (yes, I know about custom loggers and chose not to use it). My function is using a forward, but I have a question about how the 'forwarding' works.
Here's my functions:
public func MyLogDebug(_ message: #autoclosure () -> String) {
// some code
MyLogMessage(message(), .debug)
}
public func MyLogMessage(_ message: #autoclosure () -> String, flag: DDLogFlag) {
// some code
if(myLogLevel.rawValue & flag.rawValue != 0) {
DDLogDebug(message())
}
}
My question is about the MyLogMessage(message(), .debug) function call. I know that avoiding string concatenation is really helpful for performance with logs, and I can see that inside MyLogMessage the string closure is only ran if the log level is passed. However, it look like in MyLogDebug the closure is also being evaluated.
I don't want to run the closure in MyLogDebug, so I tried to change it to MyLogMessage(message, .debug), but xcode gives me an error: Add () to forward #autoclosure parameter.
Will my code above evaluate the closure inside MyLogDebug? If so, is there another way to forward the closure parameter without evaluating it?
Will my code above evaluate the closure in MyLogDebug?
No. The call message() will be wrapped in a closure by the #autoclosure in MyLogMessage and only evaluated when message() is subsequently called in MyLogMessage.
Here is a little standalone example to play with:
func DDLogDebug(_ message: String) {
print("in DDLogDebug")
print(message)
print("leaving DDLogDebug")
}
public func MyLogDebug(_ message: #autoclosure () -> String) {
// some code
print("in MyLogDebug")
MyLogMessage(message(), flag: true)
print("leaving MyLogDebug")
}
public func MyLogMessage(_ message: #autoclosure () -> String, flag: Bool) {
// some code
print("in MyLogMessage")
if (flag) {
DDLogDebug(message())
}
print("leaving MyLogMessage")
}
MyLogDebug({ print("evaluated"); return "error message" }())
Output:
in MyLogDebug
in MyLogMessage
evaluated
in DDLogDebug
error message
leaving DDLogDebug
leaving MyLogMessage
leaving MyLogDebug
Note that the initial closure passed to MyLogDebug isn't evaluated until the DDLogDebug(message()) in MyLogMessage().
If you change the flag to false in the call to MyLogMessage(), the initial closure will never be evaluated.
Related
Swift 4.2, Xcode 10.1
In the order processing app I'm working on, the user may do a search for orders already processed or submitted. When that happens, it will check to see if it has a cache of orders, and if it does not, it will refill that cache using an asynchronous API request, then check the cache again.
The function that refills the cache is a private static one that accepts an escaping completion handler. Whenever I have used that completion handler in the past, all I had to do was add a closure at the end of the function call. This was before I was instructed to make a cache of all data wherever possible, and only use the API to refill that cache. Since then, the function has become private, because there will never be a need to call the API directly from anywhere but within this class.
Now, when I put the closure directly after the function call, it's giving me an error that basically says I'm passing a #nonescaping closure instead of an #escaping closure:
"Cannot invoke 'getAndCacheAPIData' with an argument list of type '(type: Codable.Type, (String?) -> Void)', Expected an argument list of type '(type: CodableClass.Type, #escaping (String?) -> Void)'"
I've never had to explicitly declare a closure to be #escaping before, nether does it seem to be possible. I suspect that because the function is both private AND static, there's some kind of issue happening with the way closures are inferred to be #escaping. I'm out of my depth. I could try converting the static class to a singleton, but I'm hesitant to refactor a bunch of working code because of one error until I'm absolutely sure that change will resolve the issue, and that what I'm trying to do isn't possible unless I change my approach.
Here's the code:
public static func fillSearchResultArray<ManagedClass: NSManagedObject>(query:String, parameters:[String], with type: ManagedClass.Type, completionHandler: #escaping (String?)->Void)
{
let codableType:Codable.Type
switch type
{
case is ClientTable.Type:
codableType = ClientData.self
case is OrderTable.Type:
codableType = OrderData.self
case is ProductTable.Type:
codableType = ProductData.self
default:
completionHandler("Unrecognized type.")
return
}
let fetchedData:[ManagedClass]
do
{
fetchedData = try PersistenceManager.shared.fetch(ManagedClass.self)
}
catch
{
completionHandler(error.localizedDescription)
return
}
if fetchedData.isEmpty
{
AppNetwork.getAndCacheAPIData(type: codableType)//error here
{(firstErrorString) in
//move search array data to the cache
if firstErrorString.exists
{
completionHandler(error)
}
else
{
AppNetwork.fillSearchResultArray(query: query, parameters: parameters, type: type)
{ errorString in
completionHandler(errorString)
}
}
}
return
}
else
{ ...
The signature of the function being called:
private static func getAndCacheAPIData <CodableClass: Any & Codable>(type:CodableClass.Type, completionHandler: #escaping (String?)->Void)
Why is swift inferring this closure to be the default #nonescaping when before it always inferred it to be #escaping?
The problem has nothing to do with the closure, or static, or private. It has to do with the type parameter. You cannot call this method:
private static func getAndCacheAPIData <CodableClass: Any & Codable>(type:CodableClass.Type, completionHandler: #escaping (String?)->Void)
with a variable of type Codable.Type. The type value you pass must be a concrete type, known at compile-time. If you want to pass a variable, you can't use a generic. It would have to be:
private static func getAndCacheAPIData(type: Codable.Type, completionHandler: #escaping (String?)->Void)
Alternately, you can call this as:
AppNetwork.getAndCacheAPIData(type: Int.self) {(firstErrorString) in ... }
or some other known-at-compile-time type.
Probably what you really want here is something like:
let completion: (String?) -> Void = {(firstErrorString) in ... }
switch ... {
case ...:
AppNetwork.getAndCacheAPIData(type: Int.self, completion: completion)
case ...:
AppNetwork.getAndCacheAPIData(type: String.self, completion: completion)
...
The basic problem is that protocols do not conform to themselves, so a variable of type Codable.Type does not satisfy the : Codable requirement. This comes down to the same reason you can't just call:
AppNetwork.getAndCacheAPIData(type: Codable.self) {...}
Alternately, you could refactor it this way:
private static func handleAPI<CodableClass: Codable>(type: CodableClass.Type) {
getAndCacheAPIData(type: type.self) { _ in ... the completion handler ..}
}
switch ... {
case ...:
AppNetwork.handleAPI(type: Int.self)
case ...:
AppNetwork.handleAPI(type: String.self)
...
Side note: Any & is meaningless here. You just meant <CodableClass: Codable>.
Compiler error Closure use of non-escaping parameter 'completion' may allow it to escape, Which make sense because it will be called after the function return.
func sync(completion:(()->())) {
self.remoteConfig.fetch(withExpirationDuration: TimeInterval(expirationDuration)) { (status, error) -> Void in
completion()
}
}
But if I make closure optional then no compiler error, Why is that? closure can still be called after the function returns.
func sync(completion:(()->())?) {
self.remoteConfig.fetch(withExpirationDuration: TimeInterval(expirationDuration)) { (status, error) -> Void in
completion?()
}
}
Wrapping a closure in an Optional automatically marks it escaping. It's technically already "escaped" by being embedded into an enum (the Optional).
Clarification:
For understanding the case, implementing the following code would be useful:
typealias completion = () -> ()
enum CompletionHandler {
case success
case failure
static var handler: completion {
get { return { } }
set { }
}
}
func doSomething(handlerParameter: completion) {
let chObject = CompletionHandler.handler = handlerParameter
}
At the first look, this code seems to be legal, but it's not! you would get compile-time error complaining:
error: assigning non-escaping
parameter 'handlerParameter' to an #escaping closure
let chObject = CompletionHandler.handler = handlerParameter
with a note that:
note: parameter 'handlerParameter' is implicitly non-escaping func
doSomething(handlerParameter: completion) {
Why is that? the assumption is that the code snippet has nothing to do with the #escaping...
Actually, since Swift 3 has been released, the closure will be "escaped" if it's declared in enum, struct or class by default.
As a reference, there are bugs reported related to this issue:
Optional closure type is always considered #escaping.
#escaping failing on optional blocks.
Although they might not 100% related to this case, the assignee comments are clearly describe the case:
First comment:
The actual issue here is that optional closures are implicitly
#escaping right now.
Second comment:
That is unfortunately the case for Swift 3. Here are the semantics for
escaping in Swift 3:
1) Closures in function parameter position are
non-escaping by default
2) All other closures are escaping
Thus, all generic type argument closures, such as Array and Optional, are escaping.
Obviously, Optional is enum.
Also -as mentioned above-, the same behavior would be applicable for the classes and structs:
Class Case:
typealias completion = () -> ()
class CompletionHandler {
var handler: () -> ()
init(handler: () -> ()) {
self.handler = handler
}
}
func doSomething(handlerParameter: completion) {
let chObject = CompletionHandler(handler: handlerParameter)
}
Struct Case:
typealias completion = () -> ()
struct CompletionHandler {
var handler: completion
}
func doSomething(handlerParameter: completion) {
let chObject = CompletionHandler(handler: handlerParameter)
}
The two above code snippets would leads to the same output (compile-time error).
For fixing the case, you would need to let the function signature to be:
func doSomething( handlerParameter: #escaping completion)
Back to the Main Question:
Since you are expecting that you have to let the completion:(()->())? to be escaped, that would automatically done -as described above-.
I am trying to run this simple example using a closure for learning purpose, but doesn't seem to work as I expected:
class Test {
var callback: ((_ value: Int) -> Void)?
func perform() {
callback
}
}
let t = Test()
t.callback = { _ in
print("Test")
}
t.perform()
I was expected that "Test" will get printed, but apparently it's not. Can someone point what the issue is ?
Compiling the code reveals the error:
error: expression resolves to an unused l-value
callback
^~~~~~~~
callback is just the (optional) closure, not a call to the closure.
Apparently the Playground does not complain about the unused expression.
Calling the closure with some argument fixes the problem:
func perform() {
callback?(5)
}
Can anybody explain me, how does this code work
private func viewWillTransition(completion:(() -> Void)?)
{
if completion != nil
{
completion!()
}
}
This is a basic scheme of implementing callbacks in Swift.
The function takes parameter completion of type () -> Void)?, meaning "an optional closure taking no parameters and not returning a value."
The code inside tests the optional value of closure for nil. If it is not nil, the code unwraps it with !, and makes a call.
A somewhat more idiomatic way of implementing this in Swift is with if let construct:
private func viewWillTransition(completion:(() -> Void)?) {
if let nonEmptyCompletion = completion {
nonEmptyCompletion()
}
}
I need to translate such a func from Objective-C to Swift language. But can't find an example and can't get how to send 2 closures into func in Swift.
For example, original function in Objective-C:
- (void)getForDemoDataWithToken:(Token *)token
onSuccess:(void(^)(NSArray *demoData))success
onFailure:(void(^)(NSError *error))failure {
}
I know to send 1 closure as param:
getForDemoDataWithToken(token) {(success: String) -> Void in
// some code here
print(success)
}
But, how to send two closures?
Thank you
What about this?
Declaration
func getForDemoDataWithToken(
token: Token,
onSuccess: (demoData:NSArray?) -> (),
onFailure: (error:NSError?) -> ()) {
}
Invocation
getForDemoDataWithToken(Token(),
onSuccess: { (demoData) -> () in
},
onFailure: { (demoData) -> () in
}
)
A more Swifty approach
I usually see Swift code where only one closure is used. So instead of 2 distinct onSuccess and onFailure closures you could have just completion.
Next we should remember that NSArray is compatible with Swift but it's not the Swiftest way to use an array.
Let's see an example where the 2 concepts above are applied.
func getForDemoData(token:Token, completion:(data:[Foo]?, error:NSError?) -> ()) {
}
You can invoke it with the trailing closure syntax.
getForDemoData(Token()) { (data, error) -> () in
if let data = data where error == nil {
// success!
} else {
// oh no... something wrong here
}
}
You should pass the closures as normal parameters, like this:
func acceptsTwoClosures(
onSuccess onSuccess: (success: String) -> Void,
onFailure: (failure: String) -> Void) {
onSuccess(success: "Ook")
onFailure(failure: "Eek")
}
acceptsTwoClosures(
onSuccess: { print("Success: \($0)") },
onFailure: { print("Failure: \($0)") }
)
// In the playground the above prints:
//
// Success: Ook
// Failure: Eek
The way that you used in the question is called trailing closure, and it only works for the closures that are the last arguments in the function signature.
From the documentation:
If you need to pass a closure expression to a function as the function’s final argument and the closure expression is long, it can be useful to write it as a trailing closure instead. A trailing closure is a closure expression that is written outside of (and after) the parentheses of the function call it supports.
For example, you could also re-write my suggested snippet from above like this:
acceptsTwoClosures(onSuccess: { print("Success: \($0)") }) {
print("Failure: \($0)")
}
.. as you can see, I can pass the second (i.e. the last) closure outside of acceptsTwoClosures call as a trailing closure, but I still have to pass the first one as a normal parameter.