Synchronising combined Properties in ReactiveSwift - swift

I'm considering converting a project using my own custom signal framework to use ReactiveSwift instead, but there is a fundamental issue I've never figured out how to resolve in ReactiveSwift:
As a simplified example, let's say you have two mutable properties:
let a = MutableProperty<Int>(1)
let b = MutableProperty<Int>(2)
Then, we derive a property that combines both to implement our logic:
let c = Property.combineLatest(a, b).map { a, b in
return a + b
}
Later, we receive some information that causes us to update the values of both a and b at the same time:
a.value = 3
b.value = 4
The problem now is that c will inform its listeners that it has the values 3 -> 5 -> 7. The 5 is entirely spurious and does not represent a valid state, as we never wanted a state where a was equal to 3 and b was equal to 2.
Is there a way around this? A way to suppress updates to a Property while updating all of its dependencies to new states, and only letting an update through once you are done?

combineLatest‘s fundamental purpose is to send a value when either of its upstream inputs send a new value, so I don’t think there’s a way to avoid this issue if you want to use that operator.
If it’s important that both values update truly simultaneously then consider using a MutableProperty<(Int, Int)> or putting the two values in a struct. If you give a little more context about what you’re actually trying to accomplish then maybe we could give a better answer.
Pausing Updates
So I really don't recommend doing something like this, but if you want a general purpose technique for "pausing" updates then you can do it with a global variable indicating whether updates are paused and the filter operator:
let a = MutableProperty<Int>(1)
let b = MutableProperty<Int>(2)
var pauseUpdates = false
let c = Property.combineLatest(a, b)
.filter(initial: (0, 0)) { _ in !pauseUpdates }
.map { a, b in
return a + b
}
func update(newA: Int, newB: Int) {
pauseUpdates = true
a.value = newA
pauseUpdates = false
b.value = newB
}
c.producer.startWithValues { c in print(c) }
update(newA: 3, newB: 4)
But there are probably better context-specific solutions for achieving whatever you are trying to achieve.
Using a sampler to manually trigger updates
An alternate solution is to use the sample operator to manually choose when to take a value:
class MyClass {
let a = MutableProperty<Int>(1)
let b = MutableProperty<Int>(2)
let c: Property<Int>
private let sampler: Signal<Void, Never>.Observer
init() {
let (signal, input) = Signal<Void, Never>.pipe()
sampler = input
let updates = Property.combineLatest(a, b)
.map { a, b in
return a + b
}
.producer
.sample(with: signal)
.map { $0.0 }
c = Property(initial: a.value + b.value, then: updates)
}
func update(a: Int, b: Int) {
self.a.value = a
self.b.value = b
sampler.send(value: ())
}
}
let x = MyClass()
x.c.producer.startWithValues { c in print(c) }
x.update(a: 3, b: 4)
Using zip
If a and b are always going to change together, you can use the zip operator which waits for both inputs to have new values:
let a = MutableProperty<Int>(1)
let b = MutableProperty<Int>(2)
let c = Property.zip(a, b).map(+)
c.producer.startWithValues { c in print(c) }
a.value = 3
b.value = 4
Use zip with methods for each type of update
class MyClass {
let a = MutableProperty<Int>(1)
let b = MutableProperty<Int>(2)
let c: Property<Int>
init() {
c = Property.zip(a, b).map(+)
}
func update(a: Int, b: Int) {
self.a.value = a
self.b.value = b
}
func update(a: Int) {
self.a.value = a
self.b.value = self.b.value
}
func update(b: Int) {
self.a.value = self.a.value
self.b.value = b
}
}
let x = MyClass()
x.c.producer.startWithValues { c in print(c) }
x.update(a: 5)
x.update(b: 7)
x.update(a: 8, b: 8)
Combining the values into one struct
I thought I would provide an example of this even though you said you didn't want to do it, because MutableProperty has a modify method that makes it less cumbersome than you might think to do atomic updates:
struct Values {
var a: Int
var b: Int
}
let ab = MutableProperty(Values(a: 1, b: 2))
let c = ab.map { $0.a + $0.b }
c.producer.startWithValues { c in print(c) }
ab.modify { values in
values.a = 3
values.b = 4
}
And you could even have convenience properties for directly accessing a and b even as the ab property is the source of truth:
let a = ab.map(\.a)
let b = ab.map(\.b)
Creating a new type of mutable property to wrap the composite property
You could create a new class conforming to MutablePropertyProtocol to make it more ergonomic to use a struct to hold your values:
class MutablePropertyWrapper<T, U>: MutablePropertyProtocol {
typealias Value = U
var value: U {
get { property.value[keyPath: keyPath] }
set {
property.modify { val in
var newVal = val
newVal[keyPath: self.keyPath] = newValue
val = newVal
}
}
}
var lifetime: Lifetime {
property.lifetime
}
var producer: SignalProducer<U, Never> {
property.map(keyPath).producer
}
var signal: Signal<U, Never> {
property.map(keyPath).signal
}
private let property: MutableProperty<T>
private let keyPath: WritableKeyPath<T, U>
init(_ property: MutableProperty<T>, keyPath: WritableKeyPath<T, U>) {
self.property = property
self.keyPath = keyPath
}
}
With this, you can create mutable versions of a and b that make it nice and easy to both get and set values:
struct Values {
var a: Int
var b: Int
}
let ab = MutableProperty(Values(a: 1, b: 2))
let a = MutablePropertyWrapper(ab, keyPath: \.a)
let b = MutablePropertyWrapper(ab, keyPath: \.b)
let c = ab.map { $0.a + $0.b }
c.producer.startWithValues { c in print(c) }
// Update the values individually, triggering two updates
a.value = 10
b.value = 20
// Update both values atomically, triggering a single update
ab.modify { values in
values.a = 30
values.b = 40
}
If you have the Xcode 11 Beta installed, you can even use the new key path based #dynamicMemberLookup feature to make this more ergonomic:
#dynamicMemberLookup
protocol MemberAccessingProperty: MutablePropertyProtocol {
subscript<U>(dynamicMember keyPath: WritableKeyPath<Value, U>) -> MutablePropertyWrapper<Value, U> { get }
}
extension MutableProperty: MemberAccessingProperty {
subscript<U>(dynamicMember keyPath: WritableKeyPath<Value, U>) -> MutablePropertyWrapper<Value, U> {
return MutablePropertyWrapper(self, keyPath: keyPath)
}
}
Now instead of:
let a = MutablePropertyWrapper(ab, keyPath: \.a)
let b = MutablePropertyWrapper(ab, keyPath: \.b)
You can write:
let a = ab.a
let b = ab.b
Or just set the values directly without creating separate variables:
ab.a.value = 10
ab.b.value = 20

Related

Is there a high-order function to convert a linked list to an array?

Imagine I have a simple linked list:
class Node {
var parent: Node?
}
// Create the chain: a <- b <- c
let a = Node()
let b = Node(parent: a)
let c = Node(parent: b)
Now I want to convert c into an array ([c, b, a]) so I can use other high-order functions like map.
What is a method that produces an array from a linked list typically called?
Is there a way to use other high-order functions to implement this and not use a loop?
The only implementation I could think of falls back to using a loop:
func chain<T>(_ initial: T, _ next: (T) -> T?) -> [T] {
var result = [initial]
while let n = next(result.last!) {
result.append(n)
}
return result
}
chain(c) { $0.parent } // == [c, b, a]
I'm wondering if there is a built-in way to use functions like map/reduce/etc. to get the same results.
You can use sequence(first:next:) to make a Sequence and then Array() to turn that sequence into an array:
let result = Array(sequence(first: c, next: { $0.parent }))
or equivalently:
let result = Array(sequence(first: c, next: \.parent))
You could use it to implement chain:
func chain<T>(_ initial: T, _ next: #escaping (T) -> T?) -> [T] {
Array(sequence(first: initial, next: next))
}
But I'd just use it directly.
Note: If you just want to call map, you don't need to turn the sequence into an Array. You can just apply .map to the sequence.
For example, here is a useless map that represents each node in the linked list with a 1:
let result = sequence(first: c, next: \.parent).map { _ in 1 }
You could make Node be a "denaturated" sequence, this will automatically bring all high-order functions: map, filter, reduce, flatMap, etc.
class Node {
var parent: Node?
var value: String
init(parent: Node? = nil, value: String = "") {
self.parent = parent
self.value = value
}
}
extension Node: Sequence {
struct NodeIterator: IteratorProtocol {
var node: Node?
mutating func next() -> Node? {
let result = node
node = node?.parent
return result
}
}
func makeIterator() -> NodeIterator {
NodeIterator(node: self)
}
}
// Create the chain: a <- b <- c
let a = Node(value: "a")
let b = Node(parent: a, value: "b")
let c = Node(parent: b, value: "c")
// each node behaves like its own sequence
print(c.map { $0.value }) // ["c", "b", "a"]
print(b.map { $0.value }) // ["b", "a"]

Objects with common property

I have three different classes A, B and C with some commons properties. For instance all of them have property called index. Also all of them inheritance from other class X which doesn't have property index and I can't modify these classes (it's from framework). Now I want to create instantiation one of these classes and set index property. How I'm doing it now:
func returnPreparedObjet() -> X? {
if some_condition1 {
let a = A()
a.index = 1
return a
}
else if some_condition2 {
let b = B()
b.index = 1
return b
}
else if some_condition3 {
let c = C()
c.index = 1
return c
}
return nil
}
What is the best option to achieve it without repeat .index = 1 and return lines? Can I achieve this also in situation when A,B,C don't inheritance from X?
You could group the three classes under a common protocol:
protocol Indexed {
var index: Int { get set }
}
, and add conformance for the three classes
extension A: Indexed {}
extension B: Indexed {}
extension C: Indexed {}
no code will be needed in the extensions as the classes already declare a writable index property.
You can then simplify the returnPreparedObject to something like this:
func returnPreparedObject() -> X? {
let result: (X & Indexed)?
if some_condition1 {
result = A()
} else if some_condition2 {
result = B()
} else if some_condition3 {
result = C()
}
result?.index = 1
return result
}

swift: passing by reference

Coming from JS, and trying to pass [JSON] by reference in swift, which is not possible, so I'm trying to wrap it in the object, and made a simple example using a primitive, which still not working, how can i wrap member a, so that changes in referenced object a affect b ? Thanks
class ExampleA {
var a = 0
init(a: Int) {
self.a = a
}
}
class ExampleB {
var a = 0
init(a: Int) {
self.a = a
}
func process(inout p: ExampleA) {
self.a = p.a
print(p.a)
}
}
var a = ExampleA(a: 15)
var b = ExampleB(a: 10)
b.process(&a)
print(b.a) // "15\n"
a.a = 25 // this does nothing to b????
print(b.a) // "15\n"
Your example fails because a is an Int, which is a value type.
When you do the assignment self.a = p.a, you're making a copy of the Int.
To achieve the reference semantics you want, you have to hold reference the ExampleA that's storing the value type. I think you got confused because of your variable naming, confusing the a : Int member of ExampleA with instances of ExampleA named a.
Here's a fix I put together. It gives ExampleB a computed property that transparently accesses the data in ExampleA.
class ExampleA {
var data = 0
init(data: Int) {
self.data = data
}
}
class ExampleB {
var a : ExampleA
var data : Int {
get {
return a.data
}
set {
a.data = newValue
}
}
init(data: Int) {
self.a = ExampleA(data: data)
}
func process(a: ExampleA) {
self.a = a
print(a.data)
}
}
var a = ExampleA(data: 15)
var b = ExampleB(data: 10)
b.process(a: a)
print(b.data) // "15\n"
a.data = 25
print(b.data) // "25\n"
Simple delegation works without any real need for inout or reference semantics:
class ExampleA {
var a = 0
init(a: Int) {
self.a = a
}
}
class ExampleB {
var aObject: ExampleA
init(a: ExampleA) {
self.aObject = a
}
func a() -> Int {
return aObject.a
}
}
var a = ExampleA(a: 15)
var b = ExampleB(a: a)
print(b.a())
a.a = 25
print(b.a())

How to use generic function to tear down swift's optional pyramid of doom

Instead of using multiple optional bindings, we can define a function to tear down optional pyramid of doom.
func if_let<T, U, V> (a: T?, _ b: U?, _ c: V?, fn:(T, U, V) -> () ){
if let a = a {
if let b = b {
if let c = c {
fn(a, b, c)
}
}
}
}
Then I can write like this:
var s1: String? = "s11"
var s2: String? = "s22"
var s3: String? = "s33"
if_let(s1, s2, s3) { s1, s2, s3 in
print(("\(s1) - \(s2) - \(s3)"))
}
However, the problem is how to make this if_let function more generic so that it can accept any number of arguments. My implementation is like this:
func if_let<T> (values: T?..., fn:(params: [T]) -> ()) {
for value in values {
guard value != nil else { return }
}
let unwrappedArray = values.map{ $0! }
fn(params: unwrappedArray)
}
I tried to map the array and get a new one with all elements unwrapped and then call the fn. But when I ran the test again, I got a compile error:
Cannot convert value of type String? to expected argument type '_?'
Can anyone explain and fix this error?
The problem is that your second implementation of if_let no longer takes as a final parameter a function of type (T,U,V)->(). It now needs a function of type ([T])->(). If you call it with one, it compiles:
if_let(s1, s2, s3) { args in // or: (args: [String])->() in
print("\(args[0]) - \(args[1]) - \(args[2])")
}
A relevant note, rather than an answer to the specific question: with Swift 2, you needn't enter the pyramid of doom no more
let a: String? = nil
let b: Int? = nil
let c: Double? = nil
// possible mutate...
if let a = a, b = b, c = c {
// do something with shadow vars
}

Nicer syntax for ternary with a let?

Is there a nicer way to do the assignment to DEF in the following example? I want to convert type A to Type B, but still preserve the nil possibility whenever I can.
Can't seem to stumble into a better way of doing this, however. Suggestions?
class ABC {
var DEF: Int?
func X (someValue: Int8?) {
DEF = someValue != nil ? Int(someValue) : nil
}
}
Swift 1:
class ABC {
var DEF: Int?
func X (someValue: Int8?) {
DEF = someValue.map{Int($0)}
}
}
Swift 2:
class ABC {
var DEF: Int?
func X (someValue: Int8?) {
DEF = someValue.map(Int.init)
}
}
map() takes an optional, unwraps it, and applies a function to it. If the optional resolves to nil, map() returns nil.
You are describing optional map:
var i: Int? = 2
let j = i.map { $0 * 2 } // j = .Some(4)
i = nil
let k = i.map { $0 * 2 } // k = nil
Think of this map like array or other collection map, where optionals are collections that have either zero (nil) or one (non-nil) element.
Note, if the operation you want to perform itself returns an optional, you need flatMap to avoid getting a double-optional:
let s: String? = "2"
let i = s.map { Int($0) } // i will be an Int??
let j = s.flatMap { Int($0) } // flattens to Int?