I have many models. One example is
struct Person
{
let id = Int
let nameOfBoss = String
...
}
enum CodingKeys: String, CodingKey
{
case id
case nameOfBoss = "nam_of_boss"
...
}
I want to make XML. The web service reads code like (snake_case)
...
<name_of_boss>Greg</name_of_boss>
...
How can I make XML, using the codingKeys rawValue (String) to make like above?
(I haven't had success with most pods - so I avoid them now. Although managed to use SWXMLHash)
(I wrote some code that would create an object mirror...but it won't use the rawValue.)
To use your CodingKey in the serialization process, you probably want to use the new Codable protocol, but Foundation does not support XML.
Shawn Moore wrote an interesting library that adds the missing, from the Foundation, XMLDecoder and XMLEncoder classes. (Codable support for XML) Although it does not have a readme file, this answer can help you about how to use it.
Another solution is to try XMLMapper. This library uses the same idea as ObjectMapper but for XML.
For example you can serialize the following model struct:
struct Person: XMLMappable {
var nodeName: String! = "Person"
var id: String?
var nameOfBoss: String?
init() {
}
init(map: XMLMap) {
}
mutating func mapping(map: XMLMap) {
id <- map["id"]
nameOfBoss <- map["nam_of_boss"]
}
}
To the following XML:
<Person>
<id>1</id>
<nam_of_boss>Greg</nam_of_boss>
</Person>
Using toXMLString() function of the XMLMappable protocol:
var person = Person()
person.nameOfBoss = "Greg"
person.id = "1"
let xmlString = person.toXMLString()
Hope this helps.
Related
Let's say I want to decode a Person struct as follows.
struct Person: Decodable {
let firstName: String
let lastName: String
let age: Int: String
}
I understand that the data can be decoded only with above. Therefore if I'm not changing the properties to a custom name if there no difference between the above and below implementation?
Further is there other cases where you want to use CodingKeys? I'm confused when they are necessary other than for renaming purposes.
struct Person: Decodable {
let firstName: String
let lastName: String
let age: Int: String
}
enum CodingKeys: String, CodingKey {
case firstName
case lastName
case age
}
First of all there is a make-or-break rule for using CodingKeys:
You can omit CodingKeys completely if the JSON – or whatever Codable conforming format – keys match exactly the corresponding properties (like in your example) or the conversion is covered by an appropriate keyDecodingStrategy.
Otherwise you have to specify all CodingKeys you need to be decoded (see also reason #3 below).
There are three major reasons to use CodingKeys:
A Swift variable/property name must not start with a number. If a key does start with a number you have to specify a compatible CodingKey to be able to decode the key at all.
You want to use a different property name.
You want to exclude keys from being decoded for example an id property which is not in the JSON and is initialized with an UUID constant.
And CodingKeys are mandatory if you implement init(from decoder to decode a keyed container.
You can use CodingKeys in different ways for example, when you know that at least one of the name of values that you are expecting in your JSON is actually different from your "let or var" name.
Example:
struct Person: Decodable {
let firstName: String
let lastName: String
let age: Int: String
}
enum CodingKeys: String, CodingKey {
case firstName = "first_name"
case lastName
case age
}
Other case is when you are using class inheritance.
In conclusion, if you are absolutely sure that you are using the same variable name as your encoding key(JSON), you can omit it (but if you want to put it, it doesn't matter), but if there's a difference, maybe a change of your codingKeys like an uppercase or using different words, you should use the enum to map the correct key with the variable name.
CodingKeys can be extremely helpful if you have a JSON with arbitrary number of coding keys (also called dynamic keys). Here is an example.
import UIKit
// Consider JSON with infinite number of keys: "S001", "S002" and so on
let jsonData = """
{
"S001": {
"firstName": "Tony",
"lastName": "Stark"
},
"S002": {
"firstName": "Peter",
"lastName": "Parker"
},
"S003": {
"firstName": "Bruce",
"lastName": "Wayne"
}
}
""".data(using: .utf8)!
struct Student: Decodable {
let firstName: String
let lastName: String
}
struct DecodedArray: Decodable {
var array: [Student]
// Define DynamicCodingKeys type needed for creating
// decoding container from JSONDecoder
private struct DynamicCodingKeys: CodingKey {
// Use for string-keyed dictionary
var stringValue: String
init?(stringValue: String) {
self.stringValue = stringValue
}
// Use for integer-keyed dictionary
var intValue: Int?
init?(intValue: Int) {
// We are not using this, thus just return nil
return nil
}
}
init(from decoder: Decoder) throws {
// 1
// Create a decoding container using DynamicCodingKeys
// The container will contain all the JSON first level key
let container = try decoder.container(keyedBy: DynamicCodingKeys.self)
var tempArray = [Student]()
// 2
// Loop through each key (student ID) in container
for key in container.allKeys {
// Decode Student using key & keep decoded Student object in tempArray
let decodedObject = try container.decode(Student.self, forKey: DynamicCodingKeys(stringValue: key.stringValue)!)
tempArray.append(decodedObject)
}
// 3
// Finish decoding all Student objects. Thus assign tempArray to array.
array = tempArray
}
}
let decodedResult = try! JSONDecoder().decode(DecodedArray.self, from: jsonData)
Therefore if I'm not changing the properties to a custom name if there no difference between the above and below implementation?
Yes, but there's a bit of misunderstanding here. The two implementations you have are literally identical because in the second one the CodingKeys enum would never be used. To be used, the enum must be nested within the Decodable conforming type (Person in this case):
struct Person: Decodable {
let firstName: String
let lastName: String
let age: Int
enum CodingKeys: String, CodingKey {
case firstName
case lastName
case age
}
}
There is in practice no difference between this implementation and the ones you provided.
Further is there other cases where you want to use CodingKeys?
CodingKeys are not used solely by Decodable, they are also used by Encodable. When using Encodable, a reason to use CodingKeys is to specify only a subset of the instances fields should be serialized.
I am new to iOS and trying to store User object in UserDefaults. So that when the app is launched again, I can check user type and based on it, I need to navigate to relevant screen.
For that, I have created a User class as below (Codable) and it has one userType enum property!
enum UserType: Int, Codable {
case userType1 = 0
case userType2 = 1
case notDetermined = 2
init(from decoder: Decoder) throws {
let label = try decoder.singleValueContainer().decode(Int.self)
self = UserType(rawValue: label) ?? .notDetermined
}
}
class User: Codable {
public var userFullName: String? = ""
public var userType: UserType? //= .notDetermined
enum CodingKeys: String, CodingKey {
case userFullName
}
}
In my view Controller class, I am creating a new instance for User object and trying to store in user defaults as below:
let newUser = User()
newUser.userFullName = "Test"
newUser.userType = userTypeBtn.isSelected ? .userType1 : .userType2
when I print the newUser's userType, I can see proper value whichever is selected. But after that, when I am trying to store it in userDefaults as below, it returns nil for userType property.
do {
let encoded = try JSONEncoder().encode(newValue)
UserDefaults.standard.set(encoded, forKey: UserDefaultKey.currentUser)
UserDefaults.standard.sync()
} catch {
print("Unable to Encode User Object: (\(error))")
}
when I tried to print this encoded variable, and decoded it in console
JSONDecoder().decode(User.self, from: encoded).userType
it prints nil.
Please help me how can I store optional enum property in UserDefaults and retrieve it when needed using Codable
You should include userType in your CodingKeys enum:
enum CodingKeys: String, CodingKey {
case userFullName
case userType
}
Or just delete the CodingKeys enum entirely, since by default, all the properties are included as coding keys. The keys in the CodingKeys enum determines what the synthesised Codable implementation will encode and decode. If you don't include userType, userType will not be encoded, so it will not be stored into UserDefaults.
I am not getting it from Server and userType is an external property outside the JSON response
This is fine, because userType is optional. If the JSON does not have the key, it will be assigned nil. This might be a problem if you are also encoding User and sending it to the server, and that the server can't handle extra keys in the request, in which case you need two structs - one for storing to/loading from UserDefaults, one for parsing/encoding server response/request.
Remember to encode a new User to UserDefaults when you try this out, since the old one still doesn't have the userType encoded with it.
Observations
Having a custom implementation for Decodable part of enum UserType: Int, Codable is probably not the best idea. Swift compiler supports encoding/decoding enum X: Int out of the box without having you to write custom implementation for it. (In fact, starting with Swift 5.5, Swift compiler can now do this for enums that have cases with associated values as well.)
You should try to avoid having cases like .notDetermined. Either user has a type that's well defined or user.type is nil. You can easily define convenience getters on user itself to know about it's type.
Swift allows nesting of types, so having User.Kind instead of UserType is more natural in Swift.
Following implementation takes care of all of these points.
import Foundation
class User: Codable {
enum Kind: Int, Codable {
case free = 1
case pro = 2
}
public var fullName: String?
public var kind: Kind?
}
let newUser = User()
newUser.fullName = "Test"
newUser.kind = .free
do {
let encoded = try JSONEncoder().encode(newUser)
UserDefaults.standard.set(encoded, forKey: "appUser")
if let fetched = UserDefaults.standard.value(forKey: "appUser") as? Data {
let decoded = try JSONDecoder().decode(User.self, from: fetched)
print(decoded)
}
}
Above code includes definition, construction, encodeAndStore, fetchAndDecode and it does everything you need without any custom implementation.
Bonus
Above code does not print a nice description for the User. For that, you can add CustomStringConvertible conformance like this.
extension User: CustomStringConvertible {
var description: String {
"""
fullName: \(fullName ?? "")
kind: \(kind?.description ?? "")
"""
}
}
extension User.Kind: CustomStringConvertible {
var description: String {
switch self {
case .free: return "free"
case .pro: return "pro"
}
}
}
If you try print(decoded) after implementing this, you will clearly see what you want to see for User instance.
User.kind can be nil and I don't want to handle it with if let every time I need to check this from different screens in the app.
No worries, it can be simplified to this.
extension User {
var isFreeUser: Bool { kind == .free }
var isProUser: Bool { kind == .pro }
}
I'm going to explain it by an example. We have a protocol for force having firstName and lastName like:
protocol ProfileRepresentable {
var firstName: String { get }
var lastName: String { get }
}
the type we are going to use have these two, but in an optional form:
struct Profile {
var firstName: String?
var lastName: String?
}
so after conforming to the ProfileRepresentable, we will extend the ProfileRepresentable and try to return the value and a default one for nil state:
extension Profile: ProfileRepresentable { }
extension ProfileRepresentable where Self == Profile {
var firstName: String { self.firstName ?? "NoFirstName" }
var lastName: String { self.lastName ?? "NoLastName" }
}
So far so good
Now there is a similar flow for a list of Profiles.
protocol ProfilerRepresentable {
var profiles: [ProfileRepresentable] { get }
}
struct Profiler {
var profiles: [Profile]
}
First issue
conforming to ProfilerRepresentable does NOT automatically done the implementation as expected (since Profile already conforms to ProfileRepresentable)
extension Profiler: ProfilerRepresentable { }
Second Issue
Following the previous pattern, extending ProfilerRepresentable is not working as expected and it raises a warning:
⚠️ All paths through this function will call itself
extension ProfilerRepresentable where Self == Profiler {
var profiles: [ProfileRepresentable] { self.profiles }
}
How can I achieve the goal for arrays by the way ?
Here is possible solution. Tested with Xcode 12 / swift 5.3
protocol ProfilerRepresentable {
associatedtype T:ProfileRepresentable
var profiles: [T] { get }
}
extension Profiler: ProfilerRepresentable { }
struct Profiler {
var profiles: [Profile]
}
[Profile] is not a subtype of [ProfileRepresentable]. (See Swift Generics & Upcasting for a related but distinct version of this question.) It can be converted through a compiler-provided copying step when passed as a parameter or assigned to a variable, but this is provided as a special-case for those very common uses. It doesn't apply generally.
How you should address this depends on what precisely you want to do with this type.
If you have an algorithm that relies on ProfilerRepresentable, then Asperi's solution is ideal and what I recommend. But going that way won't allow you to create a variable of type ProfileRepresentable or put ProfileRepresentable in an Array.
If you need variables or arrays of ProfilerRepresentable, then you should ask yourself what these protocols are really doing. What algorithms rely on these protocols, and what other reasonable implementations of ProfileRepresentable really make sense? In many cases, ProfileRepresentable should just be replaced with a simple Profile struct, and then have different init methods for creating it in different contexts. (This is what I recommend if your real problem looks a lot like your example, and Asperi's answer doesn't work for you.)
Ultimately you can create type erasers (AnyProfile), but I suggest exploring all other options (particularly redesigning how you do composition) first. Type erasers are perfect if your goal is to erase a complicated or private type (AnyPublisher), but that generally isn't what people mean when they reach for them.
But designing this requires knowing a more concrete goal. There is no general answer that universally applies.
Looking at your comments, there no problem with having multiple types for the same entity if they represent different things. Structs are values. It's fine to have both Double and Float types, even though every Float can also be represented as a Double. So in your case it looks like you just want Profile and PartialProfile structs, and an init that lets you convert one to the other.
struct Profile {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String
}
struct PartialProfile {
var firstName: String?
var lastName: String?
}
extension Profile {
init(_ partial: PartialProfile) {
self.firstName = partial.firstName ?? "NoFirstName"
self.lastName = partial.lastName ?? "NoLastName"
}
}
extension PartialProfile {
init(_ profile: Profile) {
self.firstName = profile.firstName
self.lastName = profile.lastName
}
}
It's possible that you have a lot of these, so this could get a bit tedious. There are many ways to deal with that depending on exactly the problem you're solving. (I recommend starting by writing concrete code, even if it causes a lot of duplication, and then seeing how to remove that duplication.)
One tool that could be useful would be Partial<Wrapped> (inspired by TypeScript) that would create an "optional" version of any non-optional struct:
#dynamicMemberLookup
struct Partial<Wrapped> {
private var storage: [PartialKeyPath<Wrapped>: Any] = [:]
subscript<T>(dynamicMember member: KeyPath<Wrapped, T>) -> T? {
get { storage[member] as! T? }
set { storage[member] = newValue }
}
}
struct Profile {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String
var age: Int
}
var p = Partial<Profile>()
p.firstName = "Bob"
p.firstName // "Bob"
p.age // nil
And a similar converter:
extension Profile {
init(_ partial: Partial<Profile>) {
self.firstName = partial.firstName ?? "NoFirstName"
self.lastName = partial.lastName ?? "NoLastName"
self.age = partial.age ?? 0
}
}
Now moving on to your Array problem, switching between these is just a map.
var partials: [Partial<Profile>] = ...
let profiles = partials.map(Profile.init)
(Of course you could create an Array extension to make this a method like .asWrapped() if it were convenient.)
The other direction is slightly tedious in the simplest approach:
extension Partial where Wrapped == Profile {
init(_ profile: Profile) {
self.init()
self.firstName = profile.firstName
self.lastName = profile.lastName
self.age = profile.age
}
}
If there were a lot of types, it might be worth it to make Partial a little more complicated so you could avoid this. Here's one approach that allows Partial to still be mutable (which I expect would be valuable) while also allowing it to be trivially mapped from the wrapped instances.
#dynamicMemberLookup
struct Partial<Wrapped> {
private var storage: [PartialKeyPath<Wrapped>: Any] = [:]
private var wrapped: Wrapped?
subscript<T>(dynamicMember member: KeyPath<Wrapped, T>) -> T? {
get { storage[member] as! T? ?? wrapped?[keyPath: member] }
set { storage[member] = newValue }
}
}
extension Partial {
init(_ wrapped: Wrapped) {
self.init()
self.wrapped = wrapped
}
}
I don't love this solution; it has a weird quirk where partial.key = nil doesn't work to clear a value. But I don't have a nice fix until we get KeyPathIterable. But there are some other routes you could take depending on your precise problem. And of course things can be simpler if Partial isn't mutable.
The point is that there's no need for protocols here. Just values and structs, and convert between them when you need to. Dig into #dynamicMemberLookup. If your problems are very dynamic, then you may just want more dynamic types.
I have a Realm model class that I need to be Decodable so I can serialize it from JSON and save it to database. Every PortfolioItem is associated with one Product and at some point I need to get to PortfolioItem from Product via inverse relationship. That's why I have LinkingObjects property. The problem is when I try to conform to Decodable protocol. The compiler is giving me an error Cannot automatically synthesize 'Decodable' because 'LinkingObjects<PortfolioItem>' does not conform to 'Decodable' . How to deal with this? I found very little about LinkingObjects and Decodable online and I have no idea how to approach this.
class PortfolioItem: Object {
#objc dynamic var id: String = ""
#objc dynamic var productId: String = ""
#objc dynamic public var product: Product?
convenience init(id: String, productId: String) {
self.init()
self.id = id
}
}
final class Product: Object, Decodable {
#objc dynamic var id: String = ""
#objc dynamic var name: String = ""
private let portfolioItems = LinkingObjects(fromType: PortfolioItem.self, property: "product")
public var portfolioItem: PortfolioItem? {
return portfolioItems.first
}
convenience init(id: String, name: String) {
self.init()
self.id = id
}
}
Big thanks to Chris Shaw for helping me figure this out. I wrote a more in-depth article how to setup Decodable and LinkingObjects, look HERE.
Well unless I'm missing something then the LinkingObjects properties does not need to be included in the decoding.
My assumption here is that you're receiving JSON from some online source, where the JSON for a Product consists of { id: "", name: "" }. As long as you're creating the PortfolioItem correctly with associated Product, then the resulting LinkingObjects property is the result of a dynamic query within Realm (and will thus work without any JSON source).
I'm not in a position to test compile an answer today, but you should be able to use CodingKeys to simply exclude that property, i.e. by adding this to Product:-
private enum CodingKeys: String, CodingKey {
case id
case name
}
Also, unrelated, but note that your convenience init function are not initialising all properties that you're passing in.
I am learning to parse JSON in Swift, coming from Android/Java, and I am using Unbox by John Sundell to help me with this, which reminds me of GSON.
Reference: Unbox pod
I use Realm as a database to store data locally.
Reference: Realm.io
It would be great to find a workflow to parse a class with JSON and save it to Realm. I don't want to have a struct that implements Unboxable AND a class that implements Object (Realm), because then I have to reflect the two. That isn't too much work for my current project, but it is kinda ugly...
Did any of you try a similar workflow?
I don't think you need two separate types. My suggestion is to create your objects as Swift classes that inherit from Realm's Object class, and then also conform them to the Unboxable protocol that Unbox offers. (Although the examples on Unbox's page use struct models, there's nothing in the code or documentation that indicates that classes wouldn't work.)
Realm model objects work just like any other classes: in addition to defining whatever properties on the objects you'd like stored in the database, you can also define methods and initializers, and even specify properties that you want Realm to ignore. This allows you to create an object that both serves as a Realm model and also a JSON model compatible with Unbox.
A more concise approach that doesn't require to override required initialisers (based on a tweet by Marin Todorov):
class Car: Object, Unboxable {
dynamic var vendor: String = ""
dynamic var modelName: String = ""
dynamic var electric: Bool = false
required convenience init(unboxer: Unboxer) throws {
self.init()
self.vendor = try unboxer.unbox(key: "vendor")
self.modelName = try unboxer.unbox(key: "modelName")
self.electric = try unboxer.unbox(key: "electric")
}
}
Here is an example that works perfectly for me:
class ProviderRealm: Object, Unboxable {
dynamic var identifier: String = "demo"
dynamic var name: String?
dynamic var logo: String?
/// Initializer used for unboxing of JSON string
required init(unboxer: Unboxer) throws {
self.identifier = (try? unboxer.unbox(key: "identifier")) ?? "demo"
self.name = try? unboxer.unbox(key: "name")
self.logo = try? unboxer.unbox(key: "logo")
super.init()
}
required init(realm: RLMRealm, schema: RLMObjectSchema) {
super.init(realm: realm, schema: schema)
}
required init() {
super.init()
}
required init(value: Any, schema: RLMSchema) {
super.init(value: value, schema: schema)
}
override static func primaryKey() -> String? {
return "identifier"
}
}