I have some objects, which are structs, that I initialize from JSON dictionaries ([String : Any]) via an init function provided from an extension on the Decodable protocol (see Init an object conforming to Codable with a dictionary/array).
So basically, I have objects that look like this:
struct ObjectModelA: Codable {
var stringVal: String
var intVal: Int
var boolVal: Bool
// Coding keys omitted for brevity
}
struct ObjectModelB: Codable {
var doubleVal: Double
var arrayOfObjectModelAVal: [ObjectModelA]
// Coding keys omitted for brevity
var complicatedComputedVar: String {
// expensive operations using the values in arrayOfObjectModelAVal
}
}
ObjectModelB contains an array of ObjectModelA, and it also has a property which I only really want to set if the arrayOfObjectModelAVal changes.
I can use a didSet on arrayOfObjectModelAVal, but that only catches future changes to the arrayOfObjectModelAVal property. The problem is that I'm using a webservice to retrieve JSON data to create an array of ObjectModelB ([[String : Any]]), and I build it like this:
guard let objectDictArray = responseObject as? [[String : Any]] else { return }
let objects = objectDictArray.compactMap({ try? ObjectModelB(any: $0) })
My objects get created inside the compactMap closure, and init doesn't trigger the didSet.
I also can't "override" the init provided by the init from the Decodable protocol (the one in the closure: try? ObjectModelB(any: $0)) because my object is a struct and this isn't inheritance, it's just an initializer provided by a protocol. Otherwise, I'd "override" the init in my object and then just do super.init followed by some sort of mutating function that updates my complicated property and I'd make my complicated property private(set).
The only other option I can think of is creating that mutating function I just mentioned, and calling it in both the didSet when arrayOfObjectModelAVal changes, and then update my object initialization call with something like this:
guard let objectDictArray = responseObject as? [[String : Any]] else { return }
let objects = objectDictArray
.compactMap({ try? ObjectModelB(any: $0) })
.forEach({ $0.updateProperties() })
But now updateProperties could be called at any time by anyone (which is bad because it's really taxing), and there's no guarantee that it even gets called when creating the array of objects because the dev could forget to do the forEach part. Hence why I want a way to automatically call the updateProperties function right after object initialization.
I figured out a way to accomplish this using a factory method. Like I said in the original question, the initializer I want to use is being provided by a protocol extension on Decodable (see Init an object conforming to Codable with a dictionary/array). I went ahead and added a createFrom static func inside of the Decodable extension like this:
extension Decodable {
init(any: Any) throws {
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46327302
}
static func createFrom(any: Any) throws -> Self {
return try Self.init(any: any)
}
}
Now if I define an init on ObjectModelB with the same function signature as the init provided in the Decodable extension, like so:
struct ObjectModelB: Codable {
var doubleVal: Double {
didSet {
computeComplicatedVar()
}
}
var arrayOfObjectModelAVal: [ObjectModelA] {
didSet {
computeComplicatedVar()
}
}
// Coding keys omitted for brevity
private(set) var complicatedVar: String = ""
mutating private func computeComplicatedVar() {
// complicated stuff here
}
init() {
doubleVal = 0.0
arrayOfObjectModelAVal = []
}
init(any: Any) throws {
self.init()
self = try ObjectModelB.createFrom(any: any)
computeComplicatedVar()
}
}
This seems to work. I like it because if I don't add the init that exactly matches the one provided in the Decodable extension, then my object can still use the one provided in the Decodable extension. But if I do provide my own, I just use the createFrom factory method to create an instance of my type using the init from Decodable, and then do whatever else I want after that. This way, I control which objects need special init treatment and which ones don't, but at the point of creating the object, nothing changes. You still use the same init(any:) function.
Related
I'm retrieving data from a website.
Networking works well. Data is parsed correctly from JSON.
A couple of references - In this struct:
Replies is the datamodel for the JSON
PrepareQuestions is a func which performs the parsing (I have it in an extension of the same Struct)
I'd like to have an object within this struct (downloadedData - 'Replies' is the struct with the datamodel) containing all the information downloaded, but I incur into an error due to "self being an immutable capture". Any suggestions? Thank you!
struct QuestionsManager {
var downloadedData:Replies?
func useData() {
manageQuestions(url: K.urlForRetreival, numberOfQuestions: K.numberOfSquares) { [self] (replies, error) in
if let replies = replies {
DispatchQueue.main.async {
downloadedData = replies // Here I got the error
}
}
}
}
func manageQuestions(url: String, numberOfQuestions: String, myCompletion: #escaping (Replies?, Error?)->()) {
let generatedUrl = URL(string: url + numberOfQuestions)!
let urlSession = URLSession(configuration: .default)
let task = urlSession.dataTask(with: generatedUrl) { (data, response, error) in
if error == nil {
if let fetchedData = data {
let fetchedProcessedData = prepareQuestions(data: fetchedData)
myCompletion(fetchedProcessedData, nil)
return
}
} else {
myCompletion(nil, error)
return
}
}
task.resume()
}
}
You're seeing this error because the closure captures an immutable self.
Just like primitive types (e.g. Int), structs are value-types, and Swift is built with the notion of immutability of value-types.
In other words, if you had let questionManager = QuestionManager(), you'd expect questionManager not to change. Even if it was a var, it can only mutate via direct action by the caller, e.g. questionManager.doMutatingFunc().
But, if a closure was allowed to capture self, it could modify itself at some later point. This is not allowed.
This simplest (only?) way to fix this is to turn QuestionManager into a class:
class QuestionManager {
// ...
}
struct is a value type. For value types, only methods explicitly
marked as mutating can modify the properties of self, so this is not
possible within a computed property.
If you change struct to be a class then your code compiles without
problems.
Structs are value types which means they are copied when they are
passed around.So if you change a copy you are changing only that copy,
not the original and not any other copies which might be around.If
your struct is immutable then all automatic copies resulting from
being passed by value will be the same.If you want to change it you
have to consciously do it by creating a new instance of the struct
with the modified data.
From https://stackoverflow.com/a/49253452/11734662
I have a base class Action, which is an Operation. It has a bunch of crufty Operation stuff in it (KVO and all that). The base class itself doesn't actually need to encode/decode anything.
class Action : Operation, Codable {
var _executing = false
...
}
I have a bunch of Action sub-classes, like DropboxUploadAction, which are directly instantiated with an Input struct they define:
let actionInput = DropboxUploadAction.Input.init(...)
ActionManager.shared.run(DropboxUploadAction.init(actionInput, data: binaryData), completionBlock: nil)
Here's what the subclasses look like:
class DropboxUploadAction : Action {
struct Input : Codable {
var guid: String
var eventName: String
var fileURL: URL?
var filenameOnDropbox: String
var share: Bool
}
struct Output : Codable {
var sharedFileLink: String?
var dropboxPath: String?
}
var input: Input
var output: Output
...
required init(from decoder: Decoder) throws {
let values = try decoder.container(keyedBy: CodingKeys.self)
input = try values.decode(Input.self, forKey: .input)
output = try values.decode(Output.self, forKey: .output)
let superDecoder = try values.superDecoder()
try super.init(from: superDecoder)
}
fileprivate enum CodingKeys: String, CodingKey {
case input
case output
}
override func encode(to encoder: Encoder) throws {
var container = encoder.container(keyedBy: CodingKeys.self)
try container.encode(input, forKey: .input)
try container.encode(output, forKey: .output)
try super.encode(to: container.superEncoder())
}
}
When some situations occur such as a loss of internet connectivity, these classes need to be serialized to disk for later. That's fine, because at the time I have references to them and can encode them with JSONEncoder().encode(action), no problem.
But later when I want to deserialize them, I need to specify the type of the class and I don't know what it is. I have some data and I know it can be decoded to a class that inherits from Action, but I don't know which subclass it is. I'm loathe to encode that in the filename. Is there some way to decode it as the base class Action, then in the decode() method of Action, somehow detect the proper class and redirect?
In the past I've used NSKeyedUnarchiver.setClass() to handle this. But I don't know how to do that with Swift 4's Codable, and I understand that NSCoding is deprecated now so I shouldn't use NSKeyedUnarchiver anymore...
If it helps: I have a struct Types : OptionSet, Codable which each subclass returns, so I don't have to use the name of the class as its identity.
Thanks for any help!
Uhhh NSCoding isn't deprecated. We still use it when instantiating UIViewControllers from storyboard via init(coder:).
Also, if you still don't want to use NSCoding, you can just store the Input, Output and Types to a struct and serialize that to disk instead.
struct SerializedAction {
let input: Input
let output: Output
let type: Type
}
When needed, you can decode that and decide the correct Action to initialize with your input/output via the type property.
class DropboxAction: Action {
...
init(input: Input, output: Output) {
...
}
}
You don't necessarily need to encode the entire Action object.
I'm struggling to understand class/reference type behavior and how this relates to changes as I try to upgrade and reduce code using Codable in Swift 4.
I have two classes – a SuperClass with all of the data that will be persistent and that I save to UserDefaults (a place name & string with coordinates), and a SubClass that contains additional, temporary info that I don't need (weather data for the SuperClass coordinates).
In Swift 3 I used to save data like this:
func saveUserDefaults() {
var superClassArray = [SuperClass]()
// subClassArray is of type [SubClass] and contains more data per element.
superClassArray = subClassArray
let superClassData = NSKeyedArchiver.archivedData(withRootObject: superClassArray)
UserDefaults.standard.set(superClassData, forKey: " superClassData")
}
SuperClass conformed to NSObject & NSCoding
It also included the required init decoder & the encode function.
It all worked fine.
In trying to switch to Swift 4 & codable I've modified SuperClass to conform to Codable.
SuperClass now only has one basic initializer and none of the encoder/decoder stuff from Swift 3. There is no KeyedArchiving happening with this new approach (below). SubClass remains unchanged. Unfortunately I crash on the line where I try? encoder.encode [giving a Thread 1: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (code=1, address=0x10)]. My assumption is that the encoder is getting confused with identical reference types where one is SuperClass and one SubClass (subClassArray[0] === superClassArray[0] is true).
I thought this might work:
func saveUserDefaults() {
var superClassArray = [SuperClass]()
superClassArray = subClassArray
// assumption was that the subclass would only contain parts of the superclass & wouldn't produce an error when being encoded
let encoder = JSONEncoder()
if let encoded = try? encoder.encode(superClassArray){
UserDefaults.standard.set(encoded, forKey: " superClassArray ")
} else {
print("Save didn't work!")
}
}
Then, instead of creating an empty superClassArray, then using:
superClassArray = subClassArray, as shown above, I replace this with the single line:
let superClassArray: [SuperClass] = subClassArray.map{SuperClass(name: $0.name, coordinates: $0.coordinates)}
This works. Again, assumption is because I'm passing in the values inside of the class reference type & haven't made the superClassArray = subClassArray. Also, as expected, subClassArray[0] === superClassArray[0] is false
So why did the "old stuff" in Swift 3 work, even though I used the line superClassArray = subClassArray before the let superClassData = NSKeyedArchiver.archivedData(withRootObject: superClassArray)
? Am I essentially achieving the same result by creating the array in Swift 4 that was happening with the old Swift 3 encoder/decoder? Is the looping / recreation
Thanks!
Polymorphic persistence appears to be broken by design.
The bug report SR-5331 quotes the response they got on their Radar.
Unlike the existing NSCoding API (NSKeyedArchiver), the new Swift 4 Codable implementations do not write out type information about encoded types into generated archives, for both flexibility and security. As such, at decode time, the API can only use the concrete type your provide in order to decode the values (in your case, the superclass type).
This is by design — if you need the dynamism required to do this, we recommend that you adopt NSSecureCoding and use NSKeyedArchiver/NSKeyedUnarchiver
I am unimpressed, having thought from all the glowing articles that Codable was the answer to some of my prayers. A parallel set of Codable structs that act as object factories is one workaround I'm considering, to preserve type information.
Update I have written a sample using a single struct that manages recreating polymorphic classes. Available on GitHub.
I was not able to get it to work easily with subclassing. However, classes that conform to a base protocol can apply Codable for default encoding. The repo contains both keyed and unkeyed approaches. The simpler is unkeyed, copied below
// Demo of a polymorphic hierarchy of different classes implementing a protocol
// and still being Codable
// This variant uses unkeyed containers so less data is pushed into the encoded form.
import Foundation
protocol BaseBeast {
func move() -> String
func type() -> Int
var name: String { get }
}
class DumbBeast : BaseBeast, Codable {
static let polyType = 0
func type() -> Int { return DumbBeast.polyType }
var name:String
init(name:String) { self.name = name }
func move() -> String { return "\(name) Sits there looking stupid" }
}
class Flyer : BaseBeast, Codable {
static let polyType = 1
func type() -> Int { return Flyer.polyType }
var name:String
let maxAltitude:Int
init(name:String, maxAltitude:Int) {
self.maxAltitude = maxAltitude
self.name = name
}
func move() -> String { return "\(name) Flies up to \(maxAltitude)"}
}
class Walker : BaseBeast, Codable {
static let polyType = 2
func type() -> Int { return Walker.polyType }
var name:String
let numLegs: Int
let hasTail: Bool
init(name:String, legs:Int=4, hasTail:Bool=true) {
self.numLegs = legs
self.hasTail = hasTail
self.name = name
}
func move() -> String {
if numLegs == 0 {
return "\(name) Wriggles on its belly"
}
let maybeWaggle = hasTail ? "wagging its tail" : ""
return "\(name) Runs on \(numLegs) legs \(maybeWaggle)"
}
}
// Uses an explicit index we decode first, to select factory function used to decode polymorphic type
// This is in contrast to the current "traditional" method where decoding is attempted and fails for each type
// This pattern of "leading type code" can be used in more general encoding situations, not just with Codable
//: **WARNING** there is one vulnerable practice here - we rely on the BaseBeast types having a typeCode which
//: is a valid index into the arrays `encoders` and `factories`
struct CodableRef : Codable {
let refTo:BaseBeast //In C++ would use an operator to transparently cast CodableRef to BaseBeast
typealias EncContainer = UnkeyedEncodingContainer
typealias DecContainer = UnkeyedDecodingContainer
typealias BeastEnc = (inout EncContainer, BaseBeast) throws -> ()
typealias BeastDec = (inout DecContainer) throws -> BaseBeast
static var encoders:[BeastEnc] = [
{(e, b) in try e.encode(b as! DumbBeast)},
{(e, b) in try e.encode(b as! Flyer)},
{(e, b) in try e.encode(b as! Walker)}
]
static var factories:[BeastDec] = [
{(d) in try d.decode(DumbBeast.self)},
{(d) in try d.decode(Flyer.self)},
{(d) in try d.decode(Walker.self)}
]
init(refTo:BaseBeast) {
self.refTo = refTo
}
init(from decoder: Decoder) throws {
var container = try decoder.unkeyedContainer()
let typeCode = try container.decode(Int.self)
self.refTo = try CodableRef.factories[typeCode](&container)
}
func encode(to encoder: Encoder) throws {
var container = encoder.unkeyedContainer()
let typeCode = self.refTo.type()
try container.encode(typeCode)
try CodableRef.encoders[typeCode](&container, refTo)
}
}
struct Zoo : Codable {
var creatures = [CodableRef]()
init(creatures:[BaseBeast]) {
self.creatures = creatures.map {CodableRef(refTo:$0)}
}
func dump() {
creatures.forEach { print($0.refTo.move()) }
}
}
//: ---- Demo of encoding and decoding working ----
let startZoo = Zoo(creatures: [
DumbBeast(name:"Rock"),
Flyer(name:"Kookaburra", maxAltitude:5000),
Walker(name:"Snake", legs:0),
Walker(name:"Doggie", legs:4),
Walker(name:"Geek", legs:2, hasTail:false)
])
startZoo.dump()
print("---------\ntesting JSON\n")
let encoder = JSONEncoder()
encoder.outputFormatting = .prettyPrinted
let encData = try encoder.encode(startZoo)
print(String(data:encData, encoding:.utf8)!)
let decodedZoo = try JSONDecoder().decode(Zoo.self, from: encData)
print ("\n------------\nAfter decoding")
decodedZoo.dump()
Update 2020-04 experience
This approach continues to be more flexible and superior to using Codable, at the cost of a bit more programmer time. It is used very heavily in the Touchgram app which provides rich, interactive documents inside iMessage.
There, I need to encode multiple polymorphic hierarchies, including different Sensors and Actions. By storing signatures of decoders, it not only provides with subclassing but also allows me to keep older decoders in the code base so old messages are still compatible.
Recently I have used ReSwift API, And I want to add ReSwiftRecorder too!
The sample of ReSwiftRecorder in Github is very simple app
I need to to something more complicated. I have an object which get data from server and I need to It reloads its data when app is not connected to net. Here is my code:
AppState:
struct AppState: StateType {
var menus: Result<[Menu]>?
}
MenuReducer:
func menusReducer(state: Result<[Menu]>?, action: Action) -> Result<[Menu]>? {
switch action {
case let action as SetMenusAction:
return action.menus
default:
return state
}
}
AppReducer:
struct AppReducer: Reducer {
func handleAction(action: Action, state: AppState?) -> AppState {
return AppState(
menus: menusReducer(state: state?.menus, action: action),
)
}
}
MenuActions:
struct SetMenus: Action {
let menus: Result<[Menu]>
}
I know I need to change MenuAction to Something like this:
let SetMenusActionTypeMap: TypeMap = [SetMenusAction.type: SetMenusAction.self]
struct SetMenusAction: StandardActionConvertible {
static let type = "SET_MENU_ACTION"
let menus: Result<[Menu]>
init() {}
init(_ standardAction: StandardAction) {}
func toStandardAction() -> StandardAction {
return StandardAction(type: SetMenusAction.type, payload: [:], isTypedAction: true)
}
}
but I got error on init functions
Return from initializer without initializing all stored properties
when I set a initializer code the error disappear but app does not restore saved data! How can I fix it?
You will want to add serialization/deserialization code. The menus property needs to be set. Also, you will want to serialize that property as payload:
let SetMenusActionTypeMap: TypeMap = [SetMenusAction.type: SetMenusAction.self]
struct SetMenusAction: StandardActionConvertible {
static let type = "SET_MENU_ACTION"
let menus: Result<[Menu]>
init() {
self.menus = // however you initialize that
}
init(_ standardAction: StandardAction) {
let maybeMenus = standardAction.payload["menus"] as? [Menu]?
self.menus = // create Result from Optional<[Menu]>
}
func toStandardAction() -> StandardAction {
let maybeMenus = self.menus.asOptional // Cannot serialize Result itself
return StandardAction(type: SetMenusAction.type, payload: ["menus" : maybeMenus], isTypedAction: true)
}
}
So problems I see here: JSON serialization depends on Dictionary representation of your payload data, i.e. the properties of your object. Can Result be serialized directly? I guess not, so you need to convert it, probably easiest to nil.
All in all, the payload is the key you missed and now you have to figure out how to use it with the data you have at hand. Also, it makes me a bit suspicious that the Result type itself is part of the AppState. I expected it to be reduced away or handled before dispatching an action, like SettingMenusFailedAction instead of ChangeMenusAction(result:) or similar. Just as a sidenote: actions should be more than typed property setters.
I have this class named Meal
class Meal {
var name : String = ""
var cnt : Int = 0
var price : String = ""
var img : String = ""
var id : String = ""
init(name:String , cnt : Int, price : String, img : String, id : String) {
self.name = name
self.cnt = cnt
self.price = price
self.img = img
self.id = id
}
}
and I have an array of Meal :
var ordered = [Meal]()
I want to duplicate that array and then do some changes to the Meal instances in one of them without changing the Meal instances in the second one, how would I make a deep copy of it?
This search result didn't help me
How do I make a exact duplicate copy of an array?
Since ordered is a swift array, the statement
var orderedCopy = ordered
will effectively make a copy of the original array.
However, since Meal is a class, the new array will contain references
to the same meals referred in the original one.
If you want to copy the meals content too, so that changing a meal in one array will not change a meal in the other array, then you must define Meal as a struct, not as a class:
struct Meal {
...
From the Apple book:
Use struct to create a structure. Structures support many of the same behaviors as classes, including methods and initializers. One of the most important differences between structures and classes is that structures are always copied when they are passed around in your code, but classes are passed by reference.
To improve on #Kametrixom answer check this:
For normal objects what can be done is to implement a protocol that supports copying, and make the object class implements this protocol like this:
protocol Copying {
init(original: Self)
}
extension Copying {
func copy() -> Self {
return Self.init(original: self)
}
}
And then the Array extension for cloning:
extension Array where Element: Copying {
func clone() -> Array {
var copiedArray = Array<Element>()
for element in self {
copiedArray.append(element.copy())
}
return copiedArray
}
}
and that is pretty much it, to view code and a sample check this gist
You either have to, as #MarioZannone mentioned, make it a struct, because structs get copied automatically, or you may not want a struct and need a class. For this you have to define how to copy your class. There is the NSCopying protocol which unifies that on the ObjC world, but that makes your Swift code "unpure" in that you have to inherit from NSObject. I suggest however to define your own copying protocol like this:
protocol Copying {
init(original: Self)
}
extension Copying {
func copy() -> Self {
return Self.init(original: self)
}
}
which you can implement like this:
class Test : Copying {
var x : Int
init() {
x = 0
}
// required initializer for the Copying protocol
required init(original: Test) {
x = original.x
}
}
Within the initializer you have to copy all the state from the passed original Test on to self. Now that you implemented the protocol correctly, you can do something like this:
let original = Test()
let stillOriginal = original
let copyOriginal = original.copy()
original.x = 10
original.x // 10
stillOriginal.x // 10
copyOriginal.x // 0
This is basically the same as NSCopying just without ObjC
EDIT: Sadly this yet so beautiful protocol works very poorly with subclassing...
A simple and quick way is to map the original array into the new copy:
let copyOfPersons: [Person] = allPersons.map({(originalPerson) -> Person in
let newPerson = Person(name: originalPerson.name, age: originalPerson.age)
return newPerson
})
The new Persons will have different pointers but same values.
Based on previous answer here
If you have nested objects, i.e. subclasses to a class then what you want is True Deep Copy.
//Example
var dogsForAdoption: Array<Dog>
class Dog{
var breed: String
var owner: Person
}
So this means implementing NSCopying in every class(Dog, Person etc).
Would you do that for say 20 of your classes? what about 30..50..100? You get it right? We need native "it just works!" way. But nope we don't have one. Yet.
As of now, Feb 2021, there is no proper solution of this issue. We have many workarounds though.
Here is the one I have been using, and one with less limitations in my opinion.
Make your class conforms to codable
class Dog: Codable{
var breed : String = "JustAnyDog"
var owner: Person
}
Create this helper class
class DeepCopier {
//Used to expose generic
static func Copy<T:Codable>(of object:T) -> T?{
do{
let json = try JSONEncoder().encode(object)
return try JSONDecoder().decode(T.self, from: json)
}
catch let error{
print(error)
return nil
}
}
}
Call this method whenever you need true deep copy of your object, like this:
//Now suppose
let dog = Dog()
guard let clonedDog = DeepCopier.Copy(of: dog) else{
print("Could not detach Dog")
return
}
//Change/mutate object properties as you want
clonedDog.breed = "rottweiler"
//Also clonedDog.owner != dog.owner, as both the owner : Person have dfferent memory allocations
As you can see we are piggy backing on Swift's JSONEncoder and JSONDecoder, using power of Codable, making true deep copy no matter how many nested objects are there under our object. Just make sure all your Classes conform to Codable.
Though its NOT an ideal solution, but its one of the most effective workaround.