I'm using Realm in my iOS app and because of the thread safety issues I have opted to create a realm layer for my data model, as well as a layer that can be converted to and from the realm objects.
There is a lot more complexity to what I'm actually doing, but I was able to create a playground that demonstrates the unexpected issues I'm running into.
Basically I created a protocol called RealmObject. In my actual app this is a protocol which Realm.Object types can conform to which requires all the necessary properties.
I'm just including the UUID part of this protocol in the playground.
//the realm layer
protocol RealmObject {
var uuid: String { get }
}
Next I have my Realm layer model. They all have UUID, but have some other properties that correspond to their non-Realm relatives.
struct NoteObject: RealmObject {
let uuid: String
let noteText: String
}
struct AppointmentObject: RealmObject {
let uuid: String
let time: Date
}
Cacheable is the protocol that types which can be saved in realm must conform to.
For now I've just included the UUID requirement, and the requirement to be initialized from a RealmObject
//Cacheable
protocol Cacheable {
associatedtype T: RealmObject
init(object: T)
}
struct Note: Cacheable {
let noteText: String
let uuid: String
init(object: NoteObject) {
self.uuid = object.uuid
self.noteText = object.noteText
}
}
struct Appointment: Cacheable {
let uuid: String
let time: Date
init(object: AppointmentObject) {
self.uuid = object.uuid
self.time = object.time
}
}
Finally the issue. In my app this function does a lot more than this, but this is as simple as I could make it and still demonstrate the issue.
Basically, T is the generic type which must be a Cacheable object.
U is the RealmObject I want to convert to a cacheable object.
Every Cacheable object has an initializer that accepts an object which is a RealmObject
But it fails
func getCacheable<T: Cacheable, U: RealmObject>(from realmObject: U) -> T {
let thing = T(object: realmObject)
ERROR: Non-nominal type 'T' does not support explicit initialization
return thing
}
let noteObject = NoteObject(uuid: "bobalobla", noteText: "hi how are you")
let note: Note = getCacheable(from: noteObject)
let appointmentObject = AppointmentObject(uuid: "bobloblaw", time: Date())
let appointment: Appointment = getCacheable(from: appointmentObject)
I don't see anything that is so ambiguous the compiler shouldn't be able to easily figure it out
Replacing the generics with the types should be simple
Once the function knows which Cacheable type its working with, the initializer should be easily route to the correct init method. I won't pretend to understand whats actually happening, but this seems like a pretty basic thing to do with generics so I assume I must be doing something wrong. What is going on?
The type system doesn't know, from your list of generics <T: Cacheable, U: RealmObject>, that U is the correct type of RealmObject for T (in other words, you could be passing a Note as T, and an AppointmentObject as U). You just need to update your function signature to:
// The `where T.T == U` is the important part. Because that is defined,
// we can also remove `U: RealmObject` because it's redundant information.
func getCacheable<T: Cacheable, U>(from realmObject: U) -> T where T.T == U {
let thing = T(object: realmObject)
return thing
}
// Alternatively, you can just do:
func getCacheable<T: Cacheable>(from realmObject: T.T) -> T {
let thing = T(object: realmObject)
return thing
}
Related
Introduction
(Apologies if the title is confusing, but I explain the question better here!)
I'm building a networking library that can perform JSON decoding on its responses.
Host apps adopting this library will create enums conforming to NetLibRoute. All that currently does is enforce the presence of asURL:
public protocol NetLibRoute {
var asURL: URL { get throws }
}
In a host app, I have a routing system that enforces API structure at the compiler-level (via enums and associated values) for each endpoint, like this:
enum Routes: NetLibRoute {
case people(Int?)
// Other routes go here, e.g.:
// case user(Int)
// case search(query: String, limit: Int?)
var asURL: URL {
let host = "https://swapi.dev/"
let urlString: String
switch self {
case let .people(personID):
if let personID {
urlString = host + "api/people/\(personID)"
} else {
urlString = host + "api/people/"
}
// Build other URLs from associated values
}
return URL(string: urlString)!
}
}
I also want each enum to be associated with a certain Codable type. I can do that, of course, by modifying the Route protocol declaration to also require a type conforming to Decodable:
protocol NetLibRoute {
var asURL: URL { get throws }
var decodedType: Decodable.Type { get } // This
}
And a matching computed property in my Routes enum:
var decodedType: Decodable.Type {
switch self {
case .people(_):
return Person.self
// And so on
}
}
The Problem
Currently, my networking code has a declaration something like this:
public static func get<T>(route: NetLibRoute,
type: T.Type) async throws -> T where T: Decodable {
// performing request on route.asURL
// decoding from JSON as T or throwing error
// returning decoded T
}
Which lets me call it like this:
let person = try await NetLib.get(route: Routes.people(1), type: Person.self)
However, this redundancy (and potential human error from mismatching route and type) really irks me. I really want to be able to only pass in a route, and have the resulting type be inferred from there.
Is there some way to get the compiler to somehow check the NetLibRoute enum and check its decodedType property, in order to know what type to use?
Ultimately, I want this networking function to take one parameter (a route) and infer the return type of that route (at compile-time, not with fragile runtime hacks or !s), and return an instance of the type.
Is this possible?
Potential Alternatives?
I'm also open to alternative solutions that may involve moving where the get function is called from.
For example, calling this get function on a route itself to return the type:
let person = try await Routes.people(1).get(type: Person.self) // Works, but not optimal
let person = try await Routes.people(1).get() // What I want
Or even on the type itself, by creating a new protocol in the library, and then extending Decodable to conform to it:
public protocol NetLibFetchable {
static var route: NetLibRoute { get }
}
extension Decodable where Self: NetLibFetchable {
public static func get<T>() async throws -> T where Self == T, T: Decodable {
// Call normal get function using inferred properties
return try await NetLib.get(route: route,
type: T.self)
}
Which indeed lets me call like this:
let person = try await Person.get() // I can't figure out a clean way to pass in properties that the API may want, at least not without once again passing in Routes.people(1), defeating the goal of having Person and Routes.people inherently linked.
While this eliminates the issue of type inference, the route can no longer be customized at call-time, and instead is stuck like this:
extension Person: NetLibFetchable {
public static var route: NetLibRoute {
Routes.people(1) // Can't customize to different ID Ints anymore!
}
}
Which makes this particular example a no-go, and leaves me at a loss.
Appreciation
Anyway, thank you so much for reading, for your time, and for your help.
I really want this library to be as clean as possible for host apps interacting with it, and your help will make that possible.
Are you wedded to the idea of using an enum? If not, you can do pretty much what you want by giving each enum value its own type and using an associated type to do what you want.
public protocol NetLibRoute
{
var asURL: URL { get throws }
associatedtype Decoded: Decodable
}
struct Person: Decodable
{
var name: String
}
struct Login: Decodable
{
var id: String
}
struct People: NetLibRoute
{
typealias Decoded = Person
var id: Int
var asURL: URL { return URL(filePath: "/") }
}
struct User: NetLibRoute
{
typealias Decoded = Login
var id: String
var asURL: URL { return URL(filePath: "/") }
}
func get<N: NetLibRoute>(item: N) throws -> N.Decoded
{
let data = try Data(contentsOf: item.asURL)
return try JSONDecoder().decode(N.Decoded.self, from: data)
}
let thing1 = try get(item: People(id: 1))
let thing2 = try get(item: User(id: "foo"))
Where you might have had a switch before to do different things with different Routes you would now use a function with overloaded arguments.
func doSomething(thing: Person)
{
// do something for a Person
}
func doSomething(thing: Login)
{
// do something else for a Login
}
doSomething(thing: thing1)
doSomething(thing: thing2)
I think the problem lays in this function.
public static func get<T>(route: Route,
type: T.Type) async throws -> T where T: Decodable {
// performing request on route.asURL
// decoding from JSON as T or throwing error
// returning decoded T
}
On the first hand, it uses concretions instead of abstractions. You shouldn't pass a Route here, it should use your protocol NetLibRoute instead.
On the other hand, I think that the type param is not needed. Afaik you can get the Type to Decode with the var:
NetLibRoute.decodedType
Am I missing something on this matter?
Apart from that, I'd rather go with struct instead of enum when trying to implement the Routes (concretions). Enums cannot be extended. So you won't be allowing the creation of new requests in client side, only in the library.
I hope I've helped.
PS: Some time ago I made this repo. Maybe that could help you (specially this class). I used Combine instead of async/await, but it's not relevant to what you need.
I'm currently experimenting with Generics in Swift and came to some problem with casting some types around such as SomeType<Protocol> to SomeType<ProtocolImpl>. So basically I have some type that takes a generic parameter which is handled as a Protocol and which at a later point is casted to a more concrete type. My question is if that isn't possible to do?
/// 'dict' is of type [String: SomeType<Protocol>]
if let element = dict["str"], // 'element' here is of type SomeType<Protocol>
let castedElement = element as? SomeType<ProtocolImpl> { // This is always false
return castedElement // Here I want to return castedElement with type SomeType<ProtocolImpl>
}
Is there any way to make this cast work? I'm already working on another solution for my problem, but I'm still interested if there's a way to make this work somehow.
Edit: Because #jtbandes wanted a example he can paste somewhere, here:
class SomeType<T> {
let value: T
init(value: T) {
self.value = value
}
}
protocol Protocol {}
class ProtocolImpl: Protocol {}
var dict: [String: SomeType<Protocol>] = ["str": SomeType(value: ProtocolImpl())]
if let element = dict["str"],
let castedElement = element as? SomeType<ProtocolImpl> {
print(castedElement.value) // I want to get here
}
Long story short, generics in Swift are not covariant, which means that SomeType< ProtocolImpl> is not convertible SomeType<Protocol>, even if ProtocolImpl conforms to Protocol. Thus the direct answer to your question is: this is not currently possible in Swift.
However you might ask yourself is why do you need the downcast in the first place. As you're storing the instances in a container, polymorphic behaviour might be better suited. You could declare the functionality you need to access as part of the protocol, and access is though the protocol interface. This way you don't need to know which is the concrete implementation under the hood, which is one of the main reason of using a protocol.
It's hard for me to tell what you're trying to achieve from the question. Still, maybe the below will help you.
class SomeType<T>: Protocol { // Maybe SomeType IS your ProtoImpl?
let value: T
init(value: T) {
self.value = value
}
}
protocol Protocol {}
//class ProtocolImpl: Protocol {}
//var dict: [String: SomeType<Protocol>] = ["str": SomeType(value: ProtocolImpl())]
var dict: [String: Protocol] = ["str1": SomeType<String>(value: "Some Type"),
"str2": SomeType<Int>(value: 1)
]
if let castedElement = dict["str1"] as? SomeType<String> {
print(castedElement.value) // --> "Some Type"
}
if let castedElement = dict["str2"] as? SomeType<Int> {
print(castedElement.value) // --> "1"
}
I am trying to practice "class with generic". I encountered 2 errors:
Generic parameter 'T' could not be inferred
Reference to generic type 'GenericObject' requires arguments in <...>
The 2 errors in GenericManager class. Please reference the following code. How do I solve this issue?
class User {
var name: String
init(name: String) {
self.name = name
}
}
class Employee {
var name: String
var position: String
init(name: String, position: String) {
self.name = name
self.position = position
}
}
class GenericObject<T> {
var items = [T]()
init(forType: T.Type) {}
func addObject(_ obj: T) {
self.items.append(obj)
}
}
class GenericManager {
//issue: Generic parameter 'T' could not be inferred
var objects = [GenericObject]()
//issue: Reference to generic type 'GenericObject' requires arguments in <...>
func addObject(_ obj: GenericObject) {
self.objects.append(obj)
}
}
let u = User(name: "User")
let uo = GenericObject(forType: User.self)
uo.addObject(u)
let e = Employee(name: "Employee", position: "session manager")
let eo = GenericObject(forType: Employee.self)
eo.addObject(e)
let manager = GenericManager()
manager.addObject(uo)
manager.addObject(eo)
The compiler needs to know the type of T, and in this case you haven't supplied it.
You can do it like this:
var objects = [GenericObject<YourTypeHere>]()
For example, if GenericObject will hold an array of Int, it would look like this:
var objects = [GenericObject<Int>]()
I noticed you updated your question. It would be helpful to know what you're trying to achieve, but I'll try to help you anyway.
When you have a generic object, you need to tell the compiler the type of the generic at compile time, that's why it's complaining that the type can't be inferred, it needs to know.
Since you want to be able to add objects to the GenericManager array, you need the generic in those two cases to be the same, so you can modify your class like this:
class GenericManager<T> {
var objects = [GenericObject<T>]()
func addObject(_ obj: GenericObject<T>) {
self.objects.append(obj)
}
}
However, since the objects have to be of the same generic, you can't add a GenericObject<User> and GenericObject<Employee> to the same manager, what you can do is to implement those as GenericObject<Any>, and do the same with the GenericManager, then it will look like this:
let u = User(name: "User")
let uo = GenericObject(forType: Any.self)
uo.addObject(u)
let e = Employee(name: "Employee", position: "session manager")
let eo = GenericObject(forType: Any.self)
eo.addObject(e)
let manager = GenericManager<Any>()
manager.addObject(uo)
manager.addObject(eo)
Keep in mind that this will lose you any advantage that generics would do, what you could do is to create a protocol or common superclass and use that instead of Any, but that depends on what you're trying to achieve.
If you have any further questions, please add a comment instead of silently updating your question.
The problem you are having is that you are trying to use generics, but want to ignore that in GenericManager and store references to objects of different types.
Consider this - when you call manager.objects[0] what would you expect to be returned?
You can solve this by type-erasure using Any as EmilioPelaez suggested. However this is often a codesmell which leads to casting hacks throughout your code.
One alternative would be to use an enum to specify the different types of data you want to represent:
enum GenericObject {
case users([User])
case employees([Employee])
}
...
let uo = GenericObject.users([ u ])
...
let eo = GenericObject.employees([ e ])
Now when you access the properties inside GenericManager you would be required to switch over the different supported types, and when you add a new type you would be required to implement code whenever you use a GenericObject
Long time listener, first time caller.
I'm getting the following error:
Cannot convert value of type MyClass<Model<A>, OtherClass> to expected argument type MyClass<Protocol, OtherClass>
Despite the fact that MyClass<T> conforms to Protocol
I've attached a snippet that can be run in Playgrounds that resembles what I am actually trying to achieve.
protocol DisplayProtocol {
var value: String { get }
}
class DataBundle<T: CustomStringConvertible>: DisplayProtocol {
var data: T
var value: String {
return data.description
}
init(data: T) {
self.data = data
}
}
class Mapper<DisplayProtocol, Data> {
// ...
}
class MapperViewModel<Data> {
let mapper: Mapper<DisplayProtocol, Data>
init(mapper: Mapper<DisplayProtocol, Data>) {
self.mapper = mapper
}
}
let dataBundle = DataBundle<Int>(data: 100)
let mapper = Mapper<DataBundle<Int>, Bool>()
let viewModel = MapperViewModel<Bool>(mapper: mapper) // <- This fails w/error
Is this the expected behavior? If it is it feels like its breaking the contract of allowing me to have the DisplayProtocol as a type in Mapper.
This is caused by the fact that Swift generics are invariant in respect to their arguments. Thus MyClass<B> is not compatible with MyClass<A> even if B is compatible with A (subclass, protocol conformance, etc). So yes, unfortunately the behaviour is the expected one.
In your particular case, if you want to keep the current architecture, you might need to use protocols with associated types and type erasers.
One of the things that bugs me about Swift and Cocoa together is working with NSUserDefaults, because there is no type information and it is always necessary to cast the result of objectForKey to what you are expecting to get. It is unsafe and impractical. I decided to tackle this problem, making NSUserDefaults more practical in Swift-land, and hopefully learning something along the way. Here were my goals in the beginning:
Complete type safety: each key has one type associated with it. When setting a value, only a value of that type should be accepted and when getting a value the result should come out with the correct type
Global list of keys which are clear in meaning and content. The list should be easy to create, modify and extend
Clean syntax, using subscripts if possible. For example, this would
be perfect:
3.1. set: UserDefaults[.MyKey] = value
3.2. get: let value = UserDefaults[.MyKey]
Support for classes that conform to the NSCoding protocol by
automatically [un]archiving them
Support for all property list types accepted by NSUserDefaults
I started by creating this generic struct:
struct UDKey <T> {
init(_ n: String) { name = n }
let name: String
}
Then I created this other struct that serves as a container for all the keys in an application:
struct UDKeys {}
This can then be extended to add keys wherever needed:
extension UDKeys {
static let MyKey1 = UDKey<Int>("MyKey1")
static let MyKey2 = UDKey<[String]>("MyKey2")
}
Note how each key has a type associated with it. It represents the type of the information to be saved. Also, the name property is the string that is to be used as a key for NSUserDefaults.
The keys can be listed all in one constants file, or added using extensions on a per-file basis close to where they are being used for storing data.
Then I created an "UserDefaults" class responsible for handling the getting/setting of information:
class UserDefaultsClass {
let storage = NSUserDefaults.standardUserDefaults()
init(storage: NSUserDefaults) { self.storage = storage }
init() {}
// ...
}
let UserDefaults = UserDefaultsClass() // or UserDefaultsClass(storage: ...) for further customisation
The idea is that one instance for a particular domain is created and then every method is accessed in this way:
let value = UserDefaults.myMethod(...)
I prefer this approach to things like UserDefaults.sharedInstance.myMethod(...) (too long!) or using class methods for everything. Also, this allows interacting with various domains at the same time by using more than one UserDefaultsClass with different storage values.
So far, items 1 and 2 have been taken care of, but now the difficult part is starting: how to actually design the methods on UserDefaultsClass in order to comply with the rest.
For example, let's start with item 4. First I tried this (this code is inside UserDefaultsClass):
subscript<T: NSCoding>(key: UDKey<T>) -> T? {
set { storage.setObject(NSKeyedArchiver.archivedDataWithRootObject(newValue), forKey: key.name) }
get {
if let data = storage.objectForKey(key.name) as? NSData {
return NSKeyedUnarchiver.unarchiveObjectWithData(data) as? T
} else { return nil }
}
}
But then I find out that Swift doesn't allow generic subscripts!! Alright, then I guess I'll have to use functions then. There goes half of item 3...
func set <T: NSCoding>(key: UDKey<T>, _ value: T) {
storage.setObject(NSKeyedArchiver.archivedDataWithRootObject(value), forKey: key.name)
}
func get <T: NSCoding>(key: UDKey<T>) -> T? {
if let data = storage.objectForKey(key.name) as? NSData {
return NSKeyedUnarchiver.unarchiveObjectWithData(data) as? T
} else { return nil }
}
And that works just fine:
extension UDKeys { static let MyKey = UDKey<NSNotification>("MyKey") }
UserDefaults.set(UDKeys.MyKey, NSNotification(name: "Hello!", object: nil))
let n = UserDefaults.get(UDKeys.MyKey)
Note how I can't call UserDefaults.get(.MyKey). I have to use UDKeys.MyKey. And I can't do that because it's not yet possible to have static variables on a generic struct!!
Next, let's try number 5. Now that has been an headache and that's where I need lots of help.
Property list types are, as per the docs:
A default object must be a property list, that is, an instance of (or
for collections a combination of instances of): NSData, NSString,
NSNumber, NSDate, NSArray, or NSDictionary.
That in Swift means Int, [Int], [[String:Bool]], [[String:[Double]]], etc are all property list types. At first I thought that I could just write this and trust whoever is using this code to remember that only plist types are allowed:
func set <T: AnyObject>(key: UDKey<T>, _ value: T) {
storage.setObject(value, forKey: key.name)
}
func get <T: AnyObject>(key: UDKey<T>) -> T? {
return storage.objectForKey(key.name) as? T
}
But as you'll notice, while this works fine:
extension UDKeys { static let MyKey = UDKey<NSData>("MyKey") }
UserDefaults.set(UDKeys.MyKey, NSData())
let d = UserDefaults.get(UDKeys.MyKey)
This doesn't:
extension UDKeys { static let MyKey = UDKey<[NSData]>("MyKey") }
UserDefaults.set(UDKeys.MyKey, [NSData()])
And this doesn't either:
extension UDKeys { static let MyKey = UDKey<[Int]>("MyKey") }
UserDefaults.set(UDKeys.MyKey, [0])
Not even this:
extension UDKeys { static let MyKey = UDKey<Int>("MyKey") }
UserDefaults.set(UDKeys.MyKey, 1)
The problem is that they are all valid property list types yet Swift obviously interprets arrays and ints as structs, not as their Objective-C class counterparts. However:
func set <T: Any>(key: UDKey<T>, _ value: T)
won't work either, because then any value type, not just the ones that have a class cousin courtesy of Obj-C, is accepted, and storage.setObject(value, forKey: key.name) is no longer valid because value has to be a reference type.
If a protocol existed in Swift that accepted any reference type and any value type that can be converted to a reference type in objective-c (like [Int] and the other examples I mention) this problem would be solved:
func set <T: AnyObjectiveCObject>(key: UDKey<T>, _ value: T) {
storage.setObject(value, forKey: key.name)
}
func get <T: AnyObjectiveCObject>(key: UDKey<T>) -> T? {
return storage.objectForKey(key.name) as? T
}
AnyObjectiveCObject would accept any swift classes and swift arrays, dictionaries, numbers (ints, floats, bools, etc that convert to NSNumber), strings...
Unfortunately, AFAIK this doesn't exist.
Question:
How can I have write a generic function (or collection of overloaded generic functions) whose generic type T can be any reference type or any value type that Swift can convert to a reference type in Objective-C?
Solved: With the help of the answers I got, I arrived at what I wanted. In case anyone wants to take a look at my solution, here it is.
I don't mean to brag but ... oh who am I kidding, I totally do!
Preferences.set([NSData()], forKey: "MyKey1")
Preferences.get("MyKey1", type: type([NSData]))
Preferences.get("MyKey1") as [NSData]?
func crunch1(value: [NSData])
{
println("Om nom 1!")
}
crunch1(Preferences.get("MyKey1")!)
Preferences.set(NSArray(object: NSData()), forKey: "MyKey2")
Preferences.get("MyKey2", type: type(NSArray))
Preferences.get("MyKey2") as NSArray?
func crunch2(value: NSArray)
{
println("Om nom 2!")
}
crunch2(Preferences.get("MyKey2")!)
Preferences.set([[String:[Int]]](), forKey: "MyKey3")
Preferences.get("MyKey3", type: type([[String:[Int]]]))
Preferences.get("MyKey3") as [[String:[Int]]]?
func crunch3(value: [[String:[Int]]])
{
println("Om nom 3!")
}
crunch3(Preferences.get("MyKey3")!)
I'd like to introduce my idea. (Sorry for my poor English in advance.)
let plainKey = UDKey("Message", string)
let mixedKey
= UDKey("Mixed"
, array(dictionary(
string, tuple(
array(integer),
optional(date)))))
let ud = UserDefaults(NSUserDefaults.standardUserDefaults())
ud.set(plainKey, "Hello")
ud.set(plainKey, 2525) // <-- compile error
ud.set(mixedKey, [ [ "(^_^;)": ([1, 2, 3], .Some(NSDate()))] ])
ud.set(mixedKey, [ [ "(^_^;)": ([1, 2, 3], .Some(NSData()))] ]) // <-- compile error
The only difference is that UDKey() now requires #2 argument, a value of BiMap class. I've uncoupled the work originally of UDKey into BiMap which converts a value of a type to/from a value of another type.
public class BiMap<A, B> {
public func AtoB(a: A) -> B?
public func BtoA(b: B) -> A?
}
Consequently, types that set/get can accepts are conducted by BiMap, and no longer limited to types as can automatically cast
from/to AnyObject (more specifically, types NSUserDefaults can accepts.).
Because BiMap is a generic class, you can easily create subtypes of that, interchanging arbitrary two types you want.
Here is full source code. (But there are bugs yet to be fixed..)
https://gist.github.com/hisui/47f170a9e193168dc946