In the code below, when I try to let expectations = stuffToExpect.map({ $0.expectation }) the compiler says Value of tuple type '(key: _, value: HasExpectations)' has no member 'expectation'.
What is the correct way to use map in with a generic type?
import XCTest
import Foundation
protocol HasExpectations {
var expectation: XCTestExpectation { get }
}
public class A: HasExpectations {
var expectation: XCTestExpectation
init(expectation: XCTestExpectation) {
self.expectation = expectation
}
}
public class B: HasExpectations {
var expectation: XCTestExpectation
init(expectation: XCTestExpectation) {
self.expectation = expectation
}
}
func doit<T>(stuffToExpect: [T: HasExpectations]) {
let expectations = stuffToExpect.map({ $0.expectation })
}
</pre>
In your function
func doit<T>(stuffToExpect: [T: HasExpectations]) {
let expectations = stuffToExpect.map({ $0.expectation })
}
stuffToExpect is of type [T: HasExpectations] aka Dictionary<T: HasExpectations>. When you map over a dictionary it gives you a tuple of type (key: T, value: HasExpectations) back which is why you are seeing that error.
I think you instead wanted to constrain T instead and have stuffToExpect as an array, in which case the syntax is either of these (pick which you think looks best):
func doit<T: HasExpectations>(stuffToExpect: [T]) {
let expectations = stuffToExpect.map({ $0.expectation })
}
// or
func doit<T>(stuffToExpect: [T]) where T: HasExpectations {
let expectations = stuffToExpect.map({ $0.expectation })
}
You described Tas generic. That is correct. Now you want to say I am happy to accept any type T which conforms to protocol HasExpectations. That smeans <T: HasExpectation>.
So your function going to look like below
func doit<T: HasExpectations>(stuffToExpect: [T]) {
let expectations = stuffToExpect.map({ $0.expectation })
}
You got a compilation error because when you specify [T: HasExpections]. The compiler treats as a dictionary, which is not the case here.
Call mapValues over the expectation,
func doit<T>(stuffToExpect: [T: HasExpectations]) {
let expectations = stuffToExpect.mapValues { $0.expectation }
// here your expectations is a new dictionary of [Hashable: XCTestExpectation]
// also note that T is turned to Hashable since you cannot have stuffToExpect key with T, which is not actually Hashable.
// you can get all test expectations using values
let testExpectations = Array(expectations.values)
// here testExpectations is [XCTestExpectation]
}
My real problem was my function declaration:
func doit<T>(stuffToExpect: [T: HasExpectations]) {
What I really wanted to do was say that T conformed to HasExpectations:
func doit<T: HasExpectations>(stuffToExpect: [T: HasExpectations]) {
Related
As an exercise in learning I'm rewriting my validation library in Swift.
I have a ValidationRule protocol that defines what individual rules should look like:
protocol ValidationRule {
typealias InputType
func validateInput(input: InputType) -> Bool
//...
}
The associated type InputType defines the type of input to be validated (e.g String). It can be explicit or generic.
Here are two rules:
struct ValidationRuleLength: ValidationRule {
typealias InputType = String
//...
}
struct ValidationRuleCondition<T>: ValidationRule {
typealias InputType = T
// ...
}
Elsewhere, I have a function that validates an input with a collection of ValidationRules:
static func validate<R: ValidationRule>(input i: R.InputType, rules rs: [R]) -> ValidationResult {
let errors = rs.filter { !$0.validateInput(i) }.map { $0.failureMessage }
return errors.isEmpty ? .Valid : .Invalid(errors)
}
I thought this was going to work but the compiler disagrees.
In the following example, even though the input is a String, rule1's InputType is a String, and rule2s InputType is a String...
func testThatItCanEvaluateMultipleRules() {
let rule1 = ValidationRuleCondition<String>(failureMessage: "message1") { $0.characters.count > 0 }
let rule2 = ValidationRuleLength(min: 1, failureMessage: "message2")
let invalid = Validator.validate(input: "", rules: [rule1, rule2])
XCTAssertEqual(invalid, .Invalid(["message1", "message2"]))
}
... I'm getting extremely helpful error message:
_ is not convertible to ValidationRuleLength
which is cryptic but suggests that the types should be exactly equal?
So my question is... how do I append different types that all conform to a protocol with an associated type into a collection?
Unsure how to achieve what I'm attempting, or if it's even possible?
EDIT
Here's it is without context:
protocol Foo {
typealias FooType
func doSomething(thing: FooType)
}
class Bar<T>: Foo {
typealias FooType = T
func doSomething(thing: T) {
print(thing)
}
}
class Baz: Foo {
typealias FooType = String
func doSomething(thing: String) {
print(thing)
}
}
func doSomethingWithFoos<F: Foo>(thing: [F]) {
print(thing)
}
let bar = Bar<String>()
let baz = Baz()
let foos: [Foo] = [bar, baz]
doSomethingWithFoos(foos)
Here we get:
Protocol Foo can only be used as a generic constraint because it has
Self or associated type requirements.
I understand that. What I need to say is something like:
doSomethingWithFoos<F: Foo where F.FooType == F.FooType>(thing: [F]) {
}
Protocols with type aliases cannot be used this way. Swift doesn't have a way to talk directly about meta-types like ValidationRule or Array. You can only deal with instantiations like ValidationRule where... or Array<String>. With typealiases, there's no way to get there directly. So we have to get there indirectly with type erasure.
Swift has several type-erasers. AnySequence, AnyGenerator, AnyForwardIndex, etc. These are generic versions of protocols. We can build our own AnyValidationRule:
struct AnyValidationRule<InputType>: ValidationRule {
private let validator: (InputType) -> Bool
init<Base: ValidationRule where Base.InputType == InputType>(_ base: Base) {
validator = base.validate
}
func validate(input: InputType) -> Bool { return validator(input) }
}
The deep magic here is validator. It's possible that there's some other way to do type erasure without a closure, but that's the best way I know. (I also hate the fact that Swift cannot handle validate being a closure property. In Swift, property getters aren't proper methods. So you need the extra indirection layer of validator.)
With that in place, you can make the kinds of arrays you wanted:
let len = ValidationRuleLength()
len.validate("stuff")
let cond = ValidationRuleCondition<String>()
cond.validate("otherstuff")
let rules = [AnyValidationRule(len), AnyValidationRule(cond)]
let passed = rules.reduce(true) { $0 && $1.validate("combined") }
Note that type erasure doesn't throw away type safety. It just "erases" a layer of implementation detail. AnyValidationRule<String> is still different from AnyValidationRule<Int>, so this will fail:
let len = ValidationRuleLength()
let condInt = ValidationRuleCondition<Int>()
let badRules = [AnyValidationRule(len), AnyValidationRule(condInt)]
// error: type of expression is ambiguous without more context
Is there any way to use array of protocol's generic?
For example,
/* I want to use protocol like below,
* but I can't because protocol is not concrete
* so cannot make array of it */
class MyClass<T where T:MyProtocol, T:[MyProtocol]> {
let result: T
}
protocol MyProtocol {
init(with: String)
}
class SpecialThing: MyProtocol {
let appleWatch: AppleWatch
init(with: String) {
self.appleWatch = AppleWatch(with)
}
}
class SampleClass {
func test {
typealias listCallback = (MyClass<[SpecialThing]>, NSError) -> ()
typealias oneCallback = (MyClass<SpecialThing>, NSError) -> ()
}
}
There can be one object or array of protocol's subclass.
I think "typealias" does not help me.
I want to find something more simple way.....
My first issue with this is that the type signature is wrong:
class MyClass<T where T:MyProtocol, T:[MyProtocol]>
That's the same type of thing as doing:
let t: String
let t: [String]
t = String("foo")
The compiler will complain because you are redefining T, once as a MyProtocol and again as an array of MyProtocol. You can't have both, you can only have one.
Answer: Use a construct like Either:
enum Either<T, U>
{
case Left(T)
case Right(U)
var leftValue: T?
{
if case .Left(let leftValue) = self
{
return leftValue
}
return nil
}
var rightValue: U?
{
if case .Right(let rightValue) = self
{
return rightValue
}
return nil
}
}
Allowing for:
class MyClass<T: MyProtocol>
{
let result: Either<T, [MyProtocol]>
}
I have a method which does exactly the same thing for two types of data in Swift.
To keep things simple (and without duplicating a method) I pass AnyObject as an argument to my method which can be either of these two types. How to I unwrap it with an || (OR) statement so I can proceed? Or maybe this done otherwise?
func myFunc(data:AnyObject) {
if let data = data as? TypeOne {
// This works fine. But I need it to look something like unwrapping below
}
if let data = data as? TypeOne || let data = data as? TypeTwo { // <-- I need something like this
// Do my stuff here, but this doesn't work
}
}
I'm sure this is trivial in Swift, I just can't figure out how to make it work.
You can't unify two different casts of the same thing. You have to keep them separate because they are two different casts to two different types which the compiler needs to treat in two different ways.
var x = "howdy" as AnyObject
// x = 1 as AnyObject
// so x could have an underlying String or Int
switch x {
case let x as String:
print(x)
case let x as Int:
print(x)
default: break
}
You can call the same method from within those two different cases, if you have a way of passing a String or an Int to it; but that's the best you can do.
func printAnything(what:Any) {
print(what)
}
switch x {
case let x as String:
printAnything(x)
case let x as Int:
printAnything(x)
default: break
}
Of course you can ask
if (x is String || x is Int) {
but the problem is that you are no closer to performing an actual cast. The casts will still have to be performed separately.
Building on Clashsoft's comment, I think a protocol is the way to go here. Rather than pass in AnyObject and unwrap, you can represent the needed functionality in a protocol to which both types conform.
This ought to make the code easier to maintain, since you're coding toward specific behaviors rather then specific classes.
I mocked up some code in a playground that shows how this would work.
Hopefully it will be of some help!
protocol ObjectBehavior {
var nickname: String { get set }
}
class TypeOne: ObjectBehavior {
var nickname = "Type One"
}
class TypeTwo: ObjectBehavior {
var nickname = "Type Two"
}
func myFunc(data: ObjectBehavior) -> String {
return data.nickname
}
let object1 = TypeOne()
let object2 = TypeTwo()
println(myFunc(object1))
println(myFunc(object2))
Find if that shared code is exactly the same for both types. If yes:
protocol TypeOneOrTypeTwo {}
extension TypeOneOrTypeTwo {
func thatSharedCode() {
print("Hello, I am instance of \(self.dynamicType).")
}
}
extension TypeOne: TypeOneOrTypeTwo {}
extension TypeTwo: TypeOneOrTypeTwo {}
If not:
protocol TypeOneOrTypeTwo {
func thatSharedMethod()
}
extension TypeOne: TypeOneOrTypeTwo {
func thatSharedMethod() {
// code here:
}
}
extension TypeTwo: TypeOneOrTypeTwo {
func thatSharedMethod() {
// code here:
}
}
And here you go:
func myFunc(data: AnyObject) {
if let data = data as? TypeOneOrTypeTwo {
data.thatSharedCode() // Or `thatSharedMethod()` if your implementation differs for types.
}
}
You mean like this?
enum IntOrString {
case int(value: Int)
case string(value: String)
}
func parseInt(_ str: String) -> IntOrString {
if let intValue = Int(str) {
return IntOrString.int(value: intValue)
}
return IntOrString.string(value: str)
}
switch parseInt("123") {
case .int(let value):
print("int value \(value)")
case .string(let value):
print("string value \(value)")
}
switch parseInt("abc") {
case .int(let value):
print("int value \(value)")
case .string(let value):
print("string value \(value)")
}
output:
int value 123
string value abc
Following piece of code compiles with error: Error:(112, 20) type '(String, Int)' does not conform to protocol 'AnyObject'
func myMethode() {
aMethodeThatICanNotChange {
let a = ("John",7)
return a // Error:(112, 20) type '(String, Int)' does not conform to protocol 'AnyObject'
}
}
func aMethodeThatICanNotChange(closure: () -> AnyObject) {
// do something with closure
}
How can I cast/convert a Tuple to AnyObject?
This is just a workaround.
You can create a class to wrap your tuple.
class TupleWrapper {
let tuple : (String, Int)
init(tuple : (String, Int)) {
self.tuple = tuple
}
}
Then you can write this:
func myMethod() {
aMethodeThatICanNotChange {
let a = ("John",7)
let myTupleWrapper = TupleWrapper(tuple: a)
return myTupleWrapper
}
}
Alternatively you can create a generic wrapper that can receive a value of any Type.
class GenericWrapper<T> {
let element : T
init(element : T) {
self.element = element
}
}
Hope this helps.
How can I cast/convert a Tuple to AnyObject?
Simply put, you can't. Only class types (or types that are bridged to Foundation class types) can be cast to AnyObject. A tuple is not a class type.
Of course there may be lots of other ways to accomplish whatever you're really trying to accomplish. But as for your particular question, you can't do it.
A tuple is an ordered list of elements, so you can transform it into an Array which conforms to AnyObject protocol
func myMethode() {
aMethodeThatICanNotChange {
// let a = ("John",7)
let b = ["Joth", 7]
return b // No error
}
}
func aMethodeThatICanNotChange(closure: () -> AnyObject) {
// do something with closure
}
I have the following protocol and a class that conforms to it:
protocol Foo{
typealias BazType
func bar(x:BazType) ->BazType
}
class Thing: Foo {
func bar(x: Int) -> Int {
return x.successor()
}
}
When I try to create an Array of foos, I get an odd error:
var foos: Array<Foo> = [Thing()]
Protocol Foo can only be used as a generic constraint because it has
Self or associated type requirements.
OK, so it can only be used if it has an associated type requirement (which it does), but for some reason this is an error?? WTF?!
I'm not sure I fully understand what the compiler is trying to tell me...
Let's say, if we could put an instance of Thing into array foos, what will happen?
protocol Foo {
associatedtype BazType
func bar(x:BazType) -> BazType
}
class Thing: Foo {
func bar(x: Int) -> Int {
return x.successor()
}
}
class AnotherThing: Foo {
func bar(x: String) -> String {
return x
}
}
var foos: [Foo] = [Thing()]
Because AnotherThing conforms to Foo too, so we can put it into foos also.
foos.append(AnotherThing())
Now we grab a foo from foos randomly.
let foo = foos[Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(foos.count - 1)))]
and I'm going to call method bar, can you tell me that I should send a string or an integer to bar?
foo.bar("foo") or foo.bar(1)
Swift can't.
So it can only be used as a generic constraint.
What scenario requires a protocol like this?
Example:
class MyClass<T: Foo> {
let fooThing: T?
init(fooThing: T? = nil) {
self.fooThing = fooThing
}
func myMethod() {
let thing = fooThing as? Thing // ok
thing?.bar(1) // fine
let anotherThing = fooThing as? AnotherThing // no problem
anotherThing?.bar("foo") // you can do it
// but you can't downcast it to types which doesn't conform to Foo
let string = fooThing as? String // this is an error
}
}
I have been playing with your code trying to understand how to implement the protocol. I found that you can't use Typealias as a generic type because it is just an alias not a type by itself. So if you declare the Typealias outside your protocol and your class you can effectively use it in your code without any problem.
Note: the Typealias has the Int type in its declaration, that way you can always use the alias instead of the Int type and use all of its associated methods and functions.
Here's how I make it work:
typealias BazType = Int
protocol Foo{
func bar(x:BazType) -> BazType
}
class Thing: Foo {
func bar(x: BazType) -> BazType {
return x.successor()
}
}
let elements: Array<Foo> = [Thing(), Thing()]