How to define a Swift protocol that enforces its adopters themselves to conform to an associated type? - swift

I need to work with objects that not only conform to a protocol, but also expose the type of a second protocol which they conform to. (This is for use with NSXPCConnection, where you must configurable not only an object to proxy, but also tell it which protocol should be exposed on that proxied object.)
I tried something like:
protocol Conformer where Self : Conformer.P {
associatedtype P : Protocol
static var interface : P {get}
init(info: String)
}
func exposeOverXPC<T:Conformer>(_ _: T.Type) {
let c : NSXPCConnection = …
c.exportedInterface = NSXPCInterface(with: T.interface)
c.exportedObject = T(info:"foo")
}
But it results in an error:
Associated type 'P' can only be used with a concrete type or generic parameter base
Specifically I want exposeOverXPC to only accept objects that:
Are initializeable in a particular way
Have a static property interface which references a protocol
Are themselves conformant to said interface
It's the last step that I'm getting stuck on, is there any way I can accomplish it?

You cannot restrict who conforms to a protocol, that goes against the concept of having protocols in the first place if you think about it. However you can use composed types, Swift4 feature, in your generic parameter in exposeOverXPC.
protocol Interface {
}
protocol XPCExposable {
associatedtype P: Interface
init(info: String)
static var interface: P { get }
}
func exposeOverXPC<T: XPCExposable & Interface>(_ : T.Type) {
// 1: T is initializeable in a particular way
// 2: Has a static property interface which references a protocol
// 3: Are themselves conformant to said interface
}
Yes this constraints T to conform to Interface and not P, your best bet is to make exposeOverXPC private/internal and provide APIs that expect Interface subtype. wherever you have access to the Interface subtype expose that api. e.g:
Solution 1
protocol InterfaceSubType: Interface {
fun test()
}
/// Create as many `API`s as the number of `Interface` subtypes you have.
func exposeOverXPC<T: XPCExposable & InterfaceSubType>(_ : T.Type) {
exposeOverXPC(T.self)
}
/// set to private, you only want to expose the APIs with `Interface` subtype.
private func exposeOverXPC<T: XPCExposable & Interface>(_ : T.Type) {
// Impl.
}
Solution 2
An alternative solution to have a function with parameters whose type is the associated type is to add that api (as static function if you wish) by extending the protocol. You must know all the expected subtypes of Interface in this extension.
extension XPCExposable {
static func exposeOverXPC<T>(_ interface: P, _ xpcType: T.Type) where T: XPCExposable {
// Expected subtype Interface
if let subInterface = interface as? InterfaceSubType {
subInterface.test()
}
// Other subtypes here.
}
}
Can be called as:
let impl = Impl(info: "")
Impl.exposeOverXPC(Impl.interface, Impl.self)
Its an extension on XPCExposable so you constrain the caller to be a conformer and the parameter requires XPCExposable.P so you're all set.
Downsides of this solution are:
You have two parameters instead of one.
It uses if conditions, I don't know if thats worth mentioning as downside other than that I'd like to push the first solution as favourite.

Related

Protocol inheritance with associated type

I have a base protocol that describes the router behavior:
protocol BaseRouterProtocol: AnyObject {
associatedtype View: MainView
func dismiss(viewController: ViewController<View>?)
}
extension BaseRouterProtocol {
func dismiss(viewController: ViewController<View>?) {
viewController?.navigationController?.popViewController(animated: true)
}
}
I want to adopt this protocol to another like this:
protocol StartRouterProtocol: BaseRouterProtocol where View == StartView {
func showTermsVC()
func showSignInVC()
}
But when I create a variable of this type:
let router: StartRouterProtocol
Compiler throws me an error:
Protocol 'StartRouterProtocol' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
Why does this happening if I have described the type that I expect?
Once a protocol has an associated type, that protocol can't be used as a type by itself for instance declarations-- only for generic constraints and declaring conformance.
So in this case, Swift is saying "yeah, but what is the concrete type for StartRouterProtocol's associated type?"
In this case, it's asking you to either:
Use a concrete type directly, i.e. let router: MyStartViewClass with this conformance declaration, elsewhere: class MyStartViewClass: StartRouterProtocol { ... })
OR, push the need for a concrete type up one layer, as a generic constraint i.e.
class MyRouterController<T: StartRouterProtocol> {
let router: T
}
This is probably not what you were hoping for, but unfortunately associated types add complexity to how you use protocols, especially if you're familiar with generics & interfaces from other languages. (i.e. Java/C# interfaces)
You can work around some aspects of associated types by using a concept called "type erasure" -- but that can cause other problems and complexity.
Here's some further reading that may help: https://medium.com/monstar-lab-bangladesh-engineering/swift-from-protocol-to-associatedtype-then-type-erasure-a4093f6a2d08

Swift Generics - Attempting to make a generic protocol concrete fails when attempting to use specialised sub-protocol as variable

I want to know why my SomeResourceRepository is still generic, even though it is only defined in one case only, which is when I set ResourceType = SomeResource, which XCode formats as below with the where clause. Code below which shows the exact setup I'm trying to achieve, written in a Playground.
I am trying to define a generic protocol for any given ResourceType such that the ResourceTypeRepository protocol then automatically requires the same set of functions, without having to copy-paste most of GenericRepository only to manually fill in the ResourceType for each Repository I make. The reason I need this as a protocol is because I want to be able to mock this for testing purposes later. So I'll provide an implementation of said protocol somewhere else in the actual app.
My interpretation of the code below is that it should work, because both SomeResourceLocalRepository and SomeResourceRemoteRepository are concrete, as I have eliminated the associated type by defining them "on top of" SomeResourceRepository, which is only defined where ResourceType == SomeResource.
import Foundation
struct SomeResource: Identifiable {
let id: String
let name: String
}
struct WhateverResource: Identifiable {
let id: UUID
let count: UInt
}
protocol GenericRepository: class where ResourceType: Identifiable {
associatedtype ResourceType
func index() -> Array<ResourceType>
func show(id: ResourceType.ID) -> ResourceType?
func update(resource: ResourceType)
func delete(id: ResourceType.ID)
}
protocol SomeResourceRepository: GenericRepository where ResourceType == SomeResource {}
protocol SomeResourceLocalRepository: SomeResourceRepository {}
protocol SomeResourceRemoteRepository: SomeResourceRepository {}
class SomeResourceLocalRepositoryImplementation: SomeResourceLocalRepository {
func index() -> Array<SomeResource> {
return []
}
func show(id: String) -> SomeResource? {
return nil
}
func update(resource: SomeResource) {
}
func delete(id: String) {
}
}
class SomeResourceService {
let local: SomeResourceLocalRepository
init(local: SomeResourceLocalRepository) {
self.local = local
}
}
// Some Dip code somewhere
// container.register(.singleton) { SomeResourceLocalRepositoryImplementation() as SomeResourceLocalRepository }
Errors:
error: Generic Protocols.xcplaygroundpage:45:16: error: protocol 'SomeResourceLocalRepository' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
let local: SomeResourceLocalRepository
^
error: Generic Protocols.xcplaygroundpage:47:17: error: protocol 'SomeResourceLocalRepository' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
init(local: SomeResourceLocalRepository) {
I will probably have to find another way to accomplish this, but it is tedious and quite annoying as we will produce a lot of duplicate code, and when we decide to change the API of our repositories, we will have to manually change it for all the protocols as we don't follow a generic "parent" protocol in this work-around.
I have read How to pass protocol with associated type as parameter in Swift and the related question found in an answer to this question, as well as Specializing Generic Protocol and others.
I feel like this should work, but it does not. The end goal is a concrete protocol that can be used for dependency injection, e.g. container.register(.singleton) { ProtocolImplementation() as Protocol } as per Dip - A simple Dependency Injection Container, BUT without copy-pasting when the protocol's interface clearly can be made generic, like in the above.
As swift provides a way to declare generic protocols (using associatedtype keyword) it's impossible to declare a generic protocol property without another generic constraint. So the easiest way would be to declare resource service class generic - class SomeResourceService<Repository: GenericRepository>.
But this solution has a big downside - you need to constraint generics everywhere this service would be involved.
You can drop generic constraint from the service declaration by declaring local as a concrete generic type. But how to transit from generic protocol to the concrete generic class?
There's a way. You can define a wrapper generic class which conforms to GenericRepository. It does not really implements its methods but rather passes to an object (which is real GenericRepository) it wraps.
class AnyGenericRepository<ResourceType: Identifiable>: GenericRepository {
// any usage of GenericRepository must be a generic argument
init<Base: GenericRepository>(_ base: Base) where Base.ResourceType == ResourceType {
// we cannot store Base as a class property without putting it in generics list
// but we can store closures instead
indexGetter = { base.index() }
// and same for other methods or properties
// if GenericRepository contained a generic method it would be impossible to make
}
private let indexGetter: () -> [ResourceType] {
indexGetter()
}
// ... other GenericRepository methods
}
So now we have a concrete type which wraps real GenericRepository. You can adopt it in SomeResourceService without any alarm.
class SomeResourceService {
let local: AnyGenericRepository<SomeResource>
}

Define a protocol that holds Collection as a property

I want to define a protocol that defines a variable "sequence" that is of type "Collection". I want that, because i have several conforming types, that will all hold an array of different types. Example:
protocol BioSequence {
associatedtype T
var sequence: Collection { get }
// Will also implement conformance to Collection and redirect all Collection functions to the property "sequence". This is because my types that conform to BioSequence are just wrappers for an array of Nucleotide or AminoAcid with some extra functionality
}
struct DNASequence: BioSequence {
// Will hold "sequence" of type [Nucleotide]
}
struct AminoSequence: BioSequence {
// Will hold "sequence" of type [AminoAcid]
}
Why do i want this? Because i need to implement the conformance to "Collection" only once in BioSequence and all conforming type inherit it automatically. Plus i can freely add extra functionality on the conforming types.
Now, when i try this like the code above, the compiler says: "Protocol Collection can only be used as a generic constraint". Yes, i googled what this error means, but how can i actually fix it to make my code work, like i want. Or is it not even possible to do what i want?
Thank you.
You can easily achieve this by using an associatedtype in your protocol, which can be constrained to Collection, allowing conforming types to satisfy the requirement with a concrete type when they adopt the protocol.
For example:
protocol CollectionWrapper : Collection {
associatedtype Base : Collection
var base: Base { get }
}
extension CollectionWrapper {
var startIndex: Base.Index {
return base.startIndex
}
var endIndex: Base.Index {
return base.endIndex
}
func index(after i: Base.Index) -> Base.Index {
return base.index(after: i)
}
subscript(index: Base.Index) -> Base.Iterator.Element {
return base[index]
}
// Note that Collection has default implementations for the rest of the
// requirements. You may want to explicitly implement them and forward them to
// the base collection though, as it's possible the base collection implements
// them in a more efficient manner (e.g being non random access and having
// a stored count).
}
// S adopts CollectionWrapper and satisfies the 'Base' associatedtype with [String].
struct S: CollectionWrapper {
var base: [String]
}
let s = S(base: ["foo", "bar", "baz"])
print(s[1]) // "bar"
Regarding your comment:
If I want to use this like that: let a: CollectionWrapper = S() [...] this leaves me with "Protocol can only be used as a generic constraint" again.
The problem is that you cannot currently talk in terms of a protocol with associated type requirements, as the types which are used to satisfy those requirements are unknown to the compiler (this isn't a technical limitation though). You can solve this by using Swift's AnyCollection type eraser to wrap an arbitrary Collection with a given element type.
For example:
let a = AnyCollection(S(base: ["foo", "bar", "baz"]))
If you need to work with additional protocol requirements from CollectionWrapper, you'll have to implement your own type eraser to do so. See Rob's answer here for an idea of how to go about this.

Conform class extension to generic protocol function

* Short version *
How can I conform a class (extension) to a generic protocol function?
* Long version *
This is a small part of a data structure to support a paginated collection,
protocol Pageable {
//an object whose can be in a collection
}
protocol Page{ //a page of a collection that can be paginated
associatedtype PageItemType
func itemAt<PageItemType:Pageable>(index: Int) -> PageItemType
}
//Bonus question
//class PagedCollection<PageType:Page, ItemType:Pageable> {
//...
//}
Here is the implementation of the protocols with a "real" case:
class Person : Pageable{}
class People {
var people: [Person]?
}
//Mark: - Page
extension People: Page{ /*** error 1 ***/
typealias PageItemType = Person
func itemAt(index: Int) -> Person{
let person : Person = self.people![index]
return person
}
}
Obtaining the following error (1):
Type 'People' does not conform to protocol 'Page'
Protocol requires nested type 'PageItemType'
I also tried making it explicit but i just got a different error:
//Mark: - Page
extension People: Page{
typealias PageItemType = Person
func itemAt<PageItemType:Pageable>(index: Int) -> PageItemType{
let person : Person = self.people![index]
return person /*** error 2 ***/
}
}
Obtaining the following error (2):
Cannot convert return expression of type 'Person' to return type 'PageItemType'
So: *How can i let itemAt function return a valid type for the PageItemType typealias?
* Bonus *
Bonus question worth a 50 bounty (if answer is longer than a row i'll open a new question):
Referring to the first code snippet PagedCollection
given that each Page implementation has always a known implementation of Pageable protocol objet type
is there a way to avoid declaring ItemType:Pageable ? Or at least enforce it with a where clause?
It looks like you're conflating associated types with generic functions.
Generic functions allow you to provide a type to replace a given generic placeholder at the call site (i.e when you call the function).
Associated types allow types conforming to protocols to provide their own type to replace a given placeholder type in the protocol requirements. This is done per type, not at the call site of any function. If you wish to enforce a conformance requirement for an associatedtype, you should do so directly on its declaration (i.e associatedtype PageItemType : Pageable).
If I understand your requirements correctly, your itemAt(index:) function should be non-generic (otherwise the associatedtype in your protocol is completely redundant). The type that it returns is defined by the implementation of the type that conforms to Page, rather than the caller of the function. For example, your People class defines that the PageItemType associated type should be a Person – and that is what itemAt(index:) should return.
protocol Pageable {/* ... */}
protocol Page {
// any conforming type to Page will need to define a
// concrete type for PageItemType, that conforms to Pageable
associatedtype PageItemType : Pageable
// returns the type that the implementation of the protocol defines
// to be PageItemType (it is merely a placeholder in the protocol decleration)
func itemAt(index: Int) -> PageItemType
}
class Person : Pageable {/* ... */}
class People {
var people: [Person]?
}
extension People : Page {
// explicitly satisfies the Page associatedtype requirement.
// this can be done implicitly be the itemAt(index:) method,
// so could be deleted (and annotate the return type of itemAt(index:) as Person)
typealias PageItemType = Person
// the itemAt(index:) method on People now returns a Person
func itemAt(index: Int) -> PageItemType {
// I would advise against force unwrapping here.
// Your people array most likely should be non-optional,
// with an initial value of an empty array
// (do you really need to distinguish between an empty array and no array?)
let person = self.people![index]
return person
}
}
In regards to your implementation of a PagedCollection – as the PageItemType associated type in your Page protocol conforms to Pageable, I see no need for an ItemType generic parameter. This can simply be accessed through the associated type of the given PageType generic parameter.
As an example:
class PagedCollection<PageType:Page> {
// PageType's associatedtype, which will conform to Pageable.
// In the case of the PageType generic parameter being People,
// PageType.PageItemType would be of type Person
var foo : PageType.PageItemType
init(foo: PageType.PageItemType) {
self.foo = foo
}
}
// p.foo is of type Person, and is guarenteed to conform to Pageable
let p = PagedCollection<People>(foo: Person())
This is merely a formatted discussion from my chat with Hamish.
I'm writing it here, because chatrooms can get archived and sometimes a more direct QA can convey things differently
Me:
protocol Provider {
associatedtype Input
associatedtype Output
func value(forKey _key: Input) -> Output{}
}
vs.
protocol Provider{
func value<Input, Output>(forKey _key: Input) -> Output{}
}
Hamish: Essentially the difference is where the placeholders are satisfied – associated types are satisfied at type level, whereas generic placeholders on a function are satisfied at the call-site of said function.
Me: I understand that level of difference. But is there any byproduct due to that difference :D
Hamish: What do you mean? they express different things – the former is a protocol where the conforming type only deals with one specific type of input and output, the latter is a protocol where the conforming type can deal with any given input and output types.
Me: The former is a protocol where the conforming type only deals with one specific type of input and output. What do you mean by specific? Can't the typeAlias be anything I like?
Hamish: It can, but it can only be satisfied once per type – once I define
struct S : Provider {
func value(forKey: String) -> Int
}
S now can only deal with String inputs and Int outputs.
Whereas with the latter, I would define
struct S : Provider {
func value<Input, Value>(forKey _key: Input) -> Output{}
}
now S has to be able to deal with any input and output type.

Statically typed properties in Swift protocols

I'm trying to use Protocol-Oriented Pgrogramming for model layer in my application.
I've started with defining two protocols:
protocol ParseConvertible {
func toParseObject() -> PFObject?
}
protocol HealthKitInitializable {
init?(sample: HKSample)
}
And after implementing first model which conforms to both I've noticed that another model will be basically similar so I wanted to create protocol inheritance with new one:
protocol BasicModel: HealthKitInitializable, ParseConvertible {
var value: AnyObject { get set }
}
A you can see this protocol has one additional thing which is value but I want this value to be type independent... Right now I have models which use Double but who knows what may show up in future. If I leave this with AnyObject I'm sentenced to casting everything I want to use it and if I declare it as Double there's no sense in calling this BasicModel but rather BasicDoubleModel or similar.
Do you have some hints how to achieve this? Or maybe I'm trying to solve this the wrong way?
You probably want to define a protocol with an "associated type",
this is roughly similar to generic types.
From "Associated Types" in the Swift book:
When defining a protocol, it is sometimes useful to declare one or
more associated types as part of the protocol’s definition. An
associated type gives a placeholder name (or alias) to a type that is
used as part of the protocol. The actual type to use for that
associated type is not specified until the protocol is adopted.
Associated types are specified with the typealias keyword.
In your case:
protocol BasicModel: HealthKitInitializable, ParseConvertible {
typealias ValueType
var value: ValueType { get set }
}
Then classes with different types for the value property can
conform to the protocol:
class A : BasicModel {
var value : Int
func toParseObject() -> PFObject? { ... }
required init?(sample: HKSample) { ... }
}
class B : BasicModel {
var value : Double
func toParseObject() -> PFObject? { ... }
required init?(sample: HKSample) { ... }
}
For Swift 2.2/Xcode 7.3 and later, replace typealias in the
protocol definition by associatedtype.