I'm trying to create an extension for debugging a class to print some output when you enter certain methods. I want to be able to reuse this code in many different classes, and I want to keep those classes clean from this debugging code while also not repeating code (keeping DRY). That's why I thought of using an extension like this:
class A: ... {
override func myMethod() {
super.myMethod()
print("hello A")
}
}
extension A {
override func myMethod() {
print("hello extension")
}
}
And I would like that when myMethod() is called, to see this
hello extension
hello A
(or the other way around, I don't care)
But the problem is that the compiler is saying "myMethod() has already been overridden here"
Any ideas?
Extensions can add new functionality to a type, but they cannot
override existing functionality.
Answer is here Swift override function in extension
Related
I tend to only put the necessities (stored properties, initializers) into my class definitions and move everything else into their own extension, kind of like an extension per logical block that I would group with // MARK: as well.
For a UIView subclass for example, I would end up with an extension for layout-related stuff, one for subscribing and handling events and so forth. In these extensions, I inevitably have to override some UIKit methods, e.g. layoutSubviews. I never noticed any issues with this approach -- until today.
Take this class hierarchy for example:
public class C: NSObject {
public func method() { print("C") }
}
public class B: C {
}
extension B {
override public func method() { print("B") }
}
public class A: B {
}
extension A {
override public func method() { print("A") }
}
(A() as A).method()
(A() as B).method()
(A() as C).method()
The output is A B C. That makes little sense to me. I read about Protocol Extensions being statically dispatched, but this ain't a protocol. This is a regular class, and I expect method calls to be dynamically dispatched at runtime. Clearly the call on C should at least be dynamically dispatched and produce C?
If I remove the inheritance from NSObject and make C a root class, the compiler complains saying declarations in extensions cannot override yet, which I read about already. But how does having NSObject as a root class change things?
Moving both overrides into their class declaration produces A A A as expected, moving only B's produces A B B, moving only A's produces C B C, the last of which makes absolutely no sense to me: not even the one statically typed to A produces the A-output any more!
Adding the dynamic keyword to the definition or an override does seem to give me the desired behavior 'from that point in the class hierarchy downwards'...
Let's change our example to something a little less constructed, what actually made me post this question:
public class B: UIView {
}
extension B {
override public func layoutSubviews() { print("B") }
}
public class A: B {
}
extension A {
override public func layoutSubviews() { print("A") }
}
(A() as A).layoutSubviews()
(A() as B).layoutSubviews()
(A() as UIView).layoutSubviews()
We now get A B A. Here I cannot make UIView's layoutSubviews dynamic by any means.
Moving both overrides into their class declaration gets us A A A again, only A's or only B's still gets us A B A. dynamic again solves my problems.
In theory I could add dynamic to all overrides I ever do but I feel like I'm doing something else wrong here.
Is it really wrong to use extensions for grouping code like I do?
Extensions cannot/should not override.
It is not possible to override functionality (like properties or methods) in extensions as documented in Apple's Swift Guide.
Extensions can add new functionality to a type, but they cannot override existing functionality.
Swift Developer Guide
The compiler is allowing you to override in the extension for compatibility with Objective-C. But it's actually violating the language directive.
😊That just reminded me of Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" 🤖
Extensions (syntactic sugar) define independent methods that receive their own arguments. The function that is called for i.e. layoutSubviews depends on the context the compiler knows about when the code is compiled. UIView inherits from UIResponder which inherits from NSObject so the override in the extension is permitted but should not be.
So there's nothing wrong with grouping but you should override in the class not in the extension.
Directive Notes
You can only override a superclass method i.e. load() initialize()in an extension of a subclass if the method is Objective-C compatible.
Therefore we can take a look at why it is allowing you to compile using layoutSubviews.
All Swift apps execute inside the Objective-C runtime except for when using pure Swift-only frameworks which allow for a Swift-only runtime.
As we found out the Objective-C runtime generally calls two class main methods load() and initialize() automatically when initializing classes in your app’s processes.
Regarding the dynamic modifier
From the Apple Developer Library (archive.org)
You can use the dynamic modifier to require that access to members be dynamically dispatched through the Objective-C runtime.
When Swift APIs are imported by the Objective-C runtime, there are no guarantees of dynamic dispatch for properties, methods, subscripts, or initializers. The Swift compiler may still devirtualize or inline member access to optimize the performance of your code, bypassing the Objective-C runtime. 😳
So dynamic can be applied to your layoutSubviews -> UIView Class since it’s represented by Objective-C and access to that member is always used using the Objective-C runtime.
That's why the compiler allowing you to use override and dynamic.
One of the goals of Swift is static dispatching, or rather the reduction of dynamic dispatching. Obj-C however is a very dynamic language. The situation you're seeing is borne out of the link between the 2 languages and the way they work together. It shouldn't really compile.
One of the main points about extensions is that they are for extending, not for replacing / overriding. It's clear from both the name and the documentation that this is the intention. Indeed if you take out the link to Obj-C from your code (remove NSObject as the superclass) it won't compile.
So, the compiler is trying to decide what it can statically dispatch and what it has to dynamically dispatch, and it's falling through a gap because of the Obj-C link in your code. The reason dynamic 'works' is because it's forcing Obj-C linking on everything so it's all always dynamic.
So, it isn't wrong to use extensions for grouping, that's great, but it is wrong to override in extensions. Any overrides should be in the main class itself, and call out to extension points.
There is a way to achieve a clean separation of class signature and implementation (in extensions) while maintaining the ability to have overrides in subclasses. The trick is to use variables in place of the functions
If you make sure to define each subclass in a separate swift source file, you can use computed variables for the overrides while keeping the corresponding implementation cleanly organized in extensions. This will circumvent Swift's "rules" and will make your class's API/signature neatly organized in one place:
// ---------- BaseClass.swift -------------
public class BaseClass
{
public var method1:(Int) -> String { return doMethod1 }
public init() {}
}
// the extension could also be in a separate file
extension BaseClass
{
private func doMethod1(param:Int) -> String { return "BaseClass \(param)" }
}
...
// ---------- ClassA.swift ----------
public class A:BaseClass
{
override public var method1:(Int) -> String { return doMethod1 }
}
// this extension can be in a separate file but not in the same
// file as the BaseClass extension that defines its doMethod1 implementation
extension A
{
private func doMethod1(param:Int) -> String
{
return "A \(param) added to \(super.method1(param))"
}
}
...
// ---------- ClassB.swift ----------
public class B:A
{
override public var method1:(Int) -> String { return doMethod1 }
}
extension B
{
private func doMethod1(param:Int) -> String
{
return "B \(param) added to \(super.method1(param))"
}
}
Each class's extension are able to use the same method names for the implementation because they are private and not visible to each other (as long as they are in separate files).
As you can see inheritance (using the variable name) works properly using super.variablename
BaseClass().method1(123) --> "BaseClass 123"
A().method1(123) --> "A 123 added to BaseClass 123"
B().method1(123) --> "B 123 added to A 123 added to BaseClass 123"
(B() as A).method1(123) --> "B 123 added to A 123 added to BaseClass 123"
(B() as BaseClass).method1(123) --> "B 123 added to A 123 added to BaseClass 123"
This answer it not aimed at the OP, other than the fact that I felt inspired to respond by his statement, "I tend to only put the necessities (stored properties, initializers) into my class definitions and move everything else into their own extension ...". I'm primarily a C# programmer, and in C# one can use partial classes for this purpose. For example, Visual Studio places the UI-related stuff in a separate source file using a partial class, and leaves your main source file uncluttered so you don't have that distraction.
If you search for "swift partial class" you'll find various links where Swift adherents say that Swift doesn't need partial classes because you can use extensions. Interestingly, if you type "swift extension" into the Google search field, its first search suggestion is "swift extension override", and at the moment this Stack Overflow question is the first hit. I take that to mean that problems with (lack of) override capabilities are the most searched-for topic related to Swift extensions, and highlights the fact that Swift extensions can't possibly replace partial classes, at least if you use derived classes in your programming.
Anyway, to cut a long-winded introduction short, I ran into this problem in a situation where I wanted to move some boilerplate / baggage methods out of the main source files for Swift classes that my C#-to-Swift program was generating. After running into the problem of no override allowed for these methods after moving them to extensions, I ended up implementing the following simple-minded workaround. The main Swift source files still contain some tiny stub methods that call the real methods in the extension files, and these extension methods are given unique names to avoid the override problem.
public protocol PCopierSerializable {
static func getFieldTable(mCopier : MCopier) -> FieldTable
static func createObject(initTable : [Int : Any?]) -> Any
func doSerialization(mCopier : MCopier)
}
.
public class SimpleClass : PCopierSerializable {
public var aMember : Int32
public init(
aMember : Int32
) {
self.aMember = aMember
}
public class func getFieldTable(mCopier : MCopier) -> FieldTable {
return getFieldTable_SimpleClass(mCopier: mCopier)
}
public class func createObject(initTable : [Int : Any?]) -> Any {
return createObject_SimpleClass(initTable: initTable)
}
public func doSerialization(mCopier : MCopier) {
doSerialization_SimpleClass(mCopier: mCopier)
}
}
.
extension SimpleClass {
class func getFieldTable_SimpleClass(mCopier : MCopier) -> FieldTable {
var fieldTable : FieldTable = [ : ]
fieldTable[376442881] = { () in try mCopier.getInt32A() } // aMember
return fieldTable
}
class func createObject_SimpleClass(initTable : [Int : Any?]) -> Any {
return SimpleClass(
aMember: initTable[376442881] as! Int32
)
}
func doSerialization_SimpleClass(mCopier : MCopier) {
mCopier.writeBinaryObjectHeader(367620, 1)
mCopier.serializeProperty(376442881, .eInt32, { () in mCopier.putInt32(aMember) } )
}
}
.
public class DerivedClass : SimpleClass {
public var aNewMember : Int32
public init(
aNewMember : Int32,
aMember : Int32
) {
self.aNewMember = aNewMember
super.init(
aMember: aMember
)
}
public class override func getFieldTable(mCopier : MCopier) -> FieldTable {
return getFieldTable_DerivedClass(mCopier: mCopier)
}
public class override func createObject(initTable : [Int : Any?]) -> Any {
return createObject_DerivedClass(initTable: initTable)
}
public override func doSerialization(mCopier : MCopier) {
doSerialization_DerivedClass(mCopier: mCopier)
}
}
.
extension DerivedClass {
class func getFieldTable_DerivedClass(mCopier : MCopier) -> FieldTable {
var fieldTable : FieldTable = [ : ]
fieldTable[376443905] = { () in try mCopier.getInt32A() } // aNewMember
fieldTable[376442881] = { () in try mCopier.getInt32A() } // aMember
return fieldTable
}
class func createObject_DerivedClass(initTable : [Int : Any?]) -> Any {
return DerivedClass(
aNewMember: initTable[376443905] as! Int32,
aMember: initTable[376442881] as! Int32
)
}
func doSerialization_DerivedClass(mCopier : MCopier) {
mCopier.writeBinaryObjectHeader(367621, 2)
mCopier.serializeProperty(376443905, .eInt32, { () in mCopier.putInt32(aNewMember) } )
mCopier.serializeProperty(376442881, .eInt32, { () in mCopier.putInt32(aMember) } )
}
}
Like I said in my introduction, this doesn't really answer the OP's question, but I'm hoping this simple-minded workaround might be helpful to others who wish to move methods from the main source files to extension files and run into the no-override problem.
Use POP (Protocol-Oriented Programming) to override functions in extensions.
protocol AProtocol {
func aFunction()
}
extension AProtocol {
func aFunction() {
print("empty")
}
}
class AClass: AProtocol {
}
extension AClass {
func aFunction() {
print("not empty")
}
}
let cls = AClass()
cls.aFunction()
Just wanted to add that for Objective-C classes, two separate categories can end up overwriting the same method, and it this case... well... unexpected things can happen.
The Objective-C runtime doesn't make any guarantees about which extension will be used, as described by Apple here:
If the name of a method declared in a category is the same as a method in the original class, or a method in another category on the same class (or even a superclass), the behavior is undefined as to which method implementation is used at runtime. This is less likely to be an issue if you’re using categories with your own classes, but can cause problems when using categories to add methods to standard Cocoa or Cocoa Touch classes.
It's a good thing Swift prohibits this for pure Swift classes, since this kind of overly-dynamic behaviour is a potential source of hard to detect and investigate bugs.
I'm trying to extend the functionality of a existing type in Swift. I want to use dot syntax to call the methods on the type.
I want to say:
existingType.example.someMethod()
existingType.example.anotherMethod()
I'm currently using an extension like so:
extension ExistingType {
func someMethod() {
}
func anotherMethod() {
}
}
existingType.someMethod()
existingType.anotherMethod()
Doing this will expose too many functions. So, I want to write these methods in a class, and just extend the ExistingType to use an instance of the class. I'm not sure the right way to go about this.
if I were actually implementing the existing type, I would do the following:
struct ExistingType {
var example = Example()
}
struct Example {
func someMethod() {
}
func anotherMethod() {
}
}
Allowing me to call the methods by:
let existingType = ExistingType()
existingType.example.someMethod()
The issue is I'm not implementing the type, because it already exists. I just need to extend it.
It looks like you are trying to add another property example the existing class ExistingType and call methods of that property. You cannot add properties in extensions, though. The only way to add another property to the existing class is to subclass it.
You can create a new struct.
struct NewType {
let existingType: ExistingType
func someMethod() {
}
func anotherMethod() {
}
}
I am designing a framework that uses protocols and extensions to allow for third-parties to add support for my framework to their existing classes.
I'd also like to include some built-in extensions for known classes like UIView, but I don't want to prevent users from defining their own additional support for the same classes.
My question is is there any way that I can extend the same class twice, and override the same (protocol) method in that class both times, while still having some way to call the other if the first one fails.
Elaboration: I really have three goals here I want to achieve:
I want to allow users of my framework to provide their own extensions for their own (or any) UIView subclasses.
I also need some way to allow general behavior that can apply to all UIViews as a fallback option (i.e. if the specific class extension can't handle it, fall back on the generic UIView extension).
I'd also like to separate out my own implementation, by providing some built-in generic view handling, but in such a way that it doesn't prevent third parties from also defining their own additional generic handling. (If I can't do this, it's not a big deal, the first two parts are the most important.)
I have part 1 working already. The problem is how to get this fallback behavior implemented. If I do it all with extensions, the subclass will override the superclass's implementation of the protocol method. It could call super.method, but I'd like to avoid putting that responsibility on the subclass (in case the author forgets to call super).
I'd like to do this all from the framework code: first, call the object's protocol method. If it returns false, I'd like to somehow call the generic UIView handler.
Now that I'm typing it all out, I'm wondering if I can just use a different method for the generic fallback and be done with it. I just figured it would be elegant if I could do it all with one method.
No! It can't be extended multiple times.
extension Int {
var add: Int {return self + 100} // Line A
}
extension Int {
var add: Int {return self + 105} //Line B
}
Doing so would create a compile time error ( on Line B) indicating: Invalid redeclaration of 'add'
Swift is a static typing language and helps you find these sorts of errors before runtime
In Objective-C you can write this and still not get an error, however the result would be undefined, because you wouldn't know which method gets loaded first during runtime.
Overriding a single protocol method twice in 2 separate extensions wouldn't work, because the protocol method names would collide. Once compiled, they're all just methods on the same class. With that in mind, perhaps put all the protocol methods in their own extension & call them from within the other ones?
The following could be one general option. Could get messy if you decide to keep adding additional extension functionality.
class baseClass {
//stuff
}
extension baseClass: myProtocol {
override func myProtocolMethod(args) -> returnType {
//Repeat this in a separate extension & your method names collide
var status: Bool
//protocol method code sets status as appropriate...
return status = true ? optOne(status) : optTwo(status)
}
func optOne(status:Bool) -> returnType{
//do the 'true' thing
return returnType
}
func optTwo(status:Bool) -> returnType{
//do the 'false' thing
return returnType
}
}
extension baseClass {
var oneExtension = myProtocolMethod(someArg)
}
extension baseClass {
var twoExtension = myProtocolMethod(someArg)
}
I realize this Question is over a year old and the original poster has probably moved on to other things, but I'd like to share an idea anyways and perhaps get some feedback.
You say that you want a method that can be overwritten multiple times. The short answer, like many in this thread have given is no, but the long answer is yes.
We can solve the issue with a bit of generic magic.
class MyView: UIView {
var customizer: MyProtocol<MyView> = Defaults()
func willCallCustomizer() {
customizer.coolMethod(self)
}
}
// Use this class as if it were a protocol
class MyProtocol<T: UIView>: NSObject {
func coolMethod(_ view: T) {}
}
// Class inherits from the "protocol"
class Defaults: MyProtocol<MyView> {
override func coolMethod(_ view: MyView) {
// Some default behavior
}
}
/// on the clients end...
class CustomerCustomizer: MyProtocol<MyView> {
override func coolMethod(_ view: MyView) {
// customized behavior
}
}
So if the client wants to use their own customizer they can just set it, otherwise it will just use the default one.
myViewInstance.customizer = CustomerCustomizer()
The benefit of this approach is that the client can change the customizer object as many times as they want. Because MyProtocol is generic, it may be used for other UIView's as well; thus fulfilling the role of a protocol.
What is the syntax for method hiding in swift? I've tried a bunch of options in the playground, but keep getting errors. Haven't been able to find any documentation on it either.
In superclass:
func performFunction() {
print("performing function...")
}
In subclass, tried a couple different options that do not seem to work
new func performFunction() {
print("function...")
}
and
func new performFunction() {
print("function...")
}
You're looking for the override keyword:
class SubClass: ParentClass {
override func performFunction() {
println("function...")
}
}
See the Swift Programming Language: Inheritance for more info.
Question answered thanks to Nate Cook!
"Method hiding isn't possible in Swift, only overriding. Moreover, class methods (as implemented using the static keyword) are all final, so you can't even override at that level."
I'm trying to create a reusable test harness in Swift with the idea that subclasses will extend the test harness to provide the instance under test, and can add their own subclass-specific test methods, something like this:
class FooTestHarness: XCTestCase {
let instance: Foo
init(instance: Foo) {
self.instance = instance
}
func testFooBehavior() {
XCTAssert(instance.doesFoo())
}
}
class FooPrime: Foo {
func doesFooPrime(): Bool { /* ... */ }
}
class FooPrimeTests: XCTestCase {
init() {
super.init(FooPrime())
}
func myInstance(): FooPrime {
return instance as FooPrime
}
func testFooPrimeBehavior() {
XCTAssert(myInstance().doesFooPrime())
}
}
However, when XCode's testrunner tries to run FooPrimeTests, it doesn't call the no-arg init(), it calls init(invocation: NSInvocation!) (and fails because there isn't one). I tried to override this in FooTestHarness:
init(invocation: NSInvocation!, instance: Foo) {
self.instance = instance
super.init(invocation)
}
and in FooPrimeTests:
init(invocation: NSInvocation!) {
super.init(invocation, FooPrime())
}
but this fails with the message 'NSInvocation' is unavailable.
Is there a workaround?
I'm not os sure if I got it right, but checking the code you suggested you should get a compiler Error like:
Which actually I reckon is quite normal since your FooPrimeTests is just subclassing XCTestCase which has got different init like:
init!(invocation: NSInvocation!)
init!(selector: Selector)
init()
Probably when you posted you're question you're running on an older version of Swift, (I'm currently running it on the Xcode Beta 6.2) that's why you can't see the error. But, and I say again if I got your point right, your class FooPrimeTests can't see you custom initializer just because is sublcassing XCTestCase, rather then FooTestHarness. Which is the class where the init(instance: Foo) is defined.
So you might probably want to define FooPrimeTests as subclass of FooTestHarness. That way you should be able to correctly see your initializer. Hope this help.