How to get the current queue name in swift 3 - swift

We have function like this in swift 2.2 for printing a log message with the current running thread:
func MyLog(_ message: String) {
if Thread.isMainThread {
print("[MyLog]", message)
} else {
let queuename = String(UTF8String: dispatch_queue_get_label(DISPATCH_CURRENT_QUEUE_LABEL))! // Error: Cannot convert value of type '()' to expected argument type 'DispatchQueue?'
print("[MyLog] [\(queuename)]", message)
}
}
These code no longer compile in swift 3.0. How do we obtain the queue name now?

As Brent Royal-Gordon mentioned in his message on lists.swift.org it's a hole in the current design, but you can use this horrible workaround.
func currentQueueName() -> String? {
let name = __dispatch_queue_get_label(nil)
return String(cString: name, encoding: .utf8)
}

If you don't like unsafe pointers and c-strings, there is another, safe solution:
if let currentQueueLabel = OperationQueue.current?.underlyingQueue?.label {
print(currentQueueLabel)
// Do something...
}
I don't know any cases when the currentQueueLabel will be nil.

Now DispatchQueue has label property.
The label you assigned to the dispatch queue at creation time.
var label: String { get }
It seems been existed from first, maybe not been exposed via public API.
macOS 10.10+
And please use this only to obtain human-readable labels. Not to identify each GCDQ.
If you want to check whether your code is running on certain GCDQ, you can use dispatchPrecondition(...) function.

This method will work for both OperationQueue and DispatchQueue.
func printCurrnetQueueName()
{
print(Thread.current.name!)
}

Here's a wrapper class that offers some safety (revised from here):
import Foundation
/// DispatchQueue wrapper that acts as a reentrant to a synchronous queue;
/// so callers to the `sync` function will check if they are on the current
/// queue and avoid deadlocking the queue (e.g. by executing another queue
/// dispatch call). Instead, it will just execute the given code in place.
public final class SafeSyncQueue {
public init(label: String, attributes: DispatchQueue.Attributes) {
self.queue = DispatchQueue(label: label, attributes: attributes)
self.queueKey = DispatchSpecificKey<QueueIdentity>()
self.queue.setSpecific(key: self.queueKey, value: QueueIdentity(label: self.queue.label))
}
// MARK: - API
/// Note: this will execute without the specified flags if it's on the current queue already
public func sync<T>(flags: DispatchWorkItemFlags? = nil, execute work: () throws -> T) rethrows -> T {
if self.currentQueueIdentity?.label == self.queue.label {
return try work()
} else if let flags = flags {
return try self.queue.sync(flags: flags, execute: work)
} else {
return try self.queue.sync(execute: work)
}
}
// MARK: - Private Structs
private struct QueueIdentity {
let label: String
}
// MARK: - Private Properties
private let queue: DispatchQueue
private let queueKey: DispatchSpecificKey<QueueIdentity>
private var currentQueueIdentity: QueueIdentity? {
return DispatchQueue.getSpecific(key: self.queueKey)
}
}

This works best for me:
/// The name/description of the current queue (Operation or Dispatch), if that can be found. Else, the name/description of the thread.
public func queueName() -> String {
if let currentOperationQueue = OperationQueue.current {
if let currentDispatchQueue = currentOperationQueue.underlyingQueue {
return "dispatch queue: \(currentDispatchQueue.label.nonEmpty ?? currentDispatchQueue.description)"
}
else {
return "operation queue: \(currentOperationQueue.name?.nonEmpty ?? currentOperationQueue.description)"
}
}
else {
let currentThread = Thread.current
return "UNKNOWN QUEUE on thread: \(currentThread.name?.nonEmpty ?? currentThread.description)"
}
}
public extension String {
/// Returns this string if it is not empty, else `nil`.
public var nonEmpty: String? {
if self.isEmpty {
return nil
}
else {
return self
}
}
}

Related

Session sharing is not working from privileged class in os x

I'm working on an os x app that deals with the user keychain in mac os.
I have a Singleton class that manages the session data, and a privileged mechanism(which doesn't have any GUI). I want to share the data from the privileged class through Singleton object. But it's not working.
Here is my code sample
The Privileged Class:
class ReadKeychain: AuthorizationContext {
#objc func run(){
var singletonObj = SingletonState.shared
singletonObj.oktaAuthenticationStatus = status
}
}
And The singleton class object:
class SingletonState {
static let shared = SingletonState()
private init(){}
private let internalQueue = DispatchQueue(label: "com.tecmfa.singletonstateinternal.queue",
qos: .default,
attributes: .concurrent)
private struct _oktaAuthentication
{
var status: String?
}
private var OktaAuthStatus = _oktaAuthentication()
/// oktaAuthentication reference
var oktaAuthenticationStatus: String {
get {
return internalQueue.sync {
return OktaAuthStatus.status!
}
}
set (newStatus) {
internalQueue.async(flags: .barrier) {
self.OktaAuthStatus.status = newStatus
}
}
}
}
And it is working fine if I declare the class as unprivileged
But I need it to be privileged
Not sure if it’s related to the issue, but.
You've got a potential force-unwrap-induced crash here.
It happens when the value for oktaAuthenticationStatus hasn't yet been set, but already gets read. I suggest you change the type of this variable to optional and remove the force-unwrap:
var oktaAuthenticationStatus: String? {
get {
return internalQueue.sync {
return OktaAuthStatus.status
}
}
set (newStatus) {
internalQueue.async(flags: .barrier) {
self.OktaAuthStatus.status = newStatus
}
}
}
Or better yet, if you have a small number of statuses, make it an enum and add an option like .none for it to be the default value. Then the variable won't be optional.

How to implement a Thread Safe HashTable (PhoneBook) Data Structure in Swift?

I am trying to implement a Thread-Safe PhoneBook object. The phone book should be able to add a person, and look up a person based on their name and phoneNumber. From an implementation perspective this simply involves two hash tables, one associating name -> Person and another associating phone# -> Person.
The caveat is I want this object to be threadSafe. This means I would like to be able to support concurrent lookups in the PhoneBook while ensuring only one thread can add a Person to the PhoneBook at a time. This is the basic reader-writers problem, and I am trying to solve this using GrandCentralDispatch and dispatch barriers. I am struggling to solve this though as I am running into issues.. Below is my Swift playground code:
//: Playground - noun: a place where people can play
import UIKit
import PlaygroundSupport
PlaygroundPage.current.needsIndefiniteExecution = true
public class Person: CustomStringConvertible {
public var description: String {
get {
return "Person: \(name), \(phoneNumber)"
}
}
public var name: String
public var phoneNumber: String
private var readLock = ReaderWriterLock()
public init(name: String, phoneNumber: String) {
self.name = name
self.phoneNumber = phoneNumber
}
public func uniquePerson() -> Person {
let randomID = UUID().uuidString
return Person(name: randomID, phoneNumber: randomID)
}
}
public enum Qos {
case threadSafe, none
}
public class PhoneBook {
private var qualityOfService: Qos = .none
public var nameToPersonMap = [String: Person]()
public var phoneNumberToPersonMap = [String: Person]()
private var readWriteLock = ReaderWriterLock()
public init(_ qos: Qos) {
self.qualityOfService = qos
}
public func personByName(_ name: String) -> Person? {
var person: Person? = nil
if qualityOfService == .threadSafe {
readWriteLock.concurrentlyRead { [weak self] in
guard let strongSelf = self else { return }
person = strongSelf.nameToPersonMap[name]
}
} else {
person = nameToPersonMap[name]
}
return person
}
public func personByPhoneNumber( _ phoneNumber: String) -> Person? {
var person: Person? = nil
if qualityOfService == .threadSafe {
readWriteLock.concurrentlyRead { [weak self] in
guard let strongSelf = self else { return }
person = strongSelf.phoneNumberToPersonMap[phoneNumber]
}
} else {
person = phoneNumberToPersonMap[phoneNumber]
}
return person
}
public func addPerson(_ person: Person) {
if qualityOfService == .threadSafe {
readWriteLock.exclusivelyWrite { [weak self] in
guard let strongSelf = self else { return }
strongSelf.nameToPersonMap[person.name] = person
strongSelf.phoneNumberToPersonMap[person.phoneNumber] = person
}
} else {
nameToPersonMap[person.name] = person
phoneNumberToPersonMap[person.phoneNumber] = person
}
}
}
// A ReaderWriterLock implemented using GCD and OS Barriers.
public class ReaderWriterLock {
private let concurrentQueue = DispatchQueue(label: "com.ReaderWriterLock.Queue", attributes: DispatchQueue.Attributes.concurrent)
private var writeClosure: (() -> Void)!
public func concurrentlyRead(_ readClosure: (() -> Void)) {
concurrentQueue.sync {
readClosure()
}
}
public func exclusivelyWrite(_ writeClosure: #escaping (() -> Void)) {
self.writeClosure = writeClosure
concurrentQueue.async(flags: .barrier) { [weak self] in
guard let strongSelf = self else { return }
strongSelf.writeClosure()
}
}
}
// MARK: Testing the synchronization and thread-safety
for _ in 0..<5 {
let iterations = 1000
let phoneBook = PhoneBook(.none)
let concurrentTestQueue = DispatchQueue(label: "com.PhoneBookTest.Queue", attributes: DispatchQueue.Attributes.concurrent)
for _ in 0..<iterations {
let person = Person(name: "", phoneNumber: "").uniquePerson()
concurrentTestQueue.async {
phoneBook.addPerson(person)
}
}
sleep(10)
print(phoneBook.nameToPersonMap.count)
}
To test my code I run 1000 concurrent threads that simply add a new Person to the PhoneBook. Each Person is unique so after the 1000 threads complete I am expecting the PhoneBook to contain a count of 1000. Everytime I perform a write I perform a dispatch_barrier call, update the hash tables, and return. To my knowledge this is all we need to do; however, after repeated runs of the 1000 threads I get the number of entries in the PhoneBook to be inconsistent and all over the place:
Phone Book Entries: 856
Phone Book Entries: 901
Phone Book Entries: 876
Phone Book Entries: 902
Phone Book Entries: 912
Can anyone please help me figure out what is going on? Is there something wrong with my locking code or even worse something wrong with how my test is constructed? I am very new to this multi-threaded problem space, thanks!
The problem is your ReaderWriterLock. You are saving the writeClosure as a property, and then asynchronously dispatching a closure that calls that saved property. But if another exclusiveWrite came in during the intervening period of time, your writeClosure property would be replaced with the new closure.
In this case, it means that you can be adding the same Person multiple times. And because you're using a dictionary, those duplicates have the same key, and therefore don't result in you're seeing all 1000 entries.
You can actually simplify ReaderWriterLock, completely eliminating that property. I’d also make concurrentRead a generic, returning the value (just like sync does), and rethrowing any errors (if any).
public class ReaderWriterLock {
private let queue = DispatchQueue(label: "com.domain.app.rwLock", attributes: .concurrent)
public func concurrentlyRead<T>(_ block: (() throws -> T)) rethrows -> T {
return try queue.sync {
try block()
}
}
public func exclusivelyWrite(_ block: #escaping (() -> Void)) {
queue.async(flags: .barrier) {
block()
}
}
}
A couple of other, unrelated observations:
By the way, this simplified ReaderWriterLock happens to solves another concern. That writeClosure property, which we've now removed, could have easily introduced a strong reference cycle.
Yes, you were scrupulous about using [weak self], so there wasn't any strong reference cycle, but it was possible. I would advise that wherever you employ a closure property, that you set that closure property to nil when you're done with it, so any strong references that closure may have accidentally entailed will be resolved. That way a persistent strong reference cycle is never possible. (Plus, the closure itself and any local variables or other external references it has will be resolved.)
You're sleeping for 10 seconds. That should be more than enough, but I'd advise against just adding random sleep calls (because you never can be 100% sure). Fortunately, you have a concurrent queue, so you can use that:
concurrentTestQueue.async(flags: .barrier) {
print(phoneBook.count)
}
Because of that barrier, it will wait until everything else you put on that queue is done.
Note, I did not just print nameToPersonMap.count. This array has been carefully synchronized within PhoneBook, so you can't just let random, external classes access it directly without synchronization.
Whenever you have some property which you're synchronizing internally, it should be private and then create a thread-safe function/variable to retrieve whatever you need:
public class PhoneBook {
private var nameToPersonMap = [String: Person]()
private var phoneNumberToPersonMap = [String: Person]()
...
var count: Int {
return readWriteLock.concurrentlyRead {
nameToPersonMap.count
}
}
}
You say you're testing thread safety, but then created PhoneBook with .none option (achieving no thread-safety). In that scenario, I'd expect problems. You have to create your PhoneBook with the .threadSafe option.
You have a number of strongSelf patterns. That's rather unswifty. It is generally not needed in Swift as you can use [weak self] and then just do optional chaining.
Pulling all of this together, here is my final playground:
PlaygroundPage.current.needsIndefiniteExecution = true
public class Person {
public let name: String
public let phoneNumber: String
public init(name: String, phoneNumber: String) {
self.name = name
self.phoneNumber = phoneNumber
}
public static func uniquePerson() -> Person {
let randomID = UUID().uuidString
return Person(name: randomID, phoneNumber: randomID)
}
}
extension Person: CustomStringConvertible {
public var description: String {
return "Person: \(name), \(phoneNumber)"
}
}
public enum ThreadSafety { // Changed the name from Qos, because this has nothing to do with quality of service, but is just a question of thread safety
case threadSafe, none
}
public class PhoneBook {
private var threadSafety: ThreadSafety
private var nameToPersonMap = [String: Person]() // if you're synchronizing these, you really shouldn't expose them to the public
private var phoneNumberToPersonMap = [String: Person]() // if you're synchronizing these, you really shouldn't expose them to the public
private var readWriteLock = ReaderWriterLock()
public init(_ threadSafety: ThreadSafety) {
self.threadSafety = threadSafety
}
public func personByName(_ name: String) -> Person? {
if threadSafety == .threadSafe {
return readWriteLock.concurrentlyRead { [weak self] in
self?.nameToPersonMap[name]
}
} else {
return nameToPersonMap[name]
}
}
public func personByPhoneNumber(_ phoneNumber: String) -> Person? {
if threadSafety == .threadSafe {
return readWriteLock.concurrentlyRead { [weak self] in
self?.phoneNumberToPersonMap[phoneNumber]
}
} else {
return phoneNumberToPersonMap[phoneNumber]
}
}
public func addPerson(_ person: Person) {
if threadSafety == .threadSafe {
readWriteLock.exclusivelyWrite { [weak self] in
self?.nameToPersonMap[person.name] = person
self?.phoneNumberToPersonMap[person.phoneNumber] = person
}
} else {
nameToPersonMap[person.name] = person
phoneNumberToPersonMap[person.phoneNumber] = person
}
}
var count: Int {
return readWriteLock.concurrentlyRead {
nameToPersonMap.count
}
}
}
// A ReaderWriterLock implemented using GCD concurrent queue and barriers.
public class ReaderWriterLock {
private let queue = DispatchQueue(label: "com.domain.app.rwLock", attributes: .concurrent)
public func concurrentlyRead<T>(_ block: (() throws -> T)) rethrows -> T {
return try queue.sync {
try block()
}
}
public func exclusivelyWrite(_ block: #escaping (() -> Void)) {
queue.async(flags: .barrier) {
block()
}
}
}
for _ in 0 ..< 5 {
let iterations = 1000
let phoneBook = PhoneBook(.threadSafe)
let concurrentTestQueue = DispatchQueue(label: "com.PhoneBookTest.Queue", attributes: .concurrent)
for _ in 0..<iterations {
let person = Person.uniquePerson()
concurrentTestQueue.async {
phoneBook.addPerson(person)
}
}
concurrentTestQueue.async(flags: .barrier) {
print(phoneBook.count)
}
}
Personally, I'd be inclined to take it a step further and
move the synchronization into a generic class; and
change the model to be an array of Person object, so that:
The model supports multiple people with the same or phone number; and
You can use value types if you want.
For example:
public struct Person {
public let name: String
public let phoneNumber: String
public static func uniquePerson() -> Person {
return Person(name: UUID().uuidString, phoneNumber: UUID().uuidString)
}
}
public struct PhoneBook {
private var synchronizedPeople = Synchronized([Person]())
public func people(name: String? = nil, phone: String? = nil) -> [Person]? {
return synchronizedPeople.value.filter {
(name == nil || $0.name == name) && (phone == nil || $0.phoneNumber == phone)
}
}
public func append(_ person: Person) {
synchronizedPeople.writer { people in
people.append(person)
}
}
public var count: Int {
return synchronizedPeople.reader { $0.count }
}
}
/// A structure to provide thread-safe access to some underlying object using reader-writer pattern.
public class Synchronized<T> {
/// Private value. Use `public` `value` computed property (or `reader` and `writer` methods)
/// for safe, thread-safe access to this underlying value.
private var _value: T
/// Private reader-write synchronization queue
private let queue = DispatchQueue(label: Bundle.main.bundleIdentifier! + ".synchronized", qos: .default, attributes: .concurrent)
/// Create `Synchronized` object
///
/// - Parameter value: The initial value to be synchronized.
public init(_ value: T) {
_value = value
}
/// A threadsafe variable to set and get the underlying object, as a convenience when higher level synchronization is not needed
public var value: T {
get { reader { $0 } }
set { writer { $0 = newValue } }
}
/// A "reader" method to allow thread-safe, read-only concurrent access to the underlying object.
///
/// - Warning: If the underlying object is a reference type, you are responsible for making sure you
/// do not mutating anything. If you stick with value types (`struct` or primitive types),
/// this will be enforced for you.
public func reader<U>(_ block: (T) throws -> U) rethrows -> U {
return try queue.sync { try block(_value) }
}
/// A "writer" method to allow thread-safe write with barrier to the underlying object
func writer(_ block: #escaping (inout T) -> Void) {
queue.async(flags: .barrier) {
block(&self._value)
}
}
}
In some cases you use might NSCache class. The documentation claims that it's thread safe:
You can add, remove, and query items in the cache from different threads without having to lock the cache yourself.
Here is an article that describes quite useful tricks related to NSCache
I don’t think you are using it wrong :).
The original (on macos) generates:
0 swift 0x000000010c9c536a PrintStackTraceSignalHandler(void*) + 42
1 swift 0x000000010c9c47a6 SignalHandler(int) + 662
2 libsystem_platform.dylib 0x00007fffbbdadb3a _sigtramp + 26
3 libsystem_platform.dylib 000000000000000000 _sigtramp + 1143284960
4 libswiftCore.dylib 0x0000000112696944 _T0SSwcp + 36
5 libswiftCore.dylib 0x000000011245fa92 _T0s24_VariantDictionaryBufferO018ensureUniqueNativeC0Sb11reallocated_Sb15capacityChangedtSiF + 1634
6 libswiftCore.dylib 0x0000000112461fd2 _T0s24_VariantDictionaryBufferO17nativeUpdateValueq_Sgq__x6forKeytF + 1074
If you remove the ‘.concurrent’ from your ReaderWriter queue, "the problem disappears”.©
If you restore the .concurrent, but change the async invocation in the writer side to be sync:
swift(10504,0x70000896f000) malloc: *** error for object 0x7fcaa440cee8: incorrect checksum for freed object - object was probably modified after being freed.
Which would be a bit astonishing if it weren’t swift?
I dug in, replaced your ‘string’ based array with an Int one by interposing a hash function, replaced the sleep(10) with a barrier dispatch to flush any laggardly blocks through, and that made it more reproducibly crash with the somewhat more helpful:
x(10534,0x700000f01000) malloc: *** error for object 0x7f8c9ee00008: incorrect checksum for freed object - object was probably modified after being freed.
But when a search of the source revealed no malloc or free, perhaps the stack dump is more useful.
Anyways, best way to solve your problem: use go instead; it actually makes sense.

Weak reference becomes nil after dispatch into serial queue

I've toyed around with Swift Playground and noticed the following issue:
The code below describes a series of object connected to one another in the following way:
objectC --> ObjectB -- weak ref to another C --> another C --> Object B etc..
Each objectC consists of
- a ref to a object B
- a weak ref to a delegate => this one becomes nil!!
Each objectB consists of
- A var integer
- A weak ref to another object C
The code does the following:
objectC call a function, say run(), which will evaluate (objectB.weak_ref_to_another_C), and call objectB.weak_ref_to_another_C.run() in a serial Queue.
After calling .run() a couple of times, C's delegate mysteriously becomes nil....
Any idea what I'm doing wrong? To start the code, simply call test_recursive_serial() on Swift Playground.
let serialQueue = DispatchQueue(label: "myQueue");
public protocol my_protocol:class {
func do_something(ofValue:Int,completion:((Int) -> Void))
}
public class classA:my_protocol {
public let some_value:Int;
public init(value:Int){
self.some_value = value;
}
public func do_something(ofValue:Int,completion:((Int) -> Void)) {
print("A:\(some_value) in current thread \(Thread.current) is executing \(Thread.current.isExecuting)");
if self.some_value == ofValue {
completion(ofValue);
}
}
}
public class classB {
public weak var jump_to_C:classC?;
public var value:Int = 0;
}
public class classC {
weak var delegate:my_protocol?{
willSet {
if (newValue == nil) { print("target set to nil") }
else { print("target set to delegate") }
}
}
var someB:classB?
public func do_something_else() {
print(self.delegate!)
}
public func do_another(withValue:Int,completion:((Int) -> Void)) {
}
public func run(completion:#escaping ((Int) -> Void)) {
print("\(self.someB?.value)");
assert(self.delegate != nil, "not here");
if let obj = someB?.jump_to_C, obj !== self {
someB?.value += 1;
print("\(someB!)")
usleep(10000);
if let value = someB?.value, value > 100 {
completion(someB!.value);
} else {
serialQueue.async {
print("lauching...")
obj.run(completion: completion);
}
}
}else{
print("pointing to self or nil...\(someB)")
}
}
}
public func test_recursive_serial() {
let my_a = classA(value:100);
let arrayC:[classC] = (0..<10).map { (i) -> classC in
let c = classC();
c.delegate = my_a;
return c;
}
let arrayB:[classB] = (0..<10).map { (i) -> classB in
let b = classB();
let ii = (i + 1 >= 10) ? 0 : i + 1;
b.jump_to_C = arrayC[ii]
return b;
}
arrayC.forEach { (cc) in
cc.someB = arrayB[Int(arc4random())%arrayB.count];
}
arrayC.first!.run() { (value) in
print("done!");
}
}
Important note: if test_recursive_serial() content is directly called from the playground, that is not through a function, the problem doesn't appear.
Edit: You'll need to add 'PlaygroundPage.current.needsIndefiniteExecution = true' to the playground code.
Edit: Ok, I feel I need to add this. Big mistake on my side, test_recursive_serial() doesn't keep a reference on any of the called objects, so obviously, they all become nil after the code leaves the function. Hence the problem. Thanks to Guy Kogus for pointing that out.
Final edit: Adding this, in the hope it might help. Swift playground are great to test-drive code, but can sometime become very busy. Within the current issue, the solution requires to set the variables first, and then pass them to test_recursive_serial() which in turn adds to the chatty appearance of the playground. Here's another option to keep your code tidy and self-contained, while dealing with async functions of various flavours...
If you have an async task - one that doesn't fit into URL fetch -, say:
myObject.myNonBlockingTask(){ print("I'm done!"}
First, include XCTest at the top of your file.
import XCTest
then add the following:
func waitForNotificationNamed(_ notificationName: String,timeout:TimeInterval = 5.0) -> Bool {
let expectation = XCTNSNotificationExpectation(name: notificationName)
let result = XCTWaiter().wait(for: [expectation], timeout: timeout)
return result == .completed
}
finally, change your completion block to:
myObject.myNonBlockingTask(){
print("I'm done!")
let name = NSNotification.Name(rawValue: "foobar");
NotificationCenter.default.post(name:name , object: nil)
}
XCTAssert(waitForNotificationNamed("foobar", timeout: 90));
the full playground code will look like:
public func my_function() {
let somevar:Int = 123
let myObject = MyClass(somevar);
myObject.myNonBlockingTask(){
print("I'm done!")
let name = NSNotification.Name(rawValue: "foobar");
NotificationCenter.default.post(name:name , object: nil)
}
XCTAssert(waitForNotificationNamed("foobar", timeout: 90));
}
Playground will wait on the notification before going any further, and also generate an exception if it times out. All locally created objects will remain valid until the execution completes.
Hope this helps.
The main issue is that you're testing this in Playgrounds, which doesn't necessarily play nicely with multithreading. Following from this SO question, change the test_recursive_serial function to:
arrayC.first!.run() { (value) in
print("done! \(value)")
XCPlaygroundPage.currentPage.needsIndefiniteExecution = false
}
XCPlaygroundPage.currentPage.needsIndefiniteExecution = true
while XCPlaygroundPage.currentPage.needsIndefiniteExecution {
}
(You'll need to add import XCPlayground at the top of the code to make it work.)
If you don't add that code change, then my_a is released after you leave that function, which is why delegate becomes nil on the second call to run.
I also found that in run, if you don't call the completion closure in the else case like so:
public func run(completion:#escaping ((Int) -> Void)) {
...
if let obj = someB?.jump_to_C, obj !== self {
...
}else{
print("pointing to self or nil...\(someB)")
completion(-1) // Added fallback
}
}
Then the program gets stuck. By adding that it runs to the end, although I haven't actually worked out why.
Also, please get rid of all your ;s, this isn't Objective-C 😜

Swift 3 generic function ambiguous return

I need a single function to resolve different dependencies in a class.
But there is a compilation error appears.
Is it possible to create that generic function or there are some compiler constraints in Swift?
import Foundation
protocol Client: class {
var description: String { get }
}
final class ImportantPerson : Client {
var description: String {
return "Important person"
}
}
protocol Order: class {
var description: String { get }
}
final class LastOrder : Order {
var description: String {
return "Last order"
}
}
final class A {
fileprivate func resolveDependency<T>() -> T {
return resolve() as T
}
private func resolve() -> Client {
return ImportantPerson()
}
private func resolve() -> Order {
return LastOrder()
}
}
let a = A()
let client: Client = a.resolveDependency()
let order: Order = a.resolveDependency()
print("Client: \(client.description)")
print("Order: \(order.description)")
EDIT: This question is not about if Swift allows to create two functions that differs only by return type. I know it's possible. I think there are some artificial constraints in the compiler but not in the fundamental logic that should allow to infer needed type from a context.
Let's put yourself into the compiler's shoes. Imagine that this was not causing an error and you had one signature with different outputs.
Whenever you call resolveDependency<T>() -> T, the compiler will return you a type T which is an instance conforming to a protocol in your case.
In your code you call this method with different instances conforming to the same protocol. At that stage the compiler has no idea about this. All it knows is that you have passed an instance of T and it needs to give you a result in shape of T
There is no problem until this point. As soon as you execute
return resolve() as! T
The compiler will be confused. I have a T but I don't know which resolve() I will call... All I know is that I have a T. How would I know if this is an Order or a Client ?
In order to prevent such confusions we have compiler-time errors. At least this is the case for Swift. (I don't know how this works in other languages)
You need to define different methods with different signatures and cast your type accordingly to get a similar result
fileprivate func resolveDependency<T>() -> T {
// check if this is an Order
resolveForOrder()
// check if this is a Client
resolveForClient()
}
private func resolveForOrder() -> Order {
return LastOrder()
}
private func resolveForClient() -> Client {
return ImportantPerson()
}
This is like trying to fix a space shuttle engine with a car mechanic. Yes, they both have an engine, they both run on fuel but the mechanic only knows how to fix your car's engine he is not a rocket scientist(!)
This code works fine:
import Foundation
protocol Client: class {
var description: String { get }
}
final class ImportantPerson : Client {
var description: String {
return "Important person"
}
}
protocol Order: class {
var description: String { get }
}
final class LastOrder : Order {
var description: String {
return "Last order"
}
}
final class A {
fileprivate func resolveDependency<T>() -> T {
if T.self == Client.self {
return resolve() as Client as! T
} else {
return resolve() as Order as! T
}
}
private func resolve() -> Client {
return ImportantPerson()
}
private func resolve() -> Order {
return LastOrder()
}
}
let a = A()
let client: Client = a.resolveDependency()
let order: Order = a.resolveDependency()
print("Client: \(client.description)")
print("Order: \(order.description)")
But I believe that compiler should resolve the if else clause himself, it's not so hard as I suppose.
Also there is some bug in the compiler when it tries to match types like that:
switch T.self {
case is Client:
return resolve() as Client as! T
default:
return resolve() as Order as! T
}

dispatch_once after the Swift 3 GCD API changes

What is the new syntax for dispatch_once in Swift after the changes made in language version 3? The old version was as follows.
var token: dispatch_once_t = 0
func test() {
dispatch_once(&token) {
}
}
These are the changes to libdispatch that were made.
While using lazy initialized globals can make sense for some one time initialization, it doesn't make sense for other types. It makes a lot of sense to use lazy initialized globals for things like singletons, it doesn't make a lot of sense for things like guarding a swizzle setup.
Here is a Swift 3 style implementation of dispatch_once:
public extension DispatchQueue {
private static var _onceTracker = [String]()
/**
Executes a block of code, associated with a unique token, only once. The code is thread safe and will
only execute the code once even in the presence of multithreaded calls.
- parameter token: A unique reverse DNS style name such as com.vectorform.<name> or a GUID
- parameter block: Block to execute once
*/
public class func once(token: String, block:#noescape(Void)->Void) {
objc_sync_enter(self); defer { objc_sync_exit(self) }
if _onceTracker.contains(token) {
return
}
_onceTracker.append(token)
block()
}
}
Here is an example usage:
DispatchQueue.once(token: "com.vectorform.test") {
print( "Do This Once!" )
}
or using a UUID
private let _onceToken = NSUUID().uuidString
DispatchQueue.once(token: _onceToken) {
print( "Do This Once!" )
}
As we are currently in a time of transition from swift 2 to 3, here is an example swift 2 implementation:
public class Dispatch
{
private static var _onceTokenTracker = [String]()
/**
Executes a block of code, associated with a unique token, only once. The code is thread safe and will
only execute the code once even in the presence of multithreaded calls.
- parameter token: A unique reverse DNS style name such as com.vectorform.<name> or a GUID
- parameter block: Block to execute once
*/
public class func once(token token: String, #noescape block:dispatch_block_t) {
objc_sync_enter(self); defer { objc_sync_exit(self) }
if _onceTokenTracker.contains(token) {
return
}
_onceTokenTracker.append(token)
block()
}
}
From the doc:
Dispatch
The free function dispatch_once is no longer available in
Swift. In Swift, you can use lazily initialized globals or static
properties and get the same thread-safety and called-once guarantees
as dispatch_once provided. Example:
let myGlobal: () = { … global contains initialization in a call to a closure … }()
_ = myGlobal // using myGlobal will invoke the initialization code only the first time it is used.
Expanding on Tod Cunningham's answer above, I've added another method which makes the token automatically from file, function, and line.
public extension DispatchQueue {
private static var _onceTracker = [String]()
public class func once(
file: String = #file,
function: String = #function,
line: Int = #line,
block: () -> Void
) {
let token = "\(file):\(function):\(line)"
once(token: token, block: block)
}
/**
Executes a block of code, associated with a unique token, only once. The code is thread safe and will
only execute the code once even in the presence of multithreaded calls.
- parameter token: A unique reverse DNS style name such as com.vectorform.<name> or a GUID
- parameter block: Block to execute once
*/
public class func once(
token: String,
block: () -> Void
) {
objc_sync_enter(self)
defer { objc_sync_exit(self) }
guard !_onceTracker.contains(token) else { return }
_onceTracker.append(token)
block()
}
}
So it can be simpler to call:
DispatchQueue.once {
setupUI()
}
and you can still specify a token if you wish:
DispatchQueue.once(token: "com.hostname.project") {
setupUI()
}
I suppose you could get a collision if you have the same file in two modules. Too bad there isn't #module
Edit
#Frizlab's answer - this solution is not guaranteed to be thread-safe. An alternative should be used if this is crucial
Simple solution is
lazy var dispatchOnce : Void = { // or anyName I choose
self.title = "Hello Lazy Guy"
return
}()
used like
override func viewDidLayoutSubviews() {
super.viewDidLayoutSubviews()
_ = dispatchOnce
}
You can declare a top-level variable function like this:
private var doOnce: ()->() = {
/* do some work only once per instance */
return {}
}()
then call this anywhere:
doOnce()
You can still use it if you add a bridging header:
typedef dispatch_once_t mxcl_dispatch_once_t;
void mxcl_dispatch_once(mxcl_dispatch_once_t *predicate, dispatch_block_t block);
Then in a .m somewhere:
void mxcl_dispatch_once(mxcl_dispatch_once_t *predicate, dispatch_block_t block) {
dispatch_once(predicate, block);
}
You should now be able to use mxcl_dispatch_once from Swift.
Mostly you should use what Apple suggest instead, but I had some legitimate uses where I needed to dispatch_once with a single token in two functions and there is not covered by what Apple provide instead.
Swift 3: For those who likes reusable classes (or structures):
public final class /* struct */ DispatchOnce {
private var lock: OSSpinLock = OS_SPINLOCK_INIT
private var isInitialized = false
public /* mutating */ func perform(block: (Void) -> Void) {
OSSpinLockLock(&lock)
if !isInitialized {
block()
isInitialized = true
}
OSSpinLockUnlock(&lock)
}
}
Usage:
class MyViewController: UIViewController {
private let /* var */ setUpOnce = DispatchOnce()
override func viewWillAppear() {
super.viewWillAppear()
setUpOnce.perform {
// Do some work here
// ...
}
}
}
Update (28 April 2017): OSSpinLock replaced with os_unfair_lock due deprecation warnings in macOS SDK 10.12.
public final class /* struct */ DispatchOnce {
private var lock = os_unfair_lock()
private var isInitialized = false
public /* mutating */ func perform(block: (Void) -> Void) {
os_unfair_lock_lock(&lock)
if !isInitialized {
block()
isInitialized = true
}
os_unfair_lock_unlock(&lock)
}
}
I improve above answers get result:
import Foundation
extension DispatchQueue {
private static var _onceTracker = [AnyHashable]()
///only excute once in same file&&func&&line
public class func onceInLocation(file: String = #file,
function: String = #function,
line: Int = #line,
block: () -> Void) {
let token = "\(file):\(function):\(line)"
once(token: token, block: block)
}
///only excute once in same Variable
public class func onceInVariable(variable:NSObject, block: () -> Void){
once(token: variable.rawPointer, block: block)
}
/**
Executes a block of code, associated with a unique token, only once. The code is thread safe and will
only execute the code once even in the presence of multithreaded calls.
- parameter token: A unique reverse DNS style name such as com.vectorform.<name> or a GUID
- parameter block: Block to execute once
*/
public class func once(token: AnyHashable,block: () -> Void) {
objc_sync_enter(self)
defer { objc_sync_exit(self) }
guard !_onceTracker.contains(token) else { return }
_onceTracker.append(token)
block()
}
}
extension NSObject {
public var rawPointer:UnsafeMutableRawPointer? {
get {
Unmanaged.passUnretained(self).toOpaque()
}
}
}
import UIKit
// dispatch once
class StaticOnceTest {
static let test2 = {
print("Test " + $0 + " \($1)")
}("mediaHSL", 5)
lazy var closure: () = {
test(entryPoint: $0, videos: $1)
}("see all" , 4)
private func test(entryPoint: String, videos: Int) {
print("Test " + entryPoint + " \(videos)")
}
}
print("Test-1")
let a = StaticOnceTest()
a.closure
a.closure
a.closure
a.closure
StaticOnceTest.test2
StaticOnceTest.test2
StaticOnceTest.test2
StaticOnceTest.test2
OUTPUT:
Test-1
Test see all 4
Test mediaHSL 5
You can use a lazy var closure and execute it immediately with (#arguments_if_needed) so that it will call only one time. You can call any instance function inside of the closure [advantage].
You can pass multiple arguments based on need. You can capture those arguments when the class has been initialised and use them.
Another option: You can use a static let closure and it will execute only one time but you cannot call any instance func inside that static let clsoure. [disadvantage]
thanks!
Swift 5
dispatch_once is still available in libswiftFoundation.dylib standard library which is embedded to any swift app so you can access to exported symbols dynamically, get the function's symbol pointer, cast and call:
import Darwin
typealias DispatchOnce = #convention(c) (
_ predicate: UnsafePointer<UInt>?,
_ block: () -> Void
) -> Void
func dispatchOnce(_ predicate: UnsafePointer<UInt>?, _ block: () -> Void) {
let RTLD_DEFAULT = UnsafeMutableRawPointer(bitPattern: -2)
if let sym = dlsym(RTLD_DEFAULT, "dispatch_once") {
let f = unsafeBitCast(sym, to: DispatchOnce.self)
f(predicate, block)
}
else {
fatalError("Symbol not found")
}
}
Example:
var token: UInt = 0
for i in 0...10 {
print("iteration: \(i)")
dispatchOnce(&token) {
print("This is printed only on the first call")
}
}
Outputs:
iteration: 0
This is printed only on the first call
iteration: 1
iteration: 2
iteration: 3
iteration: 4
iteration: 5
iteration: 6
iteration: 7
iteration: 8
iteration: 9
iteration: 10
Use the class constant approach if you are using Swift 1.2 or above and the nested struct approach if you need to support earlier versions.
An exploration of the Singleton pattern in Swift. All approaches below support lazy initialization and thread safety.
dispatch_once approach is not worked in Swift 3.0
Approach A: Class constant
class SingletonA {
static let sharedInstance = SingletonA()
init() {
println("AAA");
}
}
Approach B: Nested struct
class SingletonB {
class var sharedInstance: SingletonB {
struct Static {
static let instance: SingletonB = SingletonB()
}
return Static.instance
}
}
Approach C: dispatch_once
class SingletonC {
class var sharedInstance: SingletonC {
struct Static {
static var onceToken: dispatch_once_t = 0
static var instance: SingletonC? = nil
}
dispatch_once(&Static.onceToken) {
Static.instance = SingletonC()
}
return Static.instance!
}
}