Swift extensions that apply only when you import them - swift

I have some swift extensions I want to across projects.
I'd like to avoid category pollution though, unless those extensions are requested.
Is it possible to write them so that they only apply if I've done a certain import, like:
import MySwiftExtensions
// Use custom extensions
let x = [1,3,5,7].average()
let y = [1,3,5,7].firstWhere { $0 > 3 }
let z = "campervan".make1337()
I could write these as static methods wrapped in a single letter class (eg: ø.average([1,3,5,7]), like lodash) to achieve the same thing but sometimes you get much more concise usage from instance methods.

You wrote:
I have some swift extensions I want to across projects...
When I have code that I want to use across projects I create a separate framework to hold that code. Then, when I want to use that code in a new project, I embed the framework in that project. Or, for development purposes, I create a workspace that includes the project and the framework. That allows me to work on both at the same time, and then only embed the framework in the final product when it is time to export it.
Once the framework is either embedded or in the same workspace, then you should be able to import it into any individual file in your project with:
import MySwiftExtensions
Any file that does not have the import statement will not have access to the extensions.
EDIT:
Here is a link to a blog that describes how to create a Cocoa Touch Framework. And here is another link that describes in detail how to use workspaces to use frameworks in development projects.

I would like to focus attention on what you reported: "..only apply if I've done a certain import.."
It would also mean you want these extensions can be applyed only to a specific class
As reported in this interesting Apple blog chapter and in the official Apple doc you can handle the "Access Control" of your extension
You can extend a class, structure, or enumeration in any access
context in which the class, structure, or enumeration is available.
Any type members added in an extension have the same default access
level as type members declared in the original type being extended. If
you extend a public or internal type, any new type members you add
will have a default access level of internal. If you extend a private
type, any new type members you add will have a default access level of
private.
Alternatively, you can mark an extension with an explicit access level
modifier (for example, private extension) to set a new default access
level for all members defined within the extension. This new default
can still be overridden within the extension for individual type
members.
/* no access level modifier: default access level will be 'internal' */
extension UIViewSubClass
{
// default access level used: internal
var helloWorld : String {
get {
return "helloWorld"
}
}
}
// modify default access level to public
public extension UIViewSubClass
{
// default access level used: public
var helloWorld : String {
get {
return "helloWorld"
}
}
}
The members of extensions marked private are available within the file where they’re defined, and are not available outside that file. Outside the file where the private extension members were defined, any attempt to use them results in an error, and auto-complete wouldn’t even list them
// modify default access level to private
private extension UIViewSubClass
{
var helloWorld : String {
get {
return "helloWorld"
}
}
}

I don't believe you can do what you want per se, but I've used the following approach to provide functionality to only the specific class that implements an interface:
protocol ExampleProtocol {
}
extension ExampleProtocol where Self: UIViewController{
// extend what you need to here
}

Related

Protection level of an extension

I have a DataManager class and it has some relevant functions and variables. For example,
Class DataManager: NSObject {
func doSomething()
func doSomethingAgain()
}
I move few method to an extension of DataManager. I made the extension as fileprivate cause I don't want to expose those function to other classes. For example,
Class DataManager: NSObject {
func doSomething()
}
fileprivate extension DataManager {
func doSomethingAgain()
}
Till now everything was fine, now the problem I am facing is when I am moving that extension to a different file that time fileprivate won't work. So what should be the protection level in that case. Hope you understood my intension.
The protection level should be internal (which is the default). It will then be available to everything in the module.
If you want to constrain access to a smaller number of classes, then you need to put those classes in their own module. Those are only access levels that Swift has.
The tightest access mode you can work with is the internal which is default in Swift.
Taking from https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/AccessControl.html :
"Swift provides five different access levels for entities within your code. These access levels are relative to the source file in which an entity is defined, and also relative to the module that source file belongs to.
Open access and public access enable entities to be used within any source file from their defining module, and also in a source file from another module that imports the defining module. You typically use open or public access when specifying the public interface to a framework. The difference between open and public access is described below.
Internal access enables entities to be used within any source file from their defining module, but not in any source file outside of that module. You typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a framework’s internal structure.
File-private access restricts the use of an entity to its own defining source file. Use file-private access to hide the implementation details of a specific piece of functionality when those details are used within an entire file.
Private access restricts the use of an entity to the enclosing declaration, and to extensions of that declaration that are in the same file. Use private access to hide the implementation details of a specific piece of functionality when those details are used only within a single declaration."

Can I #define a constant solutionwide within c# code without project settings?

I know this was aksed and answered a a couple of times e.g.
Solution-wide #define, Is There anyway to #define Constant on a Solution Basis? and How to define a constant globally in C# (like DEBUG).
But in my case I can not use any of the suggested methods:
I'm writing on different "modules" (or plugins if you want so) for UnityProjects (kind of a package providing a certain functionality). The idea is that a developer can load a certain "module" to use in his project by importing a UnityPackage with all scripts and resources in it.
But some of these modules themselves depend on other modules. So what I tried so far was having a class Constants in each module with seperated namespaces and preprocessor definitions.
Module A
#if !MODULE_A
#define MODULE_A // BUT I WOULD NEED THIS GLOBAL NOT ONLY HERE
#endif
namespace Module_A
{
public static class Constants
{
// some constants for this namespace here
}
}
Module B
#if !MODULE_B
#define MODULE_B // BUT I WOULD NEED THIS GLOBAL NOT ONLY HERE
#endif
#if !MODULE_A // WILL BE NOT DEFINED OFCOURSE SINCE #define IS NOT GLOBAL
#error Module A missing!
#else
namespace Module_B
{
public static class Constants
{
// some constants for this namespace here
}
// and other code that might require Module A
}
#endif
But ofcourse this cannot work like this since #defines are not global but only in the current file.
Problem
For this whole idea of modules and a simple "load your modules" I can not ask the user to first make changes to the project or solution settings how e.g. suggested by this answer but instead have to use only the (c#) resources that come imported with the UnityPackage (at least with my current know-how).
Is there any way to somehow set/define those constants for the entire Unity-Project by only importing the module's UnityPackage?
Edit:
I could find a solution for 1 definition in Unity using Assets/msc.rsp. But this still wouldn't work for multiple modules since they would have to write into the same file.
After a lot of searches I've finally been able to put together a surprisingly simple solution I'ld like to share with you:
InitializeOnLoad
Unity has an attribute [InitializeOnLoad]. It tells Unity to initialize according class as soon as
Unity is launched
After any re-compiling of scripts => also after importing a new unitypackage with scripts
static Constructor
In their Running Editor Code On Launch example, they show, how to combine this with a static constructor.
From static-constructors:
A static constructor is called automatically to initialize the class before the first instance is created or any static members are referenced.
While usually you still would have to create an instance of the class, the static constructor is "instanciated/executed" instantly when the class is initliazed, which we force using the [InitializeOnLoad] attribute.
Scripting Define Symbols
Further Unity actually has project wide defines in the PlayerSettings.
And the good part is: We also have access to them via scripting API:
PlayerSettings.GetScriptingDefineSymbolsForGroup
PlayerSettings.SetScriptingDefineSymbolsForGroup.
So what I did now is the following
Module A
This module has no dependencies but just defines a "global define" in the PlayerSettings. I placed this script somewhere e.g. in Assets/ModuleA/Editor (important is the last folder's name).
using System.Linq;
using UnityEditor;
namespace ModuleA
{
// Will be initialized on load or recompiling
[InitializeOnLoad]
public static class Startup
{
// static constructor is called as soon as class is initialized
static Startup()
{
#region Add Compiler Define
// Get the current defines
// returns a string like "DEFINE_1;DEFINE_2;DEFINE_3"
var defines = PlayerSettings.GetScriptingDefineSymbolsForGroup(EditorUserBuildSettings.selectedBuildTargetGroup);
// split into list just to check if my define is already there
var define = defines.Split(';').ToList();
if (!define.Contains("MODULE_A")
{
// if not there already add my define
defines += ";MODULE_A";
}
// and write back the new defines
PlayerSettings.SetScriptingDefineSymbolsForGroup(EditorUserBuildSettings.selectedBuildTargetGroup, defines);
#endregion
}
}
}
Module B
This module depends on Module A. So itself defines a "global define" (so later Modules can check their dependecies on Module B) but additionally it checks first, if Module A is imported. If Module A is missing, it prints an error to the Debug Console.
(You could as well throw a compiler error using #error SOME TEXT, but for some reason this is not capable of printing out the URL correctly so I decided for the Debug.LogError)
I placed this script somewhere e.g. in Assets/ModuleB/Editor
#if MODULE_A
using System.Linq;
#endif
using UnityEditor;
#if !MODULE_A
using UnityEngine;
#endif
namespace ModuleB
{
// Will be initialized on load or recompiling
[InitializeOnLoad]
public static class Startup
{
// static constructor is called as soon as class is initialized
static Startup()
{
#if !MODULE_A
Debug.LogErrorFormat("! Missing Module Dependency !" +
"\nThe module {0} depends on the module {1}." +
"\n\nDownload it from {2} \n",
"MODULE_B",
"MODULE_A",
"https://Some.page.where./to.find.it/MyModules/ModuleA.unitypackage"
);
#else
// Add Compiler Define
var defines = PlayerSettings.GetScriptingDefineSymbolsForGroup(EditorUserBuildSettings.selectedBuildTargetGroup);
var define = defines.Split(';').ToList();
if (!define.Contains("MODULE_B"))
{
defines += ";MODULE_B";
}
PlayerSettings.SetScriptingDefineSymbolsForGroup(EditorUserBuildSettings.selectedBuildTargetGroup, defines);
#endif
}
}
}
So later in other scripts of Module B I have two options (both do basically the same)
I can either check everywhere #if MODULE_A to check exactly the module this script relies on
or I can instead check #if MODULE_B to rather check with one line if all dependecies are fulfilled since otherwise I don't define MODULE_B.
On this way I can completely check all dependencies between certain modules which is awesome. The only two flaws I saw until now are:
We have to know how the define (e.g. MODULE_A) looks like for every module and if it is changed in the future it has to be changed in all depending modules as well
The "global define" isn't getting removed in case the module is deleted from the project
But well - which solution is perfect?
In general, the way I would solve this problem in C# is by defining a common set of interfaces that all your modules would contain. I think you can do this with Unity by placing the files from each module in the same location, thus allowing later installations to overwrite those same files (with, obviously, the same content). You would then put editor controls that expose properties to hold instances of those interfaces and then wire them up in the UI. You would test those properties for a value of null to determine which ones are missing.
Common.cs:
public interface IModuleA {}
public interface IModuleB {}
ModuleA.cs
public class ModuleA : IModuleA {}
ModuleB.cs
public class ModuleB : IModuleB
{
public IModuleA ModuleAInstance {get; set;}
private bool IsModuleAPresent()
{
return !ModuleAInstance == null;
}
}
The ideal way to solve it would be with a package manager and proper dependency injection, but doing that with Unity is not straightforward.

Swift 2 internal vs private

I'm confused about the internal and private access modifier.
The docs says:
“Internal access enables entities to be used within any source file
from their defining module, but not in any source file outside of that
module. You typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a
framework’s internal structure.”
How I thought it was, was that with internal you can access everything if you are in your own app. But this is not true, because when I have a viewcontroller what is default internal and I'm having a internal function on that viewcontroller I can't access this from another file in another group (You create these in xCode).
What I tried was having a ViewController that has a method foo in group A then in group B I created a ViewController like this:
let vc: FakeViewController = FakeViewController()
vc.foo()
So is internal restricted to the same group? Or I'm I interpreting it wrong?
Is it useful that in a viewcontroller you create private methods and vars/lets?
#user1007522 Could you post the entire source code for FakeViewController? You should have access to foo() from your vc variable. If you do not, I suspect something else is in play here.
I found the following definitions much easier to understand (copied from UseYourLoaf - Swift 4 Access Levels)
The Five Access Levels of Swift 3/4
Swift 3 has five access levels that control from which source file or module you can access something. In order from most open to most restricted:
open you can access open classes and class members from any source file in the defining module or any module that imports that module. You can subclass an open class or override an open class member both within their defining module and any module that imports that module.
public allows the same access as open - any source file in any module - but has more restrictive subclassing and overriding. You can only subclass a public class within the same module. A public class member can only be overriden by subclasses in the same module. This is important if you are writing a framework. If you want a user of that framework to be able to subclass a class or override a method you must make it open.
internal allows use from any source file in the defining module but not from outside that module. This is generally the default access level.
fileprivate allows use only within the defining source file.
private Swift 4: allows use only from the enclosing declaration and new in Swift 4, to any extensions of that declaration in the same source file Swift 3: allows use only from the enclosing declaration.
Suppose you have 3 different view controller source files A, B, C
then
In Private:- If Intancses in A are Private than only A's Methods can use them
In Internal :- IF A is as Internal than B and C can easily use them.
Here is an example:
Thanks
Internal access restricts access to the files within a singular application or framework.
Private restricts access to the individual source file that your object is created in.
See this link for a more in-depth explanation.
Overall, if your "Group A" and "Group B" are in the same application or framework, you should be able to access the methods from each, assuming the viewController allows internal access.
My understanding is that private won't allow the variable from being accessed from outside that class. However, there are times, like with gesture recognizers, you can't make them private because they are needed behind the scenes. Marking them as "internal" lets them be accessed from within other functions, but not called directly.
Mostly I use internal to keep my code organized, so I know that's not a public facing function but it can still be used.

Protected Access Level in Swift

How can I make protected (like in ruby) variable or function in Swift? I know Swift has only 3 levels but nonetheless is it possible?
Access Levels
Swift provides three different access levels for entities within your
code. These access levels are relative to the source file in which an
entity is defined, and also relative to the module that source file
belongs to.
Public access enables entities to be used within any source file from
their defining module, and also in a source file from another module
that imports the defining module. You typically use public access when
specifying the public interface to a framework.
Internal access
enables entities to be used within any source file from their defining
module, but not in any source file outside of that module. You
typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a framework’s
internal structure.
Private access restricts the use of an entity to
its own defining source file. Use private access to hide the
implementation details of a specific piece of functionality.
Public
access is the highest (least restrictive) access level and private
access is the lowest (or most restrictive) access level
Currently I see only one solution - write parent class with private modifier and children class in single file but it's kind of painful.
Swift prefers to not use protected. You can read the reasons here Access Control and protected
In contrast, protected conflates access with inheritance, adding an entirely new control axis to reason about. It doesn’t actually offer any real protection, since a subclass can always expose “protected” API through a new public method or property. It doesn’t offer additional optimization opportunities either, since new overrides can come from anywhere. And it’s unnecessarily restrictive — it allows subclasses, but not any of the subclass’s helpers, to access something.
In Ruby's point of view, it may be important. However in Swift, neither it is useless, nor it is a matter of the language.
Swift language is primarily based on modules when it comes to access levels. It even has public private(set) variables, which is much needed in Objective-C (causes boilerplate).
There's no equivalent to protected in Swift where only subclasses have access to the method. Personally, I don't miss it.
In Swift (as Objective-C) there is far less emphasis on subclassing than other languages. If you find you have a set of methods that you want to be protected, it is probably better to factor them out as a delegate.
Swift 3.0 not cantains protected modifier. In our sdk we use internal(set) modifier that approve set operation only in sdk project.
private var _authorized : Bool = false
public internal(set) var authorized : Bool
{
get
{
return _authorized;
}
set
{
_authorized = newValue
}
}

Is a class by default public, private or internal

When i declare a class:
class foo {
//code goes here
}
Is the class standard public, private or internal?
I was wondering about this and wasn't able to find any information about it.
According to the documentation :
All entities in your code (with a few specific exceptions, as
described later in this chapter) have a default access level of
internal if you do not specify an explicit access level yourself. As a
result, in many cases you do not need to specify an explicit access
level in your code
it is internal.