Ambiguous functions in multiple protocol extensions? - swift

I have multiple protocols that have the same function name. Some protocols have associated types, where I can't figure out how to call the functions as I do in non-generic protocols. I get the error: Protocol 'MyProtocol1' can only be used as a generic contraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
Here's what I'm trying to do:
protocol Serviceable {
associatedtype DataType
func get(handler: ([DataType] -> Void)?)
}
struct PostService: Serviceable {
func get(handler: ([String] -> Void)? = nil) {
print("Do something...")
}
}
protocol MyProtocol1: class {
associatedtype ServiceType: Serviceable
var service: ServiceType { get }
}
extension MyProtocol1 {
func didLoad(delegate: Self) {
print("MyProtocol1.didLoad()")
}
}
protocol MyProtocol2: class {
}
extension MyProtocol2 {
func didLoad(delegate: MyProtocol2) {
print("MyProtocol2.didLoad()")
}
}
class MyViewController: UIViewController, MyProtocol1, MyProtocol2 {
let service = PostService()
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
didLoad(self as MyProtocol1) // Error here: Protocol 'MyProtocol1' can only be used as a generic contraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
didLoad(self as MyProtocol2)
}
}
How can I specifically call the function from a generic protocol extension?

It's simple to achieve by turning the protocol into a generic (see below), or by creating a type eraser for these protocols, but this very strongly suggests that you have a design problem and you should redesign your classes and/or extensions. A collision like this suggests strongly that MyStruct is doing too many things itself because it's being pulled in multiple directions by MyProtocol1 and MyProtocol2. There should likely be two objects here instead. (Composition rather than inheritance.)
class MyStruct: MyProtocol1, MyProtocol2 {
let service = PostService()
func prot1Load<T: MyProtocol1>(t: T) {
t.didLoad()
}
func prot2Load<T: MyProtocol2>(t: T) {
t.didLoad()
}
init() {
prot1Load(self)
prot2Load(self)
}
}
To your particular example in the comments, I would use composition rather than inheritance. You're treating protocols like multiple-inheritance, which is almost never right. Instead compose out of things that conform to a protocol.
protocol LoadProviding {
func load()
}
struct MyLoader1: LoadProviding {
func load() {
print("MyLoader1.didLoad()")
}
}
struct MyLoader2: LoadProviding {
func load() {
print("MyLoader2.didLoad()")
}
}
protocol Loader {
var loaders: [LoadProviding] { get }
}
extension Loader {
func loadAll() {
for loader in loaders {
loader.load()
}
}
}
class MyStruct: Loader {
let service = PostService()
let loaders: [LoadProviding] = [MyLoader1(), MyLoader2()]
init() {
loadAll()
}
}
Of course you don't really have to have LoadProviding be a full struct. It could just be a function if that's all you need:
typealias LoadProviding = () -> Void
func myLoader1() {
print("MyLoader1.didLoad()")
}
func myLoader2() {
print("MyLoader2.didLoad()")
}
protocol Loader {
var loaders: [LoadProviding] { get }
}
extension Loader {
func loadAll() {
for loader in loaders {
loader()
}
}
}
class MyStruct: Loader {
let service = PostService()
let loaders: [LoadProviding] = [myLoader1, myLoader2]
init() {
loadAll()
}
}
If you have time to wade through a video on the subject, you may be interested in the Beyond Crusty: Real World Protocols talk from dotSwift. It's about this and similar problems.

Related

Value of protocol type 'InheritingProtocol: Protocol' cannot conform to 'Protocol'

I have the below code which aims an abstraction -without being have to casting Decodables - for DataModels across the app. I wanted use these DataModels to centrelize them. This is how I far I came right now and I am kind of in dead end.
In this configuration, the code tells me that ProfileResponseDelegate cannot conform to ModelDelegate when ProfileResponseDelegate is a protocol, which makes sense.
protocol ModelDelegate: class {
associatedtype DataType: Decodable
func didReceive(data: DataType)
}
class Model<Type, Delegate: ModelDelegate> where Type == Delegate.DataType {
var data: Type?
weak var delegate: Delegate?
func requestData() { return }
}
protocol ProfileResponseDelegate: ModelDelegate where DataType == ProfileResponse {}
//throws Value of protocol type 'ProfileResponseDelegate' cannot conform to 'ModelDelegate'; only struct/enum/class types can conform to protocols
class ProfileResponseModel: Model<ProfileResponse, ProfileResponseDelegate> {
override func requestData() {
guard let data = data else {
// go to api to get data
return
}
delegate?.didReceive(data: data)
}
}
class Controller: UIViewController, ProfileResponseDelegate {
let model = ProfileResponseModel()
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
model.delegate = self
model.requestData()
}
func didReceive(data: ProfileResponse) {
//tell view code to update regarding data
}
}
When I change ProfileResponseDelegate to be a class -without not being a delegate anymore, but anyway- the code does not allow Controller to inherit from both UIViewController and ProfileResponseDelegate reasoning a class cannot inherit from multiple classes. which again makes sense.
class ProfileResponseDelegate: ModelDelegate {
typealias DataType = ProfileResponse
func didReceive(data: ProfileResponse) {
return
}
}
class Controller: UIViewController, ProfileResponseDelegate {
let model = ProfileResponseModel()
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
model.delegate = self
model.requestData()
}
override func didReceive(data: ProfileResponse) {
//tell view code to update regarding data
}
}
With respect to first configuration, I could not make it work. However for the second one, when Controller just inherits from ProfileResponseDelegate it works just fine.
I have to find a way to make this work -preferably the first configuration- and need your advise. Much appreciated in advance.
UPDATE
So I have removed the associatedType from the ModelDelegate and removed ProfileResponseModel. Right now code looks like this.
protocol ModelDelegate: class {
//associatedtype DataType: Decodable
func didReceive<T: Decodable>(data: T)
}
class Model<Type: Decodable> {
var data: Type?
weak var delegate: ModelDelegate?
func requestData() { return }
}
//protocol ProfileResponseDelegate: ModelDelegate where DataType == ProfileResponse {}
class ProfileResponseModel: Model<ProfileResponse> {
override func requestData() {
guard let data = data else {
// go to api to get data
return
}
delegate?.didReceive(data: data)
}
}
class Controller: UIViewController, ModelDelegate {
let model = ProfileResponseModel()
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
model.delegate = self
model.requestData()
}
func didReceive<T>(data: T) where T : Decodable {
//I want this `data` to come as what it is.
if let response = data as? ProfileResponse {
print(type(of: response))
}
}
}
It works likes this, however my ultimate purpose for doing this to not being have to cast the data to ProfileResponse here -and in other places to other Decodable type-.

How to invoke protocol extension default implementation with type constraints

Consider the following example:
class ManObj {
func baseFunc() {
print("ManObj baseFunc")
}
}
class SubObj: ManObj {
}
protocol Model {
}
extension Model { // This is protocol extension
func someFunc() { // Protocol extension default implementation
(self as! ManObj).baseFunc()
print("Model implementation")
}
}
extension SubObj: Model {
func someFunc() {
print("SubObj Implementation")
}
}
let list = SubObj()
list.someFunc() // static dispatching
let list2: Model = SubObj()
list2.someFunc() // dynamic dispatching
The output is nicely:
SubObj Implementation
ManObj baseFunc
Model implementation
But I dislike the casting in the line (self as! ManObj).baseFunc().
In fact, I only plan to apply Model protocol to subclasses of ManObj. (But not all subclasses of ManObj are Model though!) So, I tried to change Model to:
extension Model where Self: ManObj {
func someFunc() {
self.baseFunc() // No more casting needed!
print("Model implementation")
}
}
But I'm greeted with error:
list2.someFunc() <- error: 'Model' is not a subtype of 'ManObj'
So, is there a way for me to trigger Model.someFunc from list2 after I constrain Model to where Self: ManObj?
Create an empty class just for type casting
class ManObj {
func baseFunc() {
print("ManObj baseFunc")
}
}
class SubObj: ModelCaster {
func someFunc() {
print("SubObj Implementation")
}
}
protocol Model {
}
extension Model where Self: ModelCaster { // This is protocol extension
func someFunc() { // Protocol extension default implementation
print("Model implementation")
}
}
class ModelCaster: ManObj, Model{
}
let list = SubObj()
list.someFunc() //SubObj Implementation
let list2: ModelCaster = SubObj()
list2.someFunc() //Model implementation

Unit testing protocol extensions through structs in Swift 3

Here's the protocol oriented code i have for which i am stuck with for writing unit tests.
protocol TestProtocol {
func testOne()
func testTwo()
}
extension TestProtocol {
var testHelper: TestHelper {
return TestHelper()
}
fileprivate func _one() {
testHelper.one()
}
func one() {
_one()
}
fileprivate func _two() {
testHelper.two()
}
func two() {
_two()
}
}
struct TestHelper {
var userDefaults: UserDefaults {
return UserDefaults.standard
}
func one() {
userDefaults.set("12223334444", forKey: "PhoneNumberWithCountryCode")
}
func two() {
userDefaults.set("Mark", forKey: "UserName")
}
}
class TestAboveCode { }
extension TestAboveCode: TestProtocol {
func testOne() {
_one()
}
func testTwo() {
_two()
}
}
class UseAboveCode {
func use() {
TestAboveCode().testOne()
}
}
here's the problem,
To write unit test for UseAboveCode class, i need to mock the TestHelper struct. Though i can create a mock struct and override the existing functions, i cannot set the testHelper property in the TestProtocol extension. Is there a work around for this?
I do know the other approach which is making the TestHelper struct implement a protocol and ultimately injecting that as a property or through a constructor. This code above looks ideal for readability and usability but someone i am not able to wrap my head around unit test.
Am i over thinking with this approach? Please let me know what the best approach is.

How can I add the same methods to different classes?

Is it possible to add the same methods to different classes?
Example:
class FilterableTable: UITableViewController { ... }
class FilterableCollection: UICollectionViewController { ... }
extension FilterableTable, FilterableCollection { // I know this line is wrong
func filterItems(){ print('filtered!') }
}
How can I add the same Foo method to a UICollectionViewController?
Protocols allow to declare only needed methods signatures, but I need exactly the same method (with body), to avoid copy-paste...
You can use the Protocol Extensions to do what you need. Extensions are new and allow for a default implementation of the protocol methods. I modified your code just a bit so it would compile.
class FilterableTable: FilterType {
init() {}
}
class FilterableCollection: FilterType {
init() {}
}
protocol FilterType {
func filterItems()
}
extension FilterType { // I know this line is wrong
func filterItems(){ print("filtered!") }
}
let a = FilterableTable()
a.filterItems()
let b = FilterableCollection()
b.filterItems()
Check out the section on Protocol Extensions. Swift Programming Guide
Actual answer: Use the Delegates, Luke!
class FilterableTable: UITableViewController {
var filterDelegate: FilterDelegate!
func viewDidLoad(){
filterDelegate = Filter()
}
}
class FilterableCollection: UICollectionViewController {
var filterDelegate: FilterDelegate!
func viewDidLoad(){
filterDelegate = Filter()
}
}
protocol FilterDelegate {
func filterItems()
}
class Filter: FilterDelegate {
func filterItems() {
print("Hooray!")
}
}

Can you create a Swift base class that requires its subclasses to implement method(s)? [duplicate]

Is there a way to create an abstract class in the Swift Language, or is this a limitation just like Objective-C? I'd like to create a abstract class comparable to what Java defines as an abstract class.
There are no abstract classes in Swift (just like Objective-C). Your best bet is going to be to use a Protocol, which is like a Java Interface.
With Swift 2.0, you can then add method implementations and calculated property implementations using protocol extensions. Your only restrictions are that you can't provide member variables or constants and there is no dynamic dispatch.
An example of this technique would be:
protocol Employee {
var annualSalary: Int {get}
}
extension Employee {
var biweeklySalary: Int {
return self.annualSalary / 26
}
func logSalary() {
print("$\(self.annualSalary) per year or $\(self.biweeklySalary) biweekly")
}
}
struct SoftwareEngineer: Employee {
var annualSalary: Int
func logSalary() {
print("overridden")
}
}
let sarah = SoftwareEngineer(annualSalary: 100000)
sarah.logSalary() // prints: overridden
(sarah as Employee).logSalary() // prints: $100000 per year or $3846 biweekly
Notice that this is providing "abstract class" like features even for structs, but classes can also implement the same protocol.
Also notice that every class or struct that implements the Employee protocol will have to declare the annualSalary property again.
Most importantly, notice that there is no dynamic dispatch. When logSalary is called on the instance that is stored as a SoftwareEngineer it calls the overridden version of the method. When logSalary is called on the instance after it has been cast to an Employee, it calls the original implementation (it doesn't not dynamically dispatch to the overridden version even though the instance is actually a Software Engineer.
For more information, check great WWDC video about that feature: Building Better Apps with Value Types in Swift
Note that this answer is targeted at Swift 2.0 and above
You can achieve the same behaviour with protocols and protocol extensions.
First, you write a protocol that acts as an interface for all the methods that have to be implemented in all types that conform to it.
protocol Drivable {
var speed: Float { get set }
}
Then you can add default behaviour to all types that conform to it
extension Drivable {
func accelerate(by: Float) {
speed += by
}
}
You can now create new types by implementing Drivable.
struct Car: Drivable {
var speed: Float = 0.0
init() {}
}
let c = Car()
c.accelerate(10)
So basically you get:
Compile time checks that guarantee that all Drivables implement speed
You can implement default-behaviour for all types that conform to Drivable (accelerate)
Drivable is guaranteed not to be instantiated since it's just a protocol
This model actually behaves much more like traits, meaning you can conform to multiple protocols and take on default implementations of any of them, whereas with an abstract superclass you're limited to a simple class hierarchy.
I think this is the closest to Java's abstract or C#'s abstract:
class AbstractClass {
private init() {
}
}
Note that, in order for the private modifiers to work, you must define this class in a separate Swift file.
EDIT: Still, this code doesn't allow to declare an abstract method and thus force its implementation.
The simplest way is to use a call to fatalError("Not Implemented") into the abstract method (not variable) on the protocol extension.
protocol MyInterface {
func myMethod() -> String
}
extension MyInterface {
func myMethod() -> String {
fatalError("Not Implemented")
}
}
class MyConcreteClass: MyInterface {
func myMethod() -> String {
return "The output"
}
}
MyConcreteClass().myMethod()
After I struggled for several weeks, I finally realized how to translate a Java/PHP abstract class to Swift:
public class AbstractClass: NSObject {
internal override init(){}
public func getFoodToEat()->String
{
if(self._iAmHungry())
{
return self._myFavoriteFood();
}else{
return "";
}
}
private func _myFavoriteFood()->String
{
return "Sandwich";
}
internal func _iAmHungry()->Bool
{
fatalError(__FUNCTION__ + "Must be overridden");
return false;
}
}
public class ConcreteClass: AbstractClass, IConcreteClass {
private var _hungry: Bool = false;
public override init() {
super.init();
}
public func starve()->Void
{
self._hungry = true;
}
public override func _iAmHungry()->Bool
{
return self._hungry;
}
}
public protocol IConcreteClass
{
func _iAmHungry()->Bool;
}
class ConcreteClassTest: XCTestCase {
func testExample() {
var concreteClass: ConcreteClass = ConcreteClass();
XCTAssertEqual("", concreteClass.getFoodToEat());
concreteClass.starve();
XCTAssertEqual("Sandwich", concreteClass.getFoodToEat());
}
}
However I think Apple did not implement abstract classes because it generally uses the delegate+protocol pattern instead. For example the same pattern above would be better done like this:
import UIKit
public class GoldenSpoonChild
{
private var delegate: IStomach!;
internal init(){}
internal func setup(delegate: IStomach)
{
self.delegate = delegate;
}
public func getFoodToEat()->String
{
if(self.delegate.iAmHungry())
{
return self._myFavoriteFood();
}else{
return "";
}
}
private func _myFavoriteFood()->String
{
return "Sandwich";
}
}
public class Mother: GoldenSpoonChild, IStomach
{
private var _hungry: Bool = false;
public override init()
{
super.init();
super.setup(self);
}
public func makeFamilyHungry()->Void
{
self._hungry = true;
}
public func iAmHungry()->Bool
{
return self._hungry;
}
}
protocol IStomach
{
func iAmHungry()->Bool;
}
class DelegateTest: XCTestCase {
func testGetFood() {
var concreteClass: Mother = Mother();
XCTAssertEqual("", concreteClass.getFoodToEat());
concreteClass.makeFamilyHungry();
XCTAssertEqual("Sandwich", concreteClass.getFoodToEat());
}
}
I needed this kind of pattern because I wanted to commonize some methods in UITableViewController such as viewWillAppear etc. Was this helpful?
There is a way for simulating abstract classes using Protocols.
This is an example:
protocol MyProtocol {
func doIt()
}
class BaseClass {
weak var myDelegate: MyProtocol?
init() {
...
}
func myFunc() {
...
self.myDelegate?.doIt()
...
}
}
class ChildClass: BaseClass, MyProtocol {
override init(){
super.init()
self.myDelegate = self
}
func doIt() {
// Custom implementation
}
}
One more way how you can implement abstract class is to block initializer.
I've done it this way:
class Element:CALayer { // IT'S ABSTRACT CLASS
override init(){
super.init()
if self.dynamicType === Element.self {
fatalError("Element is abstract class, do not try to create instance of this class")
}
}
}
It's a really old question but still… Here's a snippet of actual code that compiles on Swift 5.2 and works as intended:
protocol Context {
init() throws
func out(_ aStr: String) throws
// Other stuff
}
class AbstractContext: Context {
required init() throws {
if Self.self === AbstractContext.self {
preconditionFailure("Call to abstract method \(Self.self).\(#function)")
}
}
func out(_ aStr: String) throws {
preconditionFailure("Call to abstract method \(Self.self).\(#function)")
}
// Other stuff
}
class CompileContext: AbstractContext {
required init() throws {}
override func out(_ aStr: String) throws {
print(aStr)
}
// Other stuff
}
And here's what I get once I remove CompileContext.out:
Fatal error: Call to abstract method CompileContext.out(_:): file swiftpg/contexts.swift, line 28
With the limitation of no dynamic dispatch, you could do something like this:
import Foundation
protocol foo {
static var instance: foo? { get }
func prt()
}
extension foo {
func prt() {
if Thread.callStackSymbols.count > 30 {
print("super")
} else {
Self.instance?.prt()
}
}
}
class foo1 : foo {
static var instance : foo? = nil
init() {
foo1.instance = self
}
func prt() {
print("foo1")
}
}
class foo2 : foo {
static var instance : foo? = nil
init() {
foo2.instance = self
}
func prt() {
print("foo2")
}
}
class foo3 : foo {
static var instance : foo? = nil
init() {
foo3.instance = self
}
}
var f1 : foo = foo1()
f1.prt()
var f2 : foo = foo2()
f2.prt()
var f3 : foo = foo3()
f3.prt()
I was trying to make a Weather abstract class, but using protocols wasn't ideal since I had to write the same init methods over and over again. Extending the protocol and writing an init method had it's issues, especially since I was using NSObject conforming to NSCoding.
So I came up with this for the NSCoding conformance:
required init?(coder aDecoder: NSCoder) {
guard type(of: self) != Weather.self else {
fatalError("<Weather> This is an abstract class. Use a subclass of `Weather`.")
}
// Initialize...
}
As for init:
fileprivate init(param: Any...) {
// Initialize
}
Move all references to abstract properties and methods of Base class to protocol extension implementation, where Self constraint to Base class. You will gain access to all methods and properties of Base class. Additionally compiler check implementation of abstract methods and properties in protocol for derived classes
protocol Commom:class{
var tableView:UITableView {get};
func update();
}
class Base{
var total:Int = 0;
}
extension Common where Self:Base{
func update(){
total += 1;
tableView.reloadData();
}
}
class Derived:Base,Common{
var tableView:UITableView{
return owner.tableView;
}
}