How to create function with two closures as params in Swift? - swift

I need to translate such a func from Objective-C to Swift language. But can't find an example and can't get how to send 2 closures into func in Swift.
For example, original function in Objective-C:
- (void)getForDemoDataWithToken:(Token *)token
onSuccess:(void(^)(NSArray *demoData))success
onFailure:(void(^)(NSError *error))failure {
}
I know to send 1 closure as param:
getForDemoDataWithToken(token) {(success: String) -> Void in
// some code here
print(success)
}
But, how to send two closures?
Thank you

What about this?
Declaration
func getForDemoDataWithToken(
token: Token,
onSuccess: (demoData:NSArray?) -> (),
onFailure: (error:NSError?) -> ()) {
}
Invocation
getForDemoDataWithToken(Token(),
onSuccess: { (demoData) -> () in
},
onFailure: { (demoData) -> () in
}
)
A more Swifty approach
I usually see Swift code where only one closure is used. So instead of 2 distinct onSuccess and onFailure closures you could have just completion.
Next we should remember that NSArray is compatible with Swift but it's not the Swiftest way to use an array.
Let's see an example where the 2 concepts above are applied.
func getForDemoData(token:Token, completion:(data:[Foo]?, error:NSError?) -> ()) {
}
You can invoke it with the trailing closure syntax.
getForDemoData(Token()) { (data, error) -> () in
if let data = data where error == nil {
// success!
} else {
// oh no... something wrong here
}
}

You should pass the closures as normal parameters, like this:
func acceptsTwoClosures(
onSuccess onSuccess: (success: String) -> Void,
onFailure: (failure: String) -> Void) {
onSuccess(success: "Ook")
onFailure(failure: "Eek")
}
acceptsTwoClosures(
onSuccess: { print("Success: \($0)") },
onFailure: { print("Failure: \($0)") }
)
// In the playground the above prints:
//
// Success: Ook
// Failure: Eek
The way that you used in the question is called trailing closure, and it only works for the closures that are the last arguments in the function signature.
From the documentation:
If you need to pass a closure expression to a function as the function’s final argument and the closure expression is long, it can be useful to write it as a trailing closure instead. A trailing closure is a closure expression that is written outside of (and after) the parentheses of the function call it supports.
For example, you could also re-write my suggested snippet from above like this:
acceptsTwoClosures(onSuccess: { print("Success: \($0)") }) {
print("Failure: \($0)")
}
.. as you can see, I can pass the second (i.e. the last) closure outside of acceptsTwoClosures call as a trailing closure, but I still have to pass the first one as a normal parameter.

Related

Closures vs returning an value/object from a function

I'm currently learning Swift(4)/iOS programming. I'm fairly new to OOP, but do have experience in Functional programming. There's one concept that confuses me somewhat...
In the courses/examples I followed a function mostly looks like this:
func getUsername(forUid uid: String, handler: #escaping (_ username: String) -> Void) {
//Do stuff
handler("MyName")
}
The name is passed by the closure, I hardly ever see a function like this:
func getUsername(forUid uid: String) -> String) {
//Do stuff
return "MyName"
}
Is the second way deprecated, or is there still a use for such a function. When and why do we use the first variant ?
We use the first variant for asynchronous programming. For example, see
func getUsername(forUid uid: String, handler: #escaping (_ username: String) -> Void) {
DispatchQueue.main.async {
// do some asynchronous stuff
handler("MyName")
}
}
Note handler has to be inside the async closure or else the handler will be called immediately because async does not block. Now if we used return instead of handler, there will be a compile error because your function doesn't return any value, so to fix the compile error it has to be in the function level (not in the async block). If it's not in the async block, it will be returned immediately (same as the second handler case above, so you must use closures if you are doing asynchronous tasks. However, if you are not using asynchronous stuff, you can safely use the second variant in your code.
In addition to asynchronous programming, closures are used in synchronous programming too, for example, the map function uses a closure as a parameter to define how should the object be mapped.
Of course it's not deprecated.
You should use closures for async tasks otherwise return value.
It is easier to get it with an example. Here's I get some places from an API:
func getPlaces(onSuccess: #escaping(_ places: [Place]?) -> Void, onFailure: #escaping(Error, _ title: String?, _ message: String?) -> Void) {
//perform API request...
//[...]
//...
// Session
session.dataTask(with: requestURL) { (data, response, error) in
guard error == nil else {
//handling Error
onFailure(error!, "Error", error?.localizedDescription)
group.leave()
return
}
//...
//handling succes
else {
var places: [Place] = []
places = responseJson.places!
onSuccess(places)
}
group.leave()
}.resume()
}
group.wait()
return
}
As you can see I want to handle success and error. Here's how I use it:
APIManager.shared.getPlaces(onSuccess: { (places) in
//handling success
}
}) { (error, title, message) in
DispatchQueue.main.async {
self.present(getAlertFromError(title: title, message: message), animated: true)
}
}

Swift optional escaping closure

Compiler error Closure use of non-escaping parameter 'completion' may allow it to escape, Which make sense because it will be called after the function return.
func sync(completion:(()->())) {
self.remoteConfig.fetch(withExpirationDuration: TimeInterval(expirationDuration)) { (status, error) -> Void in
completion()
}
}
But if I make closure optional then no compiler error, Why is that? closure can still be called after the function returns.
func sync(completion:(()->())?) {
self.remoteConfig.fetch(withExpirationDuration: TimeInterval(expirationDuration)) { (status, error) -> Void in
completion?()
}
}
Wrapping a closure in an Optional automatically marks it escaping. It's technically already "escaped" by being embedded into an enum (the Optional).
Clarification:
For understanding the case, implementing the following code would be useful:
typealias completion = () -> ()
enum CompletionHandler {
case success
case failure
static var handler: completion {
get { return { } }
set { }
}
}
func doSomething(handlerParameter: completion) {
let chObject = CompletionHandler.handler = handlerParameter
}
At the first look, this code seems to be legal, but it's not! you would get compile-time error complaining:
error: assigning non-escaping
parameter 'handlerParameter' to an #escaping closure
let chObject = CompletionHandler.handler = handlerParameter
with a note that:
note: parameter 'handlerParameter' is implicitly non-escaping func
doSomething(handlerParameter: completion) {
Why is that? the assumption is that the code snippet has nothing to do with the #escaping...
Actually, since Swift 3 has been released, the closure will be "escaped" if it's declared in enum, struct or class by default.
As a reference, there are bugs reported related to this issue:
Optional closure type is always considered #escaping.
#escaping failing on optional blocks.
Although they might not 100% related to this case, the assignee comments are clearly describe the case:
First comment:
The actual issue here is that optional closures are implicitly
#escaping right now.
Second comment:
That is unfortunately the case for Swift 3. Here are the semantics for
escaping in Swift 3:
1) Closures in function parameter position are
non-escaping by default
2) All other closures are escaping
Thus, all generic type argument closures, such as Array and Optional, are escaping.
Obviously, Optional is enum.
Also -as mentioned above-, the same behavior would be applicable for the classes and structs:
Class Case:
typealias completion = () -> ()
class CompletionHandler {
var handler: () -> ()
init(handler: () -> ()) {
self.handler = handler
}
}
func doSomething(handlerParameter: completion) {
let chObject = CompletionHandler(handler: handlerParameter)
}
Struct Case:
typealias completion = () -> ()
struct CompletionHandler {
var handler: completion
}
func doSomething(handlerParameter: completion) {
let chObject = CompletionHandler(handler: handlerParameter)
}
The two above code snippets would leads to the same output (compile-time error).
For fixing the case, you would need to let the function signature to be:
func doSomething( handlerParameter: #escaping completion)
Back to the Main Question:
Since you are expecting that you have to let the completion:(()->())? to be escaped, that would automatically done -as described above-.

Swift closures - force a closure to always complete

Is it possible to force a closure to be completed? In the same way that a function with a return value MUST always return, it would be ace if there was a way to force a closure to contain the syntax necessary to always complete.
For example, this code will not compile because the function does not always return a value:
func isTheEarthFlat(withUserIQ userIQ: Int) -> Bool {
if userIQ > 10 {
return false
}
}
In the exact same way, I would like to define a function with a closure, which will also not compile if the closure never returns. For example, the code below might never return a completionHandler:
func isTheEarthFlat(withUserIQ userIQ: Int, completionHandler: (Bool) -> Void) {
if userIQ > 10 {
completionHandler(false)
}
}
The code above compiles, but I was wondering if there is a keyword which enforces that the closure sends a completion handler in all cases. Maybe it has something to do with the Void in the above function?
No, there is no language construct that will result in a compiler error if you forget (or don't need) to call the completion handler under all possible conditions like a return statement.
It's an interesting idea that might make a useful enhancement to the language. Maybe as a required keyword somewhere in the parameter declaration.
There is no special keyword for what you want. But there is an interesting approach you can take into consideration, that won't compile:
func isTheEarthFlat(withUserIQ userIQ: Int, completionHandler: (Bool) -> Void) {
let result: Bool
defer {
completionHandler(result)
}
if userIQ > 10 {
result = false
}
}
that will do and is completionHandler is forced to be called:
func isTheEarthFlat(withUserIQ userIQ: Int, completionHandler: (Bool) -> Void) {
let result: Bool
defer {
completionHandler(result)
}
if userIQ > 10 {
result = false
} else {
result = true
}
}
Not sure it's a good pattern to use.
Here is an interesting technique I thought of. You define GuarenteedExecution and GuarenteedExecutionResult types.
A GuarenteedExecution is a wrapper around a closure, which is to be used in a context where the execution of the closure must be guaranteed.
The GuarenteedExecutionResult is the result of executing a GuarenteedExecution. The trick is to have a desired function, e.g. isTheEarthFlat, return a GuarenteedExecutionResult. The only way to obtain a GuarenteedExecutionResult instance is by calling execute(argument:) on a GuarenteedExecution. Effectively, the type checker features responsible for guaranteeing a return, are now being used to guarantee the execution of GuarenteedExecution.
struct GuarenteedExecutionResult<R> {
let result: R
fileprivate init(result: R) { self.result = result }
}
struct GuarenteedExecution<A, R> {
typealias Closure = (A) -> R
let closure: Closure
init(ofClosure closure: #escaping Closure) {
self.closure = closure
}
func execute(argument: A) -> GuarenteedExecutionResult<R> {
let result = closure(argument)
return GuarenteedExecutionResult(result: result)
}
}
Example usage, in a seperate file (so as to not have access to GuarenteedExecutionResult.init):
let guarenteedExecutionClosure = GuarenteedExecution(ofClosure: {
print("This must be called!")
})
func doSomething(guarenteedCallback: GuarenteedExecution<(), ()>)
-> GuarenteedExecutionResult<()> {
print("Did something")
return guarenteedCallback.execute(argument: ())
}
_ = doSomething(guarenteedCallback: guarenteedExecutionClosure)

Trouble with non-escaping closures in Swift 3

I have an extension Array in the form of:
extension Array
{
private func someFunction(someClosure: (() -> Int)?)
{
// Do Something
}
func someOtherFunction(someOtherClosure: () -> Int)
{
someFunction(someClosure: someOtherClosure)
}
}
But I'm getting the error: Passing non-escaping parameter 'someOtherClosure' to function expecting an #escaping closure.
Both closures are indeed non-escaping (by default), and explicitly adding #noescape to someFunction yields a warning indicating that this is the default in Swift 3.1.
Any idea why I'm getting this error?
-- UPDATE --
Screenshot attached:
Optional closures are always escaping.
Why is that? That's because the optional (which is an enum) wraps the closure and internally saves it.
There is an excellent article about the quirks of #escaping here.
As already said, Optional closures are escaping. An addition though:
Swift 3.1 has a withoutActuallyEscaping helper function that can be useful here. It marks a closure escaping only for its use inside a passed closure, so that you don't have to expose the escaping attribute to the function signature.
Can be used like this:
extension Array {
private func someFunction(someClosure: (() -> Int)?) {
someClosure?()
}
func someOtherFunction(someOtherClosure: () -> Int) {
withoutActuallyEscaping(someOtherClosure) {
someFunction(someClosure: $0)
}
}
}
let x = [1, 2, 3]
x.someOtherFunction(someOtherClosure: { return 1 })
Hope this is helpful!
The problem is that optionals (in this case (()-> Int)?) are an Enum which capture their value. If that value is a function, it must be used with #escaping because it is indeed captured by the optional.
In your case it gets tricky because the closure captured by the optional automatically captures another closure. So someOtherClosure has to be marked #escaping as well.
You can test the following code in a playground to confirm this:
extension Array
{
private func someFunction(someClosure: () -> Int)
{
// Do Something
}
func someOtherFunction(someOtherClosure: () -> Int)
{
someFunction(someClosure: someOtherClosure)
}
}
let f: ()->Int = { return 42 }
[].someOtherFunction(someOtherClosure: f)

Pass optional block or closure to a function in Swift

What is the correct syntax to pass an optional block to a function in Swift?
Although not as hard to remember as the Objective-C block syntax, it's far from obvious. The notConnected parameter is optional in this example:
func whenConnected(block: Void -> Void, notConnected: ((Void) -> Void)?, showErrorMessage: Bool) -> Void {
let connected = Reachability.isConnectedToNetwork()
if connected {
block()
} else {
notConnected?()
}
if showErrorMessage {
// your error handling //
}
}
I found the example of it (see link below) and modified it to use typealias in my project.
Swift 3:
import Foundation
typealias CompletionBlock = (NSError?) -> Void
var completionBlock: CompletionBlock?
// a function declaration w/ optional closure param and default value
func doSomething(completion: CompletionBlock? = nil) {
// assign to the property, to call back out of this function's scope
completionBlock = completion
// ...
// optional closure callback
completionBlock?(nil)
// ...
}
func doSomethingElse() {
// 1. pass optional (nil) closure to a function
doSomething()
// 2. pass optional (non-nil) closure to a function
doSomething(completion: { (error) -> Void in
print("error: \(error)")
})
}
Source: Optional trailing closures in Swift
NOTE: Because the completion is declared as an optional closure, it always escapes. More on that: Optional Non-Escaping Closures
typealias ServiceResponse = (AnyObject? , String?) -> Void
func request(onCompletion: #escaping ServiceResponse){
stuff you need to write
}