I have this class named Meal
class Meal {
var name : String = ""
var cnt : Int = 0
var price : String = ""
var img : String = ""
var id : String = ""
init(name:String , cnt : Int, price : String, img : String, id : String) {
self.name = name
self.cnt = cnt
self.price = price
self.img = img
self.id = id
}
}
and I have an array of Meal :
var ordered = [Meal]()
I want to duplicate that array and then do some changes to the Meal instances in one of them without changing the Meal instances in the second one, how would I make a deep copy of it?
This search result didn't help me
How do I make a exact duplicate copy of an array?
Since ordered is a swift array, the statement
var orderedCopy = ordered
will effectively make a copy of the original array.
However, since Meal is a class, the new array will contain references
to the same meals referred in the original one.
If you want to copy the meals content too, so that changing a meal in one array will not change a meal in the other array, then you must define Meal as a struct, not as a class:
struct Meal {
...
From the Apple book:
Use struct to create a structure. Structures support many of the same behaviors as classes, including methods and initializers. One of the most important differences between structures and classes is that structures are always copied when they are passed around in your code, but classes are passed by reference.
To improve on #Kametrixom answer check this:
For normal objects what can be done is to implement a protocol that supports copying, and make the object class implements this protocol like this:
protocol Copying {
init(original: Self)
}
extension Copying {
func copy() -> Self {
return Self.init(original: self)
}
}
And then the Array extension for cloning:
extension Array where Element: Copying {
func clone() -> Array {
var copiedArray = Array<Element>()
for element in self {
copiedArray.append(element.copy())
}
return copiedArray
}
}
and that is pretty much it, to view code and a sample check this gist
You either have to, as #MarioZannone mentioned, make it a struct, because structs get copied automatically, or you may not want a struct and need a class. For this you have to define how to copy your class. There is the NSCopying protocol which unifies that on the ObjC world, but that makes your Swift code "unpure" in that you have to inherit from NSObject. I suggest however to define your own copying protocol like this:
protocol Copying {
init(original: Self)
}
extension Copying {
func copy() -> Self {
return Self.init(original: self)
}
}
which you can implement like this:
class Test : Copying {
var x : Int
init() {
x = 0
}
// required initializer for the Copying protocol
required init(original: Test) {
x = original.x
}
}
Within the initializer you have to copy all the state from the passed original Test on to self. Now that you implemented the protocol correctly, you can do something like this:
let original = Test()
let stillOriginal = original
let copyOriginal = original.copy()
original.x = 10
original.x // 10
stillOriginal.x // 10
copyOriginal.x // 0
This is basically the same as NSCopying just without ObjC
EDIT: Sadly this yet so beautiful protocol works very poorly with subclassing...
A simple and quick way is to map the original array into the new copy:
let copyOfPersons: [Person] = allPersons.map({(originalPerson) -> Person in
let newPerson = Person(name: originalPerson.name, age: originalPerson.age)
return newPerson
})
The new Persons will have different pointers but same values.
Based on previous answer here
If you have nested objects, i.e. subclasses to a class then what you want is True Deep Copy.
//Example
var dogsForAdoption: Array<Dog>
class Dog{
var breed: String
var owner: Person
}
So this means implementing NSCopying in every class(Dog, Person etc).
Would you do that for say 20 of your classes? what about 30..50..100? You get it right? We need native "it just works!" way. But nope we don't have one. Yet.
As of now, Feb 2021, there is no proper solution of this issue. We have many workarounds though.
Here is the one I have been using, and one with less limitations in my opinion.
Make your class conforms to codable
class Dog: Codable{
var breed : String = "JustAnyDog"
var owner: Person
}
Create this helper class
class DeepCopier {
//Used to expose generic
static func Copy<T:Codable>(of object:T) -> T?{
do{
let json = try JSONEncoder().encode(object)
return try JSONDecoder().decode(T.self, from: json)
}
catch let error{
print(error)
return nil
}
}
}
Call this method whenever you need true deep copy of your object, like this:
//Now suppose
let dog = Dog()
guard let clonedDog = DeepCopier.Copy(of: dog) else{
print("Could not detach Dog")
return
}
//Change/mutate object properties as you want
clonedDog.breed = "rottweiler"
//Also clonedDog.owner != dog.owner, as both the owner : Person have dfferent memory allocations
As you can see we are piggy backing on Swift's JSONEncoder and JSONDecoder, using power of Codable, making true deep copy no matter how many nested objects are there under our object. Just make sure all your Classes conform to Codable.
Though its NOT an ideal solution, but its one of the most effective workaround.
Related
I would like to make my class in Swift iterable.
My goal is to be able to create a class called Contact that holds properties such as the givenName, familyName, and middleName, like iOS CNContact. I would like to be able to have a class function that compares two instances of the class Contact, and finds which property the two contact objects have that match, so that say if both contacts have the same value for the givenName property, then the class function returns the result.
Here is a sample code:
class Contact {
static func compare(left: Contact, right: Contact) {
for property in left.properties {
if property == right.property {
// match is found
}
}
}
var givenName: String = ""
var familyName: String = ""
var middleName: String = ""
private var properties = [givenName, familyName, middleName]
}
let left = Contact()
let right = Contact()
Contact.compare(left: left, right: right)
I found posts that used mirroring and reflection, but I want to use Sequence and IteratorProtocol. I suspect there is already the ability to do exactly what I want to do. It seems to be a logical need that would arise.
What is the way to do this that has a balance between simplicity and the ability to address common needs to iterate through the instance properties of a class. An enumeration can be declared with given has values. Is there a way to make that work for this purpose? Is there a protocol that a class can use that assigns a hash value or other identifiable value that would allow for a sequential order to iterate through the properties of a class?
I was able to find posts and documentation that allowed me to get as far as the following code in playground that generated the following in debug window:
struct Name: Sequence {
typealias Iterator = NameIterator
typealias Element = Name
typealias Name = String
var name = "<name>"
func makeIterator() -> NameIterator {
return NameIterator()
}
}
struct NameIterator: IteratorProtocol {
typealias Iterator = String
typealias Element = Name
typealias Name = String
mutating func next() -> Name? {
let nextName = Name()
return nextName
}
}
let nameStrings = ["Debbie", "Harper", "Indivan", "Juniella"]
for nameString in nameStrings {
print(nameString)
}
Debbie
Harper
Indivan
Juniella
If you really don't want to use mirror, a straightforward way is to cycle through a list of key paths. This is particularly easy in your case because the properties are all strings:
class Contact {
static let properties = [\Contact.givenName, \Contact.familyName, \Contact.middleName]
static func compare(left: Contact, right: Contact) {
for property in properties {
if left[keyPath: property] == right[keyPath: property] {
print("got a match"); return
}
}
print("no match")
}
var givenName: String = ""
var familyName: String = ""
var middleName: String = ""
}
I think there's some confusion going on here.
The Sequence protocol and friends (IteratorProtocol, Collection, etc.) exist for you to be able to define custom sequences/collections that can leverage the existing collection algorithms (e.g. if you conform to Sequence, your type gets map "for free"). It has absolutely nothing to do with accessing object properties. If you want to do that, the only official reflection API in Swift is Mirror.
It's possible to...
...just Mirror, to create a standard collection (e.g. Array) of properties of an object
...just Sequence/Collection, to create a custom collection object that lists the property values of an object from hard-coded keypaths
...or you can use both, together, to create a custom collection object that uses Mirror to automatically list the properties of an object and their values
I'm using structs instead of classes to store data in my iOS app because of the obvious advantage of value vs reference types. However, I'm trying to figure out how to architect groups of similar content. User posts may consist of images, text, and/or titles. If I were using classes the approach I would use is having a common Post superclass with different subclasses representing different types of posts. That way I could pass Post data around and cast as needed. However, structs don't allow for inheritance, so how could I architect something similar?
In Swift with struct you can create protocol for common task and also implement default implementation using protocol extension.
protocol Vehicle {
var model: String { get set }
var color: String { get set }
}
//Common Implementation using protocol extension
extension Vehicle {
static func parseVehicleFields(jsonDict: [String:Any]) -> (String, String) {
let model = jsonDict["model"] as! String
let color = jsonDict["color"] as! String
return (model, color)
}
}
struct Car : Vehicle {
var model:String
var color:String
let horsepower: Double
let license_plate: String
init(jsonDict: [String:Any]) {
(model, color) = Car.parseVehicleFields(jsonDict: jsonDict)
horsepower = jsonDict["horsepower"] as! Double
license_plate = jsonDict["license_plate"] as! String
}
}
struct Bicycle : Vehicle {
var model:String
var color:String
let chainrings: Int
let sprockets: Int
init(jsonDict: [String:Any]) {
(model, color) = Bicycle.parseVehicleFields(jsonDict: jsonDict)
chainrings = jsonDict["chainrings"] as! Int
sprockets = jsonDict["sprockets"] as! Int
}
}
There is a detailed answer at following Gist, with all possible approaches. I do not like any of them as I am fan of Classes. But structs are future of Swift, you have to understand, adopt and like :( it .
Link: https://gist.github.com/AliSoftware/9e4946c8b6038572d678
I'm struggling to understand class/reference type behavior and how this relates to changes as I try to upgrade and reduce code using Codable in Swift 4.
I have two classes – a SuperClass with all of the data that will be persistent and that I save to UserDefaults (a place name & string with coordinates), and a SubClass that contains additional, temporary info that I don't need (weather data for the SuperClass coordinates).
In Swift 3 I used to save data like this:
func saveUserDefaults() {
var superClassArray = [SuperClass]()
// subClassArray is of type [SubClass] and contains more data per element.
superClassArray = subClassArray
let superClassData = NSKeyedArchiver.archivedData(withRootObject: superClassArray)
UserDefaults.standard.set(superClassData, forKey: " superClassData")
}
SuperClass conformed to NSObject & NSCoding
It also included the required init decoder & the encode function.
It all worked fine.
In trying to switch to Swift 4 & codable I've modified SuperClass to conform to Codable.
SuperClass now only has one basic initializer and none of the encoder/decoder stuff from Swift 3. There is no KeyedArchiving happening with this new approach (below). SubClass remains unchanged. Unfortunately I crash on the line where I try? encoder.encode [giving a Thread 1: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (code=1, address=0x10)]. My assumption is that the encoder is getting confused with identical reference types where one is SuperClass and one SubClass (subClassArray[0] === superClassArray[0] is true).
I thought this might work:
func saveUserDefaults() {
var superClassArray = [SuperClass]()
superClassArray = subClassArray
// assumption was that the subclass would only contain parts of the superclass & wouldn't produce an error when being encoded
let encoder = JSONEncoder()
if let encoded = try? encoder.encode(superClassArray){
UserDefaults.standard.set(encoded, forKey: " superClassArray ")
} else {
print("Save didn't work!")
}
}
Then, instead of creating an empty superClassArray, then using:
superClassArray = subClassArray, as shown above, I replace this with the single line:
let superClassArray: [SuperClass] = subClassArray.map{SuperClass(name: $0.name, coordinates: $0.coordinates)}
This works. Again, assumption is because I'm passing in the values inside of the class reference type & haven't made the superClassArray = subClassArray. Also, as expected, subClassArray[0] === superClassArray[0] is false
So why did the "old stuff" in Swift 3 work, even though I used the line superClassArray = subClassArray before the let superClassData = NSKeyedArchiver.archivedData(withRootObject: superClassArray)
? Am I essentially achieving the same result by creating the array in Swift 4 that was happening with the old Swift 3 encoder/decoder? Is the looping / recreation
Thanks!
Polymorphic persistence appears to be broken by design.
The bug report SR-5331 quotes the response they got on their Radar.
Unlike the existing NSCoding API (NSKeyedArchiver), the new Swift 4 Codable implementations do not write out type information about encoded types into generated archives, for both flexibility and security. As such, at decode time, the API can only use the concrete type your provide in order to decode the values (in your case, the superclass type).
This is by design — if you need the dynamism required to do this, we recommend that you adopt NSSecureCoding and use NSKeyedArchiver/NSKeyedUnarchiver
I am unimpressed, having thought from all the glowing articles that Codable was the answer to some of my prayers. A parallel set of Codable structs that act as object factories is one workaround I'm considering, to preserve type information.
Update I have written a sample using a single struct that manages recreating polymorphic classes. Available on GitHub.
I was not able to get it to work easily with subclassing. However, classes that conform to a base protocol can apply Codable for default encoding. The repo contains both keyed and unkeyed approaches. The simpler is unkeyed, copied below
// Demo of a polymorphic hierarchy of different classes implementing a protocol
// and still being Codable
// This variant uses unkeyed containers so less data is pushed into the encoded form.
import Foundation
protocol BaseBeast {
func move() -> String
func type() -> Int
var name: String { get }
}
class DumbBeast : BaseBeast, Codable {
static let polyType = 0
func type() -> Int { return DumbBeast.polyType }
var name:String
init(name:String) { self.name = name }
func move() -> String { return "\(name) Sits there looking stupid" }
}
class Flyer : BaseBeast, Codable {
static let polyType = 1
func type() -> Int { return Flyer.polyType }
var name:String
let maxAltitude:Int
init(name:String, maxAltitude:Int) {
self.maxAltitude = maxAltitude
self.name = name
}
func move() -> String { return "\(name) Flies up to \(maxAltitude)"}
}
class Walker : BaseBeast, Codable {
static let polyType = 2
func type() -> Int { return Walker.polyType }
var name:String
let numLegs: Int
let hasTail: Bool
init(name:String, legs:Int=4, hasTail:Bool=true) {
self.numLegs = legs
self.hasTail = hasTail
self.name = name
}
func move() -> String {
if numLegs == 0 {
return "\(name) Wriggles on its belly"
}
let maybeWaggle = hasTail ? "wagging its tail" : ""
return "\(name) Runs on \(numLegs) legs \(maybeWaggle)"
}
}
// Uses an explicit index we decode first, to select factory function used to decode polymorphic type
// This is in contrast to the current "traditional" method where decoding is attempted and fails for each type
// This pattern of "leading type code" can be used in more general encoding situations, not just with Codable
//: **WARNING** there is one vulnerable practice here - we rely on the BaseBeast types having a typeCode which
//: is a valid index into the arrays `encoders` and `factories`
struct CodableRef : Codable {
let refTo:BaseBeast //In C++ would use an operator to transparently cast CodableRef to BaseBeast
typealias EncContainer = UnkeyedEncodingContainer
typealias DecContainer = UnkeyedDecodingContainer
typealias BeastEnc = (inout EncContainer, BaseBeast) throws -> ()
typealias BeastDec = (inout DecContainer) throws -> BaseBeast
static var encoders:[BeastEnc] = [
{(e, b) in try e.encode(b as! DumbBeast)},
{(e, b) in try e.encode(b as! Flyer)},
{(e, b) in try e.encode(b as! Walker)}
]
static var factories:[BeastDec] = [
{(d) in try d.decode(DumbBeast.self)},
{(d) in try d.decode(Flyer.self)},
{(d) in try d.decode(Walker.self)}
]
init(refTo:BaseBeast) {
self.refTo = refTo
}
init(from decoder: Decoder) throws {
var container = try decoder.unkeyedContainer()
let typeCode = try container.decode(Int.self)
self.refTo = try CodableRef.factories[typeCode](&container)
}
func encode(to encoder: Encoder) throws {
var container = encoder.unkeyedContainer()
let typeCode = self.refTo.type()
try container.encode(typeCode)
try CodableRef.encoders[typeCode](&container, refTo)
}
}
struct Zoo : Codable {
var creatures = [CodableRef]()
init(creatures:[BaseBeast]) {
self.creatures = creatures.map {CodableRef(refTo:$0)}
}
func dump() {
creatures.forEach { print($0.refTo.move()) }
}
}
//: ---- Demo of encoding and decoding working ----
let startZoo = Zoo(creatures: [
DumbBeast(name:"Rock"),
Flyer(name:"Kookaburra", maxAltitude:5000),
Walker(name:"Snake", legs:0),
Walker(name:"Doggie", legs:4),
Walker(name:"Geek", legs:2, hasTail:false)
])
startZoo.dump()
print("---------\ntesting JSON\n")
let encoder = JSONEncoder()
encoder.outputFormatting = .prettyPrinted
let encData = try encoder.encode(startZoo)
print(String(data:encData, encoding:.utf8)!)
let decodedZoo = try JSONDecoder().decode(Zoo.self, from: encData)
print ("\n------------\nAfter decoding")
decodedZoo.dump()
Update 2020-04 experience
This approach continues to be more flexible and superior to using Codable, at the cost of a bit more programmer time. It is used very heavily in the Touchgram app which provides rich, interactive documents inside iMessage.
There, I need to encode multiple polymorphic hierarchies, including different Sensors and Actions. By storing signatures of decoders, it not only provides with subclassing but also allows me to keep older decoders in the code base so old messages are still compatible.
I am using struct in swift.
class Constants {
struct const {
static let signupFirstName = "signupFirstName"
}
}
I want to iterate the struct. For iterating I am using :
let mirrored_object = Mirror(reflecting: Constants.const())
for (index, attr) in mirrored_object.children.enumerate() {
if let property_name = attr.label as String! {
print("Attr \(index): \(property_name) = \(attr.value)")
}
}
But it does not enter into the code because of static value. Is there any way to iterate this struct?
Since static members are technically part of the type and not the instance, you would need to approach it this way to reflect on the type itself:
let mirrored_object = Mirror(reflecting: Constants.const.self)
However, Swift's automatic reflection for types themselves doesn't appear to be implemented at this time, so even the above line won't work.
That leaves one last option, which is defining your own custom mirror for reflecting on an instance of your type. That could look something like this:
class Constants {
struct const : CustomReflectable {
static let signupFirstName = "signupFirstName"
func customMirror() -> Mirror {
return Mirror(self, children: ["signupFirstName" : const.signupFirstName])
}
}
}
If you modify your code with a CustomReflectable implementation similar to the above, your loop to iterate through the struct members will now work.
Swift reflection will eventually get better out of the box, you might want to try a different approach until then.
You can do it directly by accessing the variable at class level
if let property_value = const.signupFirstName as String! {
print("hello \(property_value)")
}
Be sure to access it from the class it self const not an instance const(). Because the variable is static you can not access it from instance, you have to directly use the class
I have a Realm Object which has several relationships, anyone has a good code snippet that generalizes a copy method, to create a duplicate in the database.
In my case i just wanted to create an object and not persist it. so segiddins's solution didn't work for me.
Swift 3
To create a clone of user object in swift just use
let newUser = User(value: oldUser);
The new user object is not persisted.
You can use the following to create a shallow copy of your object, as long as it does not have a primary key:
realm.create(ObjectType.self, withValue: existingObject)
As of now, Dec 2020, there is no proper solution for this issue. We have many workarounds though.
Here is the one I have been using, and one with less limitations in my opinion.
Make your Realm Model Object classes conform to codable
class Dog: Object, Codable{
#objc dynamic var breed:String = "JustAnyDog"
}
Create this helper class
class RealmHelper {
//Used to expose generic
static func DetachedCopy<T:Codable>(of object:T) -> T?{
do{
let json = try JSONEncoder().encode(object)
return try JSONDecoder().decode(T.self, from: json)
}
catch let error{
print(error)
return nil
}
}
}
Call this method whenever you need detached / true deep copy of your Realm Object, like this:
//Suppose your Realm managed object: let dog:Dog = RealmDBService.shared.getFirstDog()
guard let detachedDog = RealmHelper.DetachedCopy(of: dog) else{
print("Could not detach Dog")
return
}
//Change/mutate object properties as you want
detachedDog.breed = "rottweiler"
As you can see we are piggy backing on Swift's JSONEncoder and JSONDecoder, using power of Codable, making true deep copy no matter how many nested objects are there under our realm object. Just make sure all your Realm Model Classes conform to Codable.
Though its NOT an ideal solution, but its one of the most effective workaround.
I had a similar issue and found a simple workaround to get a copy of a realm object. Basically you just need to make the object conform to the NSCopying protocol, something like:
import RealmSwift
import Realm
import ObjectMapper
class Original: Object, NSCopying{
dynamic var originalId = 0
dynamic var firstName = ""
dynamic var lastName = ""
override static func primaryKey() -> String? {
return "originalId"
}
init(originalId: Int, firstName: String, lastName: String){
super.init()
self.originalId = originalId
self.firstName = firstName
self.lastName = lastName
}
func copy(with zone: NSZone? = nil) -> Any {
let copy = Original(originalId: originalId, firstName: firstName, lastName: lastName)
return copy
}
}
then you just call the "copy()" method on the object:
class ViewController: UIViewController {
var original = Original()
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
var myCopy = original.copy()
}
}
The nice thing about having a copy is that I can modify it without having to be in a realm write transaction. Useful when users are editing some data but didn't hit save yet or simply changed their mind.
Since this problem is still alive I post my solution which works but still needs to be improved.
I've created an extension of Object class that has this method duplicate that takes an object objOut and fills the flat properties by looking at self. When a non-flat property is found (aka a nested object) that one is skipped.
// Duplicate object with its flat properties
func duplicate(objOut: Object) -> Object {
// Mirror object type
let objectType: Mirror = Mirror(reflecting: self);
// Iterate on object properties
for child in objectType.children {
// Get label
let label = child.label!
// Handler for flat properties, skip complex objects
switch String(describing: type(of: child.value)) {
case "Double", "Int", "Int64", "String":
objOut.setValue(self.value(forKey: label)!, forKey: label)
break
default:
break
}
}
return objOut
}
Inside the Manager class for my Realms I have the method copyFromRealm() that I use to create my copies of objects.
To give you a practical example this is the structure of my Appointment class:
Appointment object
- flat properties
- one UpdateInfo object
- flat properties
- one AddressLocation object
- flat properties
- one Address object
- flat properties
- one Coordinates object
- flat properies
- a list of ExtraInfo
- each ExtraInfo object
- flat properties
This is how I've implemented the copyFromRealm() method:
// Creates copy out of realm
func copyFromRealm() -> Appointment {
// Duplicate base object properties
let cpAppointment = self.duplicate(objOut: Appointment()) as! Appointment
// Duplicate UIU object
cpAppointment.uiu = self.uiu?.duplicate(objOut: UpdateInfo()) as? UpdateInfo
// Duplicate AddressLocation object
let cpAddress = self.addressLocation?.address?.duplicate(objOut: Address()) as? Address
let cpCoordinates = self.addressLocation?.coordinates?.duplicate(objOut: Coordinates()) as? Coordinates
cpAppointment.addressLocation = self.addressLocation?.duplicate(objOut: AddressLocation()) as? AddressLocation
cpAppointment.addressLocation?.address = cpAddress
cpAppointment.addressLocation?.coordinates = cpCoordinates
// Duplicate each ExtraInfo
for other in self.others {
cpAppointment.others.append(other.duplicate(objOut: ExtraInfo()) as! ExtraInfo)
}
return cpAppointment
}
I wasn't able to find out a good and reasonable way to work with nested objects inside my duplicate() method. I thought of recursion but code complexity raised too much.
This is not optimal but works, if I'll find a way to manage also nested object I'll update this answer.
Swift 5+
Creates a Realm managed copy of an existing Realm managed object with ID
extension RLMObject {
func createManagedCopy(withID newID: String) -> RLMObject? {
let realmClass = type(of: self)
guard let realm = self.realm, let primaryKey = realmClass.primaryKey() else {
return nil
}
let shallowCopy = realmClass.init(value: self)
shallowCopy.setValue(newID, forKey: primaryKey)
do {
realm.beginWriteTransaction()
realm.add(shallowCopy)
try realm.commitWriteTransaction()
} catch {
return nil
}
return shallowCopy
}
}