I ran into what I think is a strange error in may app. At the bottom of this question is complete code the reproduces what I am seeing in my app, but here is a quick demonstration.
I create two instances of the same class, one is declared as an optional conforming to a protocol the other as an optional of a concrete class
For both I can set the computed property via option chaining ie:
anOptionalInstance?.someComputedProperty = ....
for the concrete version I can set the property by unwrapping the optional
if let anInstance = anOptionalInstance {
anInstance.someComputedProperty = ....
}
For the polymorphic version, I get an error message that says I can't set the property on the instance.
Below is a complete file that reproduces the issue I am seeing.
Can anyone explain what is happening here?
struct MyStruct {
var someMember: String
}
protocol MyProtocol {
var myVar: MyStruct { get set }
}
class MyType: MyProtocol {
var myVar: MyStruct {
get {
return MyStruct(someMember: "some string")
}
set {
println(newValue)
}
}
}
class UsingClass {
var anInstanceOfMyType: MyProtocol?
var anOtherInstanceOfMyType: MyType?
func someMethod() {
anInstanceOfMyType = MyType()
anInstanceOfMyType?.myVar = MyStruct(someMember: "blah")
if let anInstanceOfMyType = anInstanceOfMyType {
// The following line produces this error :Cannot assign to 'myVar' in 'anInstanceOfMyType'
anInstanceOfMyType.myVar = MyStruct(someMember: "blah blah")
}
anOtherInstanceOfMyType = MyType()
anOtherInstanceOfMyType?.myVar = MyStruct(someMember: "blah")
if let anOtherInstanceOfMyType = anOtherInstanceOfMyType {
anOtherInstanceOfMyType.myVar = MyStruct(someMember: "blah blah")
}
}
}
The problem does happen because you are trying to change the property of the constant anInstanceOfMyType which type is MyProtocol.
1. Why anInstanceOfMyType is a constant?
At the first line of UsingClass, anInstanceOfMyType is actually declared as var. However with the Conditional Unwrapping a constant with name anInstanceOfMyType is created, and you are trying to change a property of that constant
2. Ok but anInstanceOfMyType references an instance of a class, so I should be able to change its properties even if it's a constant
Since anInstanceOfMyType has MyProtocol as type, it could contain a struct or a reference an instance of a class.
So the compiler does apply the safer approach and avoid you to change its properties.
Solution
Limit protocol adoption to class types (and not structures or enumerations) by adding the class keyword to a protocol’s inheritance list. The class keyword must always appear first in a protocol’s inheritance list, before any inherited protocols:
protocol MyProtocol: class {
var myVar: MyStruct { get set }
}
or
If MyProtocol is updated to extend AnyObject
protocol MyProtocol : AnyObject {
var myVar: MyStruct { get set }
}
then becomes clear that anInstanceOfMyType must refer an instance of a class, in this case your code does compile.
Related
I'm trying to update a property on a service that is defined as let subscriber: SubscriberContextProviding in the WatchlistViewModel by simply setting it directly like so:
subscriber.watchlist = watchlist
relevant subscriber definition:
final class Subscriber: SubscriberContextProviding {
var watchlist = [String]()
}
however I get an error saying: Cannot assign to property: 'subscriber' is a 'let' constant
. The subscriber service is declared as a let and is initialised in the client init.
here is the relevant protocol part & init.
protocol SubscriberContextProviding {
var watchlist: [String] { get set }
}
class WatchlistViewModel: NSObject {
let subscriber: SubscriberContextProviding
init(subscriber: SubscriberContextProviding){
self.subscriber = subscriber
super.init()
}
}
however If I change the protocol from the one above to
protocol SubscriberContextProviding {
func set(watchlist: [String])
}
and I simply define the function in the subscriber as
func set(watchlist: [String]){
self.watchlist = watchlist
}
and instead of setting the property directly now using the function like so
subscriber.set(watchlist: watchlist)
works no problem. Why the first approach doesn't work while the latter one does as the result is the same of both approaches?
The "issue" (though it's not an issue, really) is that you haven't restricted SubscriberContextProviding to being a class-bound protocol (with : AnyObject).
let subscriber: SubscriberContextProviding is declaring that your subscriber variable with contain an existential of any object whose type conforms to SubscriberContextProviding. Since that protocol isn't class-bound, it's possible that the concrete value you're dealing with is a value type (tuple, struct or enum), for which mutations are only allowed on mutable var variables. This existential is itself a value type, and abides the same rules of only allowing mutations on var variables.
Thus, you must either:
Declare SubscriberContextProviding as class-bound:
protocol SubscriberContextProviding: AnyObject { ... }
or
Keep your protocol as-is, but make your subscriber variable mutable, to account for the possibility that it contains a value type.
Add this to your protocol:
protocol SubscriberContextProviding: AnyObject{
var watchlist: [String] { get set }
}
Why can’t you use a generic Self reference in a Swift 3.2/4 KeyPath typealias?
Example: the below code compiles unless you uncomment the line marked // B. Why? From what I can reason, the line marked // B should mean exactly the same thing as the line marked // A, due to the statement typealias Path<T> = KeyPath<Self,T>.
Am I missing something here, or is this a Swift compiler bug?
protocol Fooer {
associatedtype T
typealias Path<T> = KeyPath<Self, T>
var baz: T { get }
}
protocol FooPathContainable {
associatedtype F: Fooer
associatedtype T where F.T == T
var fooerPathA: KeyPath<F,T> { get set } // A
var fooerPathB: F.Path<T> { get set } // B <— causes compiler crash with Segmentation Fault 11
}
root, value of keypath, inside angular brackets, is required to declare a keypath. It is like declaring Array with type in Swift.
This should work:
var fooerPathB: F.Path<F, T> { get set }
Consider the following code:
protocol JSONParserType {
associatedtype Element
}
// MARK: - Entities
struct Item {}
// MARK: - Parsers
struct OuterParser<T: JSONParserType where T.Element == Item>: JSONParserType {
typealias Element = Item
let innerParser: T
init(innerParser: T = InnerParser()) {
self.innerParser = innerParser
}
}
struct InnerParser: JSONParserType {
typealias Element = Item
}
The OuterParser has a child parser that should be constrained to a specific type. Unfortunately providing a default value in the initializer (or in the property definition itself) does lead to the compiler throwing a "Default argument value of type 'InnerParser' cannot be converted to type 'T'".
If I remove the default value assignment and just instantiate the OuterParser providing the InnerParser explicitly, everything is fine.
let outerParser = OuterParser(innerParser: InnerParser())
My question is what's the reason that the approach providing a default value that actually meets the constraints does not work.
The problem is that the actual type of T isn't defined by the class – it's defined by the code that uses the class. It will therefore be defined before you do anything in your class (at either instance or static level). You therefore can't assign InnerParser to T, as T has already been defined to be a given type by that point, which may well not be InnerParser.
For example, let's consider that you have another parser struct:
struct AnotherParser: JSONParserType {
typealias Element = Item
}
and let's assume that your current code compiles. Now consider what would happen when you do this:
let parser = OuterParser<AnotherParser>()
You've defined the generic type to be AnotherParser – but the initialiser will try to assign InnerParser to your property (now of type AnotherParser). These types don't match, therefore it cannot possibly work.
Following the same logic, this implementation also won't work:
struct OuterParser<T: JSONParserType where T.Element == Item>: JSONParserType {
typealias Element = Item
let innerParser: T
init() {
self.innerParser = InnerParser()
}
init(innerParser: T) {
self.innerParser = innerParser
}
}
As there's no guarantee that the generic type T will be the same type as InnerParser. Sure, you can force downcast to T – but that'll just make you code crash if the types aren't compatible.
Unfortunately, there's no real clean solution to this problem. I think the best your best option is probably to create two factory methods for creating your OuterParser instance.
enum Parser {
static func createParser() -> OuterParser<InnerParser> {
return OuterParser(innerParser:InnerParser())
}
static func createParser<T>(innerParser:T) -> OuterParser<T> {
return OuterParser(innerParser:innerParser)
}
}
let innerParser = Parser.createParser() // OuterParser<InnerParser>
let anotherParser = Parser.createParser(AnotherParser()) // OuterParser<AnotherParser>
We're using an caseless enum here to avoid polluting the global namespace with extra functions.
Although this isn't very Swifty, and for that reason I would also recommend maybe rethinking your logic for how you define your parsers.
type T more like a child protocol of JSONParserType you can convert it:
init(innerParser: T = InnerParser() as! T) {
self.innerParser = innerParser
}
In messing around with Swift today I came across a strange thing. Here's the unit test I developed which shows some unexpected behaviours when using Swift's AnyObject.
class SwiftLanguageTests: XCTestCase {
class TestClass {
var name:String?
var xyz:String?
}
func testAccessingPropertiesOfAnyObjectInstancesReturnsNils() {
let instance = TestClass()
instance.xyz = "xyz"
instance.name = "name"
let typeAnyObject = instance as AnyObject
// Correct: Won't compile because 'xyz' is an unknown property in any class.
XCTAssertEqual("xyz", typeAnyObject.xyz)
// Unexpected: Will compile because 'name' is a property of NSException
// Strange: But returns a nil when accessed.
XCTAssertEqual("name", typeAnyObject.name)
}
}
This code is a simplification of some other code where there is a Swift function that can only return a AnyObject.
As expected, after creating an instance of TestClass, casting it to AnyObject and setting another variable, accessing the property xyz won't compile because AnyObject does not have such a property.
But surprisingly a property called name is accepted by the compiler because there is a property by that name on NSException. It appears that Swift is quite happy to accept any property name as long as it exists somewhere in the runtime.
The next unexpected behaviour and the thing that got all this started is that attempting to access the name property returns a nil. Watching the various variables in the debugger, I can see that typeAnyObject is pointing at the original TestClass instance and it's name property has a value of "name".
Swift doesn't throw an error when accessing typeAnyObject.name so I would expect it to find and return "name". But instead I get nil.
I would be interested if anyone can shed some light on what is going on here?
My main concern is that I would expect Swift to either throw an error when accessing a property that does not exist on AnyObject, or find and return the correct value. Currently neither is happening.
Similar as in Objective-C, where you can send arbitrary messages to id,
arbitrary properties and methods can be called on an instance of AnyObject
in Swift. The details are different however, and it is documented in
Interacting with Objective-C APIs
in the "Using Swift with Cocoa and Objective-C" book.
Swift includes an AnyObject type that represents some kind of object. This is similar to Objective-C’s id type. Swift imports id as AnyObject, which allows you to write type-safe Swift code while maintaining the flexibility of an untyped object.
...
You can call any Objective-C method and access any property on an AnyObject value without casting to a more specific class type. This includes Objective-C compatible methods and properties marked with the #objc attribute.
...
When you call a method on a value of AnyObject type, that method call behaves like an implicitly unwrapped optional. You can use the same optional chaining syntax you would use for optional methods in protocols to optionally invoke a method on AnyObject.
Here is an example:
func tryToGetTimeInterval(obj : AnyObject) {
let ti = obj.timeIntervalSinceReferenceDate // NSTimeInterval!
if let theTi = ti {
print(theTi)
} else {
print("does not respond to `timeIntervalSinceReferenceDate`")
}
}
tryToGetTimeInterval(NSDate(timeIntervalSinceReferenceDate: 1234))
// 1234.0
tryToGetTimeInterval(NSString(string: "abc"))
// does not respond to `timeIntervalSinceReferenceDate`
obj.timeIntervalSinceReferenceDate is an implicitly unwrapped optional
and nil if the object does not have that property.
Here an example for checking and calling a method:
func tryToGetFirstCharacter(obj : AnyObject) {
let fc = obj.characterAtIndex // ((Int) -> unichar)!
if let theFc = fc {
print(theFc(0))
} else {
print("does not respond to `characterAtIndex`")
}
}
tryToGetFirstCharacter(NSDate(timeIntervalSinceReferenceDate: 1234))
// does not respond to `characterAtIndex`
tryToGetFirstCharacter(NSString(string: "abc"))
// 97
obj.characterAtIndex is an implicitly unwrapped optional closure. That code
can be simplified using optional chaining:
func tryToGetFirstCharacter(obj : AnyObject) {
if let c = obj.characterAtIndex?(0) {
print(c)
} else {
print("does not respond to `characterAtIndex`")
}
}
In your case, TestClass does not have any #objc properties.
let xyz = typeAnyObject.xyz // error: value of type 'AnyObject' has no member 'xyz'
does not compile because the xyz property is unknown to the compiler.
let name = typeAnyObject.name // String!
does compile because – as you noticed – NSException has a name property.
The value however is nil because TestClass does not have an
Objective-C compatible name method. As above, you should use optional
binding to safely unwrap the value (or test against nil).
If your class is derived from NSObject
class TestClass : NSObject {
var name : String?
var xyz : String?
}
then
let xyz = typeAnyObject.xyz // String?!
does compile. (Alternatively, mark the class or the properties with #objc.)
But now
let name = typeAnyObject.name // error: Ambigous use of `name`
does not compile anymore. The reason is that both TestClass and NSException
have a name property, but with different types (String? vs String),
so the type of that expression is ambiguous. This ambiguity can only be
resolved by (optionally) casting the AnyObject back to TestClass:
if let name = (typeAnyObject as? TestClass)?.name {
print(name)
}
Conclusion:
You can call any method/property on an instance of AnyObject if that
method/property is Objective-C compatible.
You have to test the implicitly unwrapped optional against nil or
use optional binding to check that the instance actually has that
method/property.
Ambiguities arise if more than one class has (Objective-C) compatible
methods with the same name but different types.
In particular because of the last point, I would try to avoid this
mechanism if possible, and optionally cast to a known class instead
(as in the last example).
it has nothing with NSException!
from Apple documentation:
protocol AnyObject { ... }
The protocol to which all classes implicitly conform.
When used as a concrete type, all known #objc methods and properties are available, as implicitly-unwrapped-optional methods and properties respectively, on each instance of AnyObject
name is #objc property, xyz is not.
try this :-)
let typeAnyObject = instance as Any
or
#objc class TestClass: NSObject {
var name:String?
var xyz:String? }
let instance = TestClass() instance.xyz = "xyz" instance.name = "name"
let typeAnyObject = instance as AnyObject
typeAnyObject.name // will not compile now
I would like my protocol to declare that there is a read/write property available. I have attempted it, but this does not work:
protocol EdibleThing {
var eaten: Bool { get set }
}
class Pickle: EdibleThing { var eaten = false }
class RusticGrapefruit: EdibleThing { var eaten = false }
class Jar {
let contents: [EdibleThing] = [Pickle(), RusticGrapefruit()]
var nextItem: EdibleThing {
return contents.last ?? Pickle() // Lazy pickle generation technology
}
func eat() {
let food = nextItem
food.eaten = true // (!) ERROR: Cannot assign to result of this expression
}
}
What am I doing wrong? I think I've declared that the protocol has a get/set var called eaten, so why can't I set it?
The protocol might be implemented by either classes and structs - that prevents you from changing the internal status of an instance of a class or struct implementing that protocol using an immutable variable.
To fix the problem you have to either declare the food variable as mutable:
func eat() {
var food = nextItem
food.eaten = true // (!) ERROR: Cannot assign to result of this expression
}
or declare the EdibleThing protocol to be implementable by classes only:
protocol EdibleThing : class {
var eaten: Bool { get set }
}
Note that this happens because food is a variable of EdibleThing type - the compiler doesn't know if the actual instance is a value or reference type, so it raises an error. If you make it a variable of a class type, like this:
let food: Pickle = nextItem as! Pickle
the compiler knows without any ambiguity that it's a reference type, and in that case it allows the assignment. But I guess that breaks your app logic... so consider it just as an example
You're mutating food.
Replace let food = nextItem with var food = nextItem
The problem is that you can't mutate a property on a value type defined by let.
Even though both of RusticGrapefruit and Pickle are class implementations (reference types), the protocol could be assigned to a value type like a struct. The compiler detects a potential problem and stops us.
Two solutions:
Change let to var (in my case, this would mean changing a lot of code that refers to objects of this type. Also, I like the semantic value and possible compiler optimizations from let)
Declare the protocol as only valid for classes: protocol EdibleThing: class { }