I have come across this code:
class WebServerTests: XCTestCase {
let webServer: GCDWebServer = GCDWebServer()
var webServerBase: String!
/// Setup a basic web server that binds to a random port and that has one default handler on /hello
private func setupWebServer() {
webServer.addHandlerForMethod("GET", path: "/hello", requestClass: GCDWebServerRequest.self) { (request) -> GCDWebServerResponse! in
return GCDWebServerDataResponse(HTML: "<html><body><p>Hello World</p></body></html>")
}
I am confused by the webServer.addHandlerForMethod part. It seems to me it is already a complete function call (webServer.addHandlerForMethod("GET", path: "/hello", requestClass: GCDWebServerRequest.self)). Therefore I do not understand why it is followed by a closure ( {(request) -> ... )
EDIT: Clarify what I do not understand
According to the documentation on https://github.com/swisspol/GCDWebServer, the function signature in obj-c is:
[webServer addDefaultHandlerForMethod:#"GET"
requestClass:[GCDWebServerRequest class]
asyncProcessBlock:^(GCDWebServerRequest* request, GCDWebServerCompletionBlock completionBlock) {
Therefore I expect its swift counterpart will be called somewhat like this:
webServer.addHandlerForMethod("GET", path: "/hello", requestClass: GCDWebServerRequest.self, { (request) -> GCDWebServerResponse! in
return GCDWebServerDataResponse(HTML: "<html><body><p>Hello World</p></body></html>")
})
i.e. the handling of the incoming request is passed as the third parameter. But since the closure comes after the closing ')', it does not look like part of the function call at all.
Why the function signature is mapped from obj-c to swift this way?
In Swift, you can use this syntax if the last argument to a function is a closure. Here's the example from the Swift language guide section about closures (scroll down to Trailing Closures):
func someFunctionThatTakesAClosure(closure: () -> ()) {
// function body goes here
}
// here's how you call this function without using a trailing closure:
someFunctionThatTakesAClosure({
// closure's body goes here
})
// here's how you call this function with a trailing closure instead:
someFunctionThatTakesAClosure() {
// trailing closure's body goes here
}
And then there's also this note:
If a closure expression is provided as the function’s only argument and you provide that expression as a trailing closure, you do not need to write a pair of parentheses () after the function’s name when you call the function.
This means it's also legal to write this:
someFunctionThatTakesAClosure {
// closure body
}
… which helps provide a nice meta-programming syntax. For example:
let lock = NSLock()
func locked(closure: () -> ()) {
lock.lock();
closure()
lock.unlock();
}
locked {
NSLog("Hello, world!")
}
The closure is where the handling of the incoming request is done. It tells the server to run the closure's code when a GET method that requests /hello path comes.
In the code you posted code in the closure creates a response that the server returns.
Related
I have a predefined function that has a completion param:
func checkNotificationEnabled(_ resultBlock : ((Bool)->())? = nil){
Bool enabled = false
... a big block of code that gets enabled value
...
... end block
resultBlock?(enabled)
}
I need to get the true/false and pass it to another function:
#objc
func isNotificationEnabled(_
resolve: RCTPromiseResolveBlock, rejecter reject: RCTPromiseRejectBlock
) -> Void {
checkNotificationEnabled { (enabled:Bool) in
resolve(enabled)
}
}
Got the error: Escaping closure captures non-escaping parameter 'resolve'
How can I pass enabled to resolve ?
Presuming RCTPromiseResolveBlock on func isNotificationEnabled to be some block that you're trying to execute with respect to completion of func checkNotificationEnabled, the completion actually 'escapes' (outlives) the scope of the function, and the compiler simply complains that your RCTPromiseResolveBlock may not be alive (in execution) during the completion callback
You'll have to mark #escaping to the 'resolve' parameter to get around this.
You'll definitely get more clarity when you understand what escaping closures are. Have a look at this question: Escaping Closures in Swift
Hope this helps.
resolve argument is passed to a function checkNotificationEnabled but is not marked #escaping
(Bool)->())? = nil optional is nil by default, so no need to assign nil
(Bool)->() this is equal to more readable version Void.
typealias ResultBlock = (Bool) -> Void
func checkNotificationEnabled(_ resultBlock: ResultBlock?) {
var enabled = false
... a big block of code that gets enabled value
...
... end block
resultBlock?(enabled)
}
#objc
func isNotificationEnabled(_
resolve: #escaping RCTPromiseResolveBlock, rejecter reject: RCTPromiseRejectBlock) {
checkNotificationEnabled { enabled in
resolve(enabled)
}
}
Escaping closures
A closure is said to escape a function when the closure is passed as
an argument to the function, but is called after the function returns.
When you declare a function that takes a closure as one of its
parameters, you can write #escaping before the parameter’s type to
indicate that the closure is allowed to escape.
One way that a closure can escape is by being stored in a variable
that is defined outside the function. As an example, many functions
that start an asynchronous operation take a closure argument as a
completion handler. The function returns after it starts the
operation, but the closure isn’t called until the operation is
completed—the closure needs to escape, to be called later.
source
I tried comment and uncomment the activity() in the following code. I found when I commented the activity() the result in playground would just show "play tennis" once. However it would show twice if I uncommented activity(). What's the difference between the two statements?
class Baby {
var name = "peter"
var favoriteActivity: (() -> ())!
func outsideActivity(activity: #escaping () -> ()) {
//activity()
favoriteActivity = activity
}
}
var cuteBaby = Baby()
cuteBaby.outsideActivity {
print("play tennis")
}
cuteBaby.favoriteActivity()
This is what’s going on:
Consider this method:
func outsideActivity(activity: #escaping () -> ()) {
//activity()
favoriteActivity = activity
}
All that does is save the closure in the favoriteActivity property
Thus, when you do:
// create `Baby` instance
var cuteBaby = Baby()
// this method saves closure in `favoriteActivity`, but doesn’t call it
cuteBaby.outsideActivity {
print("play tennis")
}
// this now calls the closure
cuteBaby.favoriteActivity()
All the outsideActivity method does is save the closure in a property called favoriteActivity.
Thus you see one print statement.
However, now consider this method:
func outsideActivity(activity: #escaping () -> ()) {
activity()
favoriteActivity = activity
}
This actually calls the closure before saving it in the property.
So, when you do:
// create `Baby` instance
var cuteBaby = Baby()
// this method both calls the closure and then also saves it in `favoriteActivity`
cuteBaby.outsideActivity {
print("play tennis")
}
// this now calls the saved closure a second time
cuteBaby.favoriteActivity()
In this case, you’ll see your print statement being called twice.
That’s why the first rendition calls the closure only once, whereas the second calls the closure twice.
Usually when you pass a closure to a method, you either (a) call the closure from within the method (perhaps in some completion handler or the like); or (b) save the closure in some property so you can call it later.
So, this second example is very unusual, where outsideActivity both calls the closure itself and saves that closure in some property so you can call it again later. You usually do one or the other, but not both.
I was checking through the Alamofire documentation and found the below code
Alamofire.request("https://httpbin.org/get").responseJSON { response in
debugPrint(response)
if let json = response.result.value {
print("JSON: \(json)")
}
}
It seems as if the function is written as
Class.Function().Function{
}
Is this called a nested function? If so how would I create a simple nested function to know the syntax
this is not a nested function but a chain of functions.
class Alamofire {
static func request(_ url: String)->Request {
//... code ...
return aRequest
}
}
class Request {
func responseJson(completion: (response: Response)->()) {
//code
}
}
So this is what is happening.
The request function of Alamofire is returning a Request object which has the responseJson function that accepts a closure as parameter.
In swift if the closure parameter is the last one, the function call can be synthesized by removing the parameter name and define the closure as a function so to do
Alamofire.request("whatever").responseJson(completion: { (response) in
//whatever
})
is exactly the same as doing
Alamofire.request("whatever").responseJson(){ (response) in
//whatever
}
This is a trailing closure. You can find more info about it here in the "Trailing Closure" paragraph.
Hope it helps
It's Method chaining and last one is the syntax of trailing closures.
Closures are self-contained blocks of functionality that can be passed
around and used in your code.
func someFunctionThatTakesAClosure(closure: () -> Void) {
// function body goes here
}
// Here's how you call this function without using a trailing closure:
someFunctionThatTakesAClosure(closure: {
// closure's body goes here
})
// Here's how you call this function with a trailing closure instead:
someFunctionThatTakesAClosure() {
// trailing closure's body goes here
}
For more information about closures read it
I am using Firebase to observe event and then setting an image inside completion handler
FirebaseRef.observeSingleEvent(of: .value, with: { (snapshot) in
if let _ = snapshot.value as? NSNull {
self.img = UIImage(named:"Some-image")!
} else {
self.img = UIImage(named: "some-other-image")!
}
})
However I am getting this error
Closure cannot implicitly capture a mutating self parameter
I am not sure what this error is about and searching for solutions hasn't helped
The short version
The type owning your call to FirebaseRef.observeSingleEvent(of:with:) is most likely a value type (a struct?), in which case a mutating context may not explicitly capture self in an #escaping closure.
The simple solution is to update your owning type to a reference once (class).
The longer version
The observeSingleEvent(of:with:) method of Firebase is declared as follows
func observeSingleEvent(of eventType: FIRDataEventType,
with block: #escaping (FIRDataSnapshot) -> Void)
The block closure is marked with the #escaping parameter attribute, which means it may escape the body of its function, and even the lifetime of self (in your context). Using this knowledge, we construct a more minimal example which we may analyze:
struct Foo {
private func bar(with block: #escaping () -> ()) { block() }
mutating func bax() {
bar { print(self) } // this closure may outlive 'self'
/* error: closure cannot implicitly capture a
mutating self parameter */
}
}
Now, the error message becomes more telling, and we turn to the following evolution proposal was implemented in Swift 3:
SE-0035: Limiting inout capture to #noescape contexts
Stating [emphasis mine]:
Capturing an inout parameter, including self in a mutating
method, becomes an error in an escapable closure literal, unless the
capture is made explicit (and thereby immutable).
Now, this is a key point. For a value type (e.g. struct), which I believe is also the case for the type that owns the call to observeSingleEvent(...) in your example, such an explicit capture is not possible, afaik (since we are working with a value type, and not a reference one).
The simplest solution to this issue would be making the type owning the observeSingleEvent(...) a reference type, e.g. a class, rather than a struct:
class Foo {
init() {}
private func bar(with block: #escaping () -> ()) { block() }
func bax() {
bar { print(self) }
}
}
Just beware that this will capture self by a strong reference; depending on your context (I haven't used Firebase myself, so I wouldn't know), you might want to explicitly capture self weakly, e.g.
FirebaseRef.observeSingleEvent(of: .value, with: { [weak self] (snapshot) in ...
Sync Solution
If you need to mutate a value type (struct) in a closure, that may only work synchronously, but not for async calls, if you write it like this:
struct Banana {
var isPeeled = false
mutating func peel() {
var result = self
SomeService.synchronousClosure { foo in
result.isPeeled = foo.peelingSuccess
}
self = result
}
}
You cannot otherwise capture a "mutating self" with value types except by providing a mutable (hence var) copy.
Why not Async?
The reason this does not work in async contexts is: you can still mutate result without compiler error, but you cannot assign the mutated result back to self. Still, there'll be no error, but self will never change because the method (peel()) exits before the closure is even dispatched.
To circumvent this, you may try to change your code to change the async call to synchronous execution by waiting for it to finish. While technically possible, this probably defeats the purpose of the async API you're interacting with, and you'd be better off changing your approach.
Changing struct to class is a technically sound option, but doesn't address the real problem. In our example, now being a class Banana, its property can be changed asynchronously who-knows-when. That will cause trouble because it's hard to understand. You're better off writing an API handler outside the model itself and upon finished execution fetch and change the model object. Without more context, it is hard to give a fitting example. (I assume this is model code because self.img is mutated in the OP's code.)
Adding "async anti-corruption" objects may help
I'm thinking about something among the lines of this:
a BananaNetworkRequestHandler executes requests asynchronously and then reports the resulting BananaPeelingResult back to a BananaStore
The BananaStore then takes the appropriate Banana from its inside by looking for peelingResult.bananaID
Having found an object with banana.bananaID == peelingResult.bananaID, it then sets banana.isPeeled = peelingResult.isPeeled,
finally replacing the original object with the mutated instance.
You see, from the quest to find a simple fix it can become quite involved easily, especially if the necessary changes include changing the architecture of the app.
If someone is stumbling upon this page (from search) and you are defining a protocol / protocol extension, then it might help if you declare your protocol as class bound. Like this:
protocol MyProtocol: class {
...
}
You can try this! I hope to help you.
struct Mutating {
var name = "Sen Wang"
mutating func changeName(com : #escaping () -> Void) {
var muating = self {
didSet {
print("didSet")
self = muating
}
}
execute {
DispatchQueue.global(qos: .background).asyncAfter(deadline: .now() + 15, execute: {
muating.name = "Wang Sen"
com()
})
}
}
func execute(with closure: #escaping () -> ()) { closure() }
}
var m = Mutating()
print(m.name) /// Sen Wang
m.changeName {
print(m.name) /// Wang Sen
}
Another solution is to explicitly capture self (since in my case, I was in a mutating function of a protocol extension so I couldn't easily specify that this was a reference type).
So instead of this:
functionWithClosure(completion: { _ in
self.property = newValue
})
I have this:
var closureSelf = self
functionWithClosure(completion: { _ in
closureSelf.property = newValue
})
Which seems to have silenced the warning.
Note this does not work for value types so if self is a value type you need to be using a reference type wrapper in order for this solution to work.
I have a function that is responsible for making the HTTP requests in the app. Basically, it sets up all the required headers, timeouts, etc... etc...
Then, when the request is complete, I run 2 functions (provided by the developer): whenSuccess/whenError (depending on the result of the call) and whenComplete (regardless the result of the call). I want the last one to be able to receive the result of the whenSuccess function.
I have the doRequest function declared as
private func doRequest<S>(whenSuccess: (_ json: JSON?)->(S?),
whenError: (_ description: String)->(),
whenComplete: Optional<(S?)->()>) {
// yada yada yada
}
So, the developer provides a function that gets a JSON and returns a generic. If the whenError is called, the whenComplete is called with nil as parameter.
I'm invoking it with
doRequest<Int>(whenSuccess: { (json) -> (Int?) in //Cannot specialize a non-generic definition
return 5
}, whenError: { (error) in
}) { (success) in
}
I get the error commented:
Cannot specialize a non-generic definition
Any idea if this can be done and how?
In Swift you must not explicitly specialize generic functions. Instead, generic functions automatically get specialized via type inference from theirs arguments.
The call you you're trying to make should look like this:
doRequest(whenSuccess: { json -> Int? in
//...
}, whenError: { error in
//...
}, whenComplete: { success in
//...
})