I'm trying to create a reusable test harness in Swift with the idea that subclasses will extend the test harness to provide the instance under test, and can add their own subclass-specific test methods, something like this:
class FooTestHarness: XCTestCase {
let instance: Foo
init(instance: Foo) {
self.instance = instance
}
func testFooBehavior() {
XCTAssert(instance.doesFoo())
}
}
class FooPrime: Foo {
func doesFooPrime(): Bool { /* ... */ }
}
class FooPrimeTests: XCTestCase {
init() {
super.init(FooPrime())
}
func myInstance(): FooPrime {
return instance as FooPrime
}
func testFooPrimeBehavior() {
XCTAssert(myInstance().doesFooPrime())
}
}
However, when XCode's testrunner tries to run FooPrimeTests, it doesn't call the no-arg init(), it calls init(invocation: NSInvocation!) (and fails because there isn't one). I tried to override this in FooTestHarness:
init(invocation: NSInvocation!, instance: Foo) {
self.instance = instance
super.init(invocation)
}
and in FooPrimeTests:
init(invocation: NSInvocation!) {
super.init(invocation, FooPrime())
}
but this fails with the message 'NSInvocation' is unavailable.
Is there a workaround?
I'm not os sure if I got it right, but checking the code you suggested you should get a compiler Error like:
Which actually I reckon is quite normal since your FooPrimeTests is just subclassing XCTestCase which has got different init like:
init!(invocation: NSInvocation!)
init!(selector: Selector)
init()
Probably when you posted you're question you're running on an older version of Swift, (I'm currently running it on the Xcode Beta 6.2) that's why you can't see the error. But, and I say again if I got your point right, your class FooPrimeTests can't see you custom initializer just because is sublcassing XCTestCase, rather then FooTestHarness. Which is the class where the init(instance: Foo) is defined.
So you might probably want to define FooPrimeTests as subclass of FooTestHarness. That way you should be able to correctly see your initializer. Hope this help.
Related
I'm drawing a blank for some reason.. If I want to make a bunch of objects from a class, but I want each instance to have its own unique implementation of a certain method, how would I do this?
For example:
class MyClass {
var name: String
func doSomething() {
// Each object would have custom implementation of this method, here.
}
}
Do I provide each object with its own closure during initialization, and then call that closure in the doSomething() method? I'm trying to figure out the correct or "Swiftly" way to do this. I'm also thinking along the lines of something with protocols, but I can't seem to figure out how to go about this.
I think there're many ways to do it.
In case of Base class + some sub-classes (e.g. Animal, subclassed by Dog, Cat, etc), you can do this:
First of all it's a good idea to define a protocol:
protocol MyProtocol {
func doSomething()
}
Also provide a default implementation, which throws a fatal error if a class doesn't override that method:
extension MyProtocol {
func doSomething() {
fatalError("You must override me")
}
}
Now your base class confirms the protocol thanks to default implementation. But it will throw a fatal error at runtime:
class MyClass: MyProtocol {
// conformant
}
Child class, however, will run correctly as long as it overrides this function:
class MyOtherClass: MyClass {
func doSomething() {
print("Doing it!")
}
}
You could also move fatal error into base class, and not do any extension implementation.
In case of many instances of the same Class, that solution makes no sense. You can use a very simple callback design:
typealias MyDelegate = () -> Void
class MyClass {
var delegate: MyDelegate?
func doSomething() {
delegate?()
}
}
let x = MyClass()
x.delegate = {
print("do it!")
}
x.doSomething()
// Or you can use a defined function
func doIt() {
print("also doing it")
}
x.delegate = doIt
x.doSomething()
It can also be that you re looking for Strategy pattern, or Template pattern. Depends on your usage details.
Do I provide each object with its own closure during initialization, and then call that closure in the doSomething() method
Yes. That is extremely common and eminently Swifty. Incredibly miminalistic example:
struct S {
let f:()->()
func doYourThing() { f() }
}
let s = S { print("hello") }
let s2 = S { print("goodbye" )}
s.doYourThing() // hello
s2.doYourThing() // goodbye
Giving an object a settable method instance property is very, very easy and common. It doesn't have to be provided during initialization — you might set this property later on, and a lot of built-in objects work that way too.
That, after all, is all you're doing when you create a data task with dataTask(with:completionHandler:). You are creating a data task and handing it a function which it stores, and which it will call when it has performed the actual networking.
I'm trying to create an extension for debugging a class to print some output when you enter certain methods. I want to be able to reuse this code in many different classes, and I want to keep those classes clean from this debugging code while also not repeating code (keeping DRY). That's why I thought of using an extension like this:
class A: ... {
override func myMethod() {
super.myMethod()
print("hello A")
}
}
extension A {
override func myMethod() {
print("hello extension")
}
}
And I would like that when myMethod() is called, to see this
hello extension
hello A
(or the other way around, I don't care)
But the problem is that the compiler is saying "myMethod() has already been overridden here"
Any ideas?
Extensions can add new functionality to a type, but they cannot
override existing functionality.
Answer is here Swift override function in extension
I have tried adding a testing bundle to my Project which seems to have succeeded.
However when I try to create instances of the Classes in my main project- I am unable to see them.
The Project seems to build fine - but I can' instantiate any of the test objects
Any ideas how to access them
Example Class to Test:
class EmailHelper: NSObject {
func generateEmailBody (greeting: String, bodyContent: String) -> String {
//Content goes in here
return message
}
}
import XCTest
class MyProject_DesktopTests: XCTestCase {
override func setUp() {
super.setUp()
// Put setup code here. This method is called before the invocation of each test method in the class.
}
override func tearDown() {
// Put teardown code here. This method is called after the invocation of each test method in the class.
super.tearDown()
}
func testExample() {
// The Test would go in here but I can't seem to resolve EmailHelper class- it generates a lint error
// This is an example of a functional test case.
// Use XCTAssert and related functions to verify your tests produce the correct results.
}
func testPerformanceExample() {
// This is an example of a performance test case.
self.measureBlock {
// Put the code you want to measure the time of here.
}
}
}
I managed to get it working by adding Testable to the top of the class( This appears to be OSX specific issue)
import XCTest
#testable import MyProjectName // <--- This was the missing bit.... :)
class MyProject_DesktopTests: XCTestCase {
override func setUp() {
super.setUp()
// Put setup code here. This method is called before the invocation of each test method in the class.
}
override func tearDown() {
// Put teardown code here. This method is called after the invocation of each test method in the class.
super.tearDown()
}
func testExample() {
// The Test would go in here but I can't seem to resolve EmailHelper class- it generates a lint error
// This is an example of a functional test case.
// Use XCTAssert and related functions to verify your tests produce the correct results.
}
func testPerformanceExample() {
// This is an example of a performance test case.
self.measureBlock {
// Put the code you want to measure the time of here.
}
}
}
Also be sure to clean your project after adding it an it seems to work.
Hi I would like to ask if it is any way to get an error on xCode at compiling, when you are using a class method that needs to call first to another method?
I explain:
class MyClass {
func initializeClass(){
}
func loadConfig() {
}
}
var myClass = MyClass()
myClass.loadConfig() --> Throw Error while coding, the same as you get when you don't implement a required protocol function
Correct way :
myClass.initializeClass().loadConfig()
One way to approach this situation is by using the Proxy Design Pattern. Rather than adding both methods to MyClass, make loadConfig() an instance method of MyClassInitProxy:
public class MyClass {
public class MyClassInitProxy {
let owner:MyClass
public func loadConfig() {
// Do the config work using owner to access MyClass
}
private init(owner:MyClass) {
self.owner = owner
}
}
public func initializeClass() -> MyClassInitProxy {
// Do preparation, then
return MyClassInitProxy(owner:self)
}
}
Now the only way one could call loadConfig is by obtaining MyClassInitProxy through initializeClass() call:
var myClass = MyClass()
myClass.initializeClass().loadConfig()
The short answer is - No, you can't have a compile-time error using this approach.
However if you want to make it impossible for anyone to instantiate your class without having configuration prepared, then just require the configuration as an argument in the initializer. E.g.
class MyClass {
init(config: YourConfigType) {
// do something with the config parameter
}
}
... read config from somewhere and create config variable ...
let x = MyClass(config: config)
And then you have a "compile time error" whenever someone wants to use your class without having config setup initially.
I am writing method which takes a type which conforms to a protocol and instantiates an instance of this class. When I build it, the compiler crashes with a segfault. I appreciate that this points to a compiler bug 99% of the time, but I am interested to see if what I'm trying to do is logically correct or am I just throwing absolute nonsense at the compiler and I shouldn't be surprised to see it crash.
Here is my code
protocol CreatableClass {
init()
}
class ExampleClass : CreatableClass {
required init() {
}
}
class ClassCreator {
class func createClass(classType: CreatableClass.Type) -> CreatableClass {
return classType()
}
}
ClassCreator.createClass(ExampleClass.self)
I also tried to rule out passing a Type as a method parameter as being the root of the problem and the following code also crashes the compiler:
protocol CreatableClass {
init()
}
class ExampleClass : CreatableClass {
required init() {
}
}
let classType: CreatableClass.Type = CreatableClass.self
let instance = classType()
So - is this just a straightforward compiler bug and does what I am trying to do seem reasonable, or is there something in my implementation that is wrong?
Edit:
This can be achieved using generics as shown #Antonio below but unfortunately i believe that isn't useful for my application.
The actual non-dumbed down use-case for doing this is something like
protocol CreatableClass {}
protocol AnotherProtocol: class {}
class ClassCreator {
let dictionary: [String : CreatableClass]
func addHandlerForType(type: AnotherProtocol.Type, handler: CreatableClass.Type) {
let className: String = aMethodThatGetsClassNameAsAString(type)
dictionary[className] = handler()
}
required init() {}
}
I usually do that by defining a generic method. Try this:
class func createClass<T: CreatableClass>(classType: T.Type) -> CreatableClass {
return classType()
}
Update
A possible workaround is to pass a closure creating a class instance, rather than passing its type:
class ClassCreator {
class func createClass(instantiator: () -> CreatableClass) -> (CreatableClass, CreatableClass.Type) {
let instance = instantiator()
let classType = instance.dynamicType
return (instance, classType)
}
}
let ret = ClassCreator.createClass { ExampleClass() }
The advantage in this case is that you can store the closure in a dictionary for example, and create more instances on demand by just knowing the key (which is something in 1:1 relationship with the class name).
I used that method in a tiny dependency injection framework I developed months ago, which I realized it works only for #objc-compatible classes only though, making it not usable for my needs...