I'm having random crashes with core data due to concurrency and multithreading. I know that core data is not thread safe. I also found a couple other answers on how to create a ThreadedDataService and instantiate separate context for each thread.
This is a bit too much for me to swallow at the moment, so I'm trying to find an easier way out.
The solution that I'm trying at the moment is simple: saving data through the main thread. However, now a new issue arises: deadlock. The app becomes unresponsive because each of my insertions of a new NSManagedObject is followed by a call to save. (that's my best guess).
Reading the App Delegate documentation, I noticed that it advises me to save context in applicationWillTerminate.
My question is this: For a long running operation that inserts new events every minute, and the user is not required to see updates propagated to all controllers immediately, when is it a good time for me to save the context?
I'm getting a feeling that saving context for each record may be an overkill?
-(void)insertNewEvent
{
// Create a new instance of the entity managed by the fetched results controller.
NSManagedObjectContext *context = [self.fetchedResultsController.managedObjectContext];
NSEntityDescription *entity = [[self.fetchedResultsControllerfetchRequest] entity];
Event*newManagedObject = (Event*)[NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:[entity name] inManagedObjectContext:context];
//use accessor methods to set default values
// Save the context. > IS THIS REALLY NEEDED HERE?
NSError *error = nil;
if (![context save:&error])
{
}else
{
if(newManagedObject!=nil)
{
currentState= newManagedObject;
[currentRecord addEvent:newManagedObject];
//Is this call needed?
[self saveApplicationRecords];
}
}
}
I have methods like these defined for all of my managed objects, is it enough if I call such method on a main thread every 10-15 minutes to save pending changes, rather than doing so after each record insertion?
-(void)saveApplicationRecords
{
NSLog(#"saveApplicationRecords");
NSManagedObjectContext *context = [self.applicationRecordsController.managedObjectContext];
// Save the context.
NSError *error = nil;
if (![context save:&error])
{
NSLog(#"Unresolved error %#, %#", error, [error userInfo]);
}
}
An extra question after reading macbirdie's response: is this kind of method legal in core data?
-(Event*)insertAndReturnNewEventWithDate:(NSDate*)date_ type:(int)type
{
NSManagedObjectContext *context = [self.dreamEventsController managedObjectContext];
NSEntityDescription *entity = [[self.dreamEventsController fetchRequest] entity];
DreamEvent *newManagedObject = (Event*)[NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:[entity name] inManagedObjectContext:context];
//handle properties
NSError *error = nil;
if (![context save:&error])
{
return nil;
}else
{
return newManagedObject ;
}
}
Thank you!
You don't have to save the context that early in the process, especially when you want to modify the object afterwards.
In most cases you should create a separate NSManagedObjectContext for the changes you're about to perform on the database. So create objects on it, fill out the properties needed, then send save and perform the whole mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification: trick with the main context (most likely running on the main thread, so using performSelectorOnMainThread... message).
By default an object created and returned by NSManagedObjectContext is autoreleased. If you've created a new object and want to edit it in a form sheet for example, you can call setRetainsRegisteredObjects: with YES to the managed object context before creating the object, so it holds on to the object created until you're done with it. Remember that it's not recommended to manage the NSManagedObjects' lifecycle on your own - you should let the NSManagedObjectContext do it. So, having that in mind, you don't have to retain the NSManagedObject. After the save operation it's unregistered by the context and removed from memory. Nothing is required on your side.
Answer to updated question part
It would be probably better if you returned an NSManagedObjectID (using [object objectID]) instead of the object itself. It allows to safely dispose of the object by the context and if one needs the object for further editing or data retrieval (e.g. from other contexts), they can fetch it from the store separately.
Even if you don't save the context, the newly created object is there and then you can decide if you want to keep the object or not.
After saving on the other hand, if the context still exists, it may return the object with given NSManagedObjectID to you from memory cache - without touching the database.
On yet another hand ;), in your case, you can pretty much safely return the object, since the NSManagedObjectContext creating it still exists, so the object will still exist as well, although already in the autorelease pool.
Related
iOS 5 introduced a new way to quickly fetch data on a background thread by initializing the MOC using NSPrivateQueueConcurrencyType and then doing the fetch in performBlock:
One of the rules of thumb of Core Data has been that you can not share a managed object between threads/queues. Is it still the case with performBlock:? Is the following:
[context performBlock:^{
// fetch request code
NSArray *results = [context executeFetchRequest:request error:nil];
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^(void) {
Class *firstObject = [results objectAtIndex:0];
// do something with firstObject
});
}];
still unacceptable since I'm sharing my results array/objects between the bg queue and the main queue? Do I still need to use the managed object IDs to do that?
When you use NSPrivateQueueConcurrencyType you need to do anything that touches that context or any object belonging to that context inside the -performBlock: method.
Your code above is illegal since you're passing those objects back to the main queue. The new API helps you in solving this, though: You create one context that's associated with the main queue, i.e. with NSMainQueueConcurrencyType:
// Assume we have these two context (They need to be set up. Assume they are.)
NSManagedObjectContext *mainMOC = [[[NSManagedObjectContext alloc] initWithConcurrencyType:NSMainQueueConcurrencyType] autorelease];
NSManagedObjectContext *backgroundMOC = [[[NSManagedObjectContext alloc] initWithConcurrencyType:NSPrivateQueueConcurrencyType] autorelease];
// Now this can safely be called from ANY thread:
[backgroundMOC performBlock:^{
NSArray *results = [backgroundMOC executeFetchRequest:request error:nil];
for (NSManagedObject *mo in results) {
NSManagedObjectID *moid = [mo objectID];
[mainMOC performBlock:^{
NSManagedObject *mainMO = [mainMOC objectWithID:moid];
// Do stuff with 'mainMO'. Be careful NOT to use 'mo'.
}];
}
}];
This gets less confusing if you move the inner [mainMOC performBlock:] call into its own method. You may also want to pass an array of object IDs back to the main thread's context in stead of executing a block for each object ID. It depends on your needs.
As Daniel Eggert explains, this is definitely still the case. The exception is for NSMainQueueConcurrencyType, where you can also use the managed object context and objects safely on the main thread (as well as from other threads via the performBlock mechanism). The usefulness of this cannot be understated!
iOS 5 also introduced the concept of parent contexts, which also hugely simplify background operations and remove the need to worry about using notifications to propogate changes between threads.
The WWDC 2012 video "Session 214 - Core Data Best Practices" goes into a lot more detail on both subjects and is very comprehensive. The video is essential viewing for anyone using Core Data.
I am new to core data so please excuse me if I get some of the terms wrong.
I have several objects in my xcdatamodel file. They are all inter connected with relationships and inverse relationships. If I connect two of these objects with the following code the inverse relationship is not set.
[managedObj1 setValue: managedObj2 forKey:#"relatiohipName"];
I seem to have to manually set the inverse relationship myself with the following code
[managedObj1 setValue: managedObj2 forKey:#"relatiohipName"];
[managedObj2 setValue: managedObj1 forKey:#"inverseRelatiohipName"];
This seems wrong to me but its the only way I can seem to get the mechanism to work. I have looked at the sqlite DB after running the first block of code and the inverse relationship is not filled in but if I run the second code the relationship is there.
Also, it seems like once I create an object in Core Data I can't alter it after that. The dp remains the same. Once I exit the app and restart it I seem to lose all the relationships and attributes of the object. the resulting objects in my code have nothing but nil member variables.
EDIT:
The commented out stuff is the way it was done before and the uncommented stuff is how I'm doing it now with no luck.
Here is where I am creating the objects:
NSEntityDescription* mobileEntity = [NSEntityDescription entityForName:#"WebServiceAuthService_mobileAdvertisementVO" inManagedObjectContext:managedObjectContext];
WebServiceAuthService_mobileAdvertisementVO *newObject = [NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:[mobileEntity name] inManagedObjectContext:managedObjectContext];
//WebServiceAuthService_mobileAdvertisementVO *newObject = [NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:#"WebServiceAuthService_mobileAdvertisementVO" inManagedObjectContext:managedObjectContext];
Here is where I am assigning one of the objects member variables:
[self setValue:newChild forKey:#"advertisement"];
//self.advertisement = newChild;
Here is where I am saving the context:
NSError *error = nil;
if (managedObjectContext != nil)
{
if ([managedObjectContext hasChanges] && ![managedObjectContext save:&error])
{
DLog(#"Unresolved error %#, %#", error, [error userInfo]);
abort();
}
}
You have to set both sides of a relationship manually if you don't set the reciprocal relationship in the data model. If you do, then assigning one side of the relationship automatically assigns the other. That is one of the functions of the data model.
It sounds to me like you don't actually have your objects inserted into a NSManagedObjectContext object. The context is what "manages" the objects and does things like automatic relationship setting. The context is also what writes the objects to the persistent store.
Important safety tip. If you subclass NSManagedObject DO NOT use #synthesize for your member variables. Use #dynamic instead.
I'm working with NSManagedObjectContext in multithreads.
I wonder if it request lock before call NSFetchedResultController performFetch.
Shall I do this
[moc lock];
NSError *error = nil;
if (![fetchedResultsController_ performFetch:&error]) {
//TODO: add fetch error handler
}
[moc unlock];
Or just
NSError *error = nil;
if (![fetchedResultsController_ performFetch:&error]) {
//TODO: add fetch error handler
}
If your fetchedResultsController is shared across multiple threads, then not only must you lock the managed object context before performing the fetch, but it must also be locked while you use any object returned by that fetch. Naturally, that's not a very easy thing to guarantee, and tends to limit the benefits of doing things on mulitple threads in the first place.
Applications using Core Data are strongly encouraged to use one managed object context per thread. See Concurrency with Core Data for more information.
I have a user interface to insert a Transaction. once the user clicks on a plus he gets the screen and i want to instantiate my Core Data NSManagedObject entity let the user work on it. Then when the user clicks on the Save button i will call the save function.
so down to code:
transaction = (Transaction *)[NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:#"Transaction" inManagedObjectContext:self.managedObjectContext];
//even if i dont call save: its going to show up on my table
[self.managedObjectContext save:&error]
P.S i am using an NSFetchedResultsController on that table and I see that the NSFetchedResultsController is inserting a section and an object to the table.
My thought is if there is a way to instantiate the Transaction NSManagedObject i could update it with out saving untill the client choses to.
For what it's worth, Marcus Zarra seems to be promoting the nil context approach, claiming that it's expensive to create a new context. For more details, see this answer to a similar question.
Update
I'm currently using the nil context approach and have encountered something that might be of interest to others. To create a managed object without a context, you use the initWithEntity:insertIntoManagedObjectContext: method of NSManagedObject. According to Apple's documentation for this method:
If context is not nil, this method
invokes [context insertObject:self]
(which causes awakeFromInsert to be
invoked).
The implication here is important. Using a nil context when creating a managed object will prevent insertObject: from being called and therefore prevent awakeFromInsert from being called. Consequently, any object initialization or setting of default property values done in awakeFromInsert will not happen automatically when using a nil context.
Bottom line: When using a managed object without a context, awakeFromInsert will not be called automatically and you may need extra code to compensate.
here is how i worked it out:
On load, where we know we are dealing with a new transaction, i created an out of context one.
NSEntityDescription *entity = [NSEntityDescription entityForName:#"Transaction" inManagedObjectContext:self.managedObjectContext];
transaction = (Transaction *)[[NSManagedObject alloc] initWithEntity:entity insertIntoManagedObjectContext:nil];
then when it came to establishing a relation ship i did this:
if( transaction.managedObjectContext == nil){
NSEntityDescription *entity = [NSEntityDescription entityForName:#"Category" inManagedObjectContext:self.managedObjectContext];
Category *category = (Category *)[[NSManagedObject alloc] initWithEntity:entity insertIntoManagedObjectContext:nil];
category.title = ((Category *)obj).title;
transaction.category = category;
[category release];
}
else {
transaction.category = (Category *)obj;
}
and at the end to save:
if (transaction.managedObjectContext == nil) {
[self.managedObjectContext insertObject:transaction.category];
[self.managedObjectContext insertObject:transaction];
}
//NSLog(#"\n saving transaction\n%#", self.transaction);
NSError *error;
if (![self.managedObjectContext save:&error]) {
// Update to handle the error appropriately.
NSLog(#"Unresolved error %#, %#", error, [error userInfo]);
exit(-1); // Fail
}
There's a fundamental problem with using a nil MOC: Objects in different MOCs aren't supposed to reference each other — this presumably also applies when one side of a relationship has a nil MOC. What happens if you save? (What happens when another part of your app saves?)
If your object doesn't have relationships, then there are plenty of things you can do (like NSCoding).
You might be able to use -[NSManagedObject isInserted] in NSPredicate (presumably it's YES between inserting and successfully saving). Alternatively, you can use a transient property with the same behaviour (set it to YES in awakeFromInsert and NO in willSave). Both of these may be problematic if a different part of your app saves.
Using a second MOC is how CoreData is "supposed" to be used, though; it handles conflict detection and resolution for you automatically. Of course, you don't want to create a new MOC each time there's a change; it might be vaguely sensible to have one MOC for unsaved changes by the slow "user thread" if you don't mind some parts of the UI seeing unsaved changes in other parts (the overhead of inter-MOC communication is negligible).
You can insert an NSManagedObjectContext with the -[NSManagedObject initWithEntity:insertIntoManagedObjectContext:], passing nil for the managed object context. You must, of course, assign it to a context (using -[NSManageObjectContext insertObject:] before saving. This is, as far as I know, not really the intended pattern in Core Data, however (but see #mzarra's answer here). There are some tricky ordering issues (i.e. making sure the instance gets assigned to a context before it expects to have one, etc.). The more standard pattern is to create a new managed object context and insert your new object into that context. When the user saves, save the context, and handle the NSManagedObjectDidSaveNotification to merge the changes into your 'main' context. If the user cancels the transaction, you just blow away the context and go on with your business.
An NSManagedObject can be created using the nil as the context, but if there other NSManagedObjects it must link to it will result in an error. The way I do it I pass the context into the destination screen and create a NSManagedObject in that screen. Make all the changes link other NSManagedObjects. If the user taps the cancel button I delete the NSManagedObject and save the context. If the user taps the the save button I update the data in the NSManagedObject, save it to the context, and release the screen. In the source screen I update the table with a reload.
Deleting the NSManagedObject in the destination screen gives core data time to update the file. This is usually enough time for you not to see the change in the tableview. In the iPhone Calendar app you have a delay from the time it saves to the time it shows up in the tableview. This could be considered a good thing from a UI stand point that your user will focus on the row that was just added. I hope this helps.
transaction = (Transaction *)[NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:#"Transaction" inManagedObjectContext:nil];
if the last param is nil, it will return a NSManagedObject without save to db
I think I understand the error message: CoreData could not fulfill a fault, but I am not sure how I should deal with it.
We have an application where we use Core Data to persist data returned from a JSON service. Today I am doing the following.
Fetch local object from persistent store and return to UI
Ask server if the object is updated - when I get the answer, I update the Core Data managed object
Update UI with the updated object
The problem is; even if I do not use multi threads I sometimes gets an error when the HTTP request deletes managed objects that my UI has retained. I tried to fetch the objects with returnsObjectsAsFaults to NO. I thought I then could access all the relations and properties of an managed object even if it was deleted (as long as my UI had retained it).
How should I solve this issue?
I thought I could use separate NSManagedObjectContext for read and write. I have made this test:
MyAuthorMO *authorUpdate = [[MyAuthorMO alloc] init]; // I have made this init insert the object into the updateContext
authorUpdate.firstname = #"Hans";
authorUpdate.lastname = #"Wittenberg";
authorUpdate.email = #"Hans#somedomain.no";
NSManagedObjectContext *updateContext = [[MyCoreManager getInstance] managedObjectContext];
NSError *error = nil;
[updateContext save:&error];
NSManagedObjectContext *readContext = [[MyCoreManager getInstance] readOnlyContext];
NSFetchRequest *fetchRequest = [managedObjectModel fetchRequestFromTemplateWithName:#"authorByEmail" substitutionVariables:[NSDictionary dictionaryWithObject:#"Hans#somedomain.no" forKey:#"EMAIL"]];
[fetchRequest setReturnsObjectsAsFaults:NO];
NSArray *authors = [readContext executeFetchRequest:fetchRequest error:&error];
MyAuthorMO * readAuthor = [authors objectAtIndex:0];
// Delete the author with update context:
[updateContext deleteObject:authorUpdate];
[updateContext save:&error];
NSLog(#"Author: %# %#, (%#)", readAuthor.firstname, readAuthor.lastname, readAuthor.email);
The log is outputted just fine as long as I use the readContext for the fetch. If I use the updateContext for the fetch, I get an exception. This looks promising, but I am afraid that I will run into problems at a later stage. Sooner or later I will probably try to access a property that is not fetched completely (a fault). How can I achieve the behaviour I am looking for?
You shouldn't retain managed objects that the context has released. Let the context do that for you.
The problem is that managed objects can exist as either faults or actualized objects. When you retain one, you may retain the fault which contains no data. Even if you do retain the actual object, the object may not behave properly once it has been separated from its context.
In order to handle your scenario, you need a context for the UI and then a context for the server. After either context makes changes, you should merge the context to ensure both are properly updated relative to the store.
Your UI should be configured to reflect the state of data model, you shouldn't have parts of the data model dependent on the state of the UI.
I had the same problem in my database because I refer to object which didnt exist (because I remove it with other relationed object). My solution was to set "No Action" in my relationship.