Here's the issue – I followed along with the Apple lazy-load image sample code to handle my graphical tables. It works great. However, my lazy-load image tables are being stacked within a navigation controller so that you can move in and out of menus. While all this works, I'm getting a persistent crash when I move into a table then move immediately back out of it using the "back" button. This appears to be a result of the network connections loading content not being closed properly, or calling back to their released delegates. Now, I've tried working through this and carefully setting all delegates to nil and calling close on all open network connections before releasing a menu. However, I'm still getting the error. Also – short posting my entire application code into this post, I can't really post a specific code snippet that illustrates this situation.
I wonder if anyone has ideas for tasks that I may be missing? Do I need to do anything to close a network connection other than closing it and setting it to nil? Also, I'm new to debugging tools – can anyone suggest a good tool to use to watch network connections and see what's causing them to fail?
Thanks!
Have you run it through the debugger (Cmd-Y)? Does it stop at the place where the crash is happening? That should show you in code where the issue is happening. I'm betting the issue has to do with over-releasing something rather than cleaning up connections. Are you getting EXC_BAD_ACCESS? Check any delegates and make sure they are nil when -viewWillDisappear gets called. That way, if anything tries to call back to a delegate, it will just be a no-op.
You may also want to try enabling zombies (NSZombieEnabled) which will tell you when an object that has been released is being accessed again. It's very helpful in finding over-released objects.
Ah ha... after a large zombie hunt (thanks, Matt Long), I discovered that the issue stems from an error in Apple's LazyTableImages sample code. That example provides the following implementation for canceling all image loads, which I turned into a general-purpose stopAllImageLoads method...
From RootViewController.m in LazyTableImages sample code:
- (void)didReceiveMemoryWarning
{
[super didReceiveMemoryWarning];
// terminate all pending download connections
NSArray *allDownloads = [self.imageDownloadsInProgress allValues];
[allDownloads performSelector:#selector(cancelDownload)];
}
There is in error in the last line of the above method where performSelector is called on an array of objects. The above implementation calls the selector on the array itself, rather that on each object in the array. Therefore, that last line should be this:
[allDownloads makeObjectsPerformSelector:#selector(cancelDownload)];
Once that line was changed, everything else fell into place. It turns out I wasn't calling my stopAllImageLoads method where I meant to – I had disabled it at one point because it was causing an error. Once that was back in place, the memory issues cleared up because image loads were successfully canceled before the table delegate was released.
Thanks all for your help.
If you're doing ANY asynchronous function (network requests, Core Location updates, etc), you run the risk that your view controller that is the delegate of that action is deallocated by the time the async function returns. i.e. you back out of the view and take the delegate target away from the background process. I've dealt with this several times.
Here's what you do. Use the ASIHTTPRequest library (which you should be doing anyway--it's brilliant). Create a synthesized property to hold your request. Then in viewWillDisappear, call -cancel on your request. To be safe, I also set its delegate to nil, but that should be unnecessary.
Here's a sketch of what you want to do. Note I typed this right here, haven't syntax-checked it or anything.
#implementation MyViewController
#synthesize req //this is an ASIHTTPRequest *req.
-(void)viewDidLoad
{
//make an NSURL object called myURL
self.req = [ASIHTTPRequest requestWithURL:myURL];
self.req.delegate = self;
[self.req startAsynchronous];
}
-(void)viewWillDisappear
{
[self.req cancel];
}
-(void)requestFinished:(ASIHTTPRequest *)request
{
NSString *string = [request responseString];
}
Related
I have an application in which I am required to connect to the internet after a view is loaded. However, if I put this code in the viewDidLoad method the parent view freezes, and then unfreezes after the connection onto the new view. However, I would like the new view to load FIRST, and then to start the connection. I tried using viewDidAppear:, however I am getting the same issue.
Also, will any animations continue playing during the connection? Will the UI be responsive? If not, is multithreading the way to go?
Here is some of my code:
-(void)viewDidLoad {
[super viewDidLoad];
//Do some other view initialization
//Connect is a class I use to connect to the internet
[Connect getData:someString];
}
When I put the code in viewDidAppear the same thing happens.
Connection code:
NSMutableURLRequest *request = [[NSURLRequest alloc] initWithURL:url];
NSHTTPURLResponse *response;
NSError *error;
NSData *responseData = [NSURLConnection sendSynchronousRequest:request returningResponse:&response error:&error];
Also, I forgot to mention that I am running a regular expression as well after the connection.
As the name of the method says, the view has already been loaded when viewDidLoad executes.
Generally, be sure to use asynchronous connections to connect to the internet. Never block the main thread.
it is easier than you may think.
All you need is some thread management. On the view did Do:
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:#selector(yourMethod:) toTarget:yourTarget withObject:yourObject];
and later in another part do:
- (void)yourMethod:(id)sender{
//download the info but do not update the GUI
[self performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(updatingTheGUI:) withObject:yourObject waitUntilDone:NO]
}
- (void)updatingTheGUI:(id)sender{
//Update your GUI
}
You will notice that the viewDidLoad method documentation of UIViewController states:
...Called after the controller’s view is loaded into memory.
This doesn't necessarily mean that it's called after the view is displayed on screen.
To answer your other questions, if you make your network request the way you have described, no, animations will not continue playing while the request is in progress and no, you can't guarantee that the UI will be responsive. This is because the network request will take an unknown amount of time. Therefore, if you make the request on the main thread, the main thread will be blocked for that period of time, however long it takes.
And, as for the last question, is multithreading the way to go? As others have stated, the easiest and probably most popular way of handling this is to initialize the NSURLConnection with initWithRequest:delegate:. The delegate being your UIViewController or Connect class, or whatever class you want to conform to the NSURLConnectionDelegate protocol and use the NSURLConnectionDelegate methods to process the downloaded data. NSURLConnection will do the work asynchronously and keep the main thread free to handle animations, displaying the UI, etc.
I know it sounds a bad idea for your app. performance but try giving a delay or sleep in between to check if it works that way. Later try to implement the asynchronous call as someone earlier stated..
Im developing a little navigation based application. Part of the programe, It passes CGpoint value to its superclass. There is no problem on the first attempt but error always occurs when re run the same process right after first execution. Is this because about memory management? I just dont get what I have done wrong.
delegation from child
[self.delegate sendPosition:position];
method on Rootclass
-(void) sendPosition:(CGPoint)position{
dLabel.text = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"%f",position.x];
}
A delegate is not the same as a super class. I'm guessing your delegate disappears but you are still calling it later. Go over your memory management indeed. Make sure that the delegate is still around, or sticks around, or nullify delegate properties if you need to destroy the delegate instance for some reason.
I'm coding a library (Obj-C for iPhone) that I want to package and sell, so I obviously need to work out any design kinks before listing it for sale. I am also utilizing this library to help me develop another app.
My library is heavily built on task delegation. The primary function I have is to launch a (potentially) long-running process, and when it's done, I call a Delegate Protocol method in the class's delegate.
An additional complicating factor here is that I will often schedule this task to fire off every 30 seconds or so. Usually, I do this with [self performSelector:#selector(someMethod:) withObject:nil afterDelay:30] rather than using an NSTimer. Then, when the delegate method successfully returns, I process the returned data and trigger the method to fire in another 30 seconds. This gives me 30 seconds BETWEEN method calls, rather than 30 seconds FROM THE START OF ONE CALL TO THE NEXT. (This is mainly just in case the call ever takes more than 30 seconds, which shouldn't happen.)
The error that I'm catching is that sometimes, the Delegate callback method is failing with an EXC_BAD_ACCESS error. Based upon my investigation, it appears that the delegate of my class library has disappeared (been released/dealloced) since the long-running process was initiated. Thus, when it calls [[self Delegate] doSomeDelegateMethod], it's accessing a released object.
I tried first checking [[self Delegate] respondsToSelector:#selector(doSomeDelegateMethod)], but even that access apparently also throws the EXC_BAD_ACCESS.
It doesn't yet seem that checking for [self Delegate] == nil is the right way to go, either.
One way I think I have solved the problem, in this specific instance, is when the view controller that instantiates my object is disappearing (and therefore on its way to the garbage dump), I call [NSObject cancelPreviousPerformRequestsWithTarget:self]. This apparently fixes the problem. (Does this "fix" also indicate that my object "knows" about the call to come and keeps itself in memory until it can successfully, desperately, fire off its final shot?)
This appears to put a band-aid on a bullet wound. Yes, it appears to stop my app from breaking this time, but my gut tells me that this is a poor solution.
I've also considered setting the custom object to nil in my viewWillDisappear:animated: method, which is probably the correct coding pattern, but it doesn't seem right that the customer has to be so precise in handling my objects.
What's really bugging me, though, is that I haven't yet found a way, as a library developer, to "box in" my code so that it won't throw an exception for the user if they don't do just the right things. Basically, I'd like a way to have my object:
Get a request.
Go look for the answer.
Find the answer.
Try to return the answer.
Realize that there's nothing on the other end.
Give up and die on its own. (OK, so "die on its own" probably won't happen, but you get the point.)
One interesting side point:
A main reason I have for preventing this type of error from occurring is this:
I did the following steps:
Built my library's .h/.m files.
Generated my library's .a output file.
Imported my library's .a/.h files into another project.
Had the error described above.
Got to peruse the code from one of the .m files that SHOULD have been hidden inside the .a file.
Am I missing something here? Am I really risking exposing my entire source code if it ever throws an error for a client? (This is just a side issue, but I'm fairly concerned here!)
Thanks for any help you can provide to help me be a better programmer!
---EDIT---
I have found another reason why this is important. In another view controller, where I am using this library, I implemented the NSTimer strategy. If the view is popped from the navigation stack (i.e., in the viewWillDisappear:animated: method), I invalidate said timer. So, no more calls will go to my library after the view disappears.
Here's the rub: what if the view disappears IN THE MIDDLE of the long-running call? Yes, it's tricky and unlikely to do, but I just had it happen on the simulator. In particular, THIS is why I'm looking for a workaround to let my code realize "hey, there's nothing on the other end of this pipe" and then fail gracefully. Anyone?
Thanks!
There are several approaches to this problem:
The traditional delegate approach (UITableViewDelegate) makes it a requirement to clear yourself as delegate before going away. This is traditionally done in dealloc of the delegate with otherObject.delegate = nil. Failure to do so is a programming error. That's basically what you're seeing. This is the common pattern when the delegate and the delegator have basically the same lifespan.
Another approach is how NSURLConnection handles it: retain your delegate until you're done. The key to this working well is that NSURLConnection has a lifespan of its own, so the retain loop will work itself out automatically. UITableView could not retain its delegate because this would almost always create a permanent retain loop. If your object lives for a while and then goes away, then this makes sense. Typically here the delegate has a much shorter lifespan than the delegator, so the retain loop doesn't hurt anything.
Any object that calls performSelector:withObject:afterDelay: should always call cancelPreviousPerformRequestsWithTarget:self in its own dealloc. This has nothing to do with your delegate, though. It should be self-contained to the object itself. (I don't know why I keep thinking this is true, and then proving to myself again that it isn't. When you call performSelector:...afterDelay:, you are retained, so you can't deallocate before it fires. My SIDE NOTE, while true, isn't relevant here.)
SIDE NOTE cancelPrevious... is really expensive in my experience. If you have to call cancelPrvious... very often, I recommend keeping your own one-shot NSTimer and just resetting it when it fires to get the same effect. performSelector:withObject:afterDelay: is just a wrapper around a one-shot timer.
I'm answering myself because the page warned me to not have extended discussions in the comments... :)
OK, so it appears that part of my answer is that [self performSelector:withObject:afterDelay:] automatically retains my object until it gets to "fire that shot", at which point I'm guessing the view controller dies.
So, now it makes sense why my custom class is trying to access a released object when it tries to return its answer to its delegate, which is an __unsafe_unretained object, meaning that it can die at will (I think).
What I'd like now is a way to prevent this from causing an error. In .NET, I've got all sorts of error handling options to do this, but I'm unable to think of a fail-safe "bail out" here.
I've tried [[self Delegate] isKindOfClass:..., but can't be sure what kind of class the delegate will be, so it won't work.
I've also tried [[self Delegate] respondsToSelector:#selector(...)]. I'm not sure why this fails, but I get the EXC_BAD_ACCESS here, too.
What I don't want is my customers to be able to crash my product with such a simple, innocent mistake.
As an aside, does anyone know why this sort of failure gives me such easy access to the contents of the .m file that should be hidden inside my .a file? Did I build my library incorrectly?
Thanks!
Try setting Delegates to nil in dealloc.
example:
self.fetchedResultsController.delegate = nil;
I've seen this problem a lot lately and usually fix the problem. Even though delegates are supposed to be weak references, sometimes some private implementation is using them as well.
If I release, I get bad access, if I retain, I leak
That's where I had a similar problem.
Edit: When using ARC, you can still override dealloc for cleanup, you just can't call [super dealloc] or release anything.
I have a simple query that I'd like cleared up by someone... Is it bad-practice to retain self?
I have a server request object that I'd like to make. I'd like to be able to use it in the following fashion:
ARequest *request = [ARequest request: someParam];
request.delegate = self;
[request begin];
In order for the object not to self destruct as soon as the autorelease pool is drained, I imagine I need to call a retain in it's init method and then a release once the server response has been received, processed and delivered to it's delegate.
However, something is raising a warning bell in my head with this approach. Better ways to do it?
There is nothing wrong with retaining self, as long as you release it at some well-defined point in accordance with normal memory management protocol. If an object requires itself to exist until some condition is met, it should take responsibility for that, in the same way as it does for any other object it requires to continue existing.
Introducing otherwise extraneous manager objects or foisting the responsibility off on the object’s owner for superstitious reasons would be the real anti-pattern here.
(The equivalent approach in garbage-collected code would be for the object to exclude itself from garbage collection while results are pending, or root it through a collection of some sort if you dislike that idea.)
It's not unheard-of, but it is somewhat uncommon. The main way I've seen it used (and used it myself) is when you're dealing with some sort of semi-synchronous object (by semi-synchronous I mean that it does not block the main thread, but it also does not execute on a background thread; an NSURLConnection would fit this bill). For example, I wrote a subclass of NSWindowController that was specifically for displaying a window as a sheet and for invoking some certain delegate callbacks. Basically, you'd alloc/init a new sheet controller and invoke beginSheetForWindow:. This would run the sheet semi-synchronously, and then invoke an appropriate callback when the sheet was dismissed.
Since the invoking object doesn't necessarily "own" the sheet (think of it as a Mac version of a modal view controller on iOS), the sheet controller does [self retain] immediately before showing the sheet, and [self release] immediately after cleaning up and invoking callbacks. The purpose behind this was to ensure that the controller object would stick around until the sheet was done. (The sheet, IIRC, was retained by the runloop, but I also needed the controller to stick around)
Like I said, it's very rare to come across a situation where you would want to [self retain], but it's not impossible. However, as a general rule of thumb, if you think that you need to [self retain], you may want to think again.
Easiest way to do this would be to create an iVar for your request, retain the request when you start it and release it when the last delegate method is called.
Is ARequest a class you created? Does it create a new thread to asynchronously submit the request?
I once did the same thing as you. I wrote a Category-Method on NSString to send it it to a server, that will print it. In the Category-Method I had to call [self retain], so that the callback methods could be a NSString-Categroy-Method to.
I felt so bad about it, that I rewrote everything to use a Singleton, that is accessed by the Category-Method. So the Singleton will retain the string as long as necessary.
I have a situation where occasionally my -tableView: numberOfRowsInSection: method asks for the count of a deallocated NSArray. I'd like to be able to test for this array being deallocated in a way that's safe and doesn't make a call to a zombie.
My code currently looks like:
-(NSInteger)tableView:(UITableView *)table numberOfRowsInSection:(NSInteger)section
{
if (! self.offers){
return 0;
}
return [self.offers count];
}
I just debugger-stepped through this and observed it passing the ! self.offers test and then crashing brutally on [self.offers count]. I have NSZombies turned on, and at that line I get the NSLog message:
-[__NSArrayM count]: message sent to deallocated instance 0x283dc0
So whatever self.offers is, at this point, is not nil, but is also not pointed at anything valid. How do I test for that?
EDIT: Thanks for the tough-love, friends. I've figured out why I've been having trouble with my memory management--it's actually been an issue of delegate relationships lingering longer than they were useful. See here for the full answer to my problem:
Managing calls to objects that get deallocated when the view is backed out of
It's not possible to "test" for this-- once an object is deallocated, it's gone, and the pointer to it is effectively garbage. Doing anything with it is liable to crash.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the only way to get this to work right is to make sure the memory management around (in this case) offers is correct at all uses-- retain and release correctly at all the points where that instance variable is manipulated, and it will never be non-nil garbage.
You should try running the static analyzer (Build->Build and Analyze) to start with-- this tool can help flag memory management pattern issues without a lot of extra digging on your part.
You should avoid the problem by fixing the code so it does not deallocate the array when you obviously still need it.
You can add
-(void)dealloc { ... }
And leave it empty if it's the right to do, and add breakpoint in it.
This answer correct to ARC and NON-ARC
This might not be relevant to your question (testing if it is deallocated) - but it seems like your offers array has the same or longer lifetime than your UITableViewController, are you certain you are retaining this array or that you aren't accidentally releasing it somewhere else.
I concur with what quixoto has said above.
Another thing you have to ask yourself is, is my application designed correctly? A tableview relies on a datasource to populate it (which in your case is the offers array), so if you're deallocating it somewhere in the code then you need to step back and rethink your design.
If you're testing for whether it's deallocated because you're trying to 'fix' it from a previous problem, then it might be worth looking into your code to see where it is being retained/released.
Yes, once an object is deallocated, it's gone, and the pointer to it is effectively garbage. Doing anything with it is liable to crash.
However it is POSSIBLE to test. There is a workaround for it. (Although workarounds are not a substitute for good design practices!):
You have a global BOOL variable, which you set on the alloc. Here's an example of use for checking whether a AVAudioPlayer isPlaying. If it was playing, and the view was closed, the app would crash. Simply stopping the music was not an option due to background threads, etc. But calling [newPlayer isPlaying] crashes when newPlayer is already released! So a BOOL flag workaround made it work. (Any good design practice comments on this would be valuable.)
// In implementation
static AVAudioPlayer *newPlayer;
static BOOL hasMusicFinishedPlaying;
// When Playing the music, set flag
newPlayer =[[AVAudioPlayer alloc] initWithContentsOfURL:[NSURL fileURLWithPath: soundPath] error:nil];
hasMusicFinishedPlaying = NO;
// Callback method to release new player in playKeySound
- (void)audioPlayerDidFinishPlaying:(AVAudioPlayer *)newPlayer successfully:(BOOL)flag {
[newPlayer release];
hasMusicFinishedPlaying = YES;
}
// On going back to another page. We don't want to keep ViewController in stack.
if (!hasMusicFinishedPlaying){
return;
}
[self.navigationController popViewControllerAnimated:YES];