I'm trying to use OCMock to modify the behavior of an instance selector for a specific class where I don't have a direct pointer to the instance of the class in question.
I've found a few posts online that claim to allow doing at least part of this, for example: How to mock an object with OCMock which isn't passed as a parameter to method?
I tried following the guidance in one of the answers in that post, specifically relying on code like this:
id mockController = OCMClassMock([WebAuthViewController class]);
OCMStub([mockController alloc]).andReturn(mockController);
OCMStub([mockController initWithAuthenticationToken:OCMOCK_ANY authConfig:OCMOCK_ANY]).andReturn(mockController);
However, I am having difficulty understanding this code. First of all, where does the actual "alloc" logic run? The code seems to be saying "mock alloc and return an existing class method", but alloc is supposed to return an instance, not a class. Is this some magic build into OCMock?
Also, on a related matter it seems the init is simply returning the same mocked class, not an instance of that class. It seems really strange that this returns the same thing as the previous mock, and I don't understand where the actual custom init logic is being called. It seems to be omitted completely since there is no call to .andForwardToRealObject() anywhere.
However, ultimately my main problem is I don't understand how to mock an instance method using the above code since things are working on class, not an instance. I tried to write a similar mock to modify the behavior of an instance method (using the equivalent of mockController above), but it said the method was not there.
I tried a bunch of things, but could not get OCMock to handle this case. If anyone can point me to an example that mocks a specific instance method for all instances of a class, I'd appreciate it.
By the way, I was able to get things working by using swizzling without any use of OCMock, but it seems really hacky (especially when I'm using OCMock for everything else), so I would love to get this working with OCMock.
Related
Situation
For a project of mine, I'm building some kind of extension. This extension must have a class that implements a method whose declaration is - (id)initWithBundle:(NSBundle *)bundle.
Issue
My extension has multiple classes, but the host app is so badly written that it calls - (id)initWithBundle:(NSBundle *)bundle on different classes, randomly.
I'm not willing to reduce the number of classes, so the only solution left would be to somehow forward to caller to the class that actually implement - (id)initWithBundle:(NSBundle *)bundle (A bit like a HTTP 302). I found many resources on forwarding calls, but not such thing as forwarding an -init method...
init is allowed to return an object other than itself. While I highly recommend fixing the calling code (I can't imagine a case where allowing for code that calls anything "randomly" is even a reasonable idea), if you want to return some other object from init, it works like this:
- (id)initWithBundle:(NSBundle *)bundle {
// I don't actually implement this, let's return the class that does
return [[OtherClass alloc] initWithBundle: bundle];
}
ARC will deal with throwing you away.
The caller now has the wrong type of course (they expect your type, and they have some other random object), which is very likely to lead to hijinks, very hard to track bugs, and general sorrow. But it's legal ObjC. And if the two classes have enough overlap of their methods, it might even work.
In normal cases, this pattern is called a Class Cluster. See What exactly is a so called "Class Cluster" in Objective-C? for some examples.
I would like to set a symbolic breakpoint on "objectAtIndex:" method of a specific property in a specific class.
See the following code :
#interface Foo
...
#property (strong,nonatomic) NSMutableArray *fooArray;
...
#end
I 've tried the following things:
-[[Foo fooArray] objectAtIndex:]
-[Foo::fooArray objectAtIndex:]
-[Foo::fooArray objectAtIndex]
Foo::fooArray::objectAtIndex:
Foo::fooArray::objectAtIndex
Foo::fooArray::objectAtIndex()
None of theses solutions work.
Any ideas to do the trick ?
Unfortunately, while this would be useful, it cannot work, for multiple reasons.
The first involves how methods are specified. A method signature for identifying a method in a breakpoint has three parts:
-¹[NSDictionary² objectForKey:³]
+¹[NSString² stringWithContentsOfURL:encoding:error:³]
Is this an instance method (-) or a class method (+)?
Which class's implementation of this method?
What's the selector of this method?
So your first problem is that what you have written for #2 is not a class.
What you do have is a class, followed in some fashion by a property name. This cannot work, because the debugger has no way to know whether that is a pure accessor—it cannot be sure that you, or whoever implemented that property, didn't write a custom accessor that does something else. This means that the debugger has no good, reliable way to obtain that value, or to know when that value changes, without potentially incurring side effects.
Moreover, the role of a class in a method signature is to identify which class provides the implementation you're setting a breakpoint on. That goes out the window as soon as you start trying to refer to a property that holds an object instead, because the debugger needs a class, and will have to get it from the object—and see the previous paragraph for some of the difficulties of knowing which object that is at all times.
(To be fair, it would indeed be possible for the debugger to watch the value of an instance variable—IIRC, both debuggers can already do this in a watchpoint, though reliability of watchpoints was flaky the last time I tried one. If the debugger could translate the property into its backing ivar, if it has one, and watch that, it would be a decent 90% solution for the majority of properties, which aren't backed by imaginative storage implementations and custom accessors. But the debuggers cannot do this today.)
The second reason is that NSArray is a class cluster.
You probably already know the first part of this (I suspect it's why you're trying to specify a single object by a property of another):
NSArray and NSMutableArray are both abstract classes, which in turn means that neither one implements the business of being an array; each one implements a bunch of convenience methods, while leaving a select set of core methods unimplemented, for subclasses to implement.
So, when you create an NSArray, you do not create an NSArray. The object you get back will be an instance of some private subclass of NSArray, with its own implementation of all of the details of how it manages an ordered list of objects.
So you could set a breakpoint on, say, -[NSArray objectAtIndex:], but it would never get hit, because nothing uses NSArray's implementation of objectAtIndex:—it would not make sense to use that implementation, because that implementation raises an exception (intended to catch subclasses that forget to implement it).
The part that breaks your question is:
While NSArray's implementations of various non-essential methods are defined ultimately in terms of the core methods, such as objectAtIndex:, that does not mean that subclasses are bound to use those implementations. A subclass could very well have its own implementations that don't use objectAtIndex:, if objectAtIndex: is not the most efficient way to do what they do (e.g., if the array is backed by a linked list rather than a C array).
So, to summarize this long answer:
It is not possible for the debugger to reliably watch the value of a property.
As such, it is not possible for the debugger to break when a method in the class of the object that is the value of that property is called, because the correct method to set the breakpoint on may change at any time, and the debugger cannot know when that happens.
Even if you could break on objectAtIndex: of some object identified by property, the array may validly never use objectAtIndex:, in which case your breakpoint would never get hit anyway.
You probably should ask another question about whatever you're trying to do by breaking on objectAtIndex:. I assume you're trying to investigate a bug in your app; that bug is probably another interesting question.
After some digging, I found a way to work this out. That's kinda ugly.
It involves creating a conditional breakpoint dynamically, in a command triggered by a first breakpoint.
First, break whenever your fooArray is ready. I settled on the fooArray accessor, but it could be done earlier :
breakpoint set --name "-[Foo fooArray]"
Then, what you want is break when objectAtIndex: is called on this specific array object. First let's put its pointer in a variable :
expr id $watch = self->_fooArray
and then create a new breakpoint, using this variable in the condition :
breakpoint set --name "-[__NSArrayI objectAtIndex:]" --condition "$rdi == $watch"
$rdi contains self, at least on x86_64. Use $r0 on ARM. (See Clark Cox's great post on the topic.)
-[NSArray objectAtIndex:] is never called. As Peter mentioned, NSArray is a class cluster, and your array is actually an __NSArrayI.
Or, in Xcode :
(Don't forget to check the "continue" box.)
It's not really beautiful, but it seems to work !
I am not at my Mac, so I cannot try this myself, but how about:
breakpoint set -n "-[[Foo fooArray] objectAtIndex:]"
Am not sure how to put this, and I couldn't find the answer because of my inability to find the words to express what am looking for. (!)
In Java, I used to do something like this (I don't remember):
JPanel myButton = new JPanel("Press me"){
public void add(JComponent component){
//override add method
}
};
But, i couldn't find how to do this in Objective-C .. What I found in my search was categories and weird ^{} symbols ...
So, how can I override method(s) in a newly created object?
(For example, override -(BOOL)isEqual; in a newly created NSString* ?)
Am sorry if the question is a bit vague..
EDIT:
Obviously, without subclassing :)
EDIT:
Might as well post my problem in case someone has a better idea:
I have a few CCTransitions in COCOS2D, and I want to be notified when the transition ends .. The thing is, as soon as the transition ends, the -(void)finish; method is invoked (which is part of the CCTransition class structure)
I would really want to avoid subclassing the CCTransition class, and override the finish method to do my logic when the transition ends :)
EDIT:
-(void)onEnterTransitionDidFinish; ... I can't believe something as awesome as that existed and I haven't came across it while searching......
Which means, instead of subclassing CCTransition, override this method in my CCNode subclass :D!
It's still not going to be very clean, but assuming you're willing to concentrate the ugliness, you could do something like (untested):
Method methodToReplace =
[targetClass instanceMethodSignatureForSelector:#selector(methodToReplace)];
IMP implementationToSet =
[someProxyClass instanceMethodForSelector:#selector(implementationYouWant)];
method_setImplementation(methodToReplace, implementationToSet);
Relevant reference documentation is the Objective-C Runtime Reference and, optionally, the NSObject Class Reference (because it makes a few things slightly neater, though e.g. you could use class_getInstanceMethod from the runtime rather than instanceMethodSigntureForSelector:).
Note that you'll have no way to call the original implementation if you use exactly that recipe. method_setImplementation returns the old implementation, it's generally wise to add that to the class under a brand new selector and call that instead.
For reference, I've had a legitimate reason to do this sort of thing only exactly once: when we implemented printing support in an iOS application with which needed to be compatible with both OS 3.2 and 4.0. You need to subclass a particular class, but the class isn't available in 3.2. So you sort of have to subclass at runtime (though the conceptually neater way would be to use a normal subclass, put that into a framework and weak link, but Apple's iOS SDK terms allow static libraries only, so...).
Following Daniel's suggestion, you can implement a method in an NSObject category of the form
[anObject overrideMethod:#selector(foo:)
byBlock:^(id self,id super,id originalArg){
...
}];
What you need to do is to
objc_allocateClassPair against self's own class, to create a new temporary class
Turn a block into a function pointer, using e.g. this or this
method_setImplementation to set the new implementation to the temporary class
use object_setClass to self to set the class to the new temporary class
I haven't figured out how to provide super to the block :p
It's believed this is basically how the KVO is done by Apple, see e.g. this discussion.
Read Runtime reference.
What you have there in Java is an anonymous subclass. This is not possible in Objective-C (well, it sort of is but you would have to do some pretty involved contortions with the Obj-C runtime library).
But Objective-C as of iOS 4 or OS X 10.6 has "blocks", which is what the ^{} syntax is for. This is Objective-C's notion of a closure. This isn't going to help you directly if the APIs that you're calling don't support block callbacks, but you may be able to create wrapper classes that use blocks instead of subclassed methods to handle callbacks.
There are many resources for learning about blocks in Objective-C.
If you write method implementations in Objective-C, it is pretty standard to sum up the methods of a class in the corresponding #interface blocks. Publically accessible methods go in the header file's interface, not-so-public methods can go in an empty category on top of the implementation file.
But it's not neccessary to declare an interface for every method. If you only reference the methods below their implementation code of the same class/file, there's no need to put any declaration anywhere else.
-(void) doSomething {
}
-(void) doSomethingElse {
[self doSomething];
}
Coming from another language, this is new to me. And I can't seem to decide whether it is nice and pretty to keep the interface blocks clean, or whether it should be prevented because the order of method implementations seem like a weird dependency to have.
What is the general public's opinion of this matter?
The general rule I follow is that if the only method calling doSomething is doSomethingElse then it's fine to not have doSomething be part of the declared private interface. But the moment a second method makes use of doSomething I add it to the declared interface.
The thinking behind this is that as long as the method is only ever called from one place there's no reason to think of it as modular or reusable code. Instead it's more like the method exists just to tidy up the implementation of its calling method. In essence, the method doesn't really stand on its own, so there's no point in treating it like an interface method. But as soon as a second method is making the same call it demonstrates that the code is in fact reusable and useful in more than just the original context, and able to stand on its own as a useful function. So at that point, it becomes a declared part of the private interface.
Some other coding style choices make answering this question really easy:
If you document every method at its declaration point, then not having a declaration means that either these methods are missing documentation, or they are documented at definition; either way it's inconsistent. If you follow the school of thought that most methods should be so self-explanatory from their name that they don't need documentation, this might not be an issue.
Some people advocate ordering methods from more general to more specific; in that model your example is ordered wrong, and the only way to fix it is to have a declaration.
There's also the question of whether you would find it annoying to get unexpected compiler errors when you do simple re-ordering or re-factoring just because you happened to start using a method earlier, and have to stop and add the declaration at that point.
I'm looking for a way to make an NSInvocation invoke a specific IMP. By default, it invokes the "lowest" IMP it can find (ie, the most-recently-overridden version), but I'm looking for a way to make it invoke an IMP from higher up in the inheritance chain. The IMP I want to invoke is determined dynamically, or else I'd be able to use the super keyword or something like that.
My thought was to use the -forwardInvocation: mechanism to capture a message (easy and already working) and then alter the IMP so it goes to a method that is neither the super implementation nor the furthest descendent's implementation. (hard)
The only thing I've found that comes remotely close is AspectObjectiveC, but that requires libffi, which makes it non-iOS compatible. Ideally I'd like this to be cross platform.
Any ideas?
disclaimer: i'm just experimenting
Trying out #bbum's idea of a trampoline function
So I think I've got things mostly set up; I've got the following trampoline that gets correctly added via class_addMethod(), and it does get entered:
id dd_trampolineFunction(id self, SEL _cmd, ...) {
IMP imp = [self retrieveTheProperIMP];
self = [self retrieveTheProperSelfObject];
asm(
"jmp %0\n"
:
: "r" (imp)
);
return nil; //to shut up the compiler
}
I've verified that both the proper self and the proper IMP are the right things prior to the JMP, and the _cmd parameter is also coming in properly. (in other words, I correctly added this method).
However, something is going on. I sometimes find myself jumping to a method (usually not the right one) with a nil self and _cmd. Other times I'll just crash in the middle of nowhere with an EXC_BAD_ACCESS. Ideas? (it's been a long time since I've done anything in assembly...) I'm testing this on x86_64.
NSInvocation is just an object representation of a message send. As such, it can't invoke a specific IMP any more than a normal message send could. In order to have an invocation call a specific IMP, you'd either need to write a custom NSInvocation class that goes through the IMP-calling routine or you'd have to write a trampoline that implements the behavior and then create an invocation that represents a message to the trampoline (i.e. you basically wouldn't be using NSInvocation for much of anything).
Added long after the fact, for reference:
You can do it with private API. Put this category somewhere convenient:
#interface NSInvocation (naughty)
-(void)invokeUsingIMP:(IMP)imp;
#end
and voila, it does exactly what you'd expect. I dug up this gem from one of Mike Ash's old blog posts.
Private API tricks like this are great for research or in-house code. Just remember to excise it from your appstore-bound builds.
Given that you already have the IMP, you simply need a way to do a very raw forward of the method call to said IMP. And given that you are willing to use an NSInvocation like solution, then you could also build a similar proxy class.
If I were faced with this, I would create a simple proxying class that contained the IMP to be called and the target object (you'll need to set the self parameter). Then, I would write a trampoline function in assembly that takes the first argument, assumes it is an instance of the proxying class, grabs the self, stuffs it into the register holding argument 0, grabs the IMP and *JMPs to it as a tail call.
With trampoline in hand, you would then add that trampoline as an IMP for any selector on the proxying class that you want forwarded to a particular IMP....
To achieve any kind of generic mechanism like this, the key is to avoid anything having to do with rewriting the stack frame. Avoid the C ABI. Avoid moving arguments about.
An untested idea:
Could you use object_setClass() to force the selection of the IMP that you want? That is…
- (void)forwardInvocation:(NSInvocation *)invocation {
id target = [invocation target];
Class targetClass = classWithTheImpIWant();
Class originalClass = objc_setClass(target, targetClass);
[invocation invoke];
objc_setClass(target, originalClass);
}
I think your best choice is to use libffi. Have you seen the port to iOS at https://github.com/landonf/libffi-ios? I haven't tried the port, but i have successfully invoked IMP with arbitrary arguments on the Mac.
Have a look at JSCocoa https://github.com/parmanoir/jscocoa it includes code to help you prepare a ffi_cif structure from a Method and it also contains a version of libffi that should compile on iOS. (Haven't tested either)
You should probably have a look at how we swizzle the implementation of a certain method on an instance of an object in https://github.com/tuenti/TMInstanceMethodSwizzler
Basically, you swizzle the method for all object of a class so when its called it look up in a dictionary whats is the implementation which has to be called for the target object, falling back to the original implementation if not found.
You can also use the private invokeWithImp: method, but this is discouraged if you intent to submit the app to the store.
you could add the IMP to the class using class_addMethod under a new selector and invoke that selector.
the temporary method can't be removed though.