NSTextField Subclass Crashes on setLineBreakMode: method - objective-c

I have a subclass of NSTextField and I setting the LineBreakMode.
It works fine under my mac with Yosemite
and Crashes for one of my users on Mavericks
Terminating app due to uncaught exception 'NSInvalidArgumentException', reason: '-[XTextField setLineBreakMode:]: unrecognized selector sent to instance 0x7fc784548ad0'
How could I work this round ?
Header File of the subclass
#import <Cocoa/Cocoa.h>
#interface XTextField : NSTextField
- (void)setText:(NSString *)text
#end
Implementation
#import "XTextField.h"
#implementation XTextField
- (void)setText:(NSString *)text
{
if (text)
{
[self setStringValue:text];
}
else
{
[self setStringValue:#""];
}
}
- (instancetype)initWithFrame:(NSrect)frame
{
if(self = [super initWithFrame:frame])
{
[self setEditable:NO];
[self setSelectable:NO];
[self setDrawsBackGround:NO];
[self setBezeled:NO];
}
return self;
}
#end
Calling code:
XTextField* myLabel = [[XTextField alloc]initWithFrame:myFrame];
[myLabel settext:#"text text text"];
[myLabel setLineBreakMode:NSLineBreakByTruncatingTail];

There are lots of questions that need to be answered here. The problem, as indicated by the error message, is that the setLineBreakMode: selector was sent to an object that doesn't recognize that selector. What could be happening that would cause that? Figuring things like this out requires critical thinking and detective work. Here are some ideas.
-setLineBreakMode: does not seem to actually be implemented by NSTextField; it is a method of NSCell, and of NSMutableParagraphStyle, as far as I can tell. If you have an NSTextField (or a subclass of it) you'd normally call [[myTextField cell] setLineBreakMode:...], but your code snippet doesn't indicate that you are doing that. So unless you implemented this method in your subclass – which you don't state that you did – this is probably the reason for the crash. Perhaps you don't see the crash on your Mac because this code path doesn't get hit, for whatever reason? Or perhaps Apple privately implemented this method in Yosemite but not in Mavericks? Who knows. Do you get a warning from the compiler on that line, saying that the object does not respond to that selector? Do not ignore compiler warnings.
The code you posted looks like you are calling setLineBreakMode: on the class object, not on an instance of the class; normally classes start with a capital letter, whereas instances start with a lowercase letter. Obeying coding conventions like this makes things much less confusing for everybody. And if your subclass is really named NSTextFieldSubClass, then I agree with #MichaelDautermann that you should never, ever name classes with an NS prefix; that is both confusing and asking for trouble, since for all you know Apple has a private subclass with exactly that name. Class names beginning with NS are reserved by Apple.
It could be that the object you think is in the variable that you have apparently named NSTextFieldSubClass is not an instance of your subclass at all, or has been freed (and perhaps replaced by a new object at the same address), or some such problem, and that that is why it doesn't respond to the selector. You could investigate this by turning on NSZombieEnabled, examining it in the debugger, adding an NSLog of it (perhaps with an added -description method in your subclass), or many other techniques.
That's all pretty vague, but then the question is vague. You need to post the code for your subclass, the code where you instantiate the subclass, and the code surrounding the line that crashes, at a minimum, to get more specific help. We can't read your mind, and the root of the bug may well be in one of those places.

Related

Accessing NSObject's (superclass) version of allocWithZone while bypassing overriding (subclass) version of allocWithZone

In iOS Programming Book from Big Nerd Ranch (3rd ed) they say on pg.194
..a knowledgeable programmer could still create an instance of BNRItemStore via allocWithZone:, which would bypass our sneaky alloc trap.To prevent this possibility, override allocWithZone: in BNRItemStore.m to return the single BNRItemStore instance.
+(id) allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone
{
return [self sharedStore];
}
This statement seems confusing to me. Doesn't this following code not prove this wrong in a way-
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#interface BNRItemStore : NSObject
+(BNRItemStore *)sharedStore;
+(id)retrieveObject;
#end
#implementation BNRItemStore
+(BNRItemStore *)sharedStore{
static BNRItemStore *sharedStore=nil;
if (!sharedStore){
NSLog(#"Test2");
sharedStore= [[super allocWithZone:nil] init];
}
NSLog(#"sharedStore-> %#",sharedStore);
return sharedStore;
}
+(id)allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone{
NSLog(#"Test1");
return [self sharedStore];
}
+(id)alloc{
NSLog(#"Retrieving super object");
NSLog(#"%#", [super allocWithZone:nil]);//Bypassing the subclass version of allocWithZone.
return [super allocWithZone:nil];
}
#end
int main(){
[[BNRItemStore alloc] init]; //the alloc message triggers a call to the subclass (overriding) version of +(id)alloc method
}
The output is:
2013-10-18 18:24:40.132 BNRItemStore[381:707] Retrieving super object
2013-10-18 18:24:40.134 BNRItemStore[381:707] BNRItemStore:0x7f8c72c091e0
If the call [super allocWithZone:nil] inside of subclass 'alloc' method would have triggered a call to subclass allocWithZone,the console would be logging "Test1" and "Test2" and finally would lead to static pointer getting allocated. But this did not happen.
This means that if we directly call [NSObject allocWithZone:nil] or [super allocWithZone:nil], the message would not redirect to the overriding version (subclass version) of allocWithZone but will give direct access to NSAllocateObject() function which does the actual allocation.
The code of +(id)allocWithZone in NSObject must look somewhat like this-
+(id)allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone{
return NSAllocateObject();
}
Had this implementation(NSObject's allocWithZone:) included something like [self allocWithZone], the message dispatch mechanism would have included the subclass version of allocWithZone which would then make us go through the "sneaky" trap involving a call to sharedStore method.Following is the case that I'm talking about. Now if this were the case the code would definitely have infinite-looped.Clearly this isn't the case.
+(id)allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone{
if([self allocWithZone:zone]) //this would trigger a call to subclass ver. which would call sharedStore method which would then have [super allocWithZone:nil].Infinite Loop
return NSAllocateObject();
}
So can someone clear up this query about this so called "sneaky" trap. Was the trap meant for blocking anyone from instantiating separately .i.e not being able to use NSObject's allocWithZone except when inside of sharedStore method ? Pls clarify..
The first, most important lesson here is that you should not override +allocWithZone:. I know the BNR book describes it (and the BNR book is generally very good). You shouldn't do it. I know that Apple includes some example code that does it. You shouldn't do it. (And Apple notes in the explanation that it is rare to need this.) Singletons should be created with the dispatch_once pattern.
You don't give the initial code, but I suspect that their example code overrides alloc, but not allocWithZone:. They're simply saying that if the caller uses allocWithZone:, it won't go through alloc, so they've also overridden alloc to catch that. (Of course the right answer would be just to override allocWithZone: and not alloc. But you shouldn't be overriding these methods in any case.)
EDIT:
I believe you are misunderstanding what "our sneaky alloc trap" means here. The author is assuming the following code at this point in the text:
#interface BNRItemStore : NSObject
+(BNRItemStore *)sharedStore;
#end
#implementation BNRItemStore
+(BNRItemStore *)sharedStore{
static BNRItemStore *sharedStore=nil;
if (!sharedStore){
sharedStore = [[super allocWithZone:nil] init];
}
return sharedStore;
}
#end
That's it; no +alloc overrides at all. It then points out "to enforce the singleton status…you must ensure that another instance of BNRItemStore cannot be allocated." (*)
The author goes on to suggest that we might enforce the singleton status by overriding +alloc, but immediately notes that this is insufficient, since the caller can use +allocWithZone: instead. Since it is documented that [NSObject alloc] calls [self allocWithZone:], it is necessary and sufficient to override +allocWithZone: and unnecessary and insufficient to override +alloc.
What you've done in your code is demonstrate that you can modify BNRItemStore to call [super allocWithZone:] in +alloc. That is not the point. If you can modify BNRItemStore, you could also make it a non-singleton. The point is whether an outside caller (main() in your case) can bypass the singleton instantiation, which she cannot. (**)
(*) The point it doesn't make at this point, and probably should, is that it is generally a bad idea to "enforce the singleton status" by quietly returning a singleton when the callers asked you to allocate a new object. If you need to enforce the singleton status, it is better IMO to do so with an assertion in init, since the request for a second allocation represents a programming error. That said, there are times when "transparent" singletons of immutable objects can be useful for performance reasons, such as the special singletons NSNumber provides for certain common integers, and this technique is appropriate in those cases. (By "transparent," I mean that the singleton-ness is an implementation detail that the caller should never worry about. This presumes at a minimum that the object is immutable.)
(**) Actually she can if she is determined to do so. She could always call NSAllocateObject() herself, bypassing +alloc entirely, and then call -init. This would of course be insane, and there is no reason to "protect" her from herself in doing this. It is not the job of an SDK to protect itself from the caller. It is only the job of an SDK to protect a caller from likely mistakes. The caller is never the enemy.
i'm not sure if this quite answers your question or not, but "allocWithZone:" was used back in the day to be able to partition the memory allocated. apple has since moved away from this concept and expects everything to be allocated in the same heap space. "allocWithZone:" does not even function the way it used to, and apple specifically says not to use it.

Unable to access App Delegate property

I'm trying to access a property in my app delegate from another class (something I thought would be rather simply) but I'm having troubles in doing so. My files currently look like this:
LTAppDelegate.h
#import <Cocoa/Cocoa.h>
#import "Subject.h"
#interface LTAppDelegate : NSObject <NSApplicationDelegate, NSOutlineViewDelegate, NSOutlineViewDataSource, NSMenuDelegate> {
}
#property Subject *selectedSubject;
#end
LTAppDelegate.m
#synthesize selectedSubject;
The value for selectedSubject is then set inside applicationDidFinishLaunchingin LTAppDelegate.m. Now I'm wanting to get access to this from another class that I have, which is called LTTableViewController and is setup like so:
LTTableViewController.h
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#import "LTAppDelegate.h"
#import "Subject.h"
#import "Note.h"
#interface LTTableViewController : NSObject{
NSMutableArray *notesArray;
LTAppDelegate *appDelegate;
Subject *s;
}
-(IBAction)currentSubjectDetails:(id)sender;
#end
LTTableViewController.m
#import "LTTableViewController.h"
#implementation LTTableViewController
- (id)init
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
appDelegate = ((LTAppDelegate *)[[NSApplication sharedApplication] delegate]);
s = [appDelegate selectedSubject];
NSLog(#"Test Subject: %#", [s title]);
}
return self;
}
-(IBAction)currentSubjectDetails:(id)sender{
NSLog(#"Selected Subject: %#", [s title]);
}
After inserting various NSLog() messages it would appear that the init method of LTTableViewController is called before applicationDidFinishLaunchingis called in LTAppDelegate. Based on that it makes sense that the "Test Subject" NSLog() in LTTableViewController.m init displays null; however, the 'currentSubjectDetails' method is linked to a button on the interface and when that is pressed after the app is finished loading, the NSLog() message still returns null.
Is there anything obvious I'm missing here. I feel like I'm being a little stupid and missing something really basic.
Similar issue is described here http://iphonedevsdk.com/forum/iphone-sdk-development/11537-viewcontroller-called-before-applicationdidfinishlaunching.html Adding this kind of functionality in the constructor is usually not recommended. Generally, I'd suggest using parameters and not relying on hidden dependencies as those will necessarily depend on the order of execution and you lose the help of the compiler to avoid invalid values. View controller initializers should not be used to store mutable references since view controllers are initialized automatically by predefined constructors, and you cannot pass parameters to them this way.
If you need to access the app delegate, then obtain it, perform operations on it and drop the reference. Try not to cache it, you'll very likely introduce hidden issues. I suggest you hook into the appear-disappear cycle if the viewed contents depend on any kind of current state.
Well, s does not exist, since it is set to null in init, so -currentSubjectDetails prints null. It is not a good idea to set your private variables in the constructor if they depend on other objects.
Rather, let the other objects explicitly tell your controller that it should use that Subject (e.g., treat s as a property).
Or, just query ((LTAppDelegate *)[[NSApplication sharedApplication] delegate]); every time.
-applicationDidFinishLaunching called when e.g. all nib's object initialized, so launching will be ended after construction of views related stuff. This means that constructors of nib's objects wouldn't use any other nib's objects (your delegate and controller initializing with nib, right?).
Try to use -awakeFromNib instead of constructors, I think it will called after construction of both objects.
If you are trying to avoid often calls of ((LTAppDelegate *)[[NSApplication sharedApplication] delegate]) I'll recommend to pass it as method parameter, in function stack. Cyclic references defense and some flexibility.

Objective-C associated objects leaking under ARC

I have encountered with a strange objc_setAssociatedObject behavior under ARC. Consider the following code:
static char ASSOC_KEY;
#interface DeallocTester : NSObject
#end
#implementation DeallocTester
- (void) dealloc
{
NSLog(#"DeallocTester deallocated");
//objc_setAssociatedObject(self, &ASSOC_KEY, nil, OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN);
}
#end
#implementation AppDelegate
- (void) applicationDidFinishLaunching:(UIApplication *)application
{
NSObject *test = [[DeallocTester alloc] init];
objc_setAssociatedObject(test, &ASSOC_KEY, [[DeallocTester alloc] init],
OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN);
}
I'm creating an instance of DeallocTester, then I set another DeallocTester as an associated object for it, then both of them go out of scope.
I expect the -dealloc of the first object to be called, then the associated object to be deallocated too, but I see the "DeallocTester deallocated" message printed only once. If I uncomment the objc_setAssociatedObject line in -dealloc, the second object gets deallocated too.
The Objective-C reference states that associated objects are deallocated automatically upon object destruction. Is it a compiler/ARC/whatever issue or am I missing something?
Update
This sample code is actually working if you run it from a brand-new project. But I have two ARC-enabled projects where it doesn't. I'll do some investigation and provide a better sample.
Update 2
I've filled a rdar://10636309, Associated objects leaking if NSZombie objects enabled in ARC-enabled project
I've found a source of a problem - I had NSZombie objects enabled in both my projects where this bug appears.
As far as I understand, when zombie objects are enabled, the normal instances are replaced with NSZombie upon deallocation, but all the associated objects are left alive! Beware of that behavior!
I've created a rdar://10636309
Update: There's a workaround by Cédric Luthi, and this issue appears to be fixed in iOS 6.
The code you posted works exactly as advertised under ARC. I rewrote your dealloc implementation to help make things a little more obvious.
- (void)dealloc
{
NSLog(#"deallocating %#", self);
}
Here's the resulting log:
2012-01-03 06:49:39.754 ARC Stuff[47819:10103] deallocating <DeallocTester: 0x6878800>
2012-01-03 06:49:39.756 ARC Stuff[47819:10103] deallocating <DeallocTester: 0x688b630>
Are you sure you're compiling with ARC enabled?

setDelegate:self generates a caution flag

I am trying to learn Objective C and have an error in the code for one of my lessions and I do not know how to solve it.
Code:
// AppController.m
#import "AppController.h"
#implementation AppController
- (id)init
{
[super init];
speechSynth = [[NSSpeechSynthesizer alloc] initWithVoice:nil];
[speechSynth setDelegate:self];
voiceList = [[NSSpeechSynthesizer availableVoices] retain];
Return self;
}
From [speechSynth setDelegate:self]; I get the error: Sending 'AppController *' to parameter of incompatible type 'id< NSSpeechSynthesizerDelagate>'.
The program compiles with a caution flag and seems to run correctly. I have compared my code with the author's code and can find no differences and none of my searches have indicated I should get an error on this line. The book was written for Xcode 3 and I am using Xcode 4.0.2.
Any suggestions or pointing me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Xcode is warning you that the setDelegate method expects an instance of a class that has implemented the NSSpeechSynthesizerDelagate protocol. Now, you have, but you've probably just forgotten to declare that you have. In your class declaration, change
#class AppController : NSObject
to
#class AppController : NSObject<NSSpeechSynthesizerDelegate>
to tell the world "I obey NSSpeechSynthesizerDelegate!", and silence the warning. You never know - you might get warned that you've forgotten to implement some non-optional delegate methods, and save yourself an annoying bug somewhere down the line.
When you cast the self object then warning message disappears.
[speechSynth setDelegate:(id < NSSpeechSynthesizerDelegate >) self];

'TileMap' may not respond to '+mapNamed:'

Here's an odd one. I have a class named TileMap with the following interface:
#interface TileMap : NSObject
{
int *data;
int tilesWide;
int tilesHigh;
NSString *imageName;
}
+ (id)mapNamed:(NSString *)filename;
- (id)initWithFile:(NSString *)filename;
#end
The implementation looks like this:
#implementation TileMap
+ (id)mapNamed:(NSString *)filename
{
return [[self alloc] initWithFile:filename];
}
- (id)initWithFile:(NSString *)filename
{
if (self = [super init])
{
// ...
}
return self;
}
#end
But when I add a call to [TileMap mapNamed:#"map.plist"]; to my application Xcode warns:
'TileMap' may not respond to '+mapNamed:'
The application compiles fine and calls to NSLog within TileMap-initWithFile: are logged. I noticed that Xcode's syntax coloring was off for this class and method so I tried renaming both the class and the method separately. The only combination that eliminated the warning and syntax coloring issues was to rename both the class and the method.
Am I colliding with some undocumented framework class or method? Find in Documentation doesn't reveal anything. Find in Project only reveals the call, interface definition and the implementation. I'm stumped (not that it takes much). Is there a way around this without munging my existing naming conventions?
Did you #import the TileMap.h header? Did you save your TileMap.h header?
Turns out my project directory ended up with two TileMap.h and TileMap.m files—visible from the Finder but not in Xcode. One, a complete interface and implementation, in my root project directory. The other just a bare NSObject subclass in my framework subdirectory. Not sure how that happened. Deleting the latter resolved the problem. Thanks for the help just the same Dave.
Shaun,
besides the problem you asked about, you also have a memory leak in +mapNamed:. The following line returns a non-autoreleased object with a retain count of +1, which basically gives ownership to the caller:
return [[self alloc] initWithFile:filename];
According to the Memory Management Programming Guide for Cocoa, you should return autoreleased objects from convenience methods, such as this:
return [[[self alloc] initWithFile:filename] autorelease];
If you have Snow Leopard and Xcode 3.2, you might want to try running the static analyzer to find mistakes such as this one by pressing Cmd+Shift+A.