AFNetworking Reachability Return FALSE value? - ios7

I have internet connection and can browsing with browser.
Here is my codes to check Reachability with AFNetworking.
- (BOOL)connected {
return [AFNetworkReachabilityManager sharedManager].reachable;
}
And In ViewDidLoad
BOOL isOnline = [self connected];
if(isOnline == YES)
{
NSLog(#"YES");
}
else
{
NSLog(#"NO");
}
It's only showing NO and i don't know why is it?
Is there easiest way to check Reachability with AFNetworking?

I guess startMonitoring isn't called, try to do the below:
- (void)viewDidLoad {
[super viewDidLoad];
....
[[AFNetworkReachabilityManager sharedManager] startMonitoring];
}

If above answer is not solving your issue,
then your problem might be due to calling [AFNetworkReachabilityManager sharedManager].reachable while it is in the middle of 'startMonitoring' process where it would always return NO.
I had the same issue. I was calling web service while AFNetworkReachabilityManager had not finished monitoring process and was returning reachable = NO although I had working internet connection.
- (void) callWebService {
NSLog(#"Calling Webservice...");
if ([AFNetworkReachabilityManager sharedManager].reachable == NO) {
NSLog(#"%#", kErrorNoInternet);
return;
}
// Now, proceed to call webservice....
}
So, to solve this I did a trick. Called web service after some delay (in this example 0.05 sec).
Before:
[self callWebService];
Output:
After:
[self performSelector:#selector(callWebService) withObject:nil afterDelay:0.3]; // you can set delay value as per your choice
Output:
You can see from the output, the time difference is hardly 0.05 sec (exact value 0.048 sec).
Hope this will help.

instead of waiting you can use blocks just to make sure that your web service will be only called when network is available.
[[AFNetworkReachabilityManager sharedManager]startMonitoring];
[[AFNetworkReachabilityManager sharedManager]setReachabilityStatusChangeBlock:^(AFNetworkReachabilityStatus status)
{
if (status == AFNetworkReachabilityStatusReachableViaWWAN || status == AFNetworkReachabilityStatusReachableViaWiFi)
{
// connected. you can call your web service here
}else
{
// internet disconnected
}
}];

Related

Use callback to return string

I've working on/learning this all afternoon.
Following an example here: http://themainthread.com/blog/2012/09/communicating-with-blocks-in-objective-c.html, I have managed to setup a callback to get the result of an asynchronous call to a web service i have.
The web service takes a key code and the app transforms it and passes it back for authentication.
With my code below, how can I change the method from a void to an NSString that I can call to return my pass code?
-(void) showPassCode{
getAuthCodeAndMakePassCodeCompleteBlock callback = ^(BOOL wasSuccessful, NSString *passCode) {
if (wasSuccessful) {
NSLog(#"Code is: %#", passCode);
} else {
NSLog(#"Unable to fetch code. Try again.");
}
};
[self getAuthCodeAndMakePassCode:#"myAuthCode" withCallback:callback];
}
Ideally, I want it to work or look like this:
-(NSString *) strPassCode{
getAuthCodeAndMakePassCodeCompleteBlock callback = ^(BOOL wasSuccessful, NSString *passCode) {
if (wasSuccessful) {
return passCode;
} else {
return nil;
}
};
[self getAuthCodeAndMakePassCode:#"myAuthCode" withCallback:callback];
}
Without knowing the specifics of your code and how you query the server, I have to imagine it would look something like:
-(void)getAuthCodeWithCallback:(void (^)(NSString* authCode))callback
{
//make server call, synchronously in this example
NSString* codeReturnedFromServer = [self getServerCodeSynchronous];
callback(codeReturnedFromServer);
}
//some calling code
[self getAuthCodeWithCallback:^(NSString* authCode) {
NSLog(#"Code is: %#", authCode);
}];
If the method that gets your auth code from the server is asynchronous, it would look something like this:
-(void)getAuthCodeWithCallback:(void (^)(NSString* authCode))callback
{
//make server call, asynchronously in this example
[self someMethodCallToQueryCodeFromServerWithCallback:^(NSError* error, NSString* code) {
if (error) {
//handle error
}
else
callback(code);
}
}

AFNetworkReachabilityManager says no network

I'm confused due to lack of examples, so I did this in my appDelegate's didFinishLaunching:
[[AFNetworkReachabilityManager sharedManager] startMonitoring];
bool isThere = [[AFNetworkReachabilityManager sharedManager] isReachable];
And that always returns false, in spite of the network being there and working.
Two questions:
1) if I'm not looking for changes in status, do I need startMonitoring?
2) is there anything you need to do before reading isReachable? Do you need to wait?
I know it's too late to answer. If anybody looking for this.
Determining network status requires little time.
So, calling isReachable right after startMonitoring will always return false.
You can call isReachable inside setReachabilityStatusChangeBlock ;
[[AFNetworkReachabilityManager sharedManager] startMonitoring];
[[AFNetworkReachabilityManager sharedManager] setReachabilityStatusChangeBlock:^(AFNetworkReachabilityStatus status){
NSLog(#"status changed");
//check for isReachable here
}];
Hey I am very late to post the answer, but when I saw this question I remembered how long I've spent time to get one working code to check if network is available and finally found this code. Connectivity variable is a Bool which will give momentary network status when accessed, use of this code block in a class will give you real time network status. Its in swift hope someone will find it useful.
Thanks
func checkNetworkStatus(completion:#escaping (_ connected:Bool) ->())
{
let reachability = AFNetworkReachabilityManager.shared()
reachability.startMonitoring();
reachability.setReachabilityStatusChange({ (status) -> Void in
switch(status) {
case .unknown:
self.connectivity = false
completion(false)
case .notReachable:
self.connectivity = false
completion(false)
case .reachableViaWWAN:
self.connectivity = true
completion(true)
case .reachableViaWiFi:
self.connectivity = true
completion(true)
}
})
}
This code block can be used in your class as
let appDelegate = UIApplication.shared.delegate as! AppDelegate
appDelegate.initNetworkMonitoring { (status) in
// make necessary UI updates
}
isReachable is done by Apple API SCNetworkReachabilityGetFlags. This is a block call, so AFN call it in a background queue:
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_BACKGROUND, 0),^{
SCNetworkReachabilityFlags flags;
if (SCNetworkReachabilityGetFlags(self.networkReachability, &flags)) {
AFPostReachabilityStatusChange(flags, callback);
}
});
If you try https://github.com/tonymillion/Reachability you get the result immediately then. But of course it may cause the problem like this, main thread blocked on SCNetworkReachabilityGetFlags
-(BOOL)isReachable
{
SCNetworkReachabilityFlags flags;
if(!SCNetworkReachabilityGetFlags(self.reachabilityRef, &flags))
return NO;
return [self isReachableWithFlags:flags];
}

Method BOOL return from inside block

I'm trying to add Beeblex's new In App Purchase verification to my app, however i'm struggling passing a return value from within a block.
Here's the code I have now, and as you can see I set a BOOL value, then within the verification block I set the BOOL and return it at the end. However the return at the end is called before the block finishes, so what I need is to return the BOOL from within the block?
- (BOOL)verifyTransaction:(SKPaymentTransaction *)transaction
{
if (![BBXIAPTransaction canValidateTransactions]) {
return YES; // There is no connectivity to reach the server
}
BOOL __block toReturn = YES;
BBXIAPTransaction *bbxTransaction = [[BBXIAPTransaction alloc] initWithTransaction:transaction];
bbxTransaction.useSandbox = YES;
[bbxTransaction validateWithCompletionBlock:^(NSError *error) {
if (bbxTransaction.transactionVerified) {
if (bbxTransaction.transactionIsDuplicate) {
// The transaction is valid, but duplicate - it has already been sent to Beeblex in the past.
NSLog(#"Transaction is a duplicate!");
[FlurryAnalytics logEvent:#"Transaction duplicate!"];
toReturn = NO;
} else {
// The transaction has been successfully validated and is unique
NSLog(#"Transaction valid data:%#",bbxTransaction.validatedTransactionData);
[FlurryAnalytics logEvent:#"Transaction verified"];
toReturn = YES;
}
} else {
// Check whether this is a validation error, or if something went wrong with Beeblex
if (bbxTransaction.hasConfigurationError || bbxTransaction.hasServerError || bbxTransaction.hasClientError) {
// The error was not caused by a problem with the data, but is most likely due to some transient networking issues
NSLog(#"Transaction error caused by network, not data");
[FlurryAnalytics logEvent:#"Transaction network error"];
toReturn = YES;
} else {
// The transaction supplied to the validation service was not valid according to Apple
NSLog(#"Transaction not valid according to Apple");
[FlurryAnalytics logEvent:#"Transaction invalid!!"];
toReturn = NO;
}
}
}];
NSLog(#"toReturn: %#",toReturn ? #"Yes" : #"No");
return toReturn;
}
If I simply put return = NO; inside the block, I get compiler warnings of Incompatible block pointer types, and control may reach end of non-void block.
Beeblex developer here. The code inside -validateWithCompletionBlock: execute asynchronously (in the background, it needs to talk to our servers, so there's no point blocking your app completely while we wait for the Internet to do its thing).
Therefore, you need to rethink your approach to validating your receipts. Right now you, general workflow is:
Complete purchase
Call Beeblex
Wait for response
Check boolean value
But #3 returns right away, so this will never work. You should consider doing something like this:
Complete purchase
Show a “Please wait…” view, or something similar that advises the user that you're unlocking whatever they've purchased.
Call Beeblex
Inside the block, determine whether the validation succeeded or not, and then act to unlock the content from there.
Sit idle until called by the block
Here's a quick-and-dirty example. I didn't compile it, so it probably has a few bugs, but it should give you the idea behind the intended usage pattern.
- (void) showWaitView {
// Display a wait view
}
- (void) hideWaitView {
// Hide the wait view
}
- (void) completeValidationWithValidateReceiptData:(NSDictionary *) receipt isRecoverableError(BOOL) isRecoverableError {
[self hideWaitView];
if (receipt) {
// Unlock the content, tell the user
} else {
if (isRecoverableError) {
// Probably a network error of some kind. Tell user they need to be connected,
// and ask them to do it again.
} else {
// Keep the content locked, tell the user something went wrong
}
}
}
- (void) validateReceipt:(SKPaymentTransaction *) transaction {
if (![BBXIAPTransaction canValidateTransactions]) {
[self completeValidationWithValidateReceiptData:Nil isRecoverableError:YES];
return;
}
BBXIAPTransaction *bbxTransaction = [[BBXIAPTransaction alloc] initWithTransaction:transaction];
bbxTransaction.useSandbox = YES;
[bbxTransaction validateWithCompletionBlock:^(NSError *error) {
if (bbxTransaction.transactionVerified) {
if (bbxTransaction.transactionIsDuplicate) {
// The transaction is valid, but duplicate - it has already been sent to Beeblex in the past.
[FlurryAnalytics logEvent:#"Transaction duplicate!"];
[self completeValidationWithValidateReceiptData:Nil isRecoverableError:NO];
} else {
// The transaction has been successfully validated and is unique
[FlurryAnalytics logEvent:#"Transaction verified"];
[self completeValidationWithValidateReceiptData:bbxTransaction.validatedTransactionData isRecoverableError:NO];
}
} else {
// Check whether this is a validation error, or if something went wrong with Beeblex
if (bbxTransaction.hasConfigurationError || bbxTransaction.hasServerError || bbxTransaction.hasClientError) {
// The error was not caused by a problem with the data, but is most likely due to some transient networking issues
[FlurryAnalytics logEvent:#"Transaction network error"];
[self completeValidationWithValidateReceiptData:Nil isRecoverableError:YES];
} else {
// The transaction supplied to the validation service was not valid according to Apple
[FlurryAnalytics logEvent:#"Transaction invalid!!"];
[self completeValidationWithValidateReceiptData:Nil isRecoverableError:NO];
}
}
}];
}
<3 blocks
- (void)verifyTransaction:(SKPaymentTransaction *)transaction completionHandler:(void (^)(BOOL flag))completionHandler
{
if (![BBXIAPTransaction canValidateTransactions]) {
completionHandler(YES); // There is no connectivity to reach the server
}
BBXIAPTransaction *bbxTransaction = [[BBXIAPTransaction alloc] initWithTransaction:transaction];
bbxTransaction.useSandbox = YES;
[bbxTransaction validateWithCompletionBlock:^(NSError *error) {
if (bbxTransaction.transactionVerified) {
if (bbxTransaction.transactionIsDuplicate) {
// The transaction is valid, but duplicate - it has already been sent to Beeblex in the past.
NSLog(#"Transaction is a duplicate!");
[FlurryAnalytics logEvent:#"Transaction duplicate!"];
completionHandler(NO);
} else {
// The transaction has been successfully validated and is unique
NSLog(#"Transaction valid data:%#",bbxTransaction.validatedTransactionData);
[FlurryAnalytics logEvent:#"Transaction verified"];
completionHandler(YES);
}
} else {
// Check whether this is a validation error, or if something went wrong with Beeblex
if (bbxTransaction.hasConfigurationError || bbxTransaction.hasServerError || bbxTransaction.hasClientError) {
// The error was not caused by a problem with the data, but is most likely due to some transient networking issues
NSLog(#"Transaction error caused by network, not data");
[FlurryAnalytics logEvent:#"Transaction network error"];
completionHandler(YES);
} else {
// The transaction supplied to the validation service was not valid according to Apple
NSLog(#"Transaction not valid according to Apple");
[FlurryAnalytics logEvent:#"Transaction invalid!!"];
completionHandler(NO);
}
}
}];
}
Then use
[instance verifyTransaction:transaction completionHandler:^(BOOL flag) {
if (flag) {
// YOUR CODE HERE
}
}];
instead of
if ([instance verifyTransaction:transaction]) {
// YOUR CODE HERE
}

How to define a reachability timeout on ios

I use the Reachability class to know if I have an internet connection available. The problem is when wifi is available but not internet, the - (NetworkStatus) currentReachabilityStatus method take too much time.
my code:
Reachability* reachability = [Reachability reachabilityWithHostName:#"www.apple.com"];
NetworkStatus remoteHostStatus = [reachability currentReachabilityStatus];
The application "freeze" temporarily on the second line. How to define the maximum time for this waiting ?
I don't think so. But more importantly, I don't think you'd want to if you could (you may get false positives). Let Reachability run it's course.
If you look at the Reachability demo project, the notion isn't to invoke reachabilityWithHostName and check currentReachabilityStatus when you need the Internet. You invoke currentReachabilityStatus at during your app delegate's didFinishLaunchingWithOptions, set up a notification, and Reachability will tell you when the Internet connectivity has changed. I find that subsequent checks to currentReachabilityStatus are plenty fast (regardless of connectivity) when I (a) setup reachability at startup; but (b) check for connectivity in a just-in-time manner.
And if you absolutely need to start your processing immediately, then the question is whether you can push that into the background (e.g. dispatch_async()). E.g., my app retrieves updates from the server, but because that's happening in the background, neither me nor my user are aware of any delays.
I was having issues with the same thing but I found a way to specify a timeout. I replaced this method inside the Reachability Class from Apple.
- (NetworkStatus)currentReachabilityStatus
{
NSAssert(_reachabilityRef != NULL, #"currentNetworkStatus called with NULL SCNetworkReachabilityRef");
//NetworkStatus returnValue = NotReachable;
__block SCNetworkReachabilityFlags flags;
__block BOOL timeOut = NO;
double delayInSeconds = 5.0;
dispatch_time_t delay = dispatch_time(DISPATCH_TIME_NOW, delayInSeconds * NSEC_PER_SEC);
dispatch_after(delay, dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_HIGH, 0), ^(void){
timeOut = YES;
});
__block NetworkStatus returnValue = NotReachable;
__block BOOL returned = NO;
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^{
if (SCNetworkReachabilityGetFlags(_reachabilityRef, &flags))
{
if (_alwaysReturnLocalWiFiStatus)
{
returnValue = [self localWiFiStatusForFlags:flags];
}
else
{
returnValue = [self networkStatusForFlags:flags];
}
}
returned = YES;
});
while (!returned && !timeOut) {
if (!timeOut && !returned){
[NSThread sleepForTimeInterval:.02];
} else {
break;
}
}
return returnValue;
}

Starting and stopping operations in a thread-safe manner

I have a simple class that looks a bit like this:
#protocol Recorder
#property(BOOL) isRunning;
- (void) start;
- (void) stop;
#end
And the method implementations:
- (void) start {
if (running)
return;
…
running = YES;
}
- (void) stop {
if (!running)
return;
…
running = NO;
}
And I started thinking about thread safety. The current solution is not thread safe, right? How about this:
- (void) start {
#synchronized(self) {
if (running)
return;
…
running = YES;
}
}
Is this correct, provided that the -stop method is also synchronized? I don’t like the extra nesting introduced by #synchronized, though. Would explicit lock work?
- (void) stop {
[startStopLock lock];
if (running)
return;
…
running = YES;
[startStopLock unlock];
}
Or could I do even this?
enum { Running, Stopped };
NSConditionLock *startStopLock;
- (void) start {
if (![startStopLock tryLockWithCondition:Stopped])
return;
…
[startStopLock unlockWithCondition:Running];
}
Is this solution correct? Would you do things differently?
What language is this? You are correct, the first version is not thread safe.
The synchronized version is thread safe. With an explicit lock you need to be careful not to miss the unlock on the early return path.
If you have access to locked xchg intrinsics, you can do it fairly easily with an atomic exchange operation. cmpxchg also works.
start() {
if (locked_xchg(running, YES) == YES) {
// the old value was YES, so nothing to do
return
}