Since UIBarButtonItem doesn't subclass UIView, it's impossible to get at the normal characteristics like its frame.
One way to do this is [barButtonItem valueForKey:#"view"]
This works perfectly, and allows you to add a GestureRecognizer (for instance) to the underlying UIView.
However, is this a private UIKit API violation?
This is not private in terms of immediate rejection upon validation, but it's private enough to be considered fragile (that is, new iOS version can break your existing app in the app store that's using the code).
I can say, that a similar code (fetching backgroundView ivar of UIToolbar via KVC) has passed app store validation and is being used in production.
In case of possible bad things, you must wrap the method in #try { ... } #catch, so that you intercept KVC possibly failing in newer iOS release.
Five Pieces of Evidence for "It's Not Private"
It's a property that you can get to in other ways. Try this and one of those views is, in fact, the _view ivar of the UIBarButtonItem in question. This indicates that access to this UIView is not prohibited itself, though the KVO way in might be questionable (but I doubt it).
NSArray *array = self.toolBar.subviews;
for (UIView *view in array) {
view.backgroundColor = UIColor.greenColor;
}
They actually trigger the KVO for this property. ivars do not have to trigger the KVO API, right?
#Farcaller mentions a similar case which is for sale in the App Store. Since he/she answered within the first 20 minutes of the question being up there, it's reasonable (but not safe!) to assume that there might be thousands of apps in the App Store that do this.
This UIView gets subbed out each time the button is pressed, so you cannot just, for example, set a gesture recognizer on it and be done. You can, however, keep setting the same gesture recognizer every time the view gets replaced. To me, this is actually more evidence that it's not a private API thing, but rather you have to be very careful when using it (and use KVO to make sure you have the latest one).
My app is for sale in the App Store and does this.
Related
I'm trying to make a NSTouchBar in an SDL application and I need to attach a responder to the NSWindow object (that's the only access SDL gives into the Cocoa windowing system).
https://developer.apple.com/reference/appkit/nstouchbar
If you explicitly adopt the NSTouchBarProvider protocol in an object,
you must also explicitly send the associated key-value observing
notifications within NSTouchBar methods; this lets the system respond
appropriately to changes in the bar.
What does that mean and how do I do it? I see lots of documentation about how to subscribe to the notifications, but not how to send them?
Right now I have:
#interface MyTouchBarResponder : NSResponder <NSTouchBarDelegate>
- (id)init;
- (NSTouchBar *)makeTouchBar;
- (nullable NSTouchBarItem *)touchBar:(NSTouchBar *)touchBar makeItemForIdentifier:(NSTouchBarItemIdentifier)identifier;
#property(strong, readonly) NSTouchBar *touchBar;
#end
and I'm attaching it to the window with the code from a previous question I asked here: How to create an NSTouchBar from an NSWindow object?
touchBarResponder.nextResponder = window.nextResponder;
window.nextResponder = touchBarResponder;
but my callbacks aren't ever being called (I put exit(0) in them to make it very obvious). When I hack the code directly into the SDL library, things work as expected, but that's not a viable permanent solution.
Thank you.
First, your custom responder should conform to NSTouchBarProvider (in the above, you declare the touchBar property, but not the explicit conformance)
Second, you want to make sure that your custom responder is in the responder chain of the window (whether the first responder or just later in the chain). After adjusting the responder chain with your above code, you want to call -makeFirstResponder: and pass in some view in the window (if you need that view to be first responder) or with the custom responder object. You should then verify that the window's firstResponder is that object.
With these in place, you should get at least one call to touchBar after the window is shown and made key.
To answer the question on key-value observing notifications, that is needed for when you want to change the actual NSTouchBar object being returned from touchBar. In the general case this isn't necessary, since it's unnecessary in the static touch bar case, and even in the dynamic case, you can rely on just setting the defaultItemIdentifiers on the previously created touch bar and it will update. However, should you need to change the touch bar object, you need to ensure that -willChangeValueForKey: and -didChangeValueForKey: are sent for touchBar when you change the return value. This developer documentation on KVO goes into much more detail.
Lets say I have multiple View controller classes using the same UIAlertView *alertView. *alertView's delegate is set to a centralized delegate.
I do this because would like to use the .tag to do different things based on it.
The question is every time I invoke an alert view or dismiss it, what do i have to do to prevent a memory leak?
Should I not release every time? Or is this a very bad idea?
Thanks.
A UIAlertView may be "shown" from anywhere in your app. I have an app that the main UIViewController has a timer that every so often brings up a UIAlertView. When that timer goes off, even if my main view being shown is from a completely different UIViewController (and thus view) the Alert will come to front.
If you really want to "actively" bring up the UIAlertView from any of your UIViewControllers (lets say based upon a user action), then I would do one of two things.
1) setup my Application Delegate Object with the UIAlertView implemented there, with accessor methods for invoking (showing) the Alert view, and thus freeing it from there also, or
2) Generate a singleton like object with the AlertView implemented there!!!
In either case then you can simply dealloc your UIAlertView once within the dealloc routine you write for either of those placements, and alloc it only once when the object is initialized.
Just treat it like you would any other object. If you want to keep it around, assign it to a retained property like: self.myAlert. You still need to release it like you normally would when creating it. The retained property will take care of keeping it around for you.
Always keep your retains(alloc's, copy's, etc...) and releases balanced.
Let's say I have a two subclasses of UIViewController called MasterViewController and DetailViewController.
DetailViewController has a property of type NSNumber called level and a UILabel called levelLabel.
MasterViewController has a segue to DetailViewController called ToDetail. MasterViewController's prepareForSegue is like so
- (void)prepareForSegue:(UIStoryboardSegue)segue sender:(id)sender
{
if ([segue.identifier isEqualToString:#"ToDetail"]) {
DetailViewController *detailVC = (DetailViewController *)segue.destinationViewController;
detailVC.level = [NSNumber numberWithInt:10]; // never mind the literal...pretend there was some algorithm for it
}
}
So then, in DetailViewController we implement the setter for levelLabel like so:
- (void)setLevelLabel:(UILabel *)levelLabel
{
if (levelLabel) {
_levelLabel = levelLabel;
_levelLabel.text = level.stringValue;
}
}
Is this good code design? Also, could you critique my code writing style? I pretty much wrote all this code on the fly so this is pretty much how I write code for the most part.
I thought of this question while showering because this is how I implement the setting of almost all the label texts that depend on a segue.
What follows is my own way of thinking about such relationships. Italics applies to your question.
You have the thing being controlled (the label) the controller (destination view controller) and the context it is being controlled within (the source view controller). This can also be expressed as model-view-controller, but I think thinking about a context can apply to much more specific and localised situations.
You should generally try to keep information flow going in one direction, from the context downwards. Objects should not have to be aware of the context in which they exist, ie they shouldn't have to ask for any information, they should be told everything they need to operate. So the source view controller should push the level to the destination view controller, the destination view controller should push this information to the label. This is what you already have, sort-of.
To build upon the above, not only should information flow in one direction, but I also try to ensure the relationships are causal, ie pushing information from one object to another should cause it to subsequently be pushed to the next object. Your code is not doing this which is probably why you have a bad feeling about it.
A more appropriate thing to do is set the text property of the label within the level setter, so that when you set or change the level, the label will update subsequently. The label may or may not be loaded so you will have to check whether it is using -isViewLoaded; -viewDidLoad is the appropriate place to set the text property upon first load.
(When I say 'push' that's just my way of thinking about setting properties or passing arguments because it implies directionality. It is really dependency injection. An example of pulling information would be delegates and data sources. But note here still the object isn't aware of any context, delegates and data sources are clearly defined as protocols, not classes, and usually within the same header file, and are themselves pushed onto the object from a surrounding context. So yes the object is asking for information, but on its own terms and from a system it has no knowledge of.)
Re coding style:
That's exactly how I write code but note Apple reserves the use of underscore prefixes
I am working on an iPad (only) app and I stumbled across a weird problem. The app gets terminated after a memory warning on iPad 1 but works fine on iPad 2.
I am using ARC and targeting iOS 5. I use nibs and most of my assets are displayed using UIImageViews. I also have a few hundred buttons and plenty of gesture recognizers... I re-watched the WWDC11 videos (sessions 323 and 322) on ARC and I don't seem to be doing anything special.
The app is UIImage intensive, I am doing lots of animations using UIImage. I am however using the initWithContentsOfFile constructor rather than the imageNamed call. I'm trying to prevent the images from being cached by the system.
I'm also using GCD to schedule sound effects and to animate views. I'm always doing this on the main thread.
The app uses a UINavigationController that never has more than 1 UIViewController on it's stack. I can confirm that this is true because the didReceiveMemoryWarning only gets called on the current view controller (I'm logging the call).
The thing I don't understand is why Instruments is reporting high numbers (as if the view controllers don't get deallocated) in both the Allocations and VM Tracker instruments. The Allocations instrument shows a small drop when I navigate from one view controller to another (which is what I expect) but the VM Tracker Instrument shows that the Dirty Size is not dropping when I do the same thing. Eventually the app uses too much memory and gets terminated (on iPad 1). When I get memory warnings on the iPad 2 the app does NOT get terminated though...
It feels as if my images, sounds or views don't get destroyed and the memory does not get reclaimed... My object hierarchy is very basic and there should not be any retain cycles of any sort. I don't even have simple delegates...
Do you have any suggestions? I really don't want to release this app only for the iPad 2 or newer... It's an app for kids and it would be a pitty... I'd be so much happier to learn that I'm doing something wrong, as I really want to make sure this app is the best it can be...
Cheers,
Nick
There are ways to say, 'optimise' your objects by setting their properties to nil when certain things aren't needed -- so while you can't write a dealloc method anymore, you can do self.object = nil (when pertinent) which ends up doing something like this in a non-ARC world for an 'retain' (i.e., strong) property:
- (void)setObject:(id)newObject
{
[object release]; // send release message to current object
object = newObject; // set reference to newObject
[object retain]; // send retain message to newObject
}
Now while in ARC you don't/can't write retain/release yourself in your code, the compiler inserts these calls for you, meaning that in practise, setting a property to nil would do this in the above example:
[object release]; // send release message to current object
object = nil; // set reference to nil
[object retain]; // send retain message to nil (no effect)
Moreover, this is just the tip of the iceberg -- you should make sure that there are no retain cycles in your code, which could be resulting in objects leaking without recourse to their destruction. This means, that there may be places where you're using strong references to a property (i.e., an object), when you should be using a weak property. The difference being, that strong references are retained, and weak references are assigned, the former having its retainCount incremented and the latter resulting in a property assignment that looks like this if handwritten:
- (void)setObject:(id)newObject
{
object = newObject;
}
I don't like answering my own question but I figured it could be helpful to future googlers. I implemented my own UIImage based animation and I no longer use the animationImages property. Turns out my memory issues are now gone as I no longer need to store all the images in memory and I load them as they are required using a timer.
I actually think that rolling out a custom animation is beneficial since it allows for callbacks and more powerful customisation options.
Once I'm happy with it and I feel like it's ready to be shared I will post the class(es) on GitHub.
I'm having trouble referencing one view controller from another. The code works but I get warnings which makes me think I'm going about it wrong. I'm trying to reload the data in a tableView whose controller is in a NavigationController.
What's wrong with a message like this:
From the AppDelegate:
[self.tabBarController.selectedViewController.topViewController.tableView reloadData];
Although this works, I get the warning request for member 'topViewController' in something not a structure or union because Xcode doesn't know that the selectedViewController will return a navigationController. So I could do the following:
UINavigationController *myNavigationController = self.tabBarController.selectedViewController;
[myNavigationController.topViewController.tableView reloadData];
But then I get this warning: incompatible Objective-C types initializing 'struct UIViewController *', expected 'struct UINavigationController *'
How far do I have to go with this? The first line works. To get to the "right way" is it gonna take 8 lines of code?
A major code smell here, IMO. You're trying to do action at a (great) distance. It's not exactly clear what you're trying to accomplish, nor why you need to do this action from the app delegate. I have seen some developers treat the app delegate like a giant catch-all global lump of mud, and I think this is an anti-pattern that should be eliminated from iOS development.
Back to your question: you're trying to force a table view controller, inside a tab view controller, to reload its data. I'm assuming this is in response to something happening. Why not have the view controller in charge of that table watching for that event instead of the app delegate? That way, the thing that owns the table view is directly controlling it -- which is the entire point of the MVC pattern. This is a much better approach than having the app delegate drill down through a hierarchy to find a table view... in terms of complexity, readability, and brittleness.
If, for some reason, you can't or won't have that view controller observing for the event directly (hard to fathom why offhand), you could always have the app delegate post an NSNotification and let the view controller in charge of the table register as an observer for it. Not as good as direct observation, but definitely better than your current approach.
You can't use dot-notation unless the compiler knows what type of object you are using it on, and that that object type can receive a message with that name.
You can use dot-notation with a bunch of type-casts (which in this case, is hideously ugly):
[((UITableViewController *) ((UINavigationController *) self.tabBarController.selectedViewController).topViewController).tableView reloadData];
Or you can break it up into discrete steps:
UINavigationController *navController = (UINavigationController *) self.tabBarController.selectedViewController;
UITableViewController *tableViewController = (UITableViewController *) navController.topViewController;
[tableViewController.tableView reloadData];
Note that I'm assuming that your top VC is a sub-class of UITableViewController.
You really shouldn't be accessing the .tableView property externally - you should encapsulate that behaviour with a reloadData method on the View Controller itself. Even if all it does is call reloadData on its .tableView, you should encapsulate it. This will make your code more modular (which makes it easier to understand for you and others), and make it easier to expand on and add complexity to your View Controller down the track.
Without knowing exactly how this app is structured, I would guess that you're probably better off using notifications or observers to get your VC to reload its data. If you have some global event that requires a UI refresh, an NSNotification is a good way to make the UI layer get the message while keeping your code nice and modular.