Problem
I'm including the managed object context as a parameter of a method when I work with Core Data.
Although this makes the code easier to test, it's messy.
Questions
Is this good or bad practice?
Is there a neater, easier way of doing this that keeps methods testable?
Background
The example below is a background operation that has it's own context.
Any advice from more experienced coders would be much appreciated!
Code
#interface JGTrainingGroupCleanupOperation : JGCoreDataOperation {
NSManagedObjectContext *imoc;
}
...
#implementation JGTrainingGroupCleanupOperation
-(void)main {
[self startOperation]; // Setting up the local context etc
[self cleanupTrainingGroupsInMOC:imoc];
[self finishOperation];
}
-(void)cleanupTrainingGroupsInMOC:(NSManagedObjectContext *)moc {
NSSet *trainedGroups = [self fetchAllTrainedGroupsInMOC:moc];
[self deleteDescendantsOfGroups:trainedGroups fromMOC:moc];
[self removeStubAncestorsOfGroups:trainedGroups fromMOC:moc];
}
-(NSSet *)fetchAllTrainedGroupsInMOC:(NSManagedObjectContext *)moc_ {
return [moc_ fetchObjectsForEntityName:kTrainingGroup withPredicate:[NSPredicate predicateWithFormat:#"projectEditedAtTopLevel == nil"]];
}
-(void)deleteDescendantsOfGroups:(NSSet *)trainedGroups fromMOC:(NSManagedObjectContext *)moc_ {
// More code here
}
-(void)deleteDescendantsOfGroup:(JGTrainingGroup *)trainedGroup fromMOC:(NSManagedObjectContext *)moc_ {
// More code here
}
In my (not so humble) opinion I'd say it's mostly a matter of style. You can do it this way or you can #synthesize the moc and call [self moc] or self.moc.
Me? I'd go the accessor route personally, mostly because class members shouldn't have to be told where to find an object dereferenced by an iVar anyway. If you're accessing something that's an iVar within the same class, I'd use the iVar directly or an accessor.
I believe the difference in performance would be negligible, so I wouldn't really bother much on that front (even though you didn't ask).
Related
I have been doing some research online and have found that using the ObjectiveC package in Objective C you can get a list of all the methods on a class using class_copyMethodList(), and I see you can get the implementation (IMP) of a method using instanceMethodForSelector:. The Apple documentation here has been helpful so far but I'm stuck and not sure what I'm really looking to find.
I want a list of the methods/functions called in a given method's implementation so I can build a call tree.
Any suggestions? Thanks in advance!
This solution is kind of hard way, and will cause a line of code in every method You can also make use of sqlite and save the tracked methods..
MethodTracker.h
#interface MethodTracker : NSObject
#property (nonatomic) NSMutableArray *methodTrackArr;
+ (MethodTracker *)sharedVariables;
#end
MethodTracker.m
#implementation MethodTracker
static id _instance = nil;
+ (MethodTracker *)sharedVariables
{
if (!_instance)
_instance = [[super allocWithZone:nil] init];
return _instance;
}
// optional
- (void)addMethod:(NSString *)stringedMethod
{
// or maybe filter by: -containObject to avoid reoccurance
[self.methodTrackArr addObject:stringedMethod];
NSLog("current called methods: %#", methodTrackArr);
}
#end
and using it like:
OtherClass.m
- (void)voidDidLoad
{
[super viewDidLoad];
[[MethodTracker sharedVariables] addMethod:[NSString stringWithUTF8String:__FUNCTION__]];
// or directly
[[MethodTracker sharedVariables].methodTrackArr addObject:[NSString stringWithUTF8String:__FUNCTION__]];
}
- (void)someOtherMethod
{
// and you need to add this in every method you have (-_-)..
[[MethodTracker sharedVariables] addMethod:[NSString stringWithUTF8String:__FUNCTION__]];
}
i suggest you import that MethodTracker.h inside [ProjectName]-Prefix.pch file.
Sorry, for the double answer, i deleted the other one and i have no idea how did that happen..
Hope this have helped you or at least gave you an idea.. Happy coding,
Cheers!
I think in the runtime track method is possible, but function not.
I have been build a tool DaiMethodTracing for trace all methods activity in single class for some of my need. This is based on objective-c method swizzling. So, there is an idea to do this
List all Classes in your application.
swizze all the methods in each class.
filter the method you want to trace.
finally, you may got the method call path.
I've got an object of type id and would like to know if it contains a value for a given keyPath:
[myObject valueForKeyPath:myKeyPath];
Now, I wrap it into a #try{ } #catch{} block to avoid exceptions when the given keypath isn't found. Is there a nicer way to do this? Check if the given keypath exists without handling exceptions?
Thanks a lot,
Stefan
You could try this:
if ([myObject respondsToSelector:NSSelectorFromString(myKeyPath)])
{
}
However, that may not correspond to the getter you have, especially if it is a boolean value. If this doesn't work for you, let me know and I'll write you up something using reflection.
For NSManagedObjects, an easy solution is to look at the object's entity description and see if there's an attribute with that key name. If there is, you can also take it to the next step and see what type of an attribute the value is.
Here's a simple method that given any NSManagedObject and any NSString as a key, will always return an NSString:
- (NSString *)valueOfItem:(NSManagedObject *)item asStringForKey:(NSString *)key {
NSEntityDescription *entity = [item entity];
NSDictionary *attributesByName = [entity attributesByName];
NSAttributeDescription *attribute = attributesByName[key];
if (!attribute) {
return #"---No Such Attribute Key---";
}
else if ([attribute attributeType] == NSUndefinedAttributeType) {
return #"---Undefined Attribute Type---";
}
else if ([attribute attributeType] == NSStringAttributeType) {
// return NSStrings as they are
return [item valueForKey:key];
}
else if ([attribute attributeType] < NSDateAttributeType) {
// this will be all of the NSNumber types
// return them as strings
return [[item valueForKey:key] stringValue];
}
// add more "else if" cases as desired for other types
else {
return #"---Unacceptable Attribute Type---";
}
}
If the key is invalid or the value can't be made into a string, the method returns an NSString error message (change those blocks to do whatever you want for those cases).
All of the NSNumber attribute types are returned as their stringValue representations. To handle other attribute types (e.g.: dates), simply add additional "else if" blocks. (see NSAttributeDescription Class Reference for more information).
If the object is a custom class of yours, you could override valueForUndefinedKey: on your object, to define what is returned when a keypath doesn't exist.
It should be possible to graft this behavior onto arbitrary classes reasonably simply. I present with confidence, but without warranty, the following code which you should be able to use to add a non-exception-throwing implementation of valueForUndefinedKey: to any class, with one, centralized line of code per class at app startup time. If you wanted to save even more code, you could make all the classes you wanted to have this behavior inherit from a common subclass of NSManagedObject and then apply this to that common class and all your subclasses would inherit the behavior. More details after, but here's the code:
Header (NSObject+ValueForUndefinedKeyAdding.h):
#interface NSObject (ValueForUndefinedKeyAdding)
+ (void)addCustomValueForUndefinedKeyImplementation: (IMP)handler;
#end
Implementation (NSObject+ValueForUndefinedKeyAdding.m):
#import "NSObject+ValueForUndefinedKeyAdding.h"
#import <objc/runtime.h>
#import <objc/message.h>
#implementation NSObject (ValueForUndefinedKeyAdding)
+ (void)addCustomValueForUndefinedKeyImplementation: (IMP)handler
{
Class clazz = self;
if (clazz == nil)
return;
if (clazz == [NSObject class] || clazz == [NSManagedObject class])
{
NSLog(#"Don't try to do this to %#; Really.", NSStringFromClass(clazz));
return;
}
SEL vfuk = #selector(valueForUndefinedKey:);
#synchronized([NSObject class])
{
Method nsoMethod = class_getInstanceMethod([NSObject class], vfuk);
Method nsmoMethod = class_getInstanceMethod([NSManagedObject class], vfuk);
Method origMethod = class_getInstanceMethod(clazz, vfuk);
if (origMethod != nsoMethod && origMethod != nsmoMethod)
{
NSLog(#"%# already has a custom %# implementation. Replacing that would likely break stuff.",
NSStringFromClass(clazz), NSStringFromSelector(vfuk));
return;
}
if(!class_addMethod(clazz, vfuk, handler, method_getTypeEncoding(nsoMethod)))
{
NSLog(#"Could not add valueForUndefinedKey: method to class: %#", NSStringFromClass(clazz));
}
}
}
#end
Then, in your AppDelegate class (or really anywhere, but it probably makes sense to put it somewhere central, so you know where to find it when you want to add or remove classes from the list) put this code which adds this functionality to classes of your choosing at startup time:
#import "MyAppDelegate.h"
#import "NSObject+ValueForUndefinedKeyAdding.h"
#import "MyOtherClass1.h"
#import "MyOtherClass2.h"
#import "MyOtherClass3.h"
static id ExceptionlessVFUKIMP(id self, SEL cmd, NSString* inKey)
{
NSLog(#"Not throwing an exception for undefined key: %# on instance of %#", inKey, [self class]);
return nil;
}
#implementation MyAppDelegate
+ (void)initialize
{
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
[MyOtherClass1 addCustomValueForUndefinedKeyImplementation: (IMP)ExceptionlessVFUKIMP];
[MyOtherClass2 addCustomValueForUndefinedKeyImplementation: (IMP)ExceptionlessVFUKIMP];
[MyOtherClass3 addCustomValueForUndefinedKeyImplementation: (IMP)ExceptionlessVFUKIMP];
});
}
// ... rest of app delegate class ...
#end
What I'm doing here is adding a custom implementation for valueForUndefinedKey: to the classes MyOtherClass1, 2 & 3. The example implementation I've provided just NSLogs and returns nil, but you can change the implementation to do whatever you want, by changing the code in ExceptionlessVFUKIMP. If you remove the NSLog, and just return nil, I suspect you'll get what you want, based on your question.
This code NEVER swizzles methods, it only adds one if it's not there. I've put in checks to prevent this from being used on classes that already have their own custom implementations of valueForUndefinedKey: because if someone put that method in their class, there's going to be an expectation that it will continue to get called. Also note that there may be AppKit code that EXPECTS the exceptions from the NSObject/NSManagedObject implementations to be thrown. (I don't know that for sure, but it's a possibility to consider.)
A few notes:
NSManagedObject provides a custom implementation for valueForUndefinedKey: Stepping through its assembly in the debugger, all it appears to do is throw roughly the same exception with a slightly different message. Based on that 5 minute debugger investigation, I feel like it ought to be safe to use this with NSManagedObject subclasses, but I'm not 100% sure -- there could be some behavior in there that I didn't catch. Beware.
Also, as it stands, if you use this approach, you don't have a good way to know if valueForKey: is returning nil because the keyPath is valid and the state happened to be nil, or if it's returning nil because the keyPath is invalid and the grafted-on handler returned nil. To do that, you'd need to do something different, and implementation specific. (Perhaps return [NSNull null] or some other sentinel value, or set some flag in thread-local storage that you could check, but at this point is it really all that much easier than #try/#catch?) Just something to be aware of.
This appears to work pretty well for me; Hope it's useful to you.
There's no easy way to solve this. Key Value Coding (KVC) isn't intended to be used that way.
One thing is for sure: using #try-#catch is really bad since you're very likely to leak memory etc. Exceptions in ObjC / iOS are not intended for normal program flow. They're also very expensive (both throwing and setting up the #try-#catch IIRC).
If you look at the Foundation/NSKeyValueCoding.h header, the comment / documentation for
- (id)valueForKey:(NSString *)key;
clearly states which methods need to be implemented for -valueForKey: to work. This may even use direct ivar access. You would have to check each one in the order described there. You need to take the key path, split it up based on . and check each part on each subsequent object. To access ivars, you need to use the ObjC runtime. Look at objc/runtime.h.
All of this is vary hacky, though. What you probably want is for your objects to implement some formal protocol and then check -conformsToProtocol: before calling.
Are your key paths random strings or are those strings under your control? What are you trying to achieve? Are you solving the wrong problem?
I don't believe this is possible in a safe way (i.e. without mucking with -valueForUndefinedKey: or something similar on other peoples' classes). I say that because on the Mac side of things, Cocoa Bindings—which can be set to substitute a default value for invalid key paths—simply catches the exceptions that result from bad key paths. If even Apple's engineers don't have a way to test if a key path is valid without trying it and catching the exception, I have to assume that such a way doesn't exist.
I am implementing an object reuse scheme using a singleton class.
What I do basically is:
MyClass* obj = [[MyClassBank sharedBank] getReusableItem];
The bank is just an NSMutableSet tweaked for optimum reusability. When I was happily implementing this Singleton, I had in mind that I will just do the following when I am done with "obj":
[[MyClassBank sharedBank] doneWithItem:obj];
Currently, My code would work if I where to use it this way, but I later realized that I sometimes add "obj" to an "NSCollection", and sometimes I call:
[theCollection removeAllObjects];
At first I thought about making my own class that is composed of a collection, then I would iterate the objects within the collection and call:
[[MyClassBank sharedBank] doneWithItem:obj];
But, that's too much of a hassle, isn't?
A neat idea (I think) popped into my mind, which is to override: -(oneway void)release;, so, I immediately jumped to Apple's documentation, but got stuck with the following:
You would only implement this method to define your own reference-counting scheme. Such implementations should not invoke the inherited method; that is, they should not include a release message to super.
Ao, I was reluctant to do that idea .. basically:
-(oneway void)release{
if ([self retainCount] == 1) {
//This will increment retain count by adding self to the collection.
[[MyClassBank sharedBank] doneWithItem:self];
}
[super release];
}
Is it safe to do that?
PS: Sorry for the long post, I want the whole idea to be clear..
EDIT:
How about overriding alloc alltogther and adding [[MyClassBank sharedBank] getReusableItem]; there?
Suggested method:
You're playing with the reference counting system. 99.9999999999999999% of the time this is a bad idea. I would highly recommend going with a different mechanism. Perhaps these objects could implement their own reference count that's independent of the retainCount? Then you could use that referenceCount to actually control when an object is ready to be re-used or not.
Not suggested method:
If, for some weird reason, you can't do that, then you could do the following thing that is still a bad idea and that i don't recommend you actually use:
You can override dealloc:
- (void)dealloc {
[ivar release], ivar = nil;
[anotherIvar release], anotherIvar = nil;
somePrimitive = 0;
// do not call [super dealloc]
}
- (void)_reallyDealloc {
[self dealloc]; // clean up any ivars declared at this level
[super dealloc]; // then continue on up the chain
}
Basically, the dealloc method would be the point at which the object is ready for re-use. When you're totally done with the object and finally want it to go away, you can use the _reallyDealloc method to continue on up the chain, eventually resulting in the object getting freed.
PLEASE don't do this. With things like Automatic Reference Counting, this is going to introduce you into a world of hurt and really bizarre debugging scenarios. A lot of the tools and classes and stuff depend on the reference counting mechanism to be working without alteration, so screwing around with it is usually not a Good Idea™.
For ppl who find this approach interesting/useful, Here is a cleaner way than calling [super dealloc]; directly (which is definitely bad)
//BAD!
//-(void)dealloc{
// for some reason, the retainCount at this point == 1
// if (![[BankStep sharedBank] purgeFlag]) {
// [self resetObject];
// [[BankStep sharedBank] doneWithItem:self];
// } else {
// [children release];
// [super dealloc];
// }
//}
by calling [[Bank sharedBank] purgeBank]; , set the flag to true, then remove all objects from the NSSet.
Adapted solution:
#Joe Osborn idea of using categories to implement a returnToBank Method!
Stick with me. I'm visually impaired, have never used this site before, and will probably not post this in precisely the format that you are all used to. I apologize for any unintentional faux pas's herein.
Using Objective-C in an iOS project…
I have a singleton class, set up in what appears to be the usual way for Objective-C. It is, in the main, a series of methods which accept NSString values, interprets them, and return something else. In the code below, I'm simplifying things to the barest minimum, to emphasize the problem I am having.
From the singleton class:
- (NSUInteger) assignControlState:(NSString *)state {
// excerpted for clarity...
return UIControlStateNormal; // an example of what might be returned
}
Now, an instance of another class tries to use this method like so:
- (void) buttonSetup:(UIButton*)button {
[button setTitle:#"something" forState:[[SingletonClass accessToInstance] assignControlState:#"normal"]];
}
This code actually works. HOwever, when the system goes to draw the UI which includes the button whose title was set in this way, an EXC_BAD_ACCESS error occurs.
If the assignControlState method is moved into the same class as the buttonSetup method, no error is generated.
I'm guessing this is something about Apple's memory management that I'm not fully understanding, and how things go in and out of scope, but for the life of me, I can't figure out where I'm going wrong.
HOpe someone can help. Thanks.
The problem is in your accessToInstance method. I'll bet you are under-retaining. The implementation should be more like this:
static SingletonClass *sSingletonClass = nil;
#implementation
+ (id)accessToInstance {
if (sSingletonClass == nil) {
sSingletonClass = [[[self class] alloc] init];
}
return sSingletonClass;
}
#end
Now, if your program is following normal memory management rules, the singleton will stay around. You can check by writing:
- (void)dealloc {
[super dealloc]; // <-- set a breakpoint here.
}
If the debugger ever stops at this breakpoint, you know something in your program has over-released the singleton.
You know that bit you excerpted for clarity? I think you need to show us what it is because there's probably an over release in it somewhere.
Specifically, I think you release an autoreleased object. If you do that and don't use the object again, everything will carry on normally until the autorelease pool gets drained. The autorelease pool gets drained automatically at the end of the event at about the same time as the drawing normally occurs.
That would also explain the delayed crash following the NSLogs.
I have two similar classes, MultiSlotBlock and SingleSlotBlock. They have started to share a lot of common code so I have decided to do some refactoring and pull some of the methods up to a new superclass, let's call it Block.
Now one of the methods that I pull up, simplified for the example, looks like this:
// (Block.mm)
- (void)doACommonBehaviour
{
// .. does some stuff
[self doAUniqueBehaviour];
}
The problem here is that [self doAUniqueBehaviour] is showing a warning because of course my superclass doesn't implement this method anywhere.
The two solutions I thought of don't sound great to me. One is to use a protocol (the way I am currently doing it) like so:
// (Block.mm)
- (void)doACommonBehaviour
{
// .. does some stuff
if ([self conformsToProtocol:#protocol(UniqueBehaviourProtocol)])
{
id<UniqueBehaviourProtocol> block = (id<UniqueBehaviourProtocol>)self;
[block doAUniqueBehaviour];
}
}
The other is to have a blank method body in my superclass (in this case there would be a lot) and just return doesNotRespondToSelector.
Something is tingling at the back of my mind that I should be using the Strategy Pattern, but I might be way off, and I haven't thought through how that would be implemented.
Any ideas? Thanks.
EDIT: I know for a fact that doAUniqueBehaviour will be implemented in all subclasses, it is just the implementation that will differ.
The superclass should not know about its subclasses. You should implement the
- (void)doACommonBehaviour method in every subclass and there:
- (void)doACommonBehaviour
{
[super doACommonBehaviour];
[self doAUniqueBehaviour];
}
EDIT - clarification:
If all the subclasses are going to implement -doAUniqueBehaviour then it should be implemented in the superclass (even empty) and each subclass will override it to its needs.
If subclass1 implements -doAUniqueBehaviour1, subclass2 implements -doAUniqueBehaviour2 etc then do what I propose above; eg. in subclass1:
- (void)doACommonBehaviour
{
[super doACommonBehaviour];
[self doAUniqueBehaviour1];
}
There is not such concept as abstract class in Objective-C. In order to avoid the warning, you have to provide a default implementation in your base class. Usually, this implementation will throw a doesNotRespondToSelector error at runtime:
- (id)someMethod:(SomeObject*)blah
[self doesNotRecognizeSelector:_cmd];
return nil;
}
Note: the _cmd argument is the invoked selector.
#Dimitri's suggestion will work, but instead of forcing each subclass to implement the same method, you can declare it once in Block, and just above that method (in the implementation file, not header) declare the unique method like so:
- (void) doUniqueBehaviour { }
- (void) doCommonBehaviour {
// any common code you need
[self doUniqueBehaviour];
}
This will prevent any compiler warnings, and you can override -doUniqueBehaviour in subclasses as you like. It also avoids code duplication and reduces the potential for changing the code in one subclass but not another. Plus, you don't need a separate protocol, and dynamic typing is preserved.