Given a stackView object, I got an array of stackView.arrangedSubviews
which is a get only property. Hence I can't REPLACE one item of it by merely doing
stackView.arrangedSubviews[i] = newSubView
what came to my mind is I want to replace the content of the reference at stackView.arrangedSubviews[i] with the content of newSubView. For instance if this was in C, I would have done something like
*arrangedSubViews[i] = *newSubView
I know there is a way to do what I need by removing arrangedSubViews and utilizing addArrangedSubView but it won't be very efficient.
You can't modify an immutable array, and this is a good thing in many ways.
You can create an extension method to replace the view like this:
#available(iOS 9.0, *)
extension UIStackView {
func replaceView(atIndex index: Int, withView view: UIView) {
let viewToRemove = arrangedSubviews[index]
removeArrangedSubview(viewToRemove)
insertArrangedSubview(view, atIndex: index)
}
}
Then, instead of using stackView.arrangedSubviews[i] = newSubView you can use this code:
stackView.replaceView(atIndex: i, withView: newSubView)
Performance-wise there's no negative impact on doing it this way.
Related
I am trying to create an outlineview in a MacOS app that has mutliple levels that are summaries for a set of data held in SQLite3. I have an outlineview working with a treecontroller with a very simple NSMutuableDictionary based on a model class.
import Cocoa
class Summary: NSObject {
#objc dynamic var name: String
#objc dynamic var trades: Int
#objc dynamic var avgPL: Double
#objc dynamic var pandl: Double
#objc dynamic var parent: String
#objc dynamic var isLeaf: Bool
#objc dynamic var childCount: Int
#objc dynamic var children: [Summary] = []
init(name: String, trades: Int, avgPL: Double, pandl: Double, parent: String, isLeaf: Bool,childCount: Int) {
self.name = name
self.trades = trades
self.avgPL = avgPL
self.pandl = pandl
self.parent = parent
self.isLeaf = isLeaf
self.childCount = childCount
}
#objc func add(child: Summary) {
children.append(child)
}
}
My simple example data is:
let root: [String : Any] = ["name": "Overall","trades":5,"avgPL":200,"pandl":500,"parent":"","isLeaf": false,"childCount": 2 ]
let dict: NSMutableDictionary = NSMutableDictionary(dictionary: root)
let l2a = Summary(name: "L2a", trades: 3, avgPL: 100, pandl: 300, parent: "L1",isLeaf: true,childCount: 0)
let l2b = Summary(name: "L2b", trades: 2, avgPL: 100, pandl: 200, parent: "L1",isLeaf: true,childCount: 0)
dict.setObject([l2a,l2b], forKey: "children" as NSCopying)
I pass the dictionary to the treeController:
treeController.addObject(dict)
And that works nicely giving me a collapsible outline:
But I have no idea how to add more levels or children to the children. I want to have up to four levels deep in the outline. I have all the SQL summaries working and I have tried so many variations of populating arrays and trying to create a dictionary with the data to no avail. I have children and childCount and isLeaf set on everything but treecontroller does not like the array complaining that isLeaf is not KVO compliant. My data in an array looks like this (not all of the data but enough to see what I'm doing) The main level and all of the subsequent children are all based on the Summary model class above. Can I simply convert this array to a dictionary? Or, can I make it KVO compliant by adding keys to the model class or something? I have all of the 4 levels in separate arrays I use to build the resultant array if that is useful :
I should add that I have an NSObject defined as an NSMutableArray and its content tied to the treeController. My treeController is bound to each variable in the model class and at the top level has:
If I pass the array I have built to the treeController I get the following error:
Failed to set (contentViewController) user defined inspected property on (NSWindow): [<_TtGCs23_ContiguousArrayStorageC11outlinetest7Summary_ 0x604000445160> addObserver:forKeyPath:options:context:] is not supported. Key path: isLeaf
After building out my NSOutlineView without an NSTreeController and getting everything working I still wanted to get back to this and implement the treeController in order to take advantage of the sorting mechanism it provides. And I did find as per my last comment that I did have something wrong in InterfaceBuilder that was causing it to complain about KVO compliance. I had everything wired correctly except for the Content Array binding on the treeController. Here I bound it to my ViewController and added my data array reportSummary to the Model Key Path.
I also no longer needed to manually add my data array to the treeController using treeController.addObject(reportSummary). Once this was working I was then able to implement sorting and everything is working well. I should point out two things.
Setup of sorting on the TreeController is slightly different than on an ArrayController tied to a TableView. With the tableview it was sufficient to specify which columns are sortable in the identity inspector in IB. But in the outlineView scenario I also needed to setup bindings in IB to the treeController and change the Controller Key from arrangedObjects to sortDescriptors.
While testing my tree controlled outlineview I ran into a problem when I double-clicked on a summary row. I had implemented Double Action on the outlineView in IB in order to control the expanding and collapsing of summary sections. Note that I read about doing this in a thread here and someone mentioned that you would need to maintain multiple arrays and track indexes because once a row is collapsed or expanded that changes the row number of all the subsequent rows. But I figured out that the solution is simply to iterate through rows in reverse order and expand or collapse them working back up the tree starting from outlineView.numberOfRows-1. This works well and along with Double Action (clicking) to expand and collapse I also added an NSSlider which tracks to the expansion level and lets me collapse all the lowest levels moving back up the tree instead of clicking all of the little arrows on each row. This broke when I implemented the treeController. I received an error
Could not cast value of type 'NSKVONotifying_NSTreeControllerTreeNode'
This line of code was the problem
let summary = reportOutline.item(atRow: x) as! Summary
I had to change this to
let node = reportOutline.item(atRow: x) as! NSTreeNode
let summary = node.representedObject as! Summary
And that is it. Working beautifully now.
Since I am fairly new to Swift programming on OSX, this question may contain several points that needs clarification.
I have a method which iterates over all subviews of a given NSView instance. For this, I get the array of subviews which is of type [AnyObject] and process one element at a time.
At some point I would like to access the identifier property of each instance. This property is implemented from a protocol in NSView named NSUserInterfaceItemIdentification, which type is given in the documentation as (optional) String?. In order to get that identifier I would have written
var view : NSView = subview as NSView;
var viewIdent : String = view.identifier!;
The second line is marked by the compiler with an error stating that identifier is not of an optional type, but instead of type String, and hence the post-fix operator ! cannot be applied.
Removing this operator compiles fine, but leads to a runtime error EXC_BAD_ACCESS (code=1, address=0x0) because identifier seems to be nil for some NSButton instance.
I cannot even test for this property, because the compiler gives me a String is not convertible to UInt8 while I try
if (view.identifier != nil) {viewIdent = view.identifier;}
My questions are
Is the documentation wrong? I.g. the property identifier is not optional?
How can I ship around this problem and get code that runs robust?
If the documentation states that view.identifier is an Optional, it means it can be nil. So it's not a surprise that for some button instances it is indeed nil for you.
Force unwrapping this element that can be nil will lead your app to crash, you can use safe unwrapping instead:
if let viewIdent = view.identifier {
// do something with viewIdent
} else {
// view.identifier was nil
}
You can easily check the type of an element in Xcode: click on the element while holding the ALT key. It will reveal a popup with informations, including the type. You can verify there that your element is an Optional or not.
Tip: you can safe unwrap several items on one line, it's rather convenient:
if let view = subview as? NSView, viewIdent = view.identifier {
// you can do something here with `viewIdent` because `view` and `view.identifier` were both not nil
} else {
// `view` or `view.identifier` was nil, handle the error here
}
EDIT:
You have to remove this line of yours before using my example:
var viewIdent : String = view.identifier!
Because if you keep this line before my examples, it won't work because you transform what was an Optional in a non-Optional by adding this exclamation mark.
Also it forces casting to a String, but maybe your identifier is an Int instead, so you shouldn't use this kind of declaration but prefer if let ... to safe unwrap and cast the value.
EDIT2:
You say my example doesn't compile... I test every answer I make on SO. I tested this one in a Playground before answering, here's a screenshot:
Also, after checking it, I confirm that the identifier is an Optional String, that's the type given by Xcode when using ALT+CLICK on the property. The documentation is right.
So if it's different for you, it means you have a different problem unrelated to this one; but my answer for this precise question remains the same.
I've got some code that runs a fairly complex algorithm. I want to put together a fairly simple UI that will allow me to monitor the values of the various variables in the algorithm in some graphical ways -- think of it like a dashboard of sorts.
So, for simplicity's sake, let's say I have an algorithm like what follows. It searches a vector of values for the two values that most closely sum to a target value:
import Foundation
class algorithm {
var numbers = [Double]()
let numberOfRandoms = 1000
dynamic var a: String
dynamic var b: String
init () {
// Load initial vector with some random numbers between 0 and 1
for _ in 1...numberOfRandoms {
numbers.append(Double(arc4random()) / Double(UINT32_MAX))
}
a = " "
b = " "
}
func findTheTwoNumbersThatAddUpTheClosestToTarget(target: Double) {
//Initializing this to a very large value
var currentBestSum = 1000.0
//Begin brute force search for the optimal solution
for i in 0...numbers.count-2 {
for j in i+1...numbers.count-1 {
//Check to see if the current candidate exceeds the best solution
if abs(numbers[i] + numbers[j] - target) < currentBestSum {
//If it does, store the new champion
a = String(i)
b = String(j)
//And reset the current top score to match
currentBestSum = abs(numbers[i] + numbers[j]-target)
}
}
}
}
}
Now, this is just a simple (and silly) example, but it suits these purposes. I basically want to create a simple UI that displays the important values in the process as it runs (dynamically).
In this example, let's say that I just want to display two labels that contain the index values of the two leaders as the algorithm executes.
I created the labels in the storyboard.
Then, I created IBOutlets in the ViewController (Actually, storyboards did it for me when I Ctrl-dragged):
class ViewController: NSViewController {
#IBOutlet weak var a: NSTextField!
#IBOutlet weak var b: NSTextField!
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
// Do any additional setup after loading the view.
}
override var representedObject: AnyObject? {
didSet {
// Update the view, if already loaded.
}
}
}
Then, I ctrl-dragged the labels to the a and b in the algorithm class to create the bindings.
Finally, I create an class variable in the view controller and instantiate it in the viewDidLoad method. This doesn't seem like the right thing to do -- maybe it is. Seems like you would want to keep separate your interface and data...
The labels do, in fact, show up -- but they never show any values of a and b. They just show the default text.
Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Help!?
P.S., in response to Anthony Kong, I do recognize that I could manually synchronize all the view elements in the code, but I thought the whole point of using bindings was to avoid having to do this manual synchronization. I just can't figure out how to set it up.
Without commenting on your specific code I think I have experienced (and solved) the problem you describe. I was able to write an app that had two targets, one NIB-based and one Storyboard-based. As much as I was able I duplicated the code in each and shared the common data instance that I was trying to display in a TableView. The NIB-based app worked using the stock Cocoa Bindings that I set in IB. But the Storyboard-based app did not, the array controller did not see the data.
My solution was simply to add the binding for contentArray programmatically in viewDidLoad. The one line that fixed it for me is:
ac.bind("contentArray", toObject: cd, withKeyPath: "people", options: nil)
ac is the IBOutlet for the ArrayController in the Storyboard. cd is the class instance that contains the people array.
This is using XCode 6.2 (6C107a) which is Beta 3 I think.
This was the only binding that I had to set myself, the TableView to ArrayController (arrangedObjects) and TableViewCell to TableView (objectValue) didn't need any tweaking.
There are several problems with your code
1) In your code,
func applicationDidFinishLaunching(aNotification: NSNotification?) {
// Insert code here to initialize your application
var test = algorithm()
test.findTheTwoNumbersThatAddUpTheClosestToTarget(0.5)
}
The variable test goes out of scope when the function exits. Based on the wording of your question, you are expecting it to be a long running process. So this will not do what you want.
You should
a) Add test as class variable to the ViewController class
b) instantiate the variable in viewDidLoad method.
2) In your algorithm it does not actually provide any feedback to the labels. Maybe you think because the class has the ivar a and b so they are hooked to the IBOutlet by the same names. But of course it is not the case. And you do not need the keyword dynamic too.
What you should do is:
a) provide a method in the View Controller class to update the labels. It will serve as a callback function to be used by algorithm class to feedback the calculation result.
It may look like this:
func update_value_callback(vala: String, valb: String) {
a.text = vala; // updating the label here
b.text = valb;
}
b) make the algorithm class calls the callback function e.g.
func findTheTwoNumbersThatAddUpTheClosestToTarget(target: Double, viewController: ViewController) {
// do your stuff
...
// execute the callback
viewController.update_value_callback(a, b)
}
Before Swift, in Objective-C I would swizzle or hook methods in a class using <objc/runtime.h>.
If anyone has any info on the topic of modifying Swift's runtime and hooking functions like CydiaSubstrate and other libraries that helped in this area, please inform me.
I've succeed with method swizzling in Swift. This example shows how to hook description method on NSDictionary
My implementation:
extension NSDictionary {
func myDescription() -> String!{
println("Description hooked")
return "Hooooked " + myDescription();
}
}
Swizzling code:
func swizzleEmAll() {
var dict:NSDictionary = ["SuperSecret": kSecValueRef]
var method: Method = class_getInstanceMethod(object_getClass(dict), Selector.convertFromStringLiteral("description"))
println(dict.description) // Check original description
var swizzledMethod: Method = class_getInstanceMethod(object_getClass(dict), Selector.convertFromStringLiteral("myDescription"))
method_exchangeImplementations(method, swizzledMethod)
println(dict.description) //Check that swizzling works
}
Edited:
This code will work for any custom Swift class that inherits from NSObject (but will not work for classes that don't.) More examples - https://github.com/mbazaliy/MBSwizzler
You would likely be able to swizzle swift-generated classes that inherit from Objective-C classes with no problem, since they appear to use dynamic method dispatch all the time. You may be able to swizzle methods of swift-defined classes that exist in the Objective-C runtime by virtue of being passed across the bridge, but the Objective-C side methods are likely to just be proxies back across the bridge to the swift-side runtime, so it's not clear that it'd be particularly helpful to swizzle them.
"Pure" swift method calls do not appear to be dispatched dynamically via anything like objc_msgSend and it appears (from brief experimentation) that the type safety of swift is implemented at compile time, and that much of the actual type information is absent (i.e. gone) at runtime for non-class types (both of which likely contribute to the purported speed advantages of swift.)
For these reasons, I expect that meaningfully swizzling swift-only methods will be significantly harder than swizzling Objective-C methods, and will probably look a lot more like mach_override than Objective-C method swizzling.
I'm answering this question more than one year later because none of the other answers provide the definitive set of requirements for method swizzling for every kind of class.
What is described by other, while it will work flawlessly for extensions to foundation/uikit classes (like NSDictionary), will simply never work for your own Swift classes.
As described here, there is an additional requirement for method swizzling other than extending NSObject in your custom class.
The swift method you want to swizzle must be marked dynamic.
If you don't mark it, the runtime will simply continue to call the original method instead of the swizzled one, even if the method pointers appear to have been swapped correctly.
Update:
I've expanded this answer in a blog post.
I had a Xcode 7 iOS project written in Swift 2, using Cocoapods. In a specific Cocoapod, with Objective-C source, I wanted to override a short method, without forking the pod. Writing a Swift extension wouldn't work in my case.
For using method swizzling, I created a new Objective-C class in my main bundle with the method I wanted to replace/inject into the cocoapod. (Also added the bridging header)
Using mbazaliy 's solution on stackflow, I put my code similar to this into the didFinishLaunchingWithOptions in my Appdelegate:
let mySelector: Selector = "nameOfMethodToReplace"
let method: Method = class_getInstanceMethod(SomeClassInAPod.self, mySelector)
let swizzledMethod: Method = class_getInstanceMethod(SomeOtherClass.self, mySelector)
method_exchangeImplementations(method, swizzledMethod)
This worked perfectly. The difference between #mbazaliy 's code is that I didn't need to create an instance of the SomeClassInAPod class first, which in my case would have been impossible.
Note: I put the code in the Appdelegate because every other time the code runs, it exchanges the method for the original - it should only run one time.
I also needed to copy some assets that were referenced in the Pod's bundle to the main bundle.
I wouldn't do it that way, I think closures provide the answers (as they give you a chance to intercept, evaluate, and forward the invocation of the function, additionally it will be easy to extend when and if we have reflection.
http://www.swift-studies.com/blog/2014/7/13/method-swizzling-in-swift
I would like to extend the great answer provided by mbazaliy.
Another way of doing swizzling in Swift is by providing an implementation using an Objective-C block.
e.g. to replace descriptionmethod on class NSString we can write:
let originalMethod = class_getInstanceMethod(NSString.self, "description")
let impBlock : #objc_block () -> NSString =
{ () in return "Bit of a hack job!" }
let newMethodImp = imp_implementationWithBlock(unsafeBitCast(impBlock, AnyObject.self))
method_setImplementation(originalMethod, newMethodImp)
This works as of Swift 1.1.
A safe, easy, powerful and efficient hook framework for iOS (Support Swift and Objective-C). https://github.com/623637646/SwiftHook
For example, this is your class
class MyObject {
#objc dynamic func noArgsNoReturnFunc() {
}
#objc dynamic func sumFunc(a: Int, b: Int) -> Int {
return a + b
}
#objc dynamic class func classMethodNoArgsNoReturnFunc() {
}
}
The key words of methods #objc and dynamic are necessary
The class doesn't have to inherit from NSObject. If the class is written by Objective-C, Just hook it without any more effort
Perform the hook closure before executing specified instance's method.
let object = MyObject()
let token = try? hookBefore(object: object, selector: #selector(MyObject.noArgsNoReturnFunc)) {
// run your code
print("hooked!")
}
object.noArgsNoReturnFunc()
token?.cancelHook() // cancel the hook
Perform the hook closure after executing specified instance's method. And get the parameters.
let object = MyObject()
let token = try? hookAfter(object: object, selector: #selector(MyObject.sumFunc(a:b:)), closure: { a, b in
// get the arguments of the function
print("arg1 is \(a)") // arg1 is 3
print("arg2 is \(b)") // arg2 is 4
} as #convention(block) (Int, Int) -> Void)
_ = object.sumFunc(a: 3, b: 4)
token?.cancelHook() // cancel the hook
The key word #convention(block) is necessary
For hook at before and after. The closure's args have to be empty or the same as method. The return type has to be void
Totally override the mehtod for specified instance. You can call original with the same parameters or different parameters. Don't even call the original method if you want.
let object = MyObject()
let token = try? hookInstead(object: object, selector: #selector(MyObject.sumFunc(a:b:)), closure: { original, a, b in
// get the arguments of the function
print("arg1 is \(a)") // arg1 is 3
print("arg2 is \(b)") // arg2 is 4
// run original function
let result = original(a, b) // Or change the parameters: let result = original(-1, -2)
print("original result is \(result)") // result = 7
return 9
} as #convention(block) ((Int, Int) -> Int, Int, Int) -> Int)
let result = object.sumFunc(a: 3, b: 4) // result
print("hooked result is \(result)") // result = 9
token?.cancelHook() // cancel the hook
For hook with instead. The closure's first argument has to be a closure which has the same types with the method. The rest args and return type have to be the same as the method.
Perform the hook closure before executing the method of all instances of the class.
let token = try? hookBefore(targetClass: MyObject.self, selector: #selector(MyObject.noArgsNoReturnFunc)) {
// run your code
print("hooked!")
}
MyObject().noArgsNoReturnFunc()
token?.cancelHook() // cancel the hook
Perform the hook closure before executing the class method.
let token = try? hookClassMethodBefore(targetClass: MyObject.self, selector: #selector(MyObject.classMethodNoArgsNoReturnFunc)) {
// run your code
print("hooked!")
}
MyObject.classMethodNoArgsNoReturnFunc()
token?.cancelHook() // cancel the hook
After spending some time on it... Wake up this morning.... beta 6 is out and
Problem Fixed in beta6!
From release notes
"Dynamic dispatch can now call overrides of methods and properties introduced in class extensions, fixing a regression introduced in Xcode 6 beta 5. (17985819)!"
I admittedly know little about the inner workings of javascript, but need to make a library and would like to learn (hence asking here). I understand using the closure and exporting to window to not pollute the global namespace, but beyond that it confuses me a bit.
(function() {
var Drop = window.Drop = function() {
var files = [];
var add = function(word) {
files.push(word);
return files;
}
return {
files: files,
add: add
}
}
})()
// All of these seem to be the same?
var a = Drop();
var b = new Drop();
var c = new Drop;
// Each has their own state which is what I want.
a.add("file1");
b.add("file2");
c.add("file3");
Why are all three ways of "initializing" Drop the same?
What exactly gives them the ability to have their own state?
Is there an alternative to the return syntax to export those functions on Drop?
Is there just a flat out better best practice way of creating a self contained library like this?
I have searched around the net, but have found very little consistency on this subject.
The first way (Drop()) just calls the function as normal, so this is the global object (window in browser environments). It does its stuff and then returns an object, as you'd expect.
The second way (new Drop()) creates a new Drop object and executes the constructor with this set to that object. You do not, however, use this anywhere and return an object created from an object literal, so the Drop object is discarded and the object literal returned instead.
The third way (new Drop) is semantically the same as the second; it is only a syntactic difference.
They all have their own state because each time you call Drop, it has its own set of local variables distinct from the local variables of any other call to Drop.
You could transform your code to use the normal new syntax and prototypes. This has a few advantages: namely, you only create the add function once rather than one for each Drop call. Your modified code might look like this:
function Drop() {
this.files = [];
}
Drop.prototype.add = function(word) {
this.files.push(word);
return this.files;
};
By doing this, though, you lose being able to call it without new. There is, however, a workaround: You can add this as the first line inside function Drop:
if(!(this instanceof Drop)) {
return new Drop();
}
Since when you call it with new, this will be a Drop, and when you call it without new, this will be something other than a Drop, you can see if this is a Drop, and if it is, continue initializing; otherwise, reinvoke it with new.
There is also another semantic difference. Consider the following code:
var drop = new Drop();
var adder = drop.add;
adder(someFile);
Your code will work here. The prototype-based code will not, since this will be the global object, not drop. This, too, has a workaround: somewhere in your constructor, you can do this:
this.add = this.add.bind(this);
Of course, if your library's consumers are not going to pull the function out of the object, you won't need to do this. Furthermore, you might need to shim Function.prototype.bind for browsers that don't have it.
No. It's all a matter of taste.
Why are all three ways of "initializing" Drop the same?
// All of these seem to be the same?
var a = Drop();
var b = new Drop();
var c = new Drop;
When you use new in JavaScript to invoke a function, the value of this inside the function becomes the new object.
But the reason they're the same in your case is that you're not using this at all. You're making a separate object using object literal syntax, and returning it instead, so the new has no impact.
What exactly gives them the ability to have their own state?
Because each function invocation makes a new object, each object is entirely different for each invocation.
The functions assigned to the object are recreated in each Drop invocation, and therefore create a closure over the enclosing variable scope. As such, the files array of each invocation is continuously accessible to the functions made in each respective invocation.
Is there an alternative to the return syntax to export those functions on Drop?
Yes. Assign the functions and array to this, and remove the return statement. But that will require the use of new. Alternatively, put the functions on the .prototype object of Drop, and they'll be shared among all instances made using new, but keep the array assigned to this in the constructor so that it's not shared.
For the prototyped functions to reference the array, they would use this.files.
Is there just a flat out better best practice way of creating a self contained library like this?
JavaScript is very flexible. There are many ways to approach a single problem, each with its own advantages/disadvantages. Generally it'll boil down to taking advantage of closures, of prototypal inheritance, or some combination of both.
Here's a full prototypal inheritance version. Also, the outer (function() {})() isn't being used, so I'm going to add a variable to take advantage of it.
(function() {
var totalObjects = 0; // visible only to functions created in this scope
var Drop = window.Drop = function() {
this.files = [];
this.serialNumber = totalObjects++;
}
Drop.prototype.add = function(word) {
this.files.push(word);
return this.files;
};
})();