In the Instruments tool, ObjectAlloc, is there a way for me to filter the classes it shows to just classes that I've created, and not system classes?
ie I don't want to see all the instances of CFArray and GSEvent but I want to see all the instances of MyClass, etc.
Thanks!
I don't think there is. Sorry. I remember it used to be recommended that you prefix all your classes with the same start String - the way Apple still uses NS**** for it's classes (from NextStep).
I don't know if people still do this but it would enable you to filter ObjectAlloc's results somewhat in Instruments.
Related
A client of mine who has a Mail plugin ("unofficial" of course since Apple does not provide support for mail plugin) wants me to update its pluginto Sierra.
When I look at the code swizzled, I see that one of the main classes he used is the SignatureBundle, which inherits from MVMailBundle. In this class, we can find many signature related functions like addSIgnature, signatureWithId and accountsEmails.
My problem is that this class no longer exists on Sierra, and I can't find any other class that I can use.
Do you have any clue that would help me figure out who to update his plugin? I know it is not official SDK, but who knows, maybe one of you already tried to update a mail plugin
Thanks for your help
As you rightly say, the SignatureBundle class is no longer present inside Mail's main executable. Such is life when you are using undocumented classes. :-)
Best advice I can give you is to take a look at the Mail-related frameworks inside /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks. If you are lucky, Apple may have simply moved this class into one of the private frameworks. However, if you are using NSClassFromString to find the class and getting nil back, then you're probably out of luck.
In which case, it's a long, tedious trawl around in the innards looking for the exact functionality you want. Your best bet in this case is Mail.framework itself. It contains a couple of hopeful-looking classes called MFSignature and MFSignatureManager. Some disassembly required...
I want to implement unit testing in my Xcode project, and would like to run tests without requiring the application to be started.
Reasons for this are, I have a core data based document app, that also uses a cvdisplay link to control continuous rendering in a background thread.
It strikes me that I do not need a running application to test core data datamodel functionality, this should be distinct from view stuff anyway. Also I would like to isolate and performance test my background rendering processes, something that seems very difficult with the app running, but could easily do without the application running, just getting the right classes and feed it the correct data.
I've seen other questions that have answers for Xcode versions before six, but the answers don't seem to work for the current version.
The docs now make a distinction between application and library tests. Library tests are run against library targets.
I'm not sure i want to reorganise my code into distinct libraries at the moment, and would prefer to avoid it or fake it somehow.
I saw somewhere an openradar relating to this in ios, but I'm interested in osx.
Has anyone any insight into this?
EDIT : Learning to cope with the existing setup for now, testing with full app running, I can run some checks on that, then I close all documents and shut down the display link.
I can then run tests creating my own persistent store coordinator, in memory datastore and context, as well as testing my rendering classes without fear of conflict with the other display thread.
I'm now running into troubles with linking sources, I just can't seem to get it right, I fiddle with settings, it seems to work for a bit, then suddenly stops building again with Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: errors, either that or problems linking with 3rd party private frameworks. I look through the web, change a few things, it starts working again. Then I add some tests, importing more of my classes, things stop working again.,.. Infuriating
EDIT 2: Pretty much all sorted now, but maybe not terribly efficient. For each test case class, I either open or close documents and start or stop the display link in the +(void)setup method. I don't do anything in the +(void)tearDown, and let the setup decide how to proceed based on the current state.
Although this means it's possible to flow from one test class to another minimizing document opens and closes, there doesn't seem to be a way to order the tests so that I could group them together.
BTW, I also solved my mentioned linking troubles (XCode 6 Testing Target Troubles), not really relevant to this question though.
It sounds like you landed on the standard solution: Give your app a way to tell when it's being stood up for testing rather than use, and then have applicationDidFinishLaunching: not do any of your usual launch-time behaviors, but leave it to specific tests to provide any setup they need.
You might benefit from creating multiple test suites to deal with different expected conditions, like all the tests that work around a specific document being open.
I am primarily a fluent .NET developer (as can be seen from the amount of posts and threads I make about .NET), but I thought it would be good to learn RoR.
In doing so, I have a few questions about the architecture of the language (Ruby) and the framework (RoR):
1) In .NET, every object is derived from System but inherits System.Object. So when I type System., I get a list of namespaces and then in those namespaces, classes and more namespaces.
Does Ruby not have this sort of hierarchy?
2) In some cases, I don't get the intellisense. For example, I wrote the class as outlined here (http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/HowToSendEmailsWithActionMailer) but in the line recipients user.email, nothing comes up when I type "user.".
Any idea why?
Thank
Dave Thomas (Pragmatic Programmers) has an excellent screencast series on the Ruby object model/metaprogramming. We watched this in a local Ruby user's group. The series isn't free, but it's not expensive either. You might want to check out the free preview to see if you think it is worth your time.
And to give you an answer. Yes, everything in Ruby derives from Object. You can find the docs on this at http://corelib.rubyonrails.org/. Look for the Object class.
I'm not sure why you aren't getting intellisense, partly because you haven't specified your IDE. It's possible that you can't because you've added the method dynamically and no intellisense is available.
If we compare .NET to Rails then yes, there is this kind of hierarchy there. And in general, you can achieve this kind of hierarchy in any Ruby application via using modules.
I guess it's because of Ruby's dynamic nature.
Ruby is a pure OO language meaning that everything from classes to objects derive from the Object class.
Download NetBeans. There is full intellisense support for Ruby and Ruby on Rails.
http://www.netbeans.org/features/ruby/index.html
Intellisense support probably won't get you what you think it will get you. Because Ruby is a dynamic language, Intellisense, or code completion, is difficult. What you will find is that either the drop down is so flooded with possible completions as to be useless. Or in your case nothing at all.
It's not 100% useless, but I have never found it terribly valuable.
Someone on here recently recommended BWToolkit, and it really impressed me, so I started googling for more IB plug-ins. I've found a couple on random blogs, but haven't been able to find any kind of repository/aggregator for them. Anyone know where I can find more of these?
Thanks.
I just created a page on CocoaDev to list them [edit: question originally just said “Interface Builder plug-ins”, did not mention Cocoa frameworks], with the two I know of listed.
Well that's a good start. I guess that wiki page is the de-facto repository, for now. Seems like there's not much out there.
You are not looking for Interface Builder plug-ins. You think you are, but you aren't. BWToolkit, the example you use in your question, is not an Inteface Builder plug-in. Brandon bills it as an Interface Builder plug-in but it is actually a framework and a plug-in. The framework contains the actual controls. The plug-in contains the integration with Interface Builder.
So really, what you are looking for are frameworks that contain or provide Interface Builder plug-ins. I have changed your question to reflect that, so it is more likely to be found by people using Google to search for similar things in the future.
I know what I am looking for. Not all frameworks contain IB plugins. I am looking for a specific subset of frameworks, those which contain IB plugins. An IB-plugin without a framework is useless, therefore the framework part is assumed. I am NOT looking for regular old frameworks, so stop trying to change my question to that. Your additions only seem to be confusing people.
I have reported your post, hopefully moderators will be able to stop your obnoxious behavior.
"Without a framework, what would you have to plug in to IB?"
Your words, not mine. Anyways, I'm done arguing this with you. Just remember that I can roll back for every time that you edit.
It's clear you have a lot of experience in this field, but instead of offering answers you decided to nitpick where there are no nits to pick.
Additionally, you have not "changed the question to refelct that," you have changed the question to a completely different question. I would have though that after four rollbacks you would relaize that you're doing more harm than good. Just stop, okay?
Of course, Chris Hanson is absolutely correct when he says that an Interface Builder plugin is useless without an accompanying framework. Interface Builder merely provides a graphical way to manage objects in a framework; without the framework itself, Interface Builder has nothing to manage.
However, I do think that there is a completely valid sort of Interface Builder plugin that wouldn't necessitate the installation of an accompanying framework, and that would be one that provides Interface Builder integration features for objects in Cocoa/Cocoa Touch which would otherwise appear as just generic objects.
For those of you who come to this page Google, please recognise the difference between Interface Builder plugins and frameworks: even the examples mentioned above work on frameworks (they could be Foundation, AppKit, UIKIt, etc.)
When using Resharper to encapsulate a class's properties, is there a way to get it to do more than one property at a time?
You might or might not already know this (R# does suffer from a lack of discoverability, unless you get the one-page key-shortcut page printed out), but ALT-INS opens a box which can at least mass-generate properties for fields.
Not sure if that's any use - it's not the same as a retrospective encapsulation.
I don't think there such a feature out of the box.
However, you could write a RS plugin that does this. But this would be another question...