My watchOS app uses core data for local storage. Saving the managed context is done in background:
var backgroundContext = persistentContainer.newBackgroundContext()
//…
backgroundContext.perform {
//…
let saveError = self.saveManagedContext(managedContext: self.backgroundContext)
completion(saveError)
}
//…
func saveManagedContext(managedContext: NSManagedObjectContext) -> Error? {
if !managedContext.hasChanges { return nil }
do {
try managedContext.save()
return nil
} catch let error as NSError {
return error
}
}
Very rarely, my context is not saved. One reason I can think of is the following:
After my data are changed, I initiate a background core data context save operation.
But before the background task starts, the watch extension is put by the user into background, and is then terminated by watchOS.
This probably also prevents the core data background save to execute.
My questions are:
- Is this scenario possible?
- If so, what would be the correct handling of a core data background context save?
PS: On the iOS side, I do the same, but here it is possible to request additional background processing time using
var bgTask: UIBackgroundTaskIdentifier = application.beginBackgroundTask(expirationHandler: {
//…
application.endBackgroundTask(bgTask)
}
By now, I think I can answer my question:
If the watch extension is put by the user into background, the extension delegate calls applicationDidEnterBackground(). The docs say:
The system typically suspends your app shortly after this method
returns; therefore, you should not call any asynchronous methods from
your applicationDidEnterBackground() implementation. Asynchronous
methods may not be able to complete before the app is suspended.
I think this also applies to background tasks that have been initiated before, so it is actually possible that a core data background save does not complete.
Thus, the core data save should be done on the main thread. My current solution is the following:
My background context is no longer set up using persistentContainer.newBackgroundContext(), since such a context is connected directly to the persistentContainer, and when this context is saved, changes are written to the persistent store, which may take relatively long. Instead, I now set up the background context by
var backgroundContext = NSManagedObjectContext.init(concurrencyType: .privateQueueConcurrencyType)
and set its parent property as
backgroundContext.parent = container.viewContext
where container is the persistent container. Now, when the background context is saved, it is not written to the persistent store, but to its parent, the view content that is handled by the main thread. Since this saving is only done in memory, it is pretty fast.
Additionally, in applicationDidEnterBackground() of the extension delegate, I save the view context. Since this is done on the main thread, The docs say:
The applicationDidEnterBackground() method is your last chance to
perform any cleanup before the app is terminated.
In normal circumstances, enough time should be provided by watchOS. If not, other docs say:
If needed, you can request additional background execution time by
calling the ProcessInfo class’s
performExpiringActivity(withReason:using:) method.
This is probably equivalent to setting up a background task in iOS as shown in my question.
Hope this helps somebody!
Related
I know this is not recommended way by Acumatica, but we don't have other option than to use stored procedure. I have created a new processing screen to execute stored procedure but am facing time out exception.
My code sample is below:
using (new PXConnectionScope())
{
using (PXTransactionScope ts = new PXTransactionScope())
{
PXDatabase.Execute("MYSTOREDPROCEDURE", pars.ToArray());
ts.Complete();
}
}
Try executing long running code in PXLongOperation context. I assume these establishes a connection with periodic ping to avoid time-out while waiting for data to arrive.
PXLongOperation.StartOperation(Base, delegate()
{
// Code executed in long operation context
});
If your code is executed from the context of a processing delegate I think it should be already wrapped in a long operation though. Otherwise long operation should be used inside an action event handler.
A last recourse would be to increase time-out in the web.config file.
Use of stored procedure is a concern mainly for SAAS hosting and obtaining an Acumatica ISV Certification. There's likely no official support for it but I doubt it's gonna go away.
I'm reading a CoreData database in a WatchKit extension, and changing the store from the parent iPhone application. I'd like to use NSFetchedResultsController to drive changes to the watch UI, but NSFetchedResultsController in the extension doesn't respond to changes made to the store in the parent application. Is there any way to get the secondary process to respond to changes made in the first process?
Some things to try/consider:
Do you have App Groups enabled?
If so, is your data store in a location shared between your host app and the extension?
If so does deleting the cached data, as referenced here help?
Read this answer to very similar question: https://stackoverflow.com/a/29566287/1757229
Also make sure you set stalenessInterval to 0.
I faced the same problem. My solution applies if you want to update the watch app on main app updates, but it could be easily extended to go both ways.
Note that I'm using a simple extension on NSNotificationCenter in order to be able to post and observe Darwin notification more easily.
1. Post the Darwin notification
In my CoreData store manager, whenever I save the main managed object context, I post a Darwin notification:
notificationCenter.addObserverForName(NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification, object: self.managedObjectContext, queue: NSOperationQueue.mainQueue(), usingBlock: { [weak s = self] notification in
if let moc = notification.object as? NSManagedObjectContext where moc == s?.managedObjectContext {
notificationCenter.postDarwinNotificationWithName(IPCNotifications.DidUpdateStoreNotification)
}
})
2. Listen for the Darwin notification (but only on Watch)
I listen for the same Darwin notification in the same class, but making sure I am on the actual watch extension (in order to avoid to refresh the context that just got updated). I'm not using a framework (must target also iOS 7) so I just added the same CoreDataManager on both main app and watch extension. In order to determine where I am, I use a compile time flag.
#if WATCHAPP
notificationCenter.addObserverForDarwinNotification(self, selector: "resetContext", name: IPCNotifications.DidUpdateStoreNotification)
#endif
3. Reset context
When the watch extension receives the notification, it resets the MOC context, and sends an internal notification to tell FRCs to update themselves. I'm not sure why, but it wasn't working fine without using a little delay (suggestions are welcome)
func resetContext() {
self.managedObjectContext?.reset()
delay(1) {
NSNotificationCenter.defaultCenter().postNotificationName(Notifications.ForceDataReload, object: self.managedObjectContext?.persistentStoreCoordinator)
}
}
4. Finally, update the FRCs
In my case, I was embedding a plain FRC in a data structure so I added the observer outside of the FRC scope. Anyway you could easily subclass NSFetchedResultsController and add the following line in its init method (remember to stop observing on dealloc)
NSNotificationCenter.defaultCenter().addObserver(fetchedResultController, selector: "forceDataReload:", name: CoreDataStore.Notifications.ForceDataReload, object: fetchedResultController.managedObjectContext.persistentStoreCoordinator)
and
extension NSFetchedResultsController {
func forceDataReload(notification: NSNotification) {
var error : NSError?
if !self.performFetch(&error) {
Log.error("Error performing fetch update after forced data reload request: \(error)")
}
if let delegate = self.delegate {
self.delegate?.controllerDidChangeContent?(self)
}
}
At WWDC ‘17, Apple introduced a number of new Core Data features, one of which is Persistent History Tracking or NSPersistentHistory. But as of the time of writing, its API is still undocumented. Thus, the only real reference is the What’s New in Core Data WWDC session.
More info and an example here
I am trying to use titanium execution contexts to produce parallel code execution between the main application context and others. I am using CreateWindow with a url property refers to a .js file inside "lib" folder. But by logging the execution on both iOS and Android devices it seems that different contexts are executed on the app main thread, no parallelism here.
My new context trigger inside my Alloy controller:
var win2 = Ti.UI.createWindow({
title: 'New Window',
url: 'thread.js',
backgroundColor:'#fff'
});
win2.open();
Ti.API.log('after open');
My thread.js contents:
Ti.API.log("this is the new context");
Ti.App.fireEvent("go" , {});
while(true)
{
Ti.API.log('second context');
}
This while loop apparently blocks the main context (my Alloy controller) waiting it to exit.
Any suggestions of how can I execute some code (mainly heavy sqlite db access) in background so that the UI be responsive? (Web workers are not a choice for me).
You could try to achieve the wanted behaviour with a setInterval() or setTimeout() method.
setInterval()[source]:
function myFunc() {
//your code
}
//set the interval
setInterval(myFunc,2000) //this will run the function for every 2 sec.
Another suggested method would be to fire a custom event when you need the background behavior since it is processed in its own thread. This is also suggested in the official documentation.
AFAIK, titanium is single threaded, because JavaScript is single threaded. You can get parallel execution with native modules, but you'll have to code that yourself for each platform.
Another option is to use web workers, but I consider that to be a hack.
I have a web application working with sqlite database.
My version of sqlite is the latest from official windows binary distribution - 3.7.13.
The problem is that under heavy load on database, sqlite API functions (such as sqlite3_step) are returning SQLITE_BUSY.
I pass the following pragmas when initializing a connection:
journal_mode = WAL
page_size = 4096
synchronous = FULL
foreign_keys = on
The databas is one-file database. And I'm using Mono 2.10.8 and Mono.Data.Sqlite assembly provided with it to access database.
I'm testing it with 50 parallel threads which are sending 50 subsequent http-requests each to my application. On every request some reading and writing are done to the database. Every set of IO operations is executed inside the transaction.
Everything goes well until near 400th - 700th request. In this (random) moment API functions are starting to return SQLITE_BUSY permanently (To be more exact - until the limit of retries is reached).
As far as i know WAL mode transparently supports parallel reads and writes. I've guessed that it could be because of attempt to read database while checkpoint operation is executed. But even after turning autocheckpoint off the situation remains the same.
What could be wrong in this situation?
How to serve large amount of parallel database IO correctly?
P.S.
Only one connection per request is supposed.
I use nhibernate configured with WebSessionContext.
I initialize my NHibernate session like this:
ISession session = null;
//factory variable is session factory
if (CurrentSessionContext.HasBind(factory))
{
session = factory.GetCurrentSession();
if (session == null)
CurrentSessionContext.Unbind(factory);
}
if (session == null)
{
session = factory.OpenSession();
CurrentSessionContext.Bind(session);
}
return session;
And on HttpApplication.EndRequest i release it like this:
//factory variable is session factory
if (CurrentSessionContext.HasBind(factory))
{
try
{
CurrentSessionContext.Unbind(factory)
.Dispose();
}
catch (Exception ee)
{
Logr.Error("Error uninitializing session", ee);
}
}
So as far as i know there should be only one connection per request life cycle. While proceessing the request, code is executed sequentially (ASP.NET MVC 3). So it doesn't look like any concurency is possible here. Can i conclude that no connections are shared in this case?
It's not clear to me if the request threads share the same connection or not. If they don't then you should not be having these issues.
Assuming that you are indeed sharing the connection object across multiple threads, you should use some locking mechanism as the the SqliteConnection isn't thread-safe (an old post, but the SQLite library maintained as part of Mono evolved from System.Data.SQLite found on http://sqlite.phxsoftware.com).
So assuming that you don't lock around using the SqliteConnection object, can you please try it? A simple way to accomplish this could look like this:
static readonly object _locker = new object();
public void ProcessRequest()
{
lock (_locker) {
using (IDbCommand dbcmd = conn.CreateCommand()) {
string sql = "INSERT INTO foo VALUES ('bar')";
dbcmd.CommandText = sql;
dbcmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
}
}
}
You may however choose to open a distinct connection with each thread to ensure you don't have any more threading issues with the SQLite library.
EDIT
Following-up on the code you posted, do you close the session after committing the transaction? If you don't use some ITransaction, do you flush and close the session? I'm asking since I don't see it in your code, and I see it mentioned in https://stackoverflow.com/a/43567/610650
I also see it mentioned on http://nhibernate.info/doc/nh/en/index.html#session-configuration:
Also note that you may call NHibernateHelper.GetCurrentSession(); as
many times as you like, you will always get the current ISession of
this HTTP request. You have to make sure the ISession is closed after
your unit-of-work completes, either in Application_EndRequest event
handler in your application class or in a HttpModule before the HTTP
response is sent.
I have an app that uses AVCaptureSession to process video. I like to write with zero memory leaks, and proper handling of all objects.
That's why this post - How to properly release an AVCaptureSession - was tremendously helpful - Since [session stopRunning] is asynchronous, you can't just stop the session and continue to release the holding object.
So that's solved. This is the code:
// Releases the object - used for late session cleanup
static void capture_cleanup(void* p)
{
CaptureScreenController* csc = (CaptureScreenController*)p;
[csc release]; // releases capture session if dealloc is called
}
// Stops the capture - this stops the capture, and upon stopping completion releases self.
- (void)stopCapture {
// Retain self, it will be released in capture_cleanup. This is to ensure cleanup is done properly,
// without the object being released in the middle of it.
[self retain];
// Stop the session
[session stopRunning];
// Add cleanup code when dispatch queue end
dispatch_queue_t queue = dispatch_queue_create("capture_screen", NULL);
dispatch_set_context(queue, self);
dispatch_set_finalizer_f(queue, capture_cleanup);
[dataOutput setSampleBufferDelegate: self queue: queue];
dispatch_release(queue);
}
Now I come to support app interruptions as a phone call, or pressing the home button. In case application enters background, I'd like to stop capturing, and pop my view controller.
I can't seem to do it at the applicationDidEnterBackground context. dealloc is never called, my object remains alive, and when I reopen the app the frames just start coming in automatically.
I tried using beginBackgroundTaskWithExpirationHandler but to no avail. It didn't change much.
Any suggestions?
Thanks!
I don't have an answer to your question.
But I also read the thread you mentioned and I'm trying to implement it.
I'm surprised you have this code in the stopCapture function:
// Add cleanup code when dispatch queue end
dispatch_queue_t queue = dispatch_queue_create("capture_screen", NULL);
dispatch_set_context(queue, self);
dispatch_set_finalizer_f(queue, capture_cleanup);
[dataOutput setSampleBufferDelegate: self queue: queue];
dispatch_release(queue);
I thought that code was required as part of the session initialization. Does this work for you?
Does your capture_cleanup function get called? mine isn't getting called and I'm trying to figure out why.