I have a core data database. I'm performing a custom migration. I have a subclass of NSEntityMigrationPolicy. My policy's migration method buildValueFromSectionFieldManagedObject: is being called by a mapping rule : FUNCTION($entityPolicy, "buildValueFromSectionFieldManagedObject:" , $source).
This part is actually working.
However, the implementation of buildValueFromSectionFieldManagedObject: uses methods in the custom entity NSManagedObject subclass of the $source, which is Choice.
The methods of Choice do not seem to be available to the migration function, and instead it gets just a vanilla NSManagedObject.
When I try to use Choice methods, I get an exception. If I po the choice in the debugger, I get something like this:
<NSManagedObject: 0x600000281860> (entity: Choice; id: 0xd00000000038001a ; data: )
Whereas, out of a migration I would usually see something like this:
<Choice: 0x60800028bdb0> (entity: Choice; id: 0x6080002225a0 ; data: {
Is this just how it is, or is there some way that I can use the entity objects during migration?
Possibly relevant – this particular entity, Choice, is removed during this migration. It does not exist in the target managed object model, but does exist in the source managed object model. However, I don't think this is the case as other entity classes that are in the target model are also unavailable as that class during migration – they have class NSManagedObject and their entity methods are not available.
That is correct, you only have access to basic NSManagedObjects during migration.
Three-Stage Migration
The migration process itself is in three stages. It uses a copy of the source and destination models in which the validation rules are disabled and the class of all entities is changed to NSManagedObject.
From: Core Data Model Versioning and Data Migration Guide
Dave's answer clarified that during a migration, core data object are only available as NSManagedObject instances. You don't get to use their Entity classes.
Worse, if you're using a tool like mogenerator, then any handy logic that you've extended the entity classes with is inaccessible.
Poor solutions
Working with an NSManagedObject directly feels dangerous to me. Using [managedObject valueForKey:#"someKey"] is verbose, but worse, there's no compiler checking that you've got your key name correct, so you might be asking for something managedObject doesn't have. There's also no compiler checking of the returned type either – it could be anything that you can put in to a managed object.
Slightly better is [managedObject valueForKey: NSStringFromSelector(#selector(someKey))] is safer, but horribly verbose and awkward, and still isn't that safe – lots of things might implement the method someKey.
You might also declare your keys as literals:
NSString *const someKey = #"someKey";
[managedObject valueForKey: someKey];
Again – this is slightly safer, less error prone and verbose, but you've got no guarantee still that this managed object has someKey.
None of these approaches will give us access to custom logic, either.
Better solution
What I did instead of this was to define a protocol for the properties that I know my managed object has. Here's are examples for entities Choice and ChoiceType.
#protocol ChoiceProtocol
- (NSSet<id <ChoiceTypeProtocol> > *)choiceTypes;
- (NSNumber *)selected;
- (NSNumber *)order;
#end
#protocol ChoiceTypeProtocol
- (NSNumber *)selected;
- (NSString *)name;
- (NSString *)textCustom;
- (NSNumber *)order;
#end
Now in my migration code, instead of having a custom migration function similar to:
- (NSString *)migratedRepresentationOfChoice:(NSManagedObject *)choice;
I have:
- (NSString *)migratedRepresentationOfChoice:(id <ChoiceProtocol>)choice;
In the body of this function I can use choice exactly as I would any regular object. I get code completion as I type, I get the right syntax highlighting, the compiler will complain if I call a non existent method.
I also get return type checking, so the compiler will complain if I use the NSNumber property selected as an NSString or NSSet. And it'll also be helpful and suggest NSNumber methods as completions while I type.
How about the logic?
This approach doesn't provide the logic you've added to entity classes.
In Swift you might be able to use a protocol extension to achieve that.
I was retiring these entities (hence the migration), so I moved the entity logic functions I needed in to a helper functions of my custom migration. As an example choice.orderedChoiceTypes becomes [self choiceOrderedChoiceTypes:choice].
In future I will probably avoid ever adding logic to NSManagedObject entities. I think it's probably a better plan to put any such logic in domain objects that you build from your managed objects. Further, I will probably avoid defining entity classes and instead only access NSManagedObject instances through a protocol as during the migration. It seems clean, simple, removes magic, and has benefits for testing – not just for migrations.
Related
In iOS 11, a new attribute type was introduced for Core Data Entities: UUID. I'd like to use that type for storing my uniqueIdentifiers for Ensembles. Is it safe to do so? Can Ensembles handle syncing the UUID attributes?
Here's how I plan to provide unique identifiers to the delegate method using my identifier properties:
- (NSArray *)persistentStoreEnsemble:(CDEPersistentStoreEnsemble *)ensemble
globalIdentifiersForManagedObjects:(NSArray *)objects
{
NSArray <UUID *> *uuidArray = [objects valueForKeyPath:#"uniqueIdentifier"];
return [uuidArray valueForKeyPath:#"UUIDString"];
}
I somehow missed this feature. I have nothing in Ensembles to handle this specially, so it may not work. I would expect the fix to be fairly straightforward if it doesn't work, so if you find it is not working, let me know, and I'll look into it.
The problem will probably be in the conversion to JSON. See JSONValueFromCoreDataValue and CoreDataValueFromJSONValue. You probably just need to add an extra branch in the if-else to handle UUID explicitly.
I'm working to create some services with JAX-RS, and am relatively new to JAXB (actually XML in general) so please don't assume I know the pre-requisites that I probably should know! Here's the questions: I want to send and receive "partial" objects in XML. That is, imagine one has an object (Java form, obviously) with:
class Thing { int x, String y, Customer z }
I want to be able to send an XML output that contains (dynamically chosen, so I can't use XmlTransient) just x, or just z, or x and y, but not z, or any other combination that suits my client. The point, obviously, is that sometimes the client doesn't need everything, so I can save some bandwidth (particularly with lists of deep, complex objects, which this example clearly doesn't illustrate!).
Also, for input, the same bandwidth argument applies; I would like to be able to have the client send just the particular fields that should be updated in, say, a PUT operation, and ignore the rest, then have the server "merge" those new values onto existing objects and leave the un-mentioned fields unchanged.
This seems to be supported in the Jackson JSON libraries (though I'm still working on it), but I'm having trouble finding it in JAXB. Any ideas?
One thought that I was pondering is whether one can do this in some way via Maps. If I created a Map (potentially nested Maps, for nested coplex objects) of what I want to send, could JAXB send that with a plausible structure? And if it could create such a map on input, I guess I could work through it to make the updates. Not perfect, but maybe?
And yes, I know that the "documents" that will be flying around will probably fail to comply with schemas, having missing fields and all that, but I'm ok with that, provided the infrastructure can be made to work.
Oh, and I know I could do this "manually" with SAX, StAX, or DOM parsing, but I'm hoping there's a rather more automatic way, particularly since JAXB handles the whole objects so effortlessly.
Cheers,
Toby
Note: I'm the EclipseLink JAXB (MOXy) lead and a member of the JAXB (JSR-222) expert group.
EclipseLink JAXB (MOXy) offerst this support through its object graph extension. Object graphs allow you to specify a subset of properties for the purposes of marshalling an unmarshalling. They may be created at runtime programatically:
// Create the Object Graph
ObjectGraph contactInfo = JAXBHelper.getJAXBContext(jc).createObjectGraph(Customer.class);
contactInfo.addAttributeNodes("name");
Subgraph location = contactInfo.addSubgraph("billingAddress");
location.addAttributeNodes("city", "province");
Subgraph simple = contactInfo.addSubgraph("phoneNumbers");
simple.addAttributeNodes("value");
// Output XML - Based on Object Graph
marshaller.setProperty(MarshallerProperties.OBJECT_GRAPH, contactInfo);
marshaller.marshal(customer, System.out);
or statically on the class through annotations:
#XmlNamedObjectGraph(
name="contact info",
attributeNodes={
#XmlNamedAttributeNode("name"),
#XmlNamedAttributeNode(value="billingAddress", subgraph="location"),
#XmlNamedAttributeNode(value="phoneNumbers", subgraph="simple")
},
subgraphs={
#XmlNamedSubgraph(
name="location",
attributeNodes = {
#XmlNamedAttributeNode("city"),
#XmlNamedAttributeNode("province")
}
)
}
)
#XmlRootElement
#XmlAccessorType(XmlAccessType.FIELD)
public class Customer {
For More Information
http://blog.bdoughan.com/2013/03/moxys-object-graphs-partial-models-on.html
http://blog.bdoughan.com/2013/03/moxys-object-graphs-inputoutput-partial.html
http://blog.bdoughan.com/2011/05/specifying-eclipselink-moxy-as-your.html
Using core data I'd like to fetch some data. My model uses some abstract entities, see attached picture, where QuantifiedIngredient is an abstract class.
I'd like to fetch Ingredient entities that have at least one RecipeQuantifiedIngredients, but in the middle is QuantifiedIngredient, which is an abstract class.
How can I do that, how can I test the actual type of an abstract class inside a NSPredicate? Any idea or suggestion?
The only clue I found was:
How can you reference child entity name in a predicate for a fetch request of the parent entity?
Would work a custom property in my QuantifiedIngredient to know if it is a RecipeQuantifiedIngredient? For instance isRecipeQuantifiedIngredient?
Thanks a lot for your help.
If recipe is required in RecipeQuantifiedIngredient, you could try to make a fetch, that checks, if there is any ingredient.recipe. I think, that will work.
The custom property, in kind of flag, will work for you too. You'll just need to set and unset it whenever you add or delete all the recipeQuantifiedIngredient.
I don't want to take the time to translate this into CoreData-speak so here is my thought in SQL:
SELECT * FROM quantifiedIngredients WHERE recipe <> NULL
or something like that. This is essentially Nikita's suggestion of using a flag, except that the 'flag' is the existence of a property. I don't know how CoreData will react when faced with GroceryQuantifiedIngredients that don't have the recipe, I think KVO will throw an exception. You might be so bold as to add a category:
#interface GroceryQuantifiedIngredients (KVOHack)
-(id)recipe;
#end
#implementation GroceryQuantifiedIngredients (KVOHack)
-(id) recipe { return nil; }
#end
This would of course require CoreData to enumerate all quantifiedIngredients, but I presume it will have to do so anyway, and a the return nil should optimize into tiny code. The other consideration is whether this will have a bad effect on the rest of your code; you will have to make that call.
Another idea which pops to mind as I finish this up is to do something like this (I'm getting really loose with my pseudo-code now):
SELECT * FROM quantifiedIngredients WHERE [i respondsToSelector:#selector(recipe)];
See what I mean? I forget whether CoreData lets you play with some kind of cursor when working with predicates or fetchedThingamabobbers, if it does than I think this is your best bet. Anyway it's Sunday afternoon so that stuff is left as a exercise for the reader.
+1 for a good question.
Is there an easier way to do something like the following in Core Data:
Entry *entry = [[Entry alloc] init];
entry.name = #"An Entry";
[entry save];
I realize you don't have to allocate an NSManagedObject, have to insert directly into the context like the following:
Entry *entry = [NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:#"Entry"
inManagedObjectContext:[self managedObjectContext]];
But this is a lot of code. Also I would like to save by just messaging rather than have to save the entire context:
NSError *error = nil;
NSManagedObjectContext *managedObjectContext = self.managedObjectContext;
if (managedObjectContext != nil)
{
if ([managedObjectContext hasChanges] && ![managedObjectContext save:&error])
{
NSLog(#"Unresolved error %#, %#", error, [error userInfo]);
abort();
}
}
Could I put these in an NSManagedObject abstract class and have my managed objects extend that abstract class? Basically, I'm just trying to encapsulate more in my models and write less code in my controllers. Any help appreciated.
You can define your own subclass of NSManagedObject, and set all of your entities to use it.
The subclass can have whatever initialiser/save patterns you define, so long as it calls the proper parent class's initialiser.
You could have a +entity method, which might link to a statically defined context (this will restrict you to a single managed object context of course, but that's not always bad as long as you can also call the more primitive initialisers when you need a second context).
You might even have a +entityWithName: method.
As for saving the context, once again you can always define a subclass and add a simple -save method which saves the context and throws an exception if the save fails. You may choose to do this with a category extending the NSManagedObject class, instead of a subclass.
Note it is impossible to save just the change you made to that one entry object. You can only save all changes to an entire managed object context. If you need to save a single record, then you need to create a temporary managed object context, make a single change in it, then save the temporary context, and then sync the temporary context change over to all other managed object context's that currently exist in the app (there is an API to do make this complicated process relatively easy).
I don't like the code you posted to save the context, for several reasons:
Don't define a managedObjectContext variable that just points to self.managedObjectContext. In almost all situations that's an extra line of code for no benefit. At best you're making your code hard to read, at worst you might be introducing bugs.
Why are you checking if it is nil? Usually you should design your code so that it cannot ever be nil. Do the nil check in the constructor of your object, and if it's nil that is a critical failure. Your whole app is completely useless for the user, and you should make it clear to the user that they can't use the app by doing something drastic, such as a crash (an error alert first would be nice, but I wouldn't bother. I'd just throw an exception).
Why are you doing a check for hasChanges? I cannot think of many situations where you would need to do this check. Perhaps your app is allowing a user to make many changes, and then saving them several minutes later? This is bad. The context should be changed milliseconds after a group of changes are made, or else you're risking data loss. Your app could crash, the phone could run out of battery, or the user might receive a phone call and your app is consuming enough RAM that the OS will terminate it instantly in order to present the "incoming call" screen. You shouldn't need to check for hasChanges because you always perform a save operation immediately after making some changes.
As I kind of mentioned before, if the save fails you should present an error to the user then throw an exception. Avoid using NSLog() in deployment code, it's really only useful for development and beta builds.
Check out
NSManagedObject+ActiveRecord.h
Inside Restkit : http://restkit.org/
It is based on :
https://github.com/magicalpanda/MagicalRecord
I am using in RestKit app, but you can adopt it quite easily.
Good luck
NSManagedObject provides access to its NSManagedObjectContext, but does it retain it?
According to "Passing Around a NSManagedObjectContext on iOS" by Marcus Zarra, "The NSManagedObject retains a reference to its NSManagedObjectContext internally and we can access it."
How does Zarra know this and is he correct?
I'm asking because I want to know if the NSManagedObjectContext will be dealloc'ed in the tearDown method below. (I'm using CocoaPlant.)
#import <SenTestingKit/SenTestingKit.h>
#import <CocoaPlant/CocoaPlant.h>
#import "AccountUser.h"
#interface AccountUserTests : SenTestCase {
AccountUser *accountUser;
}
#end
#implementation AccountUserTests
- (void)setUp {
accountUser = [AccountUser insertIntoManagedObjectContext:
[NSManagedObjectContext contextWithStoreType:NSInMemoryStoreType error:NULL]];
}
- (void)tearDown {
[accountUser delete];
}
- (void)testFetchWithLinkedAccountUserID {
// Tests go here...
}
#end
NSManagedObject DOES NOT hold strong reference to its NSManagedObjectContext. I've checked that on a test project.
Therefore, you should keep strong reference to NSManagedObjectContext as long as you use its objects.
Wow, over two years old and no accepted answer here :)
When I wrote that post I did indeed mean it keeps a reference to its associated NSManagedObjectContext. If a NSManagedObject retained the NSManagedObjectContext then it would most likely run into problems.
In either case, whether the MOC is retained by the MO is irrelevant to your application design. If you need the MOC to stay around then you need to retain it (now referred to as a strong reference) or it will go away. What the frameworks do internally is not our problem. We just need to make sure we balance our retains and releases.
Matt,
I think Marcus may have miswrote that a NSManagedObject retains its context. Every NSManagedObject maintains a link to the context. Unless individual objects have an internal retain cycle or are retained outside of their context, then, in my experience, they are all released when the context is released. If they retained the context, then this would almost certainly not be the case.
The above said, you can easily write code to test Marcus' claim. Override -dealloc and log when it is called.
IMO, it is a best practice to retain your context until you are done with it. Depending on an undocumented behavior is probably not wise.
Andrew