I have an app which uses Core Data. My app does some processing in background threads and saves the output to Core Data, and simultaneously, my main/UI thread performs reading operations on Core Data.
Now, I am trying to synthesize one attribute in my managed object in order to create custom getters and setters (I wanna automatically save long strings in a file, and then simply save the path instead). But then, when reading these objects later in the main thread, they became nil. I tried removing my custom getters and setters and simply leaving #dynamic attr replaced with #synthesize attr = _attr, but even then it stopped working. (I cleaned my project and removed it from both the simulator and the devices I have been trying it out on).
The moment I restored the original syntax, everything started working once again. Any idea what could be causing such behavior?
Refer to Managed Object Accessor Methods section of Core Data Programming Guide for the information on how to correctly implement custom accessor methods.
By the way, in general it is recommended not to override managed object’s accessor methods because the existing implementation is highly optimized.
Related
I need to be able to to grab objects from Core Data and keep them in a mutable array in memory in order to avoid constant fetching and slow UI/UX. The problem is that I grab the objects on other threads. I also do writing to these objects at times on other threads. Because of this I can't just save the NSManagedObjects in an array and just call something like myManagedObjectContext.performBlock or myObject.managedObjectContext.PerformBlock since you are not supposed to pass MOCs between threads.
I was thinking of using a custom object to throw the data I need from the CD objects into. This feels a little stupid since I already made a Model/NSManagedObject class for the entities and since the custom object would be mutable it still would not be thread safe. This means I would have to do something like a serial queue for object manipulation on multiple threads? So for example any time I want to read/write/delete an object I have to throw it into my object serialQueue.
This all seems really nasty so I am wondering are there any common design patterns for this problem or something similar? Is there a better way of doing this?
I doubt you need custom objects between Core Data and your UI. There is a better answer:
Your UI should read from the managed objects that are associated with the main thread (which it sounds like you are doing).
When you make changes on another thread those changes will update the objects that are on your main thread. That is what Core Data is designed to do.
You just need to listen to those changes and have your UI react to them.
There are several ways to do this:
NSFetchedResultsController. Kind of like your mutable array but has a delegate it will notify when objects change. Highly recommended
Listen for KVO changes on the property that you are displaying in your UI. Whenever the property changes you get a KVO notification and can react to it. More code but also more narrowly focused.
Listen for NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification events via the NSNotification center and react to the notification. The objects that are being changed will be in the userInfo of the notification.
Of the three, using a NSFetchedResultsController is usually the right answer. When that in place you just change what you need to change on other threads, save the context and you are done. The UI will update itself.
One pattern is to pass along only the object ids, which are NSString objects, immutable and thus thread safe, and query on the main thread after those ids. This way every NSManagedObject will belong to the appropriate thread.
Alternatively, you can use mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification which will update the objects from the main thread with the changes made on the secondary thread. You'd still need fetching for new objects, though.
The "caveat" is that you need to save the secondary context in order to get your hands on a notification like this. Also any newly created, but not saved objects from the main thread will be lost after applying the merge - however this might not pose problems if your main thread only consumes CoreData objects.
I'm using performBlock on my NSManagedObjectContexts so that my changes happen on the right queue for the given context. My question is - if I'm making a lot of changes and calling methods from within performBlock - is there an easy way to ensure that I use objects from the proper context.
Example:
I have an activeAccount iVar ( created on the Main Queue ) that is a NSMangedObject for the current account in the application. I have some instance methods that use the activeAccount object to perform certain tasks - getting data, setting data. So my question is if I am doing something on a background NSManagedObjectContext and I call one of these shared methods - is there a pattern I can use so that in these methods I know to either use the current activeAccount iVar or get a new one. Also, if I needed to do something that requires a NSManagedObjectContext - how do I know which one to get/use.
One method I have for knowing which NSManagedObjectContext to use is I have a method that checks if it is running on the current thread - it then knows to return the main thread's context or the background thread's context. Also, if I'm on the background thread, am I allowed to read the Object ID of the activeAccount that lives on the main thread so that I can get a copy of it on the background thread? Thanks in advance.
Brian,
Thread confinement can be a tricky proposition to maintain. The key thing you need to maintain is using objects in their proper MOC. As every managed object maintains a link to both its host MOC and its object ID, this is really easy to ensure. For example:
NSManagedObjectContext *newMOC = NSManagedObjectContext.new;
newMOC.persistentStoreCoordinator = oldActiveAccount.managedObjectContext.persistentStoreCoordinator;
ActiveAccount *newActiveAccount = [newMOC objectWithID: oldActiveAccount.objectID];
Now every instance you access from newActiveAccount is created in the newMOC and is, hence, thread confined to that MOC. objectIDs are persistent. The -persistentStoreCoordinator is rarely, if ever, changed on the mainMOC. Hence, the above code is properly confined. There are issues with the above technique if the source MOC is transient. Hence, I cannot guarantee the above code works with respect to two background MOCs.
Andrew
I have to ask first, why are you having so many contexts in use at the same time?
I use one for background operations and one for main thread. If I need to create another one for discardable changes, I'll just create it and pass it on, so now my self.managedObjectContext points to the draft context. I will never let my managed objects to live in a scope where they could access a multitude of contexts.
It is not entirely clear if you are writing for iOS or OSX, but with iOS for example:
If I need to push a new view controller into navigation stack I will initialize my destination view controller's managedObjectContext ivar as well as any NSManagedObject subclass instances. Since in -prepareForSegue: I know whether I'll create a draft context or just pass on my current one, I also know whether I need to initialize those managed object instances by referencing them by their IDs from newly created context or I can just pass them on.
Now inside my view controller I can take it for granted that my managed objects are always tied to the self.managedObjectContext.
How can you use Core Data and GCD when the methods that get called within the background thread need many different NSManagedObjects? You as the caller might not have insight which objects will be needed in the sub-calls?
Think of a complex download, parsing and saving procedure with many managed objects, helper methods for dates, statuses and so on. When you start your background thread with GCD, a new NSManagedObjectContext will be needed, that's for sure. But you are not able to tell what managed objects will be needed by every sub-method. So, do you need to pass the context to every single helper method, e.g. for just telling a NSDate difference?
Is there an easy approach that doesn't blow up the lines of code?
One approach that could fit the bill of not blowing up the code could be to receive your data in your various background threads and code it all into dictionaries. If you use JSON as the transfer format, that would be very few lines of code.
Then you could pass it all to a block on the main thread to create the managed object and insert it into the managed object context. Again, that would not carry much overhead, compared to a single-threaded solution.
I would like to delete an ovm object (and its children) so that I can recreate it with different configs. Is there a way to do this in OVM?
Currently, when I try to create the object a second time with new, I get the following VCS runtime error:
[CLDEXT] Cannot set 'ap' as a child of 'instance', which already has a child by that name.
I realize that I can simply use a different name to "re-create" the instance, but then I'll still have the old instance sitting around and soaking up memory.
OVM is just a SystemVerilog library. That means that all the rules of SystemVerilog apply to OVM. So, yes, you can use new() with OVM. Sometimes it's preferable to use the factory, and sometimes it's preferable to use new() (that's a topic for a different discussion).
SystemVerilog does not have a delete operator or a destructor like C++. Instead, when you are done with an object you just remove all references to it and the garbage collector will clean up the memory. Here's a quote from the SystemVerilog reference manual (IEEE 1800-2009) section 8.7:
SystemVerilog does not require the complex memory allocation and deallocation of C++. Construction of an object is straightforward; and garbage collection, as in Java, is implicit and automatic. There can be no memory leaks or other subtle behaviors, which are so often the bane of C++ programmers.
It's not entirely true that you cannot have a memory leak. You can forget to remove all references to an object and the garbage collector will not know to pick it up. However, you do not have to worry about memory with the same detail as you do in C++.
The particular error you received with id CLDEXT is from ovm_component class. From the message it appears that you attempted to create two components with the same name and the same parent. Components in OVM are typically static. That is, you create and elaborate them once, usually at time 0, and don't delete or add components after that. Because of this model there are no methods in ovm_component to remove child components. So there really isn't a good way to replace a component once it has been instantiated. By the way, this only applies to components. Other types of objects can be re-allocated.
If you feel that you need to replace a component with a different one after time 0 you should re-think the architecture of your testbench. There are probably betters ways to accomplish what you are trying to do without replacing components.
I have only UVM experience but I think OVM is similar. I would have liked to reply to #Victor Lyuboslavsky's comment but I can't add comments.
The issue is with the name 'ap' which evidently has already been used for a child of 'instance'. Use this code instead.
static int instNum = 0;
instance_ap = my_ovm_extended_class::type_id::create
($sformatf ("ap%0d", instNum), this);
The first time an object is created & the handle assigned to 'instance_ap', the object would have the name 'instance.ap0'. The next time the code executes an object called 'instance.ap1', and so on.
As mentioned by other posters this ought to be done only for non-component objects, and components should be static and must be created during/before the build phase & connected to each other during/before the connect phase.
Try assigning null to the object before calling new again.
Unless I see someone else answer this question, I'd say there is no easy way to deallocate objects in OVM framework.
OVM testbenches are static and created when the testbench is created.
When the environment class is instantiated, it will call new(create), build, connect, end_of_elaboration, start_of_simulation, run and check on all components.
By the end of the environment build phase all components must be created.
By the end of the environment connect phase all components must have their TLM ports connected.
Because of these requirements, you can not change components (or port connections) except for during the phase.
As part of the static nature of the testbench environment, every component must have a unique get_full_name() response. This is because string lookups are used to identify components in the hierarchy.
Assigning an object to null should deallocate memory. If there is no other handle pointing to that memory location, then it should get reclaimed.
I have a Silverlight app where I've implemented the M-V-VM pattern so my actual UI elements (Views) are separated from the data (Models). Anyways, at one point after the user has gone and done some selections and possible other input, I'd like to asyncronously go though the model and scan it and compile a list of optiions that the user has changed (different from the default), and eventually update that on the UI as a summary, but that would be a final step.
My question is that if I use a background worker to do this, up until I actually want to do the UI updates, I just want to read current values in one of my models, I don't have to synchronize access to the model right? I'm not modifying data just reading current values...
There are Lists (ObservableCollections), so I will have to call methods of those collections like "_ABCCollection.GetSelectedItems()" but again I'm just reading, I'm not making changes. Since they are not primitives, will I have to synchronize access to them for just reads, or does that not matter?
I assume I'll have to sychronize my final step as it will cause PropertyChanged events to fire and eventually the Views will request the new data through the bindings...
Thanks in advance for any and all advice.
You are correct. You can read from your Model objects and ObservableCollections on a worker thread without having a cross-thread violation. Getting or setting the value of a property on a UI element (more specifically, an object that derives from DispatcherObject) must be done on the UI thread (more specifically, the thread on which the DispatcherObject subclass instance was created). For more info about this, see here.