When is dealloc called ios

That helps nudge my opinion toward your last comment: "fix with documentation" rather than trying to avoid the problem in OCMockito. I would like to roll another release. Hey jonreid! I think the latter I'll write something for the FAQ when I get a chance, but it might not be for a week or so.

For my making a build of OCMockito with your proposed changes included, along with a system to keep track of all mocks seems to improve it greatly! Unfortunately I also see crashes when running in an CI environment, but wasn't able yet to reproduce on my development machine.

I'm interested in the idea of something that can register when mocks are created. Here's my main design goal:. It should be optional. That is, existing tests should work fine without this mock-cleaner-upper. One way of achieving this would be to create a subclass of XCTestCase.

When mocks are created, they can notice their context and register themselves. Cleanup would happen automatically on tearDown. Hey RuudPuts! No progress from me I'm afraid. We've pretty much decided to not use mocks to test any scenarios showing the dealloc problem. It's quite an edge case for us. There are sometimes cases when you want to work with multiple test frameworks, e. Best of both worlds :.

I wonder if we can make something so that: when a new mock is created, it can determine whether or not this list of of managed mocks even exists. If there is no list, do nothing. If there is a list, register itself. I do agree on the mock tracker being optional, although I do think any test suite can benefit from it.

Placing it in XCTestCase itself could cause problems when combining with other frameworks. From the teardown of the XCTestCase then the mock-cleaner-upper is called upon to cleanup all mocks. I've tried to achieve the same with a test observer, although I didn't get that to work unfortunately. Any insights you might still have I'd appreciate!

Teardown blocks stack up during a test run, then they get run in last-in, first-out order before the -tearDown method gets called on the test case instance. Skip to content. Star New issue. Jump to bottom. Linked pull requests. I've found that in a lot of examples much of the NS variables are released in the method it's instantiated in, but when synthesizing a component they place the release in the dealloc method. You never send a dealloc message directly. See Memory Management Programming Guide for more details on the use of these methods.

Subclasses must implement their own versions of dealloc to allow the release of any additional memory consumed by the object—such as dynamically allocated storage for data or object instance variables owned by the deallocated object. After performing the class-specific deallocation, the subclass method should incorporate superclass versions of dealloc through a message to super:.

For this and other reasons, you should not manage scarce resources in dealloc. Another SO question iPhone - when is dealloc for a viewcontroller called? Login using GitHub Register. Ask a Question. Please log in or register to add a comment. SuppressFinalize object. This isn't quite right. First, the GC doesn't by itself know anything about Dispose.

Dispose is only called when some code explicitly calls it. Dispose bool is typically called both by Dispose with true and by the finalizer with false. So if you follow that pattern which NSObject does then Dispose bool should get called at some point as long as that object is either disposed explicitly or is finalized.

SuppressFinalize doesn't have anything to do with Dispose. What that does is prevent the finalizer from running. That is typically used in Dispose , which usually looks like this:.

That doesn't stop Dispose from being called. It stops the finalizer from being called, and the point of doing that is that the only thing the finalizer does is call Dispose bool , which we just called already. So there's no longer a need for a finalizer, and this prevents the object from needing to go into the finalizer queue, which means it can be collected the first time it's a candidate instead of having to wait.

That NSObject and subclasses does not suppressed the finalizer being called, and generally this is not the case. As shown above, it does suppress finalization in the Dispose method, and that generally is the case. However, this happens only in the case where someone called Dispose explicitly. That if a NSObject finalizer and or Dispose does not get called when garbage collector is called , that object has not been collected.

Collect does not immediately call any finalizers, and again Dispose is never called directly by the runtime. The finalizer calls Dispose bool because it was written to do so , and the finalizer runs asynchronously in a background thread.

So calling GC. Collect does not guarantee that objects have Dispose called or their finalizers called. It just puts objects that have finalizers in a queue, and eventually their finalizers will be called. You can wait for all pending objects to be collected like this:. That will wait for any objects identified as candidates for collection that have finalizers to actually run their finalizers.

However, it's not generally a good idea to rely on this for multiple reasons. To understand this better read this.