Reachability.swift: Connection.none can cause confusion

[stefanengel]

Hi,

the documentation says "isReachable has been deprecated. Use connection != .none instead".
This can cause confusion when used together with optionals. Here is an example:

Assume you store the reachability instance into an optional property:
var reachability = Reachability()

And then later you want to do something if you are not connected:

if reachability?.connection == .none {
    // show offline message, for example
}

The code inside the if statement will only be called if reachability is nil, not if it has a value and connection equals .none (because Swift checks if the optional value _reachability_ equals Optional.none). To make it work when _reachability_ is an optional property, you have to write

if reachability?.connection == Reachability.Connection.none {
    // show offline message, for example
}

Thats why it might be better to rename Connection.none to something else or mention it in the documentation.

[ashleymills]

@hamchapman We should look at renaming this I think… I'm struggling to think of good name. Connection.noConnection repeats "connection" so that's out. Maybe .off?

[DanielStormApps]

@ashleymills @hamchapman I think Connection.unavailable works best here.

[ashleymills]

@DanielStormApps Perfect!

[hamchapman]

Connection.unavailable sounds good to me 👍

[andschdk]

Just faced this confusion after updating - it tricked me! 😄
Renaming Connection.unavailable in an upcoming release sounds great 👍

[rpcarson]

I encountered this issue recently. Are there plans to actually implement this fix?

[ashleymills]

I just pushed this fix - will be in the next release