We Keep Coding

Using base class and base interface in C#

I am reshaping an entire system that does not use base classes and base interfaces.
My idea to do so is to extract all the common methods to a base classes and base interfaces.
So basically, we would have:
A base class SomeClassBase implementing an interface ISomeClassBase
A derived class SomeClassDerived implementing ISomeClassDerived (this interface deriving from ISomeClassBase)
Now the problem, how can I instantiate "_mySession" in the derived class (which has a different cast than in the base class), while preserving all the methods from the base class:
public class SomeClassBase : ISomeClassBase
{
public IMySessionBase _mySession = MySession.Instance();
public SomeClassBase ()
{
_mySession.connect(); // Needed??
}
public void doSomething()
{
_mySession.doSomething();
}
}
public class SomeClassDerived : SomeClassBase, ISomeClassDerived
{
public IMySessionDerived _mySession = MySession.Instance();
public SomeClassDerived ()
{
_mySession.connect();
}
public void doSomethingElse()
{
_mySession.doSomethingElse();
}
}
One more thing, IMySessionDerived implements IMySessionBase.

Do not redefine _mySession Let it come from base class.
However in you Derived class you can still reassign.
public class SomeClassDerived : SomeClassBase, ISomeClassDerived
{
public SomeClassDerived ()
{
_mySession = MySession.Instance(); //Declaration comes from base class automatically
_mySession.connect();
}
public void doSomethingElse()
{
_mySession.doSomethingElse();
}
}
If your IMySessionBase and IMySessionDerived are following Hierarchy, it should work. But in some rare cases, You might end up getting into a DoubleDispatchProblem.
As Pointed out in commens, If you want to do something from IMySessionDerived you can add a Property.
public class SomeClassDerived : SomeClassBase, ISomeClassDerived
{
IMySessionDerived _derivedSessionAccessor=> _mySession as IMySessionDerived;
}
Update: To fix the exact design problem here,
Instead of deriving from the base class, have it as a field. And inherit from interface. So Instead of doing above approach,
do like,
public class SomeClassBase : ISomeClassBase
{
public IMySessionBase _mySession ;
public SomeClassBase ( IMySessionBase session)
{
_mySession=session;
_mySession.connect(); // Needed??
}
public void doSomething()
{
_mySession.doSomething();
}
}
public class SomeClassDerived : , ISomeClassDerived
{
public IMySessionDerived _mySession = MySession.Instance();
private SomeClassBase _baseClassInstance;
public SomeClassDerived ()
{
_baseClassInstance=new SomeClassBase(_mySession);
//_mySession.connect();
}
public void doSomethingElse()
{
_baseClassInstance.doSomethingElse();
}
}

Pasting #Selvin answer instead of the link buried in the comments:
The trick here is to use the keyword "base()"
using System;
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
var o1 = new O1();
o1.DS1();
var o2 = new O2();
o2.DS1();
o2.DS2();
}
public class Session1
{
protected readonly Type ownerType;
public Session1(Type type)
{
ownerType = type;
}
public virtual void DS1([CallerMemberName] string functionName = "")
{
Console.WriteLine(ownerType.Name + ":" + GetType().Name + ":" + functionName);
}
}
public class Session2 : Session1
{
public Session2(Type type):base(type) { }
public virtual void DS2([CallerMemberName] string functionName = "")
{
Console.WriteLine(ownerType.Name + ":" + GetType().Name + ":" + functionName);
}
}
public class O1
{
private readonly Session1 t;
public O1() : this(new Session1(typeof(O1))) { }
protected O1(Session1 t)
{
this.t = t;
}
public void DS1()
{
t.DS1();
}
}
public class O2 : O1
{
private readonly Session2 t;
public O2() : this(new Session2(typeof(O2))) { }
protected O2(Session2 t) : base(t)
{
this.t = t;
}
public void DS2()
{
t.DS2();
}
}
}

AutoFixture AutoMoq not use my mocks for properties

I have an abstract class that I want to test. There is an abstract property in this class for my DAO, which I define in inherited classes.
public abstract class DeviceGroupManagerBase<TDeviceGroup> where TDeviceGroup : DeviceGroup
{
protected abstract IDeviceGroupDao<TDeviceGroup> DeviceGroupDao { get; }
public TDeviceGroup UpdateDeviceIndexes(Device device)
{
return DeviceGroupDao.GetDeviceGroup(device.Group.Id);
}
}
I want to test the Updatedeviceindexes method so I'm trying to mock a property called DeviceGroupDao.
[TestFixture]
[Category("Unit")]
public class DeviceGroupManagerBaseTests
{
private IFixture fixture;
private Mock<DeviceGroupManagerBase<DeviceGroup>> subject;
private Mock<IDeviceGroupDao<DeviceGroup>> deviceGroupDaoMock;
private DeviceGroupManagerBase<DeviceGroup> Manager => subject.Object;
[TestFixtureSetUp]
public void Init()
{
fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new AutoMoqCustomization());
deviceGroupDaoMock = fixture.Freeze<Mock<IDeviceGroupDao<DeviceGroup>>>();
subject = fixture.Freeze<Mock<DeviceGroupManagerBase<DeviceGroup>>>();
}
[Test]
public void TestUpdateDeviceIndexes()
{
var device = fixture.Create<Device>();
var deviceGroup = fixture.Create<DeviceGroup>();
deviceGroupDaoMock.Setup(x => x.GetDeviceGroup(It.IsAny<int>())).Returns(deviceGroup);
var result = Manager.UpdateDeviceIndexes(device);
// The resultDeviceGroup will not be contain a previously defined object
Assert.AreEqual(deviceGroup.Id, result.Id);
}
}
I also tried to add registration for my device object in this way:
fixture.Register(() => deviceGroup);
But I'm still getting a new object.
How can I mock IDeviceGroupDao<TDeviceGroup>?

Since DeviceGroupManagerBase is an abstract base class, you'll need a SUT Double. It's easiest to do if you make the DeviceGroupDao property public:
public abstract class DeviceGroupManagerBase<TDeviceGroup> where TDeviceGroup : DeviceGroup
{
public abstract IDeviceGroupDao<TDeviceGroup> DeviceGroupDao { get; }
public TDeviceGroup UpdateDeviceIndexes(Device device)
{
return DeviceGroupDao.GetDeviceGroup(device.Group.Id);
}
}
Otherwise, you'll need to use Moq's API for defining and overriding protected members, which is possible, but more work.
Then you'll need to override subject's DeviceGroupDao property:
subject.SetupGet(x => x.DeviceGroupDao).Returns(deviceGroupDaoMock.Object);
Here's the full test:
[TestFixture]
[Category("Unit")]
public class DeviceGroupManagerBaseTests
{
private IFixture fixture;
private Mock<DeviceGroupManagerBase<DeviceGroup>> subject;
private Mock<IDeviceGroupDao<DeviceGroup>> deviceGroupDaoMock;
private DeviceGroupManagerBase<DeviceGroup> Manager => subject.Object;
[OneTimeSetUp]
public void Init()
{
fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new AutoMoqCustomization());
deviceGroupDaoMock = fixture.Freeze<Mock<IDeviceGroupDao<DeviceGroup>>>();
subject = fixture.Freeze<Mock<DeviceGroupManagerBase<DeviceGroup>>>();
subject.SetupGet(x => x.DeviceGroupDao).Returns(deviceGroupDaoMock.Object);
}
[Test]
public void TestUpdateDeviceIndexes()
{
var device = fixture.Create<Device>();
var deviceGroup = fixture.Create<DeviceGroup>();
deviceGroupDaoMock.Setup(x => x.GetDeviceGroup(It.IsAny<int>())).Returns(deviceGroup);
var result = Manager.UpdateDeviceIndexes(device);
Assert.AreEqual(deviceGroup.Id, result.Id);
}
}
This now passes on my machine.

Because the DeviceGroupDao is protected you will need to find a way to access it externally. Create a stub that would allow you set it value.
public class DeviceGroupManagerBaseStub<TDeviceGroup>
: DeviceGroupManagerBase<TDeviceGroup> where TDeviceGroup : DeviceGroup {
private IDeviceGroupDao<TDeviceGroup> deviceGroupDao;
public DeviceGroupManagerBaseStub(IDeviceGroupDao<TDeviceGroup> deviceGroupDao) {
this.deviceGroupDao = deviceGroupDao;
}
protected override IDeviceGroupDao<TDeviceGroup> DeviceGroupDao {
get {
return deviceGroupDao;
}
}
}
You can then mock IDeviceGroupDao<TDeviceGroup> and inject it into the stub for your test.

How to hide a member function when the base class uses generics

I have the following classes, and when I call CreateQuerySettings on the BaseScriptConfigurationList, it returns the new QuerySettings from ConfigurationList, rather than the HierarchicalQuerySettings value in BaseScriptConfigurationList:
public abstract class ConfigurationList<TConfigurationObject, TPropertyEnum>
{
public QuerySettings<TConfigurationObject, TPropertyEnum> CreateQuerySettings()
{
return new QuerySettings<TConfigurationObject, TPropertyEnum>();
}
}
public class BaseScriptConfigurationList : EditableConfigurationList<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property>
{
public BaseScriptConfigurationList(ConfigurationManager configurationManager)
: base(configurationManager, InternalAdminObjectType.BaseScript)
{
_BaseScriptPageListWatcher = new ConfigurationList<BaseScriptPageConfiguration, BaseScriptPageConfiguration.Property>.
ConfigurationWatcher(null);
_ConfigurationWatcher.ChildWatchers.Add(_BaseScriptPageListWatcher);
}
public new QuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property> CreateQuerySettings()
{
return new HierarchicalQuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property, BaseScriptQueryChildrenSettings>();
}
}
Edit: I make the call from another class where TConfigurationObjectList is BaseScriptConfigurationList. I've added the constructor to the code above so you can see what it's doing. Please note that EditableConfigurationList inherits from ConfigurationList.
TConfigurationObjectList cl = (TConfigurationObjectList)typeof(TConfigurationObjectList).GetConstructor(new Type[] { typeof(ConfigurationManager) }).Invoke(new object[] { Manager.ConfigurationManager });
var querySettings = cl.CreateQuerySettings();
When I make this call, it goes into the ConfigurationList.CreateQuerySettings method.
How can I hide the CreateQuerySettings method, so that when I call it from the BaseScriptConfigurationList class, I get a HierarchicalQuerySettings object?

The new modifier can be beasty. Note that you are hiding and not overriding in your example. You are not showing that part of the code, but I assume you have this situation:
class Base
{
public static void BaseMethod() { Console.WriteLine("BASE!"); }
}
class Derived : Base
{
// Hides Base.BaseMethod()
new public static void BaseMethod() { Console.WriteLine("DERIVED!"); }
}
Base a = new Base();
a.BaseMethod(); // -> "BASE!"
Base b = new Derived();
b.BaseMethod(); // -> "BASE!"
Derived b = new Derived();
b.BaseMethod(); // -> "DERIVED!"

In BaseScriptConfigurationList.CreateQuerySettings()
you're return type is QuerySettings<T,T> so you will always get that type as a return value, but you are returning a HierarchicalQuerySettings. You can one, change the return type of CreateQuerySettings() to HierarchicalQuerySettings or two, cast the object to its child type "HierarchicalQuerySettings". If you really want to hide it, you can do this:
public class newclass : BaseScriptConfigurationList
{
public new HierarchicalQuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property> CreateQuerySettings()
{
return (HierarchicalQuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property>)base.CreateQuerySettings();
}
}
But that doesn't really seem efficient and i advise against it. Like i said, i maybe missing some other requirement, but based on the info that you gave..
Basically, what I'm seeing (and making assumptions) that TConfigurationObjectList Inhertis from ConfigurationList somewhere along the lines, so on and so forth, all the way up to EditableConfigurationList. since you are dynamically creating an instance of the class TConfigurationObjectList, and calling the method from that point, you will be calling the base ConfigurationList member CreateQuerySettings. You do not have access to the new CreateQuerySettings. If you are creating the class BaseScriptConfigurationList instance at this point, cast the object ((BaseScriptConfigurationList)cl).CreateQuerySettings(). That being said. if you do not know what you have at runtime:
var obj = typeof(TConfigurationObjectList).GetConstructor(new Type[] { typeof(ConfigurationManager) }).Invoke(new object[] { Manager.ConfigurationManager });
var cl = (obj as BaseScriptConfigurationList) ?? (TConfigurationObjectList)obj;
// or do something else
var querySettings = cl.CreateQuerySettings();
Note i am assuming your architecture is roughly set up like this:
public abstract class ConfigurationList<TConfigurationObject, TPropertyEnum>
{
public QuerySettings<TConfigurationObject, TPropertyEnum> CreateQuerySettings()
{
return new QuerySettings<TConfigurationObject, TPropertyEnum>();
}
}
public class TConfigurationObjectList : ConfigurationList<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property>
{
}
public class EditableConfigurationList<T, T1> : TConfigurationObjectList
{
protected EditableConfigurationList(ConfigurationManager configurationManager, object baseScript)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class BaseScriptConfigurationList : EditableConfigurationList<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property>
{
public BaseScriptConfigurationList(ConfigurationManager configurationManager)
: base(configurationManager, InternalAdminObjectType.BaseScript)
{
}
public new QuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property> CreateQuerySettings()
{
return new HierarchicalQuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property, BaseScriptQueryChildrenSettings>();
}
}
public class QuerySettings<T, T1>
{
}
public class HierarchicalQuerySettings<T, T1, T2> : QuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property>
{
}
public class BaseScriptQueryChildrenSettings
{
}
public class BaseScriptPageConfiguration
{
public class Property
{
}
}
public class InternalAdminObjectType
{
public static object BaseScript { get; set; }
}
public class ConfigurationManager
{
}
public class BaseScriptConfiguration
{
public class Property
{
}
}

Create a base interface for the ConfigurationList class (say IConfigurationList) and use this interface as the data type for the variable cl instead of TConfigurationList.

how can i use my stubbaseclass as a base for a new class for testing

public class stubBaseTx : BaseTxFlowOperations
{
private MockRepository mocks;
private ITransaction mockITransaction;
public stubBaseTx()
{
mocks = new Rhino.Mocks.MockRepository();
mockITransaction = mocks.DynamicMock<ITransaction>();
mocks.ReplayAll();
}
protected override ITransaction FlowProperty_Transaction
{
get
{
return mockITransaction;
}
}
}
public class StubWithdrFlowISONet :WithdrawalFlowISONet
{
private MockRepository mocks;
private bool FlowProperty_PINReAv = false;
public StubWithdrFlowISONet()
{
mocks = new Rhino.Mocks.MockRepository();
mocks.ReplayAll();
stubBaseTx obj = new stubBaseTx();
base.CreateCRMManager();
}
protected override bool FlowProperty_PINRetriesAvailable
{
get
{
return FlowProperty_PINReAv;
}
}
}
Here WithdrawalFlowISONet is inhereted from WithdrawalFlowOperation class and WithdrawalFlowOperation is inhereted from BaseTxFlowOperations class , now i have FlowProperty_Transaction
property in BaseTxFlowOperations which i have to pass to WithdrawalFlowISONet class but it is readonly which can be modified in BaseTxFlowOperations only now i have created stubBaseTx class just to modify FlowProperty_Transaction
property , so how can i assign stubBaseTx class to WithdrawalFlowISONet class so that it should work as a base for WithdrawalFlowISONet class.
[C#]
Thanks,
Nishant

How do you implement constructor injection in a factory?

When you're using a factory pattern, how do you inject dependencies into constructors at runtime?
I'm building Foos with different formats - boolean, array, freetext, matrix, etc. That format list will grow as we find different uses for Foo. Here's my basic core domain:
public interface IFoo
{
FooFormat Format { get; }
}
public class Foo : IFoo
{
private FooFormat _format;
internal Foo(FooFormat format)
{
_format = format;
}
public FooFormat Format { get { return _format; } }
}
public abstract class FooFormat
{
}
public class DefaultFooFormat : FooFormat
{
}
public class BooleanFooFormat : FooFormat
{
public IList<bool> Values { get; set; }
}
public class ArrayFooFormat : FooFormat
{
private IList<string> _values;
public ArrayFooFormat(IList<string> values)
{
_values = values;
}
public IList<string> Values { get { return _values; } }
}
IFoo is decorated for the consumer context:
public abstract class FooDecorator : IFoo
{
private IFoo _foo;
protected FooDecorator(IFoo foo)
{
_foo = foo;
}
public FooFormat Format
{
get { return _foo.Format; }
}
protected IFoo foo
{
get { return _foo; }
}
}
I don't want my consumer to instantiate a Foo directly, so I force them to use a factory:
public abstract class FooFactory
{
protected IFoo Build<T>()
{
FooFormat format = GetFormat<T>();
return new Foo(format);
}
private FooFormat GetFormat<T>()
{
if (typeof(T) == typeof(ArrayFooFormat)) return new ArrayFooFormat(new List<string>());
if (typeof(T) == typeof(BooleanFooFormat)) return new BooleanFooFormat();
return new DefaultFooFormat();
}
}
And even then, they need to derive a factory from my abstract factory for their particular context.
I'm specifically building foos in an html context, like so:
public class HtmlFoo : FooDecorator
{
public HtmlFoo(IFoo foo) : base(foo) { }
public string ToHtml()
{
return "<div>" + this.Format.ToString() + "</div>";
}
}
public class HtmlFooFactory : FooFactory
{
public IFoo BuildFoo<T>()
{
IFoo foo = Build<T>();
return new HtmlFoo(foo);
}
}
public class HtmlFooConsumer
{
public void DoSomeFoo()
{
var factory = new HtmlFooFactory();
var htmlBooleanFoo = factory.BuildFoo<BooleanFooFormat>();
var htmlArrayFoo = factory.BuildFoo<ArrayFooFormat>();
}
}
My problem is in my abstract FooFactory: I'm always injecting an empty value list into my ArrayFooFormat. I want to be able to pass in a value list from the consumer. For other FooFormats, I want to pass in the right constructor arguments from the consumer. But I want to keep the public API dead simple - I don't want a bunch of overloads on BuildFoo().
So how do I pass a custom value list into the factory.BuildFoo<T>() call from inside HtmlFooConsumer.DoSomeFoo()? Any ideas, stackoverflow gurus?

Maybe you can do something along these lines where your abstract FooFormat becomes IFooFormat and a generic FooFormat provides an Init method that gets passed the parameter.
Then a single overload of Build lets you pass in the parameter.
public interface IFooFormat
{
}
public class FooFormat<TValue> : IFooFormat
{
private TValue _value;
public void Init(TValue value)
{
_value = value;
}
public TValue Value
{
get { return _value; }
}
}
public class ArrayFooFormat : FooFormat<IList<string>> { }
public class BooleanFooFormat : FooFormat<bool> { }
public class DefaultFooFormat : IFooFormat { }
public interface IFoo { }
public class Foo : IFoo
{
private IFooFormat _format;
internal Foo(IFooFormat format)
{
_format = format;
}
public IFooFormat Format { get { return _format; } }
}
public class FooFactory
{
protected IFoo Build<TFormat, TArg>(TArg arg) where TFormat : FooFormat<TArg>, new()
{
TFormat format = new TFormat();
format.Init(arg);
return new Foo(format);
}
protected IFoo Build<TFormat>() where TFormat : IFooFormat, new()
{
return new Foo(new TFormat());
}
}

A factory is basically the object oriented version of a static variable. I'd avoid using one alltogether. Instead of forcing clients to use a factory, perhaps you can simply inject objects into their constructors, sidestepping the need for a factory.