We Keep Coding

Static method in generic class causes CA1000 warning [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed last year.
Improve this question
I'm working on a library to manage objects (Animals in my sample code). I have a base class named Animal and a generic class named SpecificAnimal. I also have Dog, Cat etc. which are implemented with the SpecificAnimal class.
If a user wants to create a dog, it is as simple as:
var myDog = new Dog()
{
Name = "Rover",
Age = 3
};
myDog.Add();
The class hierarchy looks like this:
Animal Class
public abstract class Animal
{
public static Animal GetByName(string animalName)
{
// Code that can read any kind of animal from a database
// and create an instance of the correct type
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public static Animal GetById(int animalId)
{
// Code that can read any kind of animal from a database
// and create an instance of the correct type
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public string Name { get; set; } = string.Empty;
public int Age { get; set; }
public void Add()
{
// Add this Animal to the database
}
public void Update()
{
// Update this animal
}
}
Generic SpecificAnimal class
public abstract class SpecificAnimal<T> : Animal where T : SpecificAnimal<T>
{
public static string Genus { get; protected set; } = String.Empty;
public new static T GetByName(string animalName)
{
// Code that can read an object of type T from a database
return (T)Animal.GetByName(animalName);
}
public new static T GetId(int animalId)
{
// Code that can read an object of type T from a database
return (T)Animal.GetById(animalId);
}
}
Dog class
public class Dog : SpecificAnimal<Dog>
{
public Dog()
{
Genus = "Canis";
}
// Dog specific properties and methods
}
This code is working and (in my opinion) is easy for the consumer of the library to use.
My problem is that the static properties and methods in the SpecificAnimal class generate the warning:
CA1000: Do not declare static members on generic types
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fundamentals/code-analysis/quality-rules/ca1000
The documentation for CA1000 says "Do not suppress..." but, it doesn't suggest a better solution. If I shouldn't have static members in a generic class, what should I be doing?
The documentation says that static methods in a generic type are bad because of this awkward syntax:
var myDog = SpecificAnimal<Dog>.GetByName("Rover");
I agree but, my users should never do that. Although, I don't know of a way to prevent it.
How can I add static members to a generic class without generating CA1000? How can I protect the SpecificAnimal class so that the user only has access to Dog and Animal?

The warning exists because there's risk that the behavior might be different than the programmer expects. However, sometimes it's a useful pattern. I ran into this a few weeks ago when building a library.
Let's look at a more simplified example:
void Main()
{
Baz<string>.Counter++;
Baz<int>.Counter++;
Console.WriteLine(Baz<object>.Counter);
}
public abstract class Foo
{
public static int Counter { get; set; }
}
public class Baz<T> : Foo
{
}
What is output? It's easy to think the output would be 0 because Baz<object> is a different closed generic type than Baz<string> or Baz<int>. In fact, the output is 2 because both post increment operations affect the same static variable.

The property can be rewritten as in the example.
public abstract class SpecificAnimal<T> : Animal where T : SpecificAnimal<T>
{
public virtual string Genus { get; } = String.Empty;
}
public class Dog : SpecificAnimal<Dog>
{
public override string Genus { get; } = "Canis";
}
Note that implementing the static new method does not work in the same way as inheritance.

Why can't I cast a more derived generic type to a less derived generic type? [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:
Cast Generic<Derived> to Generic<Base> [duplicate]
(1 answer)
Closed 2 years ago.
I have the following two interfaces
public class IMessage
{
}
public interface IListener<TMessage> where TMessage : IMessage
{
void ProcessMessage(TMessage message);
}
I need a specific Listener To implement IListener<TMessage> that takes a specific type of message
public class DeleteEmployeeMessage : IMessage
{
public int EmployeeId { get; set; }
}
Now I implement my Listener like so
public class DeleteEmployeeListener : IListener<DeleteEmployeeMessage>
{
public void ProcessMessage(DeleteEmployeeMessage)
{
// CODE HERE
}
}
Now I want to create an object of DeleteEmployeeListener and cast it to generic interface type;
IListener<IMessage> listenerInterfaceObj;
DeleteEmployeeListener concreteMessageListener = new DeleteEmployeeListener();
listenerInterfaceObj = (IListener<IMessage>) concreteMessageListener; // this line crashes at runtime
I get the following runtime error
System.InvalidCastException: 'Unable to cast object of type
'DeleteEmployeeListener' to type 'IListener`1[IMessage]'.'
Why is that? Why can't I cast a Cat to an Animal?

Consider we introduce messages and listeners for creating employees:
public class CreateMessage : IMessage {
public int EmployeeId { get; set; }
}
public class CreateEmployeeListener : IListener<CreateMessage> {
public void ProcessMessage(CreateMessage message) {
}
}
// Later...
var listener = (IListener<IMessage>) new DeleteEmployeeListener();
IMessage createMessage = new CreateMessage();
listener.ProcessMessage(createMessage); // What happens here?
Although createMessage is an IMessage, DeleteEmployeeListener can't handle a CreateMessage.
In the case of your Ilistener interface, the generic type is contravariant, meaning the "input" types are generic. This means you can pass a more specific type, but not less.
More info here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/generics/covariance-and-contravariance

Restrict Type variable to specific class or subclass [closed]

Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm working in C# and would like to store a type on my class, but I want that type to be of either a certain class, or subclass of it.
This might be what the code looks like:
public class Factory
{
public Type typeToInstantiate where Type: ABaseType;
public Factory(Type instantiateThis where Type : ABaseType)
{
this.typeToInstantiate = instantiateThis;
}
public void DoTheThing()
{
var newObj = (ABaseType)Activator.CreateInstance(typeToInstantiate);
newObj.PrintSomethingToConsole();
}
}
public abstract class ABaseType
{
public abstract void PrintSomethingToConsole();
}
public abstract class ASubType : ABaseType
{
public override void PrintSomethingToConsole()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Something");
}
}
public abstract class AnotherSubType : ABaseType
{
public override void PrintSomethingToConsole()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Something else");
}
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<Factory> factories = new List<Factory>();
factories.Add(new Factory(typeof(AnotherSubType)));
factories.Add(new Factory(typeof(ASubType)));
foreach (var factory in factories) factory.PrintSomethingToConsole();
}
The problem I'm trying to solve (in case someone has a better idea): I'm creating a kind of factory that will instantiate some number of objects of the specified type. So, when this factory is created, it will be created with a type that it should instantiate. However, this factory has a specific purpose, so it should only be instantiating objects of a specific class (or a subclass of that class).

Are you asking about something like this:
class C<T> where T: SomeBaseClass
{
}

You can use Type'sIsAssignableFrom in your logic if you need to check this at runtime. e.g.
public class MyFactory
{
Type baseType = typeof(MyBaseType);
IDictionary<string, Type> typeMap = new Dictionary<string, Type>() {}
public void RegisterType(string typeName, Type type)
{
if (!(type == baseType || baseType.IsAssignableFrom(type)) throw new ArgumentException(nameof(type));
typeMap.Add(typeName, type);
}
}
For a more detailed example, see my code here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/53121973/361842

Given the following classes:
public abstract class ABaseType
{
public abstract void PrintSomethingToConsole();
}
public class ASubType : ABaseType
{
public override void PrintSomethingToConsole()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Something");
}
}
public class AnotherSubType : ABaseType
{
public override void PrintSomethingToConsole()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Something else");
}
}
(Quick note: classes AnotherSubType and ASubType cannot be abstract if you want to create instances of them).
Your factory can be refactored like this:
public class Factory
{
private readonly List<ABaseType> _instances;
public Factory()
{
_instances = new List<ABaseType>();
}
public void Register<T>() where T : ABaseType, new()
{
// creates a new instance of the object
// As an alternative, save the type and create a new instance in DoTheThing()
var instance = new T();
_instances.Add(instance);
}
public void DoTheThing()
{
_instances.ForEach(x => x.PrintSomethingToConsole());
}
}
Using the code:
var factory = new Factory();
factory.Register<AnotherSubType>();
factory.Register<ASubType>();
factory.DoTheThing();
Output:
Something else
Something

I understand your requirements as follow:
You want a class that can contain other types, restricted to subclasses of BaseType, that is type-safe.
Different instances of this class must be capable of being stored in a variable of the same type.
You can do this with covariance and type constraints.
Declare the covariant interface:
public interface IMyFactory<out T>
{
T Resolve();
}
Implement it in your class:
public class MyFactory<T> : IMyFactory<T> where T :BaseType, new()
{
public readonly Type typeToInstantiate;
public MyFactory()
{
typeToInstantiate = typeof(T);
}
public T Resolve()
{
return new T();
}
}
And call it:
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
IMyFactory<BaseType> factory;
{
factory = new MyFactory<BaseType>();
var instance = factory.Resolve();
Console.WriteLine(instance.GetType().FullName);
}
{
factory = new MyFactory<DerivedType>() as IMyFactory<BaseType>;
var instance = factory.Resolve();
Console.WriteLine(instance.GetType().FullName);
}
}
}
Notice there is only one variable declared here, but it can contain either type of factory, and each factory will resolve to is proper type at run-time, as shown in the output.
Output:
Example.BaseType
Example.DerivedType
Here is a link to a DotNetFiddle for the above.

Generic class with generic constructor? [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:
Generic Type in constructor
(1 answer)
Closed 2 years ago.
I have a generic class. The constructor needs to accept an argument that is another instance of the same class. The problem is that the other instance can have a different generics type.
Looks like C# allows me to have a method with it's own generics type, but this doesn't appear allowed for the constructor.
public class MyClass<T>
{
public MyClass<T2>(MyClass<T2> parent = null)
{
}
// ... Additional stuff
}
The code above tells me T2 is undefined. It doesn't accept it as a method type.
One approach would be to add a second generic type to my class. But this is awkward and, in many cases, the argument will be null and there is not type.
Does anyone see a simple way around this?

Generic constructors aren't allowed. However, you can use a generic factory method instead.
public class MyClass<T>
{
public int Id { get; private set; }
public int? ParentId { get; private set; }
public static MyClass<T> Create(int id)
{
return Create<object>(id, null);
}
public static MyClass<T> Create<T2>(int id, MyClass<T2> parent = null)
{
var current = new MyClass<T>();
current.Id = id;
current.ParentId = parent?.Id;
return current;
}
private MyClass()
{
}
// ... Additional stuff
}
Sample use:
var intClass = MyClass<int>.Create(55);
var charClass = MyClass<char>.Create(234, intClass);
// charClass.ParentId is 55
This is only possible if you do not need to access any generic members of parent outside the factory method. If you do, you'd be better off abstracting it through a non-generic interface or base class.

You are correct. Generic constructors aren't supported.
You could probably try the following:
Create a lower level common interface
public interface IMyClass {
//...some common stuff
IMyClass Parent { get; set; }
}
And use that as the common link between the types
public class MyClass<T> : IMyClass {
public MyClass(IMyClass parent = null) {
Parent = parent;
}
public IMyClass Parent { get; set; }
// ... Additional stuff
}

how to achieve pass TType value by the MyEvents function [closed]

Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Here in this code showing one error at MyEvents. What happen there. and how to achieve pass TType value by the MyEvents function
public class MListBox : ListBox
{
public Type TType { get; set; }
public void LoadList()
{
MyEvents<TType , TType >.LoadList("getList").ForEach(w => this.Items.Add(w));
}
}
public void main(string[] args)
{
MListBox mb= new MListBox();
mb.TType = typeof(STOCK);
mb.LoadList();
}
public static class MyEvents<T,M> where T : class where M : class
{
public static M m;
public static T t;
public static List<objectCollection> LoadList(string _method)
{
m = Activator.CreateInstance<M>();
MethodInfo method = typeof(M).GetMethod(_method);
List<objectCollection> ret = (List<objectCollection>)method.Invoke(m, null);
return ret;
}
}
public class STOCK()
{
}
Thank you,

You are diving into world of generics. Using a generic type parameter T you can write a single class that other client code can use without incurring the cost or risk of runtime casts or boxing operations.
A generic class, such as MListBox<T> cannot be used as-is because it is not really a type. so to use MListBox<T>, you must declare and instantiate a constructed type by specifying a type argument inside the angle brackets.
eg
MListBox<YourClass> a = new MListBox<YourClass>();
where YourClass is type parameter you intend to pass in
more info on generics
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/512aeb7t.aspx
Update
public class MListBox<T, M> : ListBox
where T : class
where M : class, new()
{
public void LoadList()
{
MyEvents<T, M>.LoadList("getList").ForEach(w => this.Items.Add(w));
}
}
public void main(string[] args)
{
MListBox<object,STOCK> mb = new MListBox<object,STOCK>();
mb.LoadList();
}
public static class MyEvents<T, M>
where T : class
where M : class, new()
{
public static M m;
public static T t;
public static List<T> LoadList(string _method)
{
m = new M();
MethodInfo method = typeof(M).GetMethod(_method);
List<T> ret = (List<T>)method.Invoke(m, null);
return ret;
}
}
wrapper class to be used in xaml
class StockListBox : MListBox<object,STOCK>
{
}
use in xaml as, where local is your namesapce
<local:StockListBox />