How to optimize using reflection SetValue in c#? - c#

What I am trying to do: I am trying to make component based Objects which can be easly created with custom set type of rules for each component value.
How I am doing it: I have created IComponent interface which each component implements. All components need to be structs, example:
public struct Weight : IComponent
{
int weight;
}
Each Object is defined by just list of components with their values. Then to make it custom set of rules I made ObjectSettings which holds list of generic class ComponentSetup<T> where T : IComponent. ComponentSetup is a class which by reflection gets list of fields in IComponent and pairs them in Dicionary as FieldName and GenerationType for field. For example: for Object "Car" :
Car:
Weight:
weight:
GenerationType: RandomRange
Min: 1200
Max: 1700
For Object "Human":
Human:
Weight:
weight:
GenerationType: NormalDistribution
Expected Value: 70
Variance: 4
For Object "1kg dumbbell":
1kgDumbbell:
Weight:
weight:
GenerationType: Fixed
Value: 1
In order to get generated Objects I used reflection to set values of components compose in List and return as Object.
The problem with this approach: When I want to generate 5k-10k of those Objects it takes way too much time.
My solution so far: I generate semi filled objects(on startup) and store them as prefabs in PrefabManager. They are Objects with components' values set only if their GenerationType is "Fixed" and then only fill values with other types of Generation.
My question: How can I make setting values by reflection faster, if it's not possible then how can I get the same result but faster? I also would like to keep prefab generation on startup because they help me instantiating Objects because I don't need to create whole new object, just copy prefab and fill it, which is faster in my case.
EDIT: Adding example code. I didn't test it however it should be easy to understand what I am trying to do:
namespace Example
{
//ProceduralObject Component intreface
public interface IComponent
{
}
//Example component for procedural object
public struct Weight : IComponent
{
public int weight;
}
//object with procedurally generated components
public class ProceduralObject
{
public List<IComponent> components = new List<IComponent>();
}
public class ProceduralObjectSettings
{
public Dictionary<string,ComponentSetup> ComponentSetups = new Dictionary<string,ComponentSetup>();
public ProceduralObjectSettings()
{
}
public void AddComponent(Type t)
{
//check if added component is assignable from correct interface
if (t.IsAssignableFrom(typeof(IComponent))) ComponentSetups.Add(t.Name,new ComponentSetup(t));
}
//getting ProceduralObject with generated components
public ProceduralObject getGeneratedObject()
{
ProceduralObject newObject = new ProceduralObject();
foreach (var componentSetup in ComponentSetups)
{
newObject.components.Add(componentSetup.Value.getGeneratedComponent());
}
return newObject;
}
}
public class ComponentSetup
{
// Collection of properties of IComponent it represents
public Dictionary<string, IGenerationType> propertyGenerationSettings = new Dictionary<string, IGenerationType>();
// Type of IComponent it represents
public Type t;
public ComponentSetup(Type t)
{
this.t = t;
//Getting all fields of represented IComponent and adding them to propertyGenerationSettings with default GenerationType
var fields = t.GetFields();
for (int i = 0; i < fields.Length; i++)
{
propertyGenerationSettings.Add(fields[i].Name,new EmptyGenerationType());
}
}
//Generating new component with settings
public IComponent getGeneratedComponent()
{
IComponent toReturn = (IComponent)Activator.CreateInstance(t);
var fields = toReturn.GetType().GetFields();
foreach (var property in propertyGenerationSettings)
{
var fieldInfo = fields.First(field => field.Name == property.Key);
toReturn.GetType().SetMemberValue(fieldInfo, property.Value.GetGeneratedValue());
}
return toReturn;
}
}
public interface IGenerationType
{
System.Object GetGeneratedValue();
}
public class EmptyGenerationType : IGenerationType
{
public object GetGeneratedValue()
{
throw new Exception("You can't use EmptyGenerationType");
}
}
public class RandomRangeGenerationType : IGenerationType
{
private double min, max;
public RandomRangeGenerationType(double min, double max)
{
this.min = min;
this.max = max;
}
public object GetGeneratedValue()
{
return null; /* return */
}
}
public class NormalDistributionGenerationType : IGenerationType
{
private double expectedValue, variance;
public NormalDistributionGenerationType(double expectedValue, double variance)
{
this.expectedValue = expectedValue;
this.variance = variance;
}
public object GetGeneratedValue()
{
return null; /* return */
}
}
public class FixedGenerationType : IGenerationType
{
public double value;
public FixedGenerationType(double value)
{
this.value = value;
}
public object GetGeneratedValue()
{
return null;
}
}
public class Example
{
public void Main()
{
Dictionary<string,ProceduralObjectSettings> proceduralObjectsCollection = new Dictionary<string,ProceduralObjectSettings>();
proceduralObjectsCollection.Add("Car",new ProceduralObjectSettings());
proceduralObjectsCollection["Car"].AddComponent(typeof(Weight));
proceduralObjectsCollection["Car"].ComponentSetups["Weight"].propertyGenerationSettings["weight"] = new RandomRangeGenerationType(1200,1700);
proceduralObjectsCollection.Add("Human",new ProceduralObjectSettings());
proceduralObjectsCollection["Human"].AddComponent(typeof(Weight));
proceduralObjectsCollection["Human"].ComponentSetups["Weight"].propertyGenerationSettings["weight"] = new NormalDistributionGenerationType(70,4);
proceduralObjectsCollection.Add("1kgDumbbell",new ProceduralObjectSettings());
proceduralObjectsCollection["1kgDumbbell"].AddComponent(typeof(Weight));
proceduralObjectsCollection["1kgDumbbell"].ComponentSetups["Weight"].propertyGenerationSettings["weight"] = new FixedGenerationType(1);
}
}
}

Reflection is slow, but the execution of delegates is fast. Therefore, if you need to execute things obtained by reflection very often, it is good practise to use reflection to create a delegate and that use that delegate.
Creating the delegate is very simple, as long as you know the type of the property and the type that declares the property. The easiest way to get them is to have these types as generic type parameters in an open generic type. Then, you can close the type at runtime (using MakeGenericType on System.Type) and instantiate the closed generic type using System.Activator.CreateInstance. This is of course costly, but you only need to create objects that describe the properties of your models once and then use it as factories for as many instances as you like without any reflection calls.
Edit: this is how it can look like using properties instead of fields, based on your example code
If you really want to go with fields (which I would encourage you not to do), creating the delegate is slightly more complex (use the expression compiler or emit IL code), but the principal approach remains the same.
public class ComponentSetup
{
// Collection of properties of IComponent it represents
private Dictionary<string, PropertySetter> propertyGenerationSettings = new Dictionary<string, PropertySetter>();
// Type of IComponent it represents
public Type t;
public ComponentSetup( Type t )
{
this.t = t;
//Getting all fields of represented IComponent and adding them to propertyGenerationSettings with default GenerationType
var fields = t.GetProperties();
for(int i = 0; i < fields.Length; i++)
{
var propertySetterType = typeof( PropertySetter<,> ).MakeGenericType( t, fields[i].PropertyType );
var setter = (PropertySetter)Activator.CreateInstance( propertySetterType, fields[i] );
propertyGenerationSettings.Add( fields[i].Name, setter );
}
}
public void SetGenerator<T>( string property, IGenerationType<T> generator )
{
propertyGenerationSettings[property].SetGenerator( generator );
}
//Generating new component with settings
public IComponent getGeneratedComponent()
{
IComponent toReturn = (IComponent)Activator.CreateInstance( t );
foreach(var property in propertyGenerationSettings)
{
property.Value.Set( toReturn );
}
return toReturn;
}
}
internal abstract class PropertySetter
{
public abstract void Set( object target );
public abstract void SetGenerator( object generator );
}
internal class PropertySetter<T, TField> : PropertySetter
{
private Action<T, TField> setter;
private IGenerationType<TField> generator;
public PropertySetter( PropertyInfo property )
{
setter = (Action<T, TField>)property.SetMethod.CreateDelegate( typeof( Action<T, TField> ) );
generator = new EmptyGenerationType<TField>();
}
public override void Set( object target )
{
if(target is T targetObj)
{
setter( targetObj, generator.GetGeneratedValue() );
}
}
public override void SetGenerator( object generator )
{
this.generator = (generator as IGenerationType<TField>) ?? this.generator;
}
}
public interface IGenerationType<T>
{
T GetGeneratedValue();
}

Related

C# enum inheritance [duplicate]

I have an enum in a low level namespace. I'd like to provide a class or enum in a mid level namespace that "inherits" the low level enum.
namespace low
{
public enum base
{
x, y, z
}
}
namespace mid
{
public enum consume : low.base
{
}
}
I'm hoping that this is possible, or perhaps some kind of class that can take the place of the enum consume which will provide a layer of abstraction for the enum, but still let an instance of that class access the enum.
Thoughts?
EDIT:
One of the reasons I haven't just switched this to consts in classes is that the low level enum is needed by a service that I must consume. I have been given the WSDLs and the XSDs, which define the structure as an enum. The service cannot be changed.
This is not possible. Enums cannot inherit from other enums. In fact all enums must actually inherit from System.Enum. C# allows syntax to change the underlying representation of the enum values which looks like inheritance, but in actuality they still inherit from System.enum.
See section 8.5.2 of the CLI spec for the full details. Relevant information from the spec
All enums must derive from System.Enum
Because of the above, all enums are value types and hence sealed
You can achieve what you want with classes:
public class Base
{
public const int A = 1;
public const int B = 2;
public const int C = 3;
}
public class Consume : Base
{
public const int D = 4;
public const int E = 5;
}
Now you can use these classes similar as when they were enums:
int i = Consume.B;
Update (after your update of the question):
If you assign the same int values to the constants as defined in the existing enum, then you can cast between the enum and the constants, e.g:
public enum SomeEnum // this is the existing enum (from WSDL)
{
A = 1,
B = 2,
...
}
public class Base
{
public const int A = (int)SomeEnum.A;
//...
}
public class Consume : Base
{
public const int D = 4;
public const int E = 5;
}
// where you have to use the enum, use a cast:
SomeEnum e = (SomeEnum)Consume.B;
The short answer is no. You can play a bit, if you want:
You can always do something like this:
private enum Base
{
A,
B,
C
}
private enum Consume
{
A = Base.A,
B = Base.B,
C = Base.C,
D,
E
}
But, it doesn't work all that great because Base.A != Consume.A
You can always do something like this, though:
public static class Extensions
{
public static T As<T>(this Consume c) where T : struct
{
return (T)System.Enum.Parse(typeof(T), c.ToString(), false);
}
}
In order to cross between Base and Consume...
You could also cast the values of the enums as ints, and compare them as ints instead of enum, but that kind of sucks too.
The extension method return should type cast it type T.
The solutions above using classes with int constants lack type-safety. I.e. you could invent new values actually not defined in the class.
Furthermore it is not possible for example to write a method taking one of these classes as input.
You would need to write
public void DoSomethingMeaningFull(int consumeValue) ...
However, there is a class based solution of the old days of Java, when there were no enums available. This provides an almost enum-like behaviour. The only caveat is that these constants cannot be used within a switch-statement.
public class MyBaseEnum
{
public static readonly MyBaseEnum A = new MyBaseEnum( 1 );
public static readonly MyBaseEnum B = new MyBaseEnum( 2 );
public static readonly MyBaseEnum C = new MyBaseEnum( 3 );
public int InternalValue { get; protected set; }
protected MyBaseEnum( int internalValue )
{
this.InternalValue = internalValue;
}
}
public class MyEnum : MyBaseEnum
{
public static readonly MyEnum D = new MyEnum( 4 );
public static readonly MyEnum E = new MyEnum( 5 );
protected MyEnum( int internalValue ) : base( internalValue )
{
// Nothing
}
}
[TestMethod]
public void EnumTest()
{
this.DoSomethingMeaningful( MyEnum.A );
}
private void DoSomethingMeaningful( MyBaseEnum enumValue )
{
// ...
if( enumValue == MyEnum.A ) { /* ... */ }
else if (enumValue == MyEnum.B) { /* ... */ }
// ...
}
Ignoring the fact that base is a reserved word you cannot do inheritance of enum.
The best thing you could do is something like that:
public enum Baseenum
{
x, y, z
}
public enum Consume
{
x = Baseenum.x,
y = Baseenum.y,
z = Baseenum.z
}
public void Test()
{
Baseenum a = Baseenum.x;
Consume newA = (Consume) a;
if ((Int32) a == (Int32) newA)
{
MessageBox.Show(newA.ToString());
}
}
Since they're all the same base type (ie: int) you could assign the value from an instance of one type to the other which a cast. Not ideal but it work.
This is what I did. What I've done differently is use the same name and the new keyword on the "consuming" enum. Since the name of the enum is the same, you can just mindlessly use it and it will be right. Plus you get intellisense. You just have to manually take care when setting it up that the values are copied over from the base and keep them sync'ed. You can help that along with code comments. This is another reason why in the database when storing enum values I always store the string, not the value. Because if you are using automatically assigned increasing integer values those can change over time.
// Base Class for balls
public class Ball
{
// keep synced with subclasses!
public enum Sizes
{
Small,
Medium,
Large
}
}
public class VolleyBall : Ball
{
// keep synced with base class!
public new enum Sizes
{
Small = Ball.Sizes.Small,
Medium = Ball.Sizes.Medium,
Large = Ball.Sizes.Large,
SmallMedium,
MediumLarge,
Ginormous
}
}
I know this answer is kind of late but this is what I ended up doing:
public class BaseAnimal : IEquatable<BaseAnimal>
{
public string Name { private set; get; }
public int Value { private set; get; }
public BaseAnimal(int value, String name)
{
this.Name = name;
this.Value = value;
}
public override String ToString()
{
return Name;
}
public bool Equals(BaseAnimal other)
{
return other.Name == this.Name && other.Value == this.Value;
}
}
public class AnimalType : BaseAnimal
{
public static readonly BaseAnimal Invertebrate = new BaseAnimal(1, "Invertebrate");
public static readonly BaseAnimal Amphibians = new BaseAnimal(2, "Amphibians");
// etc
}
public class DogType : AnimalType
{
public static readonly BaseAnimal Golden_Retriever = new BaseAnimal(3, "Golden_Retriever");
public static readonly BaseAnimal Great_Dane = new BaseAnimal(4, "Great_Dane");
// etc
}
Then I am able to do things like:
public void SomeMethod()
{
var a = AnimalType.Amphibians;
var b = AnimalType.Amphibians;
if (a == b)
{
// should be equal
}
// call method as
Foo(a);
// using ifs
if (a == AnimalType.Amphibians)
{
}
else if (a == AnimalType.Invertebrate)
{
}
else if (a == DogType.Golden_Retriever)
{
}
// etc
}
public void Foo(BaseAnimal typeOfAnimal)
{
}
Alternative solution
In my company, we avoid "jumping over projects" to get to non-common lower level projects. For instance, our presentation/API layer can only reference our domain layer, and the domain layer can only reference the data layer.
However, this is a problem when there are enums that need to be referenced by both the presentation and the domain layers.
Here is the solution that we have implemented (so far). It is a pretty good solution and works well for us. The other answers were hitting all around this.
The basic premise is that enums cannot be inherited - but classes can. So...
// In the lower level project (or DLL)...
public abstract class BaseEnums
{
public enum ImportanceType
{
None = 0,
Success = 1,
Warning = 2,
Information = 3,
Exclamation = 4
}
[Flags]
public enum StatusType : Int32
{
None = 0,
Pending = 1,
Approved = 2,
Canceled = 4,
Accepted = (8 | Approved),
Rejected = 16,
Shipped = (32 | Accepted),
Reconciled = (64 | Shipped)
}
public enum Conveyance
{
None = 0,
Feet = 1,
Automobile = 2,
Bicycle = 3,
Motorcycle = 4,
TukTuk = 5,
Horse = 6,
Yak = 7,
Segue = 8
}
Then, to "inherit" the enums in another higher level project...
// Class in another project
public sealed class SubEnums: BaseEnums
{
private SubEnums()
{}
}
This has three real advantages...
The enum definitions are automatically the same in both projects - by
definition.
Any changes to the enum definitions are automatically
echoed in the second without having to make any modifications to the
second class.
The enums are based on the same code - so the values can easily be compared (with some caveats).
To reference the enums in the first project, you can use the prefix of the class: BaseEnums.StatusType.Pending or add a "using static BaseEnums;" statement to your usings.
In the second project when dealing with the inherited class however, I could not get the "using static ..." approach to work, so all references to the "inherited enums" would be prefixed with the class, e.g. SubEnums.StatusType.Pending. If anyone comes up with a way to allow the "using static" approach to be used in the second project, let me know.
I am sure that this can be tweaked to make it even better - but this actually works and I have used this approach in working projects.
I also wanted to overload Enums and created a mix of the answer of 'Seven' on this page and the answer of 'Merlyn Morgan-Graham' on a duplicate post of this, plus a couple of improvements.
Main advantages of my solution over the others:
automatic increment of the underlying int value
automatic naming
This is an out-of-the-box solution and may be directly inserted into your project. It is designed to my needs, so if you don't like some parts of it, just replace them with your own code.
First, there is the base class CEnum that all custom enums should inherit from. It has the basic functionality, similar to the .net Enum type:
public class CEnum
{
protected static readonly int msc_iUpdateNames = int.MinValue;
protected static int ms_iAutoValue = -1;
protected static List<int> ms_listiValue = new List<int>();
public int Value
{
get;
protected set;
}
public string Name
{
get;
protected set;
}
protected CEnum ()
{
CommonConstructor (-1);
}
protected CEnum (int i_iValue)
{
CommonConstructor (i_iValue);
}
public static string[] GetNames (IList<CEnum> i_listoValue)
{
if (i_listoValue == null)
return null;
string[] asName = new string[i_listoValue.Count];
for (int ixCnt = 0; ixCnt < asName.Length; ixCnt++)
asName[ixCnt] = i_listoValue[ixCnt]?.Name;
return asName;
}
public static CEnum[] GetValues ()
{
return new CEnum[0];
}
protected virtual void CommonConstructor (int i_iValue)
{
if (i_iValue == msc_iUpdateNames)
{
UpdateNames (this.GetType ());
return;
}
else if (i_iValue > ms_iAutoValue)
ms_iAutoValue = i_iValue;
else
i_iValue = ++ms_iAutoValue;
if (ms_listiValue.Contains (i_iValue))
throw new ArgumentException ("duplicate value " + i_iValue.ToString ());
Value = i_iValue;
ms_listiValue.Add (i_iValue);
}
private static void UpdateNames (Type i_oType)
{
if (i_oType == null)
return;
FieldInfo[] aoFieldInfo = i_oType.GetFields (BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static);
foreach (FieldInfo oFieldInfo in aoFieldInfo)
{
CEnum oEnumResult = oFieldInfo.GetValue (null) as CEnum;
if (oEnumResult == null)
continue;
oEnumResult.Name = oFieldInfo.Name;
}
}
}
Secondly, here are 2 derived Enum classes. All derived classes need some basic methods in order to work as expected. It's always the same boilerplate code; I haven't found a way yet to outsource it to the base class. The code of the first level of inheritance differs slightly from all subsequent levels.
public class CEnumResult : CEnum
{
private static List<CEnumResult> ms_listoValue = new List<CEnumResult>();
public static readonly CEnumResult Nothing = new CEnumResult ( 0);
public static readonly CEnumResult SUCCESS = new CEnumResult ( 1);
public static readonly CEnumResult UserAbort = new CEnumResult ( 11);
public static readonly CEnumResult InProgress = new CEnumResult (101);
public static readonly CEnumResult Pausing = new CEnumResult (201);
private static readonly CEnumResult Dummy = new CEnumResult (msc_iUpdateNames);
protected CEnumResult () : base ()
{
}
protected CEnumResult (int i_iValue) : base (i_iValue)
{
}
protected override void CommonConstructor (int i_iValue)
{
base.CommonConstructor (i_iValue);
if (i_iValue == msc_iUpdateNames)
return;
if (this.GetType () == System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod ().DeclaringType)
ms_listoValue.Add (this);
}
public static new CEnumResult[] GetValues ()
{
List<CEnumResult> listoValue = new List<CEnumResult> ();
listoValue.AddRange (ms_listoValue);
return listoValue.ToArray ();
}
}
public class CEnumResultClassCommon : CEnumResult
{
private static List<CEnumResultClassCommon> ms_listoValue = new List<CEnumResultClassCommon>();
public static readonly CEnumResult Error_InternalProgramming = new CEnumResultClassCommon (1000);
public static readonly CEnumResult Error_Initialization = new CEnumResultClassCommon ();
public static readonly CEnumResult Error_ObjectNotInitialized = new CEnumResultClassCommon ();
public static readonly CEnumResult Error_DLLMissing = new CEnumResultClassCommon ();
// ... many more
private static readonly CEnumResult Dummy = new CEnumResultClassCommon (msc_iUpdateNames);
protected CEnumResultClassCommon () : base ()
{
}
protected CEnumResultClassCommon (int i_iValue) : base (i_iValue)
{
}
protected override void CommonConstructor (int i_iValue)
{
base.CommonConstructor (i_iValue);
if (i_iValue == msc_iUpdateNames)
return;
if (this.GetType () == System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod ().DeclaringType)
ms_listoValue.Add (this);
}
public static new CEnumResult[] GetValues ()
{
List<CEnumResult> listoValue = new List<CEnumResult> (CEnumResult.GetValues ());
listoValue.AddRange (ms_listoValue);
return listoValue.ToArray ();
}
}
The classes have been successfully tested with follwing code:
private static void Main (string[] args)
{
CEnumResult oEnumResult = CEnumResultClassCommon.Error_Initialization;
string sName = oEnumResult.Name; // sName = "Error_Initialization"
CEnum[] aoEnumResult = CEnumResultClassCommon.GetValues (); // aoEnumResult = {testCEnumResult.Program.CEnumResult[9]}
string[] asEnumNames = CEnum.GetNames (aoEnumResult);
int ixValue = Array.IndexOf (aoEnumResult, oEnumResult); // ixValue = 6
}
I realize I'm a bit late to this party, but here's my two cents.
We're all clear that Enum inheritance is not supported by the framework. Some very interesting workarounds have been suggested in this thread, but none of them felt quite like what I was looking for, so I had a go at it myself.
Introducing: ObjectEnum
You can check the code and documentation here: https://github.com/dimi3tron/ObjectEnum.
And the package here: https://www.nuget.org/packages/ObjectEnum
Or just install it: Install-Package ObjectEnum
In short, ObjectEnum<TEnum> acts as a wrapper for any enum. By overriding the GetDefinedValues() in subclasses, one can specify which enum values are valid for this specific class.
A number of operator overloads have been added to make an ObjectEnum<TEnum> instance behave as if it were an instance of the underlying enum, keeping in mind the defined value restrictions. This means you can easily compare the instance to an int or enum value, and thus use it in a switch case or any other conditional.
I'd like to refer to the github repo mentioned above for examples and further info.
I hope you find this useful. Feel free to comment or open an issue on github for further thoughts or comments.
Here are a few short examples of what you can do with ObjectEnum<TEnum>:
var sunday = new WorkDay(DayOfWeek.Sunday); //throws exception
var monday = new WorkDay(DayOfWeek.Monday); //works fine
var label = $"{monday} is day {(int)monday}." //produces: "Monday is day 1."
var mondayIsAlwaysMonday = monday == DayOfWeek.Monday; //true, sorry...
var friday = new WorkDay(DayOfWeek.Friday);
switch((DayOfWeek)friday){
case DayOfWeek.Monday:
//do something monday related
break;
/*...*/
case DayOfWeek.Friday:
//do something friday related
break;
}
Enums are not actual classes, even if they look like it. Internally, they are treated just like their underlying type (by default Int32). Therefore, you can only do this by "copying" single values from one enum to another and casting them to their integer number to compare them for equality.
Enums cannot be derrived from other enums, but only from int, uint, short, ushort, long, ulong, byte and sbyte.
Like Pascal said, you can use other enum's values or constants to initialize an enum value, but that's about it.
another possible solution:
public enum #base
{
x,
y,
z
}
public enum consume
{
x = #base.x,
y = #base.y,
z = #base.z,
a,b,c
}
// TODO: Add a unit-test to check that if #base and consume are aligned
HTH
This is not possible (as #JaredPar already mentioned). Trying to put logic to work around this is a bad practice. In case you have a base class that have an enum, you should list of all possible enum-values there, and the implementation of class should work with the values that it knows.
E.g. Supposed you have a base class BaseCatalog, and it has an enum ProductFormats (Digital, Physical). Then you can have a MusicCatalog or BookCatalog that could contains both Digital and Physical products, But if the class is ClothingCatalog, it should only contains Physical products.
The way you do this, if warranted, is to implement your own class structure that includes the features you wanted from your concept of an inherited enum, plus you can add more.
You simply implement equality comparators and functions to look up values you simply code yourself.
You make the constructors private and declare static instances of the class and any subclasses to whatever extent you want.
Or find a simple work around for your problem and stick with the native enum implementation.
Code Heavy Implementation of Inherited Enumerations:
/// <summary>
/// Generic Design for implementing inheritable enum
/// </summary>
public class ServiceBase
{
//members
protected int _id;
protected string _name;
//constructors
private ServiceBase(int id, string name)
{
_id = id;
_name = name;
}
//onlu required if subclassing
protected ServiceBase(int id, string name, bool isSubClass = true )
{
if( id <= _maxServiceId )
throw new InvalidProgramException("Bad Id in ServiceBase" );
_id = id;
_name = name;
}
//members
public int Id => _id;
public string Name => _name;
public virtual ServiceBase getService(int serviceBaseId)
{
return ALLBASESERVICES.SingleOrDefault(s => s.Id == _id);
}
//implement iComparable if required
//static methods
public static ServiceBase getServiceOrDefault(int serviceBaseId)
{
return SERVICE1.getService(serviceBaseId);
}
//Enumerations Here
public static ServiceBase SERVICE1 = new ServiceBase( 1, "First Service" );
public static ServiceBase SERVICE2 = new ServiceBase( 2, "Second Service" );
protected static ServiceBase[] ALLBASESERVICES =
{
//Enumerations list
SERVICE1,
SERVICE2
};
private static int _maxServiceId = ALLBASESERVICES.Max( s => s.Id );
//only required if subclassing
protected static ServiceBase[] combineServices(ServiceBase[] array1, ServiceBase[] array2)
{
List<ServiceBase> serviceBases = new List<ServiceBase>();
serviceBases.AddRange( array1 );
serviceBases.AddRange( array2 );
return serviceBases.ToArray();
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Generic Design for implementing inheritable enum
/// </summary>
public class ServiceJobs : ServiceBase
{
//constructor
private ServiceJobs(int id, string name)
: base( id, name )
{
_id = id;
_name = name;
}
//only required if subclassing
protected ServiceJobs(int id, string name, bool isSubClass = true )
: base( id, name )
{
if( id <= _maxServiceId )
throw new InvalidProgramException("Bad Id in ServiceJobs" );
_id = id;
_name = name;
}
//members
public override ServiceBase getService(int serviceBaseId)
{
if (ALLSERVICES == null)
{
ALLSERVICES = combineServices(ALLBASESERVICES, ALLJOBSERVICES);
}
return ALLSERVICES.SingleOrDefault(s => s.Id == _id);
}
//static methods
public static ServiceBase getServiceOrDefault(int serviceBaseId)
{
return SERVICE3.getService(serviceBaseId);
}
//sub class services here
public static ServiceBase SERVICE3 = new ServiceJobs( 3, "Third Service" );
public static ServiceBase SERVICE4 = new ServiceJobs( 4, "Forth Service" );
private static int _maxServiceId = ALLJOBSERVICES.Max( s => s.Id );
private static ServiceBase[] ALLJOBSERVICES =
{
//subclass service list
SERVICE3,
SERVICE4
};
//all services including superclass items
private static ServiceBase[] ALLSERVICES = null;
}
Note that you can use an enum instead of an int as the id, though the subclass will need a separate enum.
The enum class itself can be decorated with all kinds of flags, messages, functions etc.
A generic implementation would reduce a great deal of the code.
Depending on your situation you may NOT need derived Enums as they're based off System.Enum.
Take this code, you can pass in any Enum you like and get its selected value:
public CommonError FromErrorCode(Enum code)
{
Code = (int)Enum.Parse(code.GetType(), code.ToString());
You can perform inheritance in enum, however it's limited to following types only .
int, uint, byte, sbyte, short, ushort, long, ulong
E.g.
public enum Car:int{
Toyota,
Benz,
}

Advice on using the Factory Pattern for converting a collection of model objects to one of DTOs and vice versa

I'm trying to convert a collection of model objects that share a common parent, into one of DTOs. Likewise, I want to reverse the procedure - taking a collection of DTOs with a common parent into one of model objects.
From what I've read, a Factory Pattern seems to be what I'm looking for. I also have a Producer class that handles the conversion between object model and DTO by calling the relevant factory method.
There are a few limitations:
This is an open source library, and I don't want to add methods to existing classes. Otherwise a visitor pattern would have worked. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Similarly, I don't want to add any additional packages to this project. From what I understand, AutoMapper would have been one of the ways to go about this.
I'm new(ish) to C# and design patterns, so I apologize if I am doing something that doesn't make sense.
Here is some sample code representing what I've tried so far. I used some references from online to get an idea, but something about it doesn't seem right. There was another way mentioned here: Is a switch statement applicable in a factory method? c#, but I'm not sure if that is transferrable to this scenario.
Any critique or suggestions is welcome.
Example Usage
Animal pet1 = new Pigeon("Pidgey", 100, false);
Animal pet2 = new Rattlesnake("Ekans", 20.0, true);
IList<Animal> myPets = new List<Animal>() { pet1, pet2 };
AnimalDTOProducer dtoProducer = new AnimalDTOProducer(new AnimalDTOFactory());
IList<AnimalDTO> myDTOs = new List<AnimalDTO>();
myDTOs = dtoProducer.ConvertAnimalCollection(myPets);
Models
public abstract class Animal
{
public Animal(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public string Name { get; set; }
// business logic
}
public abstract class Bird : Animal
{
public Bird(string name, int maxAltitude, bool isReal)
: base(name)
{
Name = name;
MaxAltitude = maxAltitude;
IsReal = isReal;
}
public int MaxAltitude { get; set; }
public bool IsReal { get; set; }
// business logic
}
public class Pigeon : Bird
{
public Pigeon(string name, int maxAltitude, bool isReal)
: base(name, maxAltitude, isReal)
{
}
// business logic
}
public abstract class Snake : Animal
{
public Snake(string name, double length, bool isPoisonous)
: base(name)
{
Name = name;
Length = length;
IsPoisonous = isPoisonous;
}
public double Length { get; set; }
public bool IsPoisonous { get; set; }
// business logic
}
public class Rattlesnake : Snake
{
public Rattlesnake(string name, double length, bool isPoisonous)
: base(name, length, isPoisonous)
{
}
// business logic
}
DTOs
public abstract class AnimalDTO { }
public class PigeonDTO : AnimalDTO
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int MaxAltitude { get; set; }
public bool IsReal { get; set; }
}
public class RattlesnakeDTO : AnimalDTO
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public double Length { get; set; }
public bool IsPoisonous { get; set; }
}
Factories
public interface IFactory { }
public interface IAnimalFactory : IFactory
{
Animal CreateAnimal(AnimalDTO DTO);
}
public interface IAnimalDTOFactory : IFactory
{
AnimalDTO CreateAnimalDTO(Animal animal);
}
public class AnimalFactory : IAnimalFactory
{
public Animal CreateAnimal(AnimalDTO DTO)
{
switch (DTO)
{
case PigeonDTO _:
var pigeonDTO = (PigeonDTO)DTO;
return new Pigeon(pigeonDTO.Name, pigeonDTO.MaxAltitude, pigeonDTO.IsReal);
case RattlesnakeDTO _:
var rattlesnakeDTO = (RattlesnakeDTO)DTO;
return new Rattlesnake(rattlesnakeDTO.Name, rattlesnakeDTO.Length, rattlesnakeDTO.IsPoisonous);
// And many more ...
default:
return null;
}
}
}
public class AnimalDTOFactory : IAnimalDTOFactory
{
public AnimalDTO CreateAnimalDTO(Animal animal)
{
switch (animal)
{
case Pigeon _:
var _pigeon = (Pigeon)animal;
return new PigeonDTO()
{
Name = _pigeon.Name,
MaxAltitude = _pigeon.MaxAltitude,
IsReal = _pigeon.IsReal
};
case Rattlesnake _:
var _rattlesnake = (Rattlesnake)animal;
return new RattlesnakeDTO()
{
Name = _rattlesnake.Name,
Length = _rattlesnake.Length,
IsPoisonous = _rattlesnake.IsPoisonous
};
// And many more ...
default:
return null;
}
}
}
Producers
public interface IProducer { }
public interface IAnimalProducer : IProducer
{
Animal ProduceAnimalFromDTO(AnimalDTO DTO);
}
public interface IAnimalDTOProducer : IProducer
{
AnimalDTO ProduceAnimalDTOFromAnimal(Animal animal);
}
public class AnimalProducer : IAnimalProducer
{
private IAnimalFactory factory;
public AnimalProducer(IAnimalFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public IList<Animal> ConvertAnimalDTOCollection(IList<AnimalDTO> DTOCollection)
{
IList<Animal> result = new List<Animal>();
foreach (AnimalDTO DTO in DTOCollection)
{
var dto = ProduceAnimalFromDTO(DTO);
if (dto != null)
result.Add(dto);
}
return result;
}
public Animal ProduceAnimalFromDTO(AnimalDTO animalDTO)
{
return this.factory.CreateAnimal(animalDTO);
}
}
public class AnimalDTOProducer : IAnimalDTOProducer
{
private IAnimalDTOFactory factory;
public AnimalDTOProducer(IAnimalDTOFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public IList<AnimalDTO> ConvertAnimalCollection(IList<Animal> collection)
{
IList<AnimalDTO> result = new List<AnimalDTO>();
foreach (Animal animal in collection)
{
var _animal = ProduceAnimalDTOFromAnimal(animal);
if (_animal != null)
result.Add(_animal);
}
return result;
}
public AnimalDTO ProduceAnimalDTOFromAnimal(Animal animal)
{
return this.factory.CreateAnimalDTO(animal);
}
}
UPDATE 1
As recommended by sjb-sjb and ChiefTwoPencils in the comments, I eliminated the switch statements from the respective factories. The result looks like this:
public class AnimalFactory : IAnimalFactory
{
public Animal CreateAnimal(AnimalDTO DTO)
{
Type srcType = DTO.GetType();
Type modelType = Type.GetType(Regex.Replace(srcType.FullName, #"(DTO)$", ""));
IList<PropertyInfo> props = new List<PropertyInfo>(srcType.GetProperties());
var propVals = props.Select(prop => prop.GetValue(DTO, null)).ToArray();
Animal animal = (Animal)Activator.CreateInstance(modelType, propVals);
return animal;
}
}
public class AnimalDTOFactory : IAnimalDTOFactory
{
public AnimalDTO CreateAnimalDTO(Animal animal)
{
Type srcType = animal.GetType();
Type dtoType = Type.GetType($"{srcType.FullName}DTO");
AnimalDTO dto = (AnimalDTO)Activator.CreateInstance(dtoType, new object[] { });
foreach (PropertyInfo dtoProperty in dtoType.GetProperties())
{
PropertyInfo srcProperty = srcType.GetProperty(dtoProperty.Name);
if (srcProperty != null)
{
dtoProperty.SetValue(dto, srcProperty.GetValue(animal));
}
}
return dto;
}
}
The one thing I forgot to mention in the original question was that the constructor for the model may have more arguments than the DTO object has properties. That, and the order of arguments may not be the same. I think in pseudo-code, a solution will look something like this:
void AssignParamsToConstructor()
{
// Extract constructer parameters with names into an ordered list
// Match DTO properties with extracted parameters via name and type
// Fill any missing parameters with a default value or null
// Pass the final list of parameters as an array to Activator.CreateInstance method
}
I will be researching on a way to resolve this for the time being, but any pointers will be welcome.
UPDATE 2
Okay, so I found a kind of hacky solution for the previous problem regarding calling the Model constructor with missing or out-of-order arguments.
I created a helper class that creates an ordered argument array based on a combination of the Model constructor arguments and the DTO properties. This array can then be passed to Activator.CreateInstance without causing any issues.
Here is the updated AnimalFactory.CreateAnimal method:
public Animal CreateAnimal(AnimalDTO DTO)
{
Type srcType = DTO.GetType();
Type modelType = Type.GetType(Regex.Replace(srcType.FullName, #"(DTO)$", ""));
object[] propVals = Helpers.GenerateConstructorArgumentValueArray(modelType, DTO);
Animal animal = (Animal)Activator.CreateInstance(modelType, propVals);
return animal;
}
And here is the helper class:
public static class Helpers
{
public static object[] GenerateConstructorArgumentValueArray(Type type, object obj)
{
IList<(string, Type)> ctorArgTypes = new List<(string, Type)>();
IList<(string, object)> propVals = new List<(string, object)>();
// Get constructor arguments
ctorArgTypes = GetConstructorArgumentsAndTypes(type);
// Get object properties
propVals = GetObjectPropertiesAndValues(obj);
// Create args array
IList<object> paramVals = new List<object>();
foreach (var ctorArg in ctorArgTypes)
{
object val;
string _name = ctorArg.Item1.ToLower();
(string, object) _namedProp = propVals.Where(prop => prop.Item1.ToLower() == _name).FirstOrDefault();
if (_namedProp.Item2 != null)
{
val = _namedProp.Item2;
}
else
{
val = ctorArg.Item2.IsValueType ? Activator.CreateInstance(ctorArg.Item2) : null;
}
paramVals.Add(val);
}
return paramVals.ToArray();
}
private static IList<(string, Type)> GetConstructorArgumentsAndTypes(Type type)
{
List<(string, Type)> ctorArgs = new List<(string, Type)>();
TypeInfo typeInfo = type.GetTypeInfo();
ConstructorInfo[] ctors = typeInfo.DeclaredConstructors.ToArray();
ParameterInfo[] ctorParams = ctors[0].GetParameters();
foreach (ParameterInfo info in ctorParams)
{
ctorArgs.Add((info.Name, info.ParameterType));
}
return ctorArgs;
}
private static IList<(string, object)> GetObjectPropertiesAndValues(object obj)
{
List<(string, object)> props = new List<(string, object)>();
PropertyInfo[] propInfo = obj.GetType().GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyInfo info in propInfo)
{
string name = info.Name;
object val = info.GetValue(obj);
props.Add((name, val));
}
return props;
}
}
I'll have to look at this later to see how it can be improved on. For the time being however, it does its job.
I would appreciate any comments or input if you have any. I will keep updating this post until I find an absolute solution.
So I worked out a solution that seems to achieve my original goal.
The reason it was difficult to solve at first was due to the original Factory class having too many responsibilities. It had to map the properties and create a new object. Separating these made it easy to implement the Generic Factory suggested by this post:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140414013728/http://tranxcoder.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/a-generic-factory-in-c
I created a simple mapper that would automatically map Entity and DTO properties. The easier solution is to use an AutoMapper like grandaCoder suggested. My situation required otherwise so a custom mapper was the way to go. I also tried to minimize calls to System.Reflection so the performance wouldn't suffer too much.
The end result is a Factory that can convert between any Entity and DTO object, maps properties between them, and can instantiate an Entity class with no default / empty constructor.
I ended up making a lot more changes to the original post, so I uploaded the end result to github: https://github.com/MoMods/EntityDTOFactory
I am open to any additional ideas / criticisms on the final solution. This is my first time solving this kind of problem, so it's very likely there are some better ideas out there.
Thanks again for the help and suggestions!
The switch statement can be avoided using reflection:
public AnimalDTO ToDTO( Animal src)
{
Type srcType = src.GetType();
Type dtoType = Type.GetType(srcType.Name + "DTO");
AnimalDTO dto = (AnimalDTO)Activator.CreateInstance(dtoType, new object[] { });
foreach (PropertyInfo dtoProperty in dtoType.GetProperties()) {
PropertyInfo srcProperty = srcType.GetProperty(dtoProperty.Name);
if (srcProperty != null) {
dtoProperty.SetValue(dto, srcProperty.GetValue(src));
}
}
return dto;
}
To get a FromDTO method, just reverse the roles of src and dto in ToDTO.
I would not reinvent the wheel on this common scenario.
https://automapper.org/
https://www.nuget.org/packages/automapper/
OR
https://github.com/MapsterMapper/Mapster
https://www.nuget.org/packages/Mapster/
.......
Learn how to use one of these frameworks.
Below is mapster..........."performance" numbers.......which is how I found it (someone told me to lookout for automapper performance)

Override Property with different compatible Type

I need a base class with a property where I can derive classes with the same property but different (compatible) types. The base Class can be abstract.
public class Base
{
public virtual object prop { get; set; }
}
public class StrBase : Base
{
public override string prop { get; set; } // compiler error
}
public class UseIt
{
public void use()
{
List<Base> l = new List<Base>();
//...
}
}
I tried it with Generics but that gives me a problem when using the class, because I want to store differently typed base classes in the List.
public class BaseG<T>
{
public T prop { get; set; }
}
public class UseIt
{
public void use()
{
List<BaseG> l = new List<BaseG>(); // requires type argument
//...
}
}
Here's an alternative approach to proposed solution:
public abstract class Base
{
public abstract void Use();
public abstract object GetProp();
}
public abstract class GenericBase<T> : Base
{
public T Prop { get; set; }
public override object GetProp()
{
return Prop;
}
}
public class StrBase : GenericBase<string>
{
public override void Use()
{
Console.WriteLine("Using string: {0}", Prop);
}
}
public class IntBase : GenericBase<int>
{
public override void Use()
{
Console.WriteLine("Using int: {0}", Prop);
}
}
Basically I've added a generic class in the middle that stores your properly-typed property. this will work assuming that you never need to access Prop from the code that iterates the members of the List<Base>. (You could always add an abstract method to Base called GetProp that casts the generic to an object if that's required.)
Sample usage:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<Base> l = new List<Base>();
l.Add(new StrBase {Prop = "foo"});
l.Add(new IntBase {Prop = 42});
Console.WriteLine("Using each item");
foreach (var o in l)
{
o.Use();
}
Console.WriteLine("Done");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
Edit: Added the GetProp() method to illustrate how the property can be directly accessed from the base class.
You can't override the type of a property. Take a look at the following code:
StrBase s = new StrBase();
Base b = s;
This is completely valid code. But what happens when you try to do this?
b.prop = 5;
The integer can be converted to object, because everything is derived from object. But since b is actually a StrBase instance, it would have to convert the integer to a string somehow, which it can't. So that is why you aren't allowed to override the type.
The same principle applies to generics:
List<BaseG<object>> l = new List<BaseG<object>>();
BaseG<string> s = new BaseG<string>();
// The compiler will not allow this.
l.add(s);
// Here's the same problem, convert integer to string?
BaseG<object> o = l[0];
o.prop = 5;
This is because generic types in C# 2.0 are invariant. C# 4.0 does allow this type of conversions, called covariance and contravariance.
Solutions
An option is to cast the object back to string when you need it. You could add type validation in the subclass:
public class StrBase : Base
{
private string propValue;
public override object prop {
get
{
return this.propValue;
}
set
{
if (value is string)
{
this.propValue = (string)value;
}
}
}
}
You could also expose a type-safe property in the subclass:
public class StrBase : Base
{
public string strProp {
get
{
return (string)this.prop;
}
set
{
this.prop = value;
}
}
}
This is possible since C# 9.0
Beginning with C# 9.0, override methods support covariant return types.
(see Microsoft docs)
public class First
{
private int someV;
public virtual object SomeV { get => someV; set => someV = (int)value; }
public First() { }
}
public class Two : First
{
private string someV;
public override object SomeV { get => someV; set => someV = value.ToString(); }
public Two() { }
}
and use of those:
First firstClass = new First();
firstClass.SomeV = 1;
Two twoClass = new Two();
twoClass.SomeV = "abcd";

Enum "Inheritance"

I have an enum in a low level namespace. I'd like to provide a class or enum in a mid level namespace that "inherits" the low level enum.
namespace low
{
public enum base
{
x, y, z
}
}
namespace mid
{
public enum consume : low.base
{
}
}
I'm hoping that this is possible, or perhaps some kind of class that can take the place of the enum consume which will provide a layer of abstraction for the enum, but still let an instance of that class access the enum.
Thoughts?
EDIT:
One of the reasons I haven't just switched this to consts in classes is that the low level enum is needed by a service that I must consume. I have been given the WSDLs and the XSDs, which define the structure as an enum. The service cannot be changed.
This is not possible. Enums cannot inherit from other enums. In fact all enums must actually inherit from System.Enum. C# allows syntax to change the underlying representation of the enum values which looks like inheritance, but in actuality they still inherit from System.enum.
See section 8.5.2 of the CLI spec for the full details. Relevant information from the spec
All enums must derive from System.Enum
Because of the above, all enums are value types and hence sealed
You can achieve what you want with classes:
public class Base
{
public const int A = 1;
public const int B = 2;
public const int C = 3;
}
public class Consume : Base
{
public const int D = 4;
public const int E = 5;
}
Now you can use these classes similar as when they were enums:
int i = Consume.B;
Update (after your update of the question):
If you assign the same int values to the constants as defined in the existing enum, then you can cast between the enum and the constants, e.g:
public enum SomeEnum // this is the existing enum (from WSDL)
{
A = 1,
B = 2,
...
}
public class Base
{
public const int A = (int)SomeEnum.A;
//...
}
public class Consume : Base
{
public const int D = 4;
public const int E = 5;
}
// where you have to use the enum, use a cast:
SomeEnum e = (SomeEnum)Consume.B;
The short answer is no. You can play a bit, if you want:
You can always do something like this:
private enum Base
{
A,
B,
C
}
private enum Consume
{
A = Base.A,
B = Base.B,
C = Base.C,
D,
E
}
But, it doesn't work all that great because Base.A != Consume.A
You can always do something like this, though:
public static class Extensions
{
public static T As<T>(this Consume c) where T : struct
{
return (T)System.Enum.Parse(typeof(T), c.ToString(), false);
}
}
In order to cross between Base and Consume...
You could also cast the values of the enums as ints, and compare them as ints instead of enum, but that kind of sucks too.
The extension method return should type cast it type T.
The solutions above using classes with int constants lack type-safety. I.e. you could invent new values actually not defined in the class.
Furthermore it is not possible for example to write a method taking one of these classes as input.
You would need to write
public void DoSomethingMeaningFull(int consumeValue) ...
However, there is a class based solution of the old days of Java, when there were no enums available. This provides an almost enum-like behaviour. The only caveat is that these constants cannot be used within a switch-statement.
public class MyBaseEnum
{
public static readonly MyBaseEnum A = new MyBaseEnum( 1 );
public static readonly MyBaseEnum B = new MyBaseEnum( 2 );
public static readonly MyBaseEnum C = new MyBaseEnum( 3 );
public int InternalValue { get; protected set; }
protected MyBaseEnum( int internalValue )
{
this.InternalValue = internalValue;
}
}
public class MyEnum : MyBaseEnum
{
public static readonly MyEnum D = new MyEnum( 4 );
public static readonly MyEnum E = new MyEnum( 5 );
protected MyEnum( int internalValue ) : base( internalValue )
{
// Nothing
}
}
[TestMethod]
public void EnumTest()
{
this.DoSomethingMeaningful( MyEnum.A );
}
private void DoSomethingMeaningful( MyBaseEnum enumValue )
{
// ...
if( enumValue == MyEnum.A ) { /* ... */ }
else if (enumValue == MyEnum.B) { /* ... */ }
// ...
}
Ignoring the fact that base is a reserved word you cannot do inheritance of enum.
The best thing you could do is something like that:
public enum Baseenum
{
x, y, z
}
public enum Consume
{
x = Baseenum.x,
y = Baseenum.y,
z = Baseenum.z
}
public void Test()
{
Baseenum a = Baseenum.x;
Consume newA = (Consume) a;
if ((Int32) a == (Int32) newA)
{
MessageBox.Show(newA.ToString());
}
}
Since they're all the same base type (ie: int) you could assign the value from an instance of one type to the other which a cast. Not ideal but it work.
This is what I did. What I've done differently is use the same name and the new keyword on the "consuming" enum. Since the name of the enum is the same, you can just mindlessly use it and it will be right. Plus you get intellisense. You just have to manually take care when setting it up that the values are copied over from the base and keep them sync'ed. You can help that along with code comments. This is another reason why in the database when storing enum values I always store the string, not the value. Because if you are using automatically assigned increasing integer values those can change over time.
// Base Class for balls
public class Ball
{
// keep synced with subclasses!
public enum Sizes
{
Small,
Medium,
Large
}
}
public class VolleyBall : Ball
{
// keep synced with base class!
public new enum Sizes
{
Small = Ball.Sizes.Small,
Medium = Ball.Sizes.Medium,
Large = Ball.Sizes.Large,
SmallMedium,
MediumLarge,
Ginormous
}
}
I know this answer is kind of late but this is what I ended up doing:
public class BaseAnimal : IEquatable<BaseAnimal>
{
public string Name { private set; get; }
public int Value { private set; get; }
public BaseAnimal(int value, String name)
{
this.Name = name;
this.Value = value;
}
public override String ToString()
{
return Name;
}
public bool Equals(BaseAnimal other)
{
return other.Name == this.Name && other.Value == this.Value;
}
}
public class AnimalType : BaseAnimal
{
public static readonly BaseAnimal Invertebrate = new BaseAnimal(1, "Invertebrate");
public static readonly BaseAnimal Amphibians = new BaseAnimal(2, "Amphibians");
// etc
}
public class DogType : AnimalType
{
public static readonly BaseAnimal Golden_Retriever = new BaseAnimal(3, "Golden_Retriever");
public static readonly BaseAnimal Great_Dane = new BaseAnimal(4, "Great_Dane");
// etc
}
Then I am able to do things like:
public void SomeMethod()
{
var a = AnimalType.Amphibians;
var b = AnimalType.Amphibians;
if (a == b)
{
// should be equal
}
// call method as
Foo(a);
// using ifs
if (a == AnimalType.Amphibians)
{
}
else if (a == AnimalType.Invertebrate)
{
}
else if (a == DogType.Golden_Retriever)
{
}
// etc
}
public void Foo(BaseAnimal typeOfAnimal)
{
}
Alternative solution
In my company, we avoid "jumping over projects" to get to non-common lower level projects. For instance, our presentation/API layer can only reference our domain layer, and the domain layer can only reference the data layer.
However, this is a problem when there are enums that need to be referenced by both the presentation and the domain layers.
Here is the solution that we have implemented (so far). It is a pretty good solution and works well for us. The other answers were hitting all around this.
The basic premise is that enums cannot be inherited - but classes can. So...
// In the lower level project (or DLL)...
public abstract class BaseEnums
{
public enum ImportanceType
{
None = 0,
Success = 1,
Warning = 2,
Information = 3,
Exclamation = 4
}
[Flags]
public enum StatusType : Int32
{
None = 0,
Pending = 1,
Approved = 2,
Canceled = 4,
Accepted = (8 | Approved),
Rejected = 16,
Shipped = (32 | Accepted),
Reconciled = (64 | Shipped)
}
public enum Conveyance
{
None = 0,
Feet = 1,
Automobile = 2,
Bicycle = 3,
Motorcycle = 4,
TukTuk = 5,
Horse = 6,
Yak = 7,
Segue = 8
}
Then, to "inherit" the enums in another higher level project...
// Class in another project
public sealed class SubEnums: BaseEnums
{
private SubEnums()
{}
}
This has three real advantages...
The enum definitions are automatically the same in both projects - by
definition.
Any changes to the enum definitions are automatically
echoed in the second without having to make any modifications to the
second class.
The enums are based on the same code - so the values can easily be compared (with some caveats).
To reference the enums in the first project, you can use the prefix of the class: BaseEnums.StatusType.Pending or add a "using static BaseEnums;" statement to your usings.
In the second project when dealing with the inherited class however, I could not get the "using static ..." approach to work, so all references to the "inherited enums" would be prefixed with the class, e.g. SubEnums.StatusType.Pending. If anyone comes up with a way to allow the "using static" approach to be used in the second project, let me know.
I am sure that this can be tweaked to make it even better - but this actually works and I have used this approach in working projects.
I also wanted to overload Enums and created a mix of the answer of 'Seven' on this page and the answer of 'Merlyn Morgan-Graham' on a duplicate post of this, plus a couple of improvements.
Main advantages of my solution over the others:
automatic increment of the underlying int value
automatic naming
This is an out-of-the-box solution and may be directly inserted into your project. It is designed to my needs, so if you don't like some parts of it, just replace them with your own code.
First, there is the base class CEnum that all custom enums should inherit from. It has the basic functionality, similar to the .net Enum type:
public class CEnum
{
protected static readonly int msc_iUpdateNames = int.MinValue;
protected static int ms_iAutoValue = -1;
protected static List<int> ms_listiValue = new List<int>();
public int Value
{
get;
protected set;
}
public string Name
{
get;
protected set;
}
protected CEnum ()
{
CommonConstructor (-1);
}
protected CEnum (int i_iValue)
{
CommonConstructor (i_iValue);
}
public static string[] GetNames (IList<CEnum> i_listoValue)
{
if (i_listoValue == null)
return null;
string[] asName = new string[i_listoValue.Count];
for (int ixCnt = 0; ixCnt < asName.Length; ixCnt++)
asName[ixCnt] = i_listoValue[ixCnt]?.Name;
return asName;
}
public static CEnum[] GetValues ()
{
return new CEnum[0];
}
protected virtual void CommonConstructor (int i_iValue)
{
if (i_iValue == msc_iUpdateNames)
{
UpdateNames (this.GetType ());
return;
}
else if (i_iValue > ms_iAutoValue)
ms_iAutoValue = i_iValue;
else
i_iValue = ++ms_iAutoValue;
if (ms_listiValue.Contains (i_iValue))
throw new ArgumentException ("duplicate value " + i_iValue.ToString ());
Value = i_iValue;
ms_listiValue.Add (i_iValue);
}
private static void UpdateNames (Type i_oType)
{
if (i_oType == null)
return;
FieldInfo[] aoFieldInfo = i_oType.GetFields (BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static);
foreach (FieldInfo oFieldInfo in aoFieldInfo)
{
CEnum oEnumResult = oFieldInfo.GetValue (null) as CEnum;
if (oEnumResult == null)
continue;
oEnumResult.Name = oFieldInfo.Name;
}
}
}
Secondly, here are 2 derived Enum classes. All derived classes need some basic methods in order to work as expected. It's always the same boilerplate code; I haven't found a way yet to outsource it to the base class. The code of the first level of inheritance differs slightly from all subsequent levels.
public class CEnumResult : CEnum
{
private static List<CEnumResult> ms_listoValue = new List<CEnumResult>();
public static readonly CEnumResult Nothing = new CEnumResult ( 0);
public static readonly CEnumResult SUCCESS = new CEnumResult ( 1);
public static readonly CEnumResult UserAbort = new CEnumResult ( 11);
public static readonly CEnumResult InProgress = new CEnumResult (101);
public static readonly CEnumResult Pausing = new CEnumResult (201);
private static readonly CEnumResult Dummy = new CEnumResult (msc_iUpdateNames);
protected CEnumResult () : base ()
{
}
protected CEnumResult (int i_iValue) : base (i_iValue)
{
}
protected override void CommonConstructor (int i_iValue)
{
base.CommonConstructor (i_iValue);
if (i_iValue == msc_iUpdateNames)
return;
if (this.GetType () == System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod ().DeclaringType)
ms_listoValue.Add (this);
}
public static new CEnumResult[] GetValues ()
{
List<CEnumResult> listoValue = new List<CEnumResult> ();
listoValue.AddRange (ms_listoValue);
return listoValue.ToArray ();
}
}
public class CEnumResultClassCommon : CEnumResult
{
private static List<CEnumResultClassCommon> ms_listoValue = new List<CEnumResultClassCommon>();
public static readonly CEnumResult Error_InternalProgramming = new CEnumResultClassCommon (1000);
public static readonly CEnumResult Error_Initialization = new CEnumResultClassCommon ();
public static readonly CEnumResult Error_ObjectNotInitialized = new CEnumResultClassCommon ();
public static readonly CEnumResult Error_DLLMissing = new CEnumResultClassCommon ();
// ... many more
private static readonly CEnumResult Dummy = new CEnumResultClassCommon (msc_iUpdateNames);
protected CEnumResultClassCommon () : base ()
{
}
protected CEnumResultClassCommon (int i_iValue) : base (i_iValue)
{
}
protected override void CommonConstructor (int i_iValue)
{
base.CommonConstructor (i_iValue);
if (i_iValue == msc_iUpdateNames)
return;
if (this.GetType () == System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod ().DeclaringType)
ms_listoValue.Add (this);
}
public static new CEnumResult[] GetValues ()
{
List<CEnumResult> listoValue = new List<CEnumResult> (CEnumResult.GetValues ());
listoValue.AddRange (ms_listoValue);
return listoValue.ToArray ();
}
}
The classes have been successfully tested with follwing code:
private static void Main (string[] args)
{
CEnumResult oEnumResult = CEnumResultClassCommon.Error_Initialization;
string sName = oEnumResult.Name; // sName = "Error_Initialization"
CEnum[] aoEnumResult = CEnumResultClassCommon.GetValues (); // aoEnumResult = {testCEnumResult.Program.CEnumResult[9]}
string[] asEnumNames = CEnum.GetNames (aoEnumResult);
int ixValue = Array.IndexOf (aoEnumResult, oEnumResult); // ixValue = 6
}
I realize I'm a bit late to this party, but here's my two cents.
We're all clear that Enum inheritance is not supported by the framework. Some very interesting workarounds have been suggested in this thread, but none of them felt quite like what I was looking for, so I had a go at it myself.
Introducing: ObjectEnum
You can check the code and documentation here: https://github.com/dimi3tron/ObjectEnum.
And the package here: https://www.nuget.org/packages/ObjectEnum
Or just install it: Install-Package ObjectEnum
In short, ObjectEnum<TEnum> acts as a wrapper for any enum. By overriding the GetDefinedValues() in subclasses, one can specify which enum values are valid for this specific class.
A number of operator overloads have been added to make an ObjectEnum<TEnum> instance behave as if it were an instance of the underlying enum, keeping in mind the defined value restrictions. This means you can easily compare the instance to an int or enum value, and thus use it in a switch case or any other conditional.
I'd like to refer to the github repo mentioned above for examples and further info.
I hope you find this useful. Feel free to comment or open an issue on github for further thoughts or comments.
Here are a few short examples of what you can do with ObjectEnum<TEnum>:
var sunday = new WorkDay(DayOfWeek.Sunday); //throws exception
var monday = new WorkDay(DayOfWeek.Monday); //works fine
var label = $"{monday} is day {(int)monday}." //produces: "Monday is day 1."
var mondayIsAlwaysMonday = monday == DayOfWeek.Monday; //true, sorry...
var friday = new WorkDay(DayOfWeek.Friday);
switch((DayOfWeek)friday){
case DayOfWeek.Monday:
//do something monday related
break;
/*...*/
case DayOfWeek.Friday:
//do something friday related
break;
}
Enums are not actual classes, even if they look like it. Internally, they are treated just like their underlying type (by default Int32). Therefore, you can only do this by "copying" single values from one enum to another and casting them to their integer number to compare them for equality.
Enums cannot be derrived from other enums, but only from int, uint, short, ushort, long, ulong, byte and sbyte.
Like Pascal said, you can use other enum's values or constants to initialize an enum value, but that's about it.
another possible solution:
public enum #base
{
x,
y,
z
}
public enum consume
{
x = #base.x,
y = #base.y,
z = #base.z,
a,b,c
}
// TODO: Add a unit-test to check that if #base and consume are aligned
HTH
This is not possible (as #JaredPar already mentioned). Trying to put logic to work around this is a bad practice. In case you have a base class that have an enum, you should list of all possible enum-values there, and the implementation of class should work with the values that it knows.
E.g. Supposed you have a base class BaseCatalog, and it has an enum ProductFormats (Digital, Physical). Then you can have a MusicCatalog or BookCatalog that could contains both Digital and Physical products, But if the class is ClothingCatalog, it should only contains Physical products.
The way you do this, if warranted, is to implement your own class structure that includes the features you wanted from your concept of an inherited enum, plus you can add more.
You simply implement equality comparators and functions to look up values you simply code yourself.
You make the constructors private and declare static instances of the class and any subclasses to whatever extent you want.
Or find a simple work around for your problem and stick with the native enum implementation.
Code Heavy Implementation of Inherited Enumerations:
/// <summary>
/// Generic Design for implementing inheritable enum
/// </summary>
public class ServiceBase
{
//members
protected int _id;
protected string _name;
//constructors
private ServiceBase(int id, string name)
{
_id = id;
_name = name;
}
//onlu required if subclassing
protected ServiceBase(int id, string name, bool isSubClass = true )
{
if( id <= _maxServiceId )
throw new InvalidProgramException("Bad Id in ServiceBase" );
_id = id;
_name = name;
}
//members
public int Id => _id;
public string Name => _name;
public virtual ServiceBase getService(int serviceBaseId)
{
return ALLBASESERVICES.SingleOrDefault(s => s.Id == _id);
}
//implement iComparable if required
//static methods
public static ServiceBase getServiceOrDefault(int serviceBaseId)
{
return SERVICE1.getService(serviceBaseId);
}
//Enumerations Here
public static ServiceBase SERVICE1 = new ServiceBase( 1, "First Service" );
public static ServiceBase SERVICE2 = new ServiceBase( 2, "Second Service" );
protected static ServiceBase[] ALLBASESERVICES =
{
//Enumerations list
SERVICE1,
SERVICE2
};
private static int _maxServiceId = ALLBASESERVICES.Max( s => s.Id );
//only required if subclassing
protected static ServiceBase[] combineServices(ServiceBase[] array1, ServiceBase[] array2)
{
List<ServiceBase> serviceBases = new List<ServiceBase>();
serviceBases.AddRange( array1 );
serviceBases.AddRange( array2 );
return serviceBases.ToArray();
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Generic Design for implementing inheritable enum
/// </summary>
public class ServiceJobs : ServiceBase
{
//constructor
private ServiceJobs(int id, string name)
: base( id, name )
{
_id = id;
_name = name;
}
//only required if subclassing
protected ServiceJobs(int id, string name, bool isSubClass = true )
: base( id, name )
{
if( id <= _maxServiceId )
throw new InvalidProgramException("Bad Id in ServiceJobs" );
_id = id;
_name = name;
}
//members
public override ServiceBase getService(int serviceBaseId)
{
if (ALLSERVICES == null)
{
ALLSERVICES = combineServices(ALLBASESERVICES, ALLJOBSERVICES);
}
return ALLSERVICES.SingleOrDefault(s => s.Id == _id);
}
//static methods
public static ServiceBase getServiceOrDefault(int serviceBaseId)
{
return SERVICE3.getService(serviceBaseId);
}
//sub class services here
public static ServiceBase SERVICE3 = new ServiceJobs( 3, "Third Service" );
public static ServiceBase SERVICE4 = new ServiceJobs( 4, "Forth Service" );
private static int _maxServiceId = ALLJOBSERVICES.Max( s => s.Id );
private static ServiceBase[] ALLJOBSERVICES =
{
//subclass service list
SERVICE3,
SERVICE4
};
//all services including superclass items
private static ServiceBase[] ALLSERVICES = null;
}
Note that you can use an enum instead of an int as the id, though the subclass will need a separate enum.
The enum class itself can be decorated with all kinds of flags, messages, functions etc.
A generic implementation would reduce a great deal of the code.
Depending on your situation you may NOT need derived Enums as they're based off System.Enum.
Take this code, you can pass in any Enum you like and get its selected value:
public CommonError FromErrorCode(Enum code)
{
Code = (int)Enum.Parse(code.GetType(), code.ToString());
You can perform inheritance in enum, however it's limited to following types only .
int, uint, byte, sbyte, short, ushort, long, ulong
E.g.
public enum Car:int{
Toyota,
Benz,
}

How do I reinitialize or reset the properties of a class?

I've created a class with properties that have default values. At some point in the object's lifetime, I'd like to "reset" the object's properties back to what they were when the object was instantiated. For example, let's say this was the class:
public class Truck {
public string Name = "Super Truck";
public int Tires = 4;
public Truck() { }
public void ResetTruck() {
// Do something here to "reset" the object
}
}
Then at some point, after the Name and Tires properties have been changed, the ResetTruck() method could be called and the properties would be reset back to "Super Truck" and 4, respectively.
What's the best way to reset the properties back to their initial hard-coded defaults?
You can have the initialization in a method instead of inlining with the declaration. Then have the constructor and reset method call the initialization method:
public class Truck {
public string Name;
public int Tires;
public Truck() {
Init();
}
public void ResetTruck() {
Init();
}
private void Init() {
Name = "Super Truck";
Tires = 4;
}
}
Another way is not to have a reset method at all. Just create a new instance.
Reflection is your friend. You could create a helper method to use Activator.CreateInstance() to set the default value of Value types and 'null' for reference types, but why bother when setting null on a PropertyInfo's SetValue will do the same.
Type type = this.GetType();
PropertyInfo[] properties = type.GetProperties();
for (int i = 0; i < properties.Length; ++i)
properties[i].SetValue(this, null); //trick that actually defaults value types too.
To extend this for your purpose, have private members:
//key - property name, value - what you want to assign
Dictionary<string, object> _propertyValues= new Dictionary<string, object>();
List<string> _ignorePropertiesToReset = new List<string>(){"foo", "bar"};
Set the values in your constructor:
public Truck() {
PropertyInfo[] properties = type.GetProperties();
//exclude properties you don't want to reset, put the rest in the dictionary
for (int i = 0; i < properties.Length; ++i){
if (!_ignorePropertiesToReset.Contains(properties[i].Name))
_propertyValues.Add(properties[i].Name, properties[i].GetValue(this));
}
}
Reset them later:
public void Reset() {
PropertyInfo[] properties = type.GetProperties();
for (int i = 0; i < properties.Length; ++i){
//if dictionary has property name, use it to set the property
properties[i].SetValue(this, _propertyValues.ContainsKey(properties[i].Name) ? _propertyValues[properties[i].Name] : null);
}
}
Unless creating the object is really expensive (and Reset isn't for some reason). I see no reason to implement a special reset method. Why don't you just create a new instance with a usable default state.
What is the purpose of reusing the instance?
If you did your initialization in a Reset method you can be good to go:
public class Truck {
public string Name;
public int Tires;
public Truck() {
ResetTruck();
}
public void ResetTruck() {
Name = "Super Truck";
Tires = 4;
}
}
Focusing of separation of concerns (like Brian mentioned in the comments), another alternative would be to add a TruckProperties type (you could even add your default values to its constructor):
public class TruckProperties
{
public string Name
{
get;
set;
}
public int Tires
{
get;
set;
}
public TruckProperties()
{
this.Name = "Super Truck";
this.Tires = 4;
}
public TruckProperties(string name, int tires)
{
this.Name = name;
this.Tires = tires;
}
}
Inside your Truck class, all you would do is manage an instance of the TruckProperties type, and let it do its reset.
public class Truck
{
private TruckProperties properties = new TruckProperties();
public Truck()
{
}
public string Name
{
get
{
return this.properties.Name;
}
set
{
this.properties.Name = value;
}
}
public int Tires
{
get
{
return this.properties.Tires;
}
set
{
this.properties.Tires = value;
}
}
public void ResetTruck()
{
this.properties = new TruckProperties();
}
}
This certainly may be a lot of (unwanted) overhead for such a simple class, but in a bigger/more complex project it could be advantageous.
That's the thing about "best" practices... a lot of times, there's no silver bullet, but only recommendations you must take with skepticism and your best judgement as to what applies to you in a particular case.
I solved a similar problem with reflection. You can use source.GetType().GetProperties() to get a list of all properties which belong to the object.
Although, this is not always a complete solution. If your object implements several interfaces, you will also get all those properties with your reflection call.
So I wrote this simple function which gives us more control of which properties we are interested in resetting.
public static void ClearProperties(object source, List<Type> InterfaceList = null, Type SearchType = null)
{
// Set Interfaces[] array size accordingly. (Will be size of our passed InterfaceList, or 1 if InterfaceList is not passed.)
Type[] Interfaces = new Type[InterfaceList == null ? 1 : InterfaceList.Count];
// If our InterfaceList was not set, get all public properties.
if (InterfaceList == null)
Interfaces[0] = source.GetType();
else // Otherwise, get only the public properties from our passed InterfaceList
for (int i = 0; i < InterfaceList.Count; i++)
Interfaces[i] = source.GetType().GetInterface(InterfaceList[i].Name);
IEnumerable<PropertyInfo> propertyList = Enumerable.Empty<PropertyInfo>();
foreach (Type face in Interfaces)
{
if (face != null)
{
// If our SearchType is null, just get all properties that are not already empty
if (SearchType == null)
propertyList = face.GetProperties().Where(prop => prop != null);
else // Otherwise, get all properties that match our SearchType
propertyList = face.GetProperties().Where(prop => prop.PropertyType == SearchType);
// Reset each property
foreach (var property in propertyList)
{
if (property.CanRead && property.CanWrite)
property.SetValue(source, null, new object[] { });
}
}
else
{
// Throw an error or a warning, depends how strict you want to be I guess.
Debug.Log("Warning: Passed interface does not belong to object.");
//throw new Exception("Warning: Passed interface does not belong to object.");
}
}
}
And it's use:
// Clears all properties in object
ClearProperties(Obj);
// Clears all properties in object from MyInterface1 & MyInterface2
ClearProperties(Obj, new List<Type>(){ typeof(MyInterface1), typeof(MyInterface2)});
// Clears all integer properties in object from MyInterface1 & MyInterface2
ClearProperties(Obj, new List<Type>(){ typeof(MyInterface1), typeof(MyInterface2)}, typeof(int));
// Clears all integer properties in object
ClearProperties(Obj,null,typeof(int));
You'd probably need to save the values off in private fields, so that they can be restored later. Maybe something like this:
public class Truck
{
private static const string defaultName = "Super Truck";
private static const int defaultTires = 4;
// Use properties for public members (not public fields)
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Tires { get; set; }
public Truck()
{
Name = defaultName;
Tires = defaultTires;
}
public void ResetTruck()
{
Name = defaultName;
Tires = defaultTires;
}
}
You're essentially looking for the State Design Pattern
If you want a specific past "state" of your object you can create a particular save point to return every time you want. This also let you have a diferent state to backup for everey instance that you create. If you class has many properties who are in constant change, this could be your solution.
public class Truck
{
private string _Name = "Super truck";
private int _Tires = 4;
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set { _Name = value; }
}
public int Tires
{
get { return _Tires; }
set { _Tires = value; }
}
private Truck SavePoint;
public static Truck CreateWithSavePoint(string Name, int Tires)
{
Truck obj = new Truck();
obj.Name = Name;
obj.Tires = Tires;
obj.Save();
return obj;
}
public Truck() { }
public void Save()
{
SavePoint = (Truck)this.MemberwiseClone();
}
public void ResetTruck()
{
Type type = this.GetType();
PropertyInfo[] properties = type.GetProperties();
for (int i = 0; i < properties.Count(); ++i)
properties[i].SetValue(this, properties[i].GetValue(SavePoint));
}
}
If you aren't using a Code Generator or a Designer that would conflict, another option is to go through C#'s TypeDescriptor stuff, which is similar to Reflection, but meant to add more meta information to a class than Reflection could.
using System.ComponentModel;
public class Truck {
// You can use the DefaultValue Attribute for simple primitive properites
[DefaultValue("Super Truck")]
public string Name { get; set; } = "Super Truck";
// You can use a Reset[PropertyName]() method for more complex properties
public int Tires { get; set; } = 4;
public void ResetTires() => Tires = 4;
public Truck() { }
public void ResetTruck() {
// Iterates through each property and tries to reset it
foreach (PropertyDescriptor prop in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(GetType())) {
if (prop.CanResetValue(this)) prop.ResetValue(this);
}
}
}
Note that ResetValue will also reset to a shadowed property if one exists. The priority of which option is selected is explained in the docs:
This method determines the value to reset the property to in the following order of precedence:
There is a shadowed property for this property.
There is a DefaultValueAttribute for this property.
There is a "ResetMyProperty" method that you have implemented, where "MyProperty" is the name of the property you pass to it.
You may represent an object state as a struct or record struct and then set the state to the default value in the Reset method like this:
public class Truck {
record struct State(string Name, int Tires);
private static readonly State _defaultState = new("Super Truck", 4);
private State _state = _defaultState;
public string Name => _state.Name;
public int Tires => _state.Tires;
public Truck() {}
public void ResetTruck() => _state = _defaultState;
}
It is probably the fastest way as well.
Also, a record struct will give you the trivial implementations of the ToString, Equals, GetHashCode.

Categories