We Keep Coding

Don't assign a field from many methods

I have a class that has a field that is being assigned a value from multiple methods.
public class Shape
{
private Point2D m_location;
public void Move()
{
m_location = ...
}
public void Rotate()
{
m_location = ...
}
public void Flip()
{
m_location = ...
}
}
I am getting a warning from NDepend that says:
Don't assign a field from many methods
https://www.ndepend.com/default-rules/Q_Don't_assign_a_field_from_many_methods.html
I am thinking of solving this problem by creating a separate method to assign the value of the field and calling this method from the other methods that currently assign a value to the field.
Here is an example of the code:
private void SetLocation(Point2D point)
{
m_location = location;
}
I want to know if this is a valid way to solve the problem and if it will just hide the code-smell that NDepend detected or actually fix the issue.

Is this a valid way to solve this problem?
No. As you suspect, this is a code smell. What NDepend is complaining about is mutable references; you have code where:
var s = new SomeObject(someInitialization);
var r = s.SomeResult();
// you now have no idea what s contains or if it is even usable any more.
The solution to this is to make SomeObject immutable and return new references instead of changing internals:
public SomeObject Something()
{
return new SomeObject(SomethingDifferentDependingOn(this.something));
}
Now instead of your first example you have:
var s = new SomeObject(someInitialization);
var r = s.Something().Result;
// s is guaranteed to be unchanged.
Yes some times you will need mutable references. In those cases; document them and explain why they have to be mutable. Then you can override NDepend rules on a case-by-case basis to prevent it showing a warning. If you have a code smell, warn people. Do not try to hide it.
The example after your edit is quite different, but the general principle still holds. If you have only a few internal fields that all change in method calls you can still return immutable references, e.g.:
public Shape Move()
{
return new Shape(m_location ...);
}
If you have many internal fields that don't all change, or you need to do something like share private fields you can't easily have immutable reference, but you can still avoid the warning by using accessors:
public Location
{
get { return m_location; }
private set { m_location = value; }
}
Then use Shape.Location exclusively in your internal methods.

Solution for CA2227 or better approach?

I'm only using Code Analysis for cleaning, organizing and ensuring these changes are globally performed for all instances of a particular warning. I'm down to the final, and it's CA2227.
CA2227 Collection properties should be read only Change '' to be
read-only by removing the property setter.
Note this is for mapping of EDI documents. These classes are to represent a whole or part of an EDI document.
public class PO1Loop
{
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO1 PO1 { get; set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID1> PIDRepeat1 { get; set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID2> PIDRepeat2 { get; set; }
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO4 PO4 { get; set; }
/* Max Use: 8 */
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.ACK> ACKRepeat { get; set; }
}
You can see all of the Collection properties will give me this warning, and there are hundreds of them. When using the above class I instantiate it without any data. Then externally I add the data and set each individual variable through its public accessor. I do not instantiate this class with all the data prepared and passed using a constructor method (IMO for the size these can reach it can easily wreak havoc on the eyes). When complete and all properties are assigned the class as a whole is then used to generate that part of a document it represents.
My question is, for the usage described above, what would be a better approach for setting this up correctly? Do I keep the public accessors and suppress this warning entirely, or is there a entirely different solution that would work?

Here's what MSDN says about the error, and also how you can avoid it.
Here's my take on the issue.
Consider, the following class:
class BigDataClass
{
public List<string> Data { get; set; }
}
This class will throw that exact same issue. Why? Because Collections do not need a setter. Now, we can do anything with that object: assign Data to an arbitrary List<string>, add elements to Data, remove elements from Data, etc. If we remove the setter, we only lose the ability to directly assign to that property.
Consider the following code:
class BigDataClass
{
private List<string> data = new List<string>();
public List<string> Data { get { return data; } } // note, we removed the setter
}
var bigData = new BigDataClass();
bigData.Data.Add("Some String");
This code is perfectly valid and in fact the recommended way to do things. Why? Because the List<string> is a reference to a memory location, that contains the remainder of the data.
Now, the only thing you cannot now do with this, is directly set the Data property. I.e. the following is invalid:
var bigData = new BigDataClass();
bigData.Data = new List<string>();
This is not necessarily a bad thing. You'll notice that on many .NET types this model is used. It's the basics of immutability. You usually do not want direct access to the mutability of Collections, as this can cause some accidental behavior that has strange issues. This is why Microsoft recommends you omit setters.
Example:
var bigData = new BigDataClass();
bigData.Data.Add("Some String");
var l2 = new List<string>();
l2.Add("String 1");
l2.Add("String 2");
bigData.Data = l2;
Console.WriteLine(bigData.Data[0]);
We might be expecting Some String, but we'll get String 1. This also means that you cannot reliably attach events to the Collection in question, so you cannot reliably determine if new values are added or values are removed.
A writable collection property allows a user to replace the collection with a completely different collection.
Essentially, if you only ever need to run the constructor, or assignment, once, then omit the set modifier. You won't need it, direct assignment of collections is against best-practices.
Now, I'm not saying never use a setter on a Collection, sometimes you may need one, but in general you should not use them.
You can always use .AddRange, .Clone, etc. on the Collections, you only lose the ability of direct assignment.
Serialization
Lastly, what do we do if we wish to Serialize or Deserialize a class that contains our Collection without a set? Well, there is always more than one way to do it, the simplest (in my opinion) is to create a property that represents the serialized collection.
Take our BigDataClass for example. If we wished to Serialize, and then Deserialize this class with the following code, the Data property would have no elements.
JavaScriptSerializer jss = new JavaScriptSerializer();
BigDataClass bdc = new BigDataClass();
bdc.Data.Add("Test String");
string serd = jss.Serialize(bdc);
Console.WriteLine(serd);
BigDataClass bdc2 = jss.Deserialize<BigDataClass>(serd);
So, to fix this, we can simply modify our BigDataClass a bit to make it use a new string property for Serialization purposes.
public class BigDataClass
{
private List<string> data = new List<string>();
[ScriptIgnore]
public List<string> Data { get { return data; } } // note, we removed the setter
public string SerializedData { get { JavaScriptSerializer jss = new JavaScriptSerializer(); return jss.Serialize(data); } set { JavaScriptSerializer jss = new JavaScriptSerializer(); data = jss.Deserialize<List<string>>(value); } }
}
Another option is always the DataContractSerializer (which is really a better option, in general.) You can find information about it on this StackOverflow question.

With current VS2019 we can simply do this:
public List<string> Data { get; } = new List<string>();
This satisfies CA2227 and can be serialized/deserialized.
The deserialization works because List<> has an "Add" method, and the serializer knows how to handle a read-only collection property with an Add method (the property is read-only but not the elements) (I use Json.Net, other serializers may behave differently).
Edit:
As pointed out it should be "=" and not "=>" (compiler will prevent you using "=>"). If we used "public List Data => new List();" then it would create a new list every time the property was accessed which is not what we want either.
Edit:
Note that this will NOT work if the type of the property is an interface, such as IList
Edit:
I think the handling of interfaces is determined by the serializer used. The following works perfectly. I'm sure all common serializers know how to handle ICollection. And if you have some custom interface that does not implement ICollection then you should be able to configure the serializer to handle it, but in that case CA2227 probably won't be triggered making it irrelevant here. (As it is a read-only property you have to assign a concrete value within the class so it should always be serializing and de-serializing a non-null value)
public class CA2227TestClass
{
public IList Data { get; } = new List<string>();
}
[TestMethod]
public void CA2227_Serialization()
{
var test = new CA2227TestClass()
{
Data = { "One", "Two", "Three" }
};
var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(test);
Assert.AreEqual("{\"Data\":[\"One\",\"Two\",\"Three\"]}", json);
var jsonObject = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject(json, typeof(CA2227TestClass)) as CA2227TestClass;
Assert.IsNotNull(jsonObject);
Assert.AreEqual(3, jsonObject.Data.Count);
Assert.AreEqual("One", jsonObject.Data[0]);
Assert.AreEqual("Two", jsonObject.Data[1]);
Assert.AreEqual("Three", jsonObject.Data[2]);
Assert.AreEqual(typeof(List<string>), jsonObject.Data.GetType());
}

💡 Alternative Solution 💡
In my situation, making the property read-only was not viable because the whole list (as a reference) could change to a new list.
I was able to resolve this warning by changing the properties' setter scope to be internal.
public List<Batch> Batches
{
get { return _Batches; }
internal set { _Batches = value; OnPropertyChanged(nameof(Batches)); }
}
Note one could also use private set...
The hint's (achilleas heal) of this warning seems really pointed to libraries for the documentation says (Bolding mine):
An externally visible writable property is a type that implements
System.Collections.ICollection.
For me it was, "Ok, I won't make it viewable externally...." and internal was fine for the app.

Thanks to #Matthew, #CraigW and #EBrown for helping me understanding the solution for this warning.
public class PO1Loop
{
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO1 PO1 { get; set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID1> PIDRepeat1 { get; private set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID2> PIDRepeat2 { get; private set; }
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO4 PO4 { get; set; }
/* Max Use: 8 */
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.ACK> ACKRepeat { get; private set; }
public PO1Loop()
{
PIDRepeat1 = new Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID1>();
PIDRepeat2 = new Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID2>();
ACKRepeat = new Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.ACK>();
}
}
When wanting to assign data to the collection types use AddRange, Clear or any other variation of method for modifying a collection.

Only while binding DTO, you need to suppress warnings.
otherwise a custom ModelBinder is required custom ModelBinder to bind collections.
quoting the rule documentation:
When to suppress warnings
You can suppress the warning if the property is part of a Data Transfer Object (DTO) class.
Otherwise, do not suppress warnings from this rule.
https://learn.microsoft.com/pt-br/visualstudio/code-quality/ca2227?view=vs-2019

DTOs often require serialization and deserialization. Thus, they are required to be mutable.
Having to create an alternate backing property is a pain.
Simply change the property type from List<string> to IReadOnlyList<string> then this works as expected without CA2227.
The collection is set via the property but you can also cast to List<string> if you wish to append or delete items.
class Holder
{
public IReadOnlyList<string> Col { get; set; } = new List<string>();
}
var list = new List<string> { "One", "Two" };
var holder = new Holder() { Col = list } ;
var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(holder);
// output json {"Col":["One","Two"]}
var deserializedHolder = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Holder>(json);

I had to fix some of the CA2227 violations, so i had to add the "readonly" keyword to the collection field and then of course, had to remove the setter property. Some code that have used the setter, just created a new collection object which initially was empty. This code sure did not compile so i had to add a SetXxx() method in order to realize the missing setter's functionality. I did it like this:
public void SetXxx(List<string> list)
{
this.theList.Clear();
this.theList.AddRange(list);
}
The code of callers using the setter has been replaced with a call to the method SetXxx().
Instead of creating a complete new list, the existing list now will be cleared and filled with new items from another list, passed in as a parameter. The original list, due to the fact it is readonly and created only once, will always remain.
I believe this is also a good way to avoid that the garbagae collector has to delete old objects that got out of scope and second, to create new collection objects although there is already one.

As an addition to Der Kommissar's excellent answer.
Starting with .NET 5 (C# 9.0) there are init-only properties. These properties are only settable under specific circumstances, see here for reference.
The following example should not raise a warning CA2227, yet still allow for the collection being set during object initialization.
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace BookStore
{
public class BookModel
{
public ICollection<string> Chapters { get; init; }
}
}
Note that the current version of the .NET SDK still raises a warning when using the built-in analyzer (not the NuGet package). This is a known bug and should be fixed in the future.

To cover all the possible scenarios to resolve CA2227 error:
This covers the Entity relationship mapping when we use Entity Framework.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ParentClass obj = new ParentClass();
obj.ChildDetails.Clear();
obj.ChildDetails.AddRange();
obj.LstNames.Clear();
obj.LstNames.AddRange();
}
}
public class ChildClass
{ }
public class ParentClass
{
private readonly ICollection<ChildClass> _ChildClass;
public ParentClass()
{
_ChildClass = new HashSet<ChildClass>();
}
public virtual ICollection<ChildClass> ChildDetails => _ChildClass;
public IList<string> LstNames => new List<string>();
}

Effects of returning a self reference from an instance method in C#

Let's say I have an interface called IConvertableModel and it helps me to convert some MVC models to/from DTO objects as shown below:
public class DisplayEditModel : IConvertableModel<Display>
{
[HiddenInput(DisplayValue = false)]
public int ObjectId { get; set; }
[StringLength(255)]
public string Description { get; set; }
public Display ToDto()
{
return new Display
{
Description = Description,
ObjectId = ObjectId,
};
}
public void SetFromDto(Display dto)
{
Description = dto.Description;
ObjectId = dto.ObjectId;
}
}
But there is one problem with this approach and that is it doesn't allow me do this :
var dto = _dtoRepository.GetFirstDto();
return new DisplayEditModel().SetFromDto(dto);
Instead I should do the following:
var dto = _dtoRepository.GetFirstDto();
var model = new DisplayEditModel();
model.SetFromDto(dto);
return model;
and this is adding extra two lines of code and little bit complexity in the long run.
What I am thinking is to convert SetFromDto method to something like this:
public DisplayEditModel SetFromDto(Display dto)
{
Description = dto.Description;
ObjectId = dto.ObjectId;
return this;
}
I think the benefit of this code is obvious but I also like to learn whether this harms code readability and leads to unexpected results for developers in the long run and if you think anything else, what would you recommend.
Note: Because of the interfaces reasons, I am not thinking to implement a constructor method.

A few thoughts, to begin with:
Adding lines of code is not the same as adding complexity. Having three statements, where each does a simple operation, is not necessarily harder to maintain or understand than a single statement with three operations inside of it.
When a method that begins with Set..., programmers will automatically assume that some stateful values of the target object are going to be changed by this method. It is rare for Set methods to have a return value. Property setters in C# actually "return" the original value passed into them, so you can chain setters:
int i = foo.A = 2;
So the precedent is generally against returning "this" from a set method specifically.
Chaining in general is most useful/desired when you're expecting several operations to be performed, one after the other. For example, C# provides nice initialization syntax so you can "chain" a bunch of different property setters on the same object:
var foo = new Foo { A = 1, B = 2 };
You can see how chaining is fulfilling the need to perform similar, grouped, repetitive operations that typically get performed all together. That is not the problem that you are trying to solve.
If your main gripe is that you don't like having three lines of code, why not just use a helper whose name indicates what you're trying to do?
TModel MapToModel<TModel, TDto>(TDto dto, TModel model)
where TModel : IConvertableModel<TDto>
{
model.SetFromDto(dto);
return model;
}
// usage:
var dto = _dtoRepository.GetFirstDto();
return MapToModel(dto, new DisplayEditModel());
... or even:
TModel CreateModel<TModel, TDto>(TDto dto)
where TModel : IConvertableModel<TDto>, new()
{
var model = new TModel();
return MapToModel(dto, model);
}
// usage:
var dto = _dtoRepository.GetFirstDto();
return CreateModel<DisplayEditModel>(dto);
This is simple, readable, and feasible, whereas the approach you're suggesting would break the IConvertableModel<Display> interface:
public interface IConvertableModel<TDto>
{
public TDto ToDto();
public ??? SetFromDto(TDto dto);
}
What would SetFromDto return? You would have to define another generic type on IConvertableModel.
public interface IConvertableModel<TDto, TModel> {
public TDto ToDto();
public TModel SetFromDto(TDto dto);
}
But this wouldn't really indicate that the SetFromDto method is necessarily returning itself, because it allows for a class that is not a TModel to implement IConvertableModel to convert between two other types.
Now, you could go out of your way to push the generics even farther:
public interface IConvertableModel<TDto, TModel>
where TModel : IConvertableModel<TDto, TModel>
{...}
But this still allows for some fudging, and the interface cannot guarantee that you are really returning "this" object. All in all, I'm not a big fan of that approach.

Rather than having DisplayEditModel have a get/set method for a Display object to get/set the values, just use a property that doesn't actually have a separate backing store:
public Display Display
{
get
{
return new Display
{
Description = Description,
ObjectId = ObjectId,
};
}
set
{
Description = value.Description;
ObjectId = value.ObjectId;
}
}
Now you can use an object initializer with this property when creating a model:
return new DisplayEditModel() { Display = dto };

This is a very javascript way of approaching this problem, though it has it's benefits. In the context of C#, it is a little bit strange though libraries such as LINQ do this to allow chaining together function calls.
My only worry about this, is that this has to be a class that does this consistently. Implementing a chaining function return pattern is not really a convenience as much as it is a design choice. The rule to follow in this case, would be to return this every time you mutate the object.
Chaining also may not be worth it performance wise. Something that can be done by wrapping all those operations into a single function is much faster. For instance:
MyVector.setX(1).SetY(1).SetZ(1).SetW(0)
is a lot slower than simply
MyVector.set(1, 1, 1, 0)
because now you are now doing excessive stack operations to do something fairly simple. It only becomes worth it on very large operations that take up the bulk of the computing time and make sense to chain together. For this reason, LINQ allows you to chain things together.
I wouldn't say that it necessary "harms" or is dangerous. We are in the world of a managed language, so we don't have direct access to that memory location (unlike C/C++). So I would just call it a design choice which can be fairly powerful in some cases and not so much in others.

As noted, chainable methods work fine but are not as common in C# as in some other languages. If the extra lines of code only happen in one place, I'd just leave it alone. If it's really bugging you or you do it a lot, then consider implementing a special constructor for it:
public void DisplayEditModel(Display dto)
{
this.SetFrom(dto);
}
or a static factory method:
public static DisplayEditModel CreateFrom(Display dto)
{
var model = new DisplayEditModel();
model.SetFrom(dto);
return model;
}
Either option has a clear intent, lets you create and return the object in a single line, and is idiomatic. It does require a few extra lines of code in DisplayEditModel, but I doubt it will be a serious problem.

Better using getter or class members when change/updates from inside my class

I have a question that interests me, what would be better in terms of programming: use Class members or Getter from inside the My Class?
for example this is my class:
public class myClass
{
private string _name;
private int _length;
private int _weight;
public void doSomething(myClass obj)
{
}
public void doSomething2(myClass obj)
{
}
public string name
{
get { return _name; }
}
public int length
{
get { return _length; }
}
public int weight
{
get { return _weight; }
}
}
using doSomething in this way:
public void doSomething(string str, myClass obj)
{
string[] arr = str.Split(' ');
arr[1] = obj._name;
arr[2] = obj._length;
arr[3] = obj._weight;
}
or this way:
public void doSomething2(string str, myClass obj)
{
string[] arr = str.Split(' ');
arr[1] = obj.name;
arr[2] = obj.length;
arr[3] = obj.weight;
}

If you provide a Getter for a variable, I would use the getters. Just to be consistent. If you use both of them at the same time, it can get confusing (for you and for fellow programmers).
If you use the getters everywhere - and in the future perform a code-search for that property - you will find all of them, but if you sometimes use the private variable, you will miss some.
And this answer: Should you access your private variables through properties inside your class?

Answer by Oded
When using Auto-Implemented properties, you don't have a choice - you
must use the property, as you don't have any access to the generated
field.
If you property is not simple and does some extra work (validation,
firing events etc...), you should call the property in order to
centralize access and logic.
If you have any other properties (meaning a simple property with no
logic and a backing field) I would ask why are they not one of the
above...
With the example you have give, it makes little difference - it is
more important to be consistent with how you use these and really
boils down to personal aesthetics and coding style.
Answer by TheCodeJunkie
One of the stronger argument for accessing local (class scope)
variables through properties is that you add a level of abstraction
in your class. If you change any logic concerning how that field is
stored then the rest of your code will be left unaffected.
For example you might change that from a local variable to a property
of a child object, to a database call, to a webservice call, to a
static property on a class and so on. When making the change it gives
you a single point of change, the property, and you do not have to
update the rest of your class since they all use the property.
Also using the property enables you to apply business rules on the
value of the property instead of having to enforce the same rule at
each location where you'd directly access the field. Again,
encapsulation
With the introduction of automatic properties there's even less
reason to explicitly have a local variable, unless you need to apply
business rules on the get/set

C#: is there a way to access the name of the current field?

In C#, I am defining a static field of a specific class. From within the class, I want to be able to display the name of the static field, pretty much like this:
public class Unit {
public string NameOfField { get { return ...; } }
}
public static Unit Hectare = new Unit();
If I now access:
Hectare.NameOfField
I want it to return:
Hectare
I know there is a static function System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod(), but as far as I can tell there is no way to get the name of the instance containing this current method?
There is also the System.RuntimeFieldHandle structure, but I have not been able to identify any GetCurrentFieldHandle() method.
I am not sure if I am missing something obvious?
Any help on this is very much appreciated.

You should not count on variable names in you developments as they do not exits at runtime.
It's better to initialize Unit with a name directly:
public class Unit {
public Unit(string name)
{
NameOfField = name;
}
public string NameOfField { get; private set;} }
}
public static Unit Hectare = new Unit("Hectare");

Only way around this will be to store that information in the class:
public static Unit Hectare = new Unit("Hectare");
When your code is compiled all variable names are lost and replaced by internal references. There is no way to get that name again.

You can use Reflection to obtain class Fields and properties. Like below:
Suppose you have class with one property:
class Test
{
public static string MySupperField
{
get
{
return "Some symbols here";
}
}
}
......
You can read the property name in such way:
public string[] GetClassStaticNames(Type T)
{
string[] names;
System.Reflection.PropertyInfo[] props = T.GetProperties(); // This will return only properties not fields! For fields obtaining use T.GetFields();
names = new string[props.Count()];
for (int i = 0; i < props.Count(); i++)
{
names[i] = props[i].Name;
}
return names;
}
Hope this will help.
[EDIT]
Returning to your question - No you cant obtain name of current variable.
What you are asking about cant be done because of classes nature, they are objects in memory and reference to one object can be held in many variables, and when you are requesting value of instance field or property it will be actually performed operation with object in memory not with variable wich holds reference to that object. So obtaining name of variable wich holds reference to current instance have no sence

Thanks everyone who has taken the time to answer and discuss my question.
Just to let you know, I have implemented a solution that is sufficient for my needs. The solution is not general, and it has some pitfalls, but I'd thought I share it anyway in case it can be of help to someone else.
This is in principle what the class that is used when defining fields looks like:
public class Unit : IUnit {
public NameOfField { get; set; }
...
}
As you can see, the class implements the IUnit interface, and I have provided a public setter in the NameOfField property.
The static fields are typically defined like this within some containing class:
public static Unit Hectare = new Unit();
My solution is to set the NameOfField property through reflection before the field is used in the implementation.
I do this through a static constructor (that of course needs to be invoked before the Unit fields are accessed.
I use Linq to traverse the executing assembly for the relevant fields, and when I have detected these fields (fields which type implements the IUnit interface), I set the NameOfField property for each of them using the Any extension method:
Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes().
SelectMany(type => type.GetFields(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static)).
Where(fieldInfo => fieldInfo.FieldType.GetInterfaces().Contains(typeof(IUnit))).
Any(fieldInfo =>
{
((IUnit)fieldInfo.GetValue(null)).NameOfField= fieldInfo.Name;
return false;
});
There are some shortcomings with this approach:
The static constructor has to be invoked through manual intervention before any Unit fields can be accessed
The NameOfField setter is public. In my case this is no problem, but it might be when applied in other scenarios. (I assume that the setter could be made private and invoked through further reflection, but I have not taken the time to explore that path further.)
... ?
Either way, maybe this solution can be of help to someone else than me.