I'm using [Required()] above a property in a simple class:
public class A
{
[Required()]
public string Str { get; set; }
public int Salary { get; set; }
}
In Main(), I create an instance of the class,
WITHOUT setting the property:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
A a = new A();
}
I expected to get an exception, because I didn't set any value
to Str property, but I don't get any.
Did I miss the purpose of [Required]?
Did I miss the purpose of [Required]?
Very much so. Let's read the docs:
The RequiredAttribute attribute specifies that when a field on a form is validated, the field must contain a value
So we're talking about validation specifically: it's part of the various classes inside the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace, which are mostly to do with valiation.
Principally, look at the Validation class, which lets you validate the properties on an object, according to the attributes you've put on them. This infrastructure is used in various places, such as in ASP.NET, or EF.
The Required attribute is for validation (e.g. in ASP.NET), not for throwing runtime exceptions.
Related
I have requirement in a custom class where I want to make one of my properties required.
How can I make the following property required?
public string DocumentType
{
get
{
return _documentType;
}
set
{
_documentType = value;
}
}
If you mean "the user must specify a value", then force it via the constructor:
public YourType(string documentType) {
DocumentType = documentType; // TODO validation; can it be null? blank?
}
public string DocumentType {get;private set;}
Now you can't create an instance without specifying the document type, and it can't be removed after that time. You could also allow the set but validate:
public YourType(string documentType) {
DocumentType = documentType;
}
private string documentType;
public string DocumentType {
get { return documentType; }
set {
// TODO: validate
documentType = value;
}
}
.NET 7 or newer
Syntax
public class MyClass
{
public required string Name { get; init; }
}
new MyClass(); // illegal
new MyClass { Name = "Me" }; // works fine
Remarks
The required properties must declare a setter (either init or set).
Access modifiers on properties or setters cannot be less visible than their containing type, as they would make impossible to initialize the class in some cases.
public class MyClass
{
internal required string Name { get; set; } // illegal
}
Documentation
Official documentation here
Feature demo here
.NET 6 or older
See this answer
If you mean you want it always to have been given a value by the client code, then your best bet is to require it as a parameter in the constructor:
class SomeClass
{
private string _documentType;
public string DocumentType
{
get
{
return _documentType;
}
set
{
_documentType = value;
}
}
public SomeClass(string documentType)
{
DocumentType = documentType;
}
}
You can do your validation – if you need it – either in the property's set accessor body or in the constructor.
With the release of .NET 7 and C# 11 in November 2022 you can now use the required modifier this way:
public class Person
{
public Person() { }
[SetsRequiredMembers]
public Person(string firstName) => FirstName = firstName;
public required string FirstName { get; init; }
public int Age { get; set; }
}
And when you don't have the required properties it will throw an error when you try to initialize an object.
For more information refer to:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/csharp-11#required-members
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/properties#init-only
Add a required attribute to the property
Required(ErrorMessage = "DocumentTypeis required.")]
public string DocumentType
{
get
{
return _documentType;
}
set
{
_documentType = value;
}
}
For custom attribute detail Click Here
I used an other solution, not exactly what you want, but worked for me fine because I declare the object first and based on specific situation I have different values. I didnt want to use the constructor because I then had to use dummy data.
My solution was to create Private Sets on the class (public get) and you can only set the values on the object by methods. For example:
public void SetObject(string mandatory, string mandatory2, string optional = "", string optional2 = "")
This one liner works in C# 9:
public record Document(string DocumentType);
new Document(); // compiler error
new Document("csv"); // correct way to construct with required parameter
This explains how it works. In the above code, Document is the name of the class or "record". That first line of code actually defines an entire class. In addition to this solution essentially making a required DocumentType property (required by an auto implemented constructor), because it uses records, there are additional implications. So this may not always be an appropriate solution, and the C# 11 required keyword will still come in handy at times. Just using record types doesn't automatically make properties required. The above code is a special syntax way of using records that essentially has this effect as well as making the property init only and causes a deconstructor to be automatically implemented.
A better example would be using an int property instead of a string since a string could still be empty. Unfortunately I don't know of any good way to do extra validation within the record to make sure the string is not empty or an int is in range, etc. You would have to go deeper down the TOP (type driven development) rabbit hole, which may not be a bad thing. You could create your own type that doesn't allow empty strings or integers outside your accepted range. Unfortunately such an approach would lead to runtime discovery of invalid input instead of compile time. There might be a better way using static analysis and metadata, but I've been away from C# for too long to know anything about that.
I'm using the Options service to bind hierarchical configuration data.
But suppose I have a class like this:
public class PersonOptions
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
public bool Foo { // <--- I want binder to ignore this
get {
// ... do stuff
}
}
public bool IgnoreMe => // <--- I want binder to ignore this
throw new Exception();
}
Because the Foo property is public, the binder runs it and triggers some code that throws exceptions.
My design requires it to be public, and I prefer not to change it to a method.
Is there some attribute or override I can use to tell the binder to ignore that property?
The docs state:
All public read-write properties of the type are bound
If the property is public, then for some reason the binder runs it. Also, [JsonIgnore] isn't respected.
So unless I'm missing something obvious, this cannot be done.
The workarounds are:
use a non-public property
use a method instead of a property
I've added a feature request to the repo to support an "ignore" attribute.
UPDATE:
They've added the feature request to the backlog, so I assume what I wanted cannot be done, currently.
I have an attribute that I am using to decorate object properties with. The attribute identifies the properties as needing validation to be performed on them. I am essentially implementing the Strategy Pattern and building all of the validation (really only about 6 types) in to individual objects that I can use across multiple classes. What I want to do, is provide parameters to the validation classes, without having to create an attribute for each validation object variation.
My attribute looks like this:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]
public class ValidationRuleAttribute : Attribute
{
public ValidationRuleAttribute(Type validationRule, string customFailureMessage = "")
{
if (typeof(IValidationRule).IsAssignableFrom(validationRule))
{
this.ValidationRule = string.IsNullOrEmpty(customFailureMessage)
? Activator.CreateInstance(validationRule, customFailureMessage) as IValidationRule
: Activator.CreateInstance(validationRule) as IValidationRule;
}
else
{
throw new ArgumentException(
string.Format(
"ValidationRule attributes can only be used with IValidationRule implementations. The '{0}' Tyoe is not supported.",
validationRule.Name));
}
}
public IValidationRule ValidationRule { get; private set; }
}
As an example, I have a simple StringIsNotNull validation object. I want to expand on it by allowing me to specify a minimum string length requirement. So the StringIsNotEmptyValidation would become StringHasMinimumLengthValidation
public class StringIsNotEmptyValidation : IValidationRule
{
private readonly string customErrorMessage;
public StringIsNotEmptyValidation()
{
}
public StringIsNotEmptyValidation(string customErrorMessage)
{
this.customErrorMessage = customErrorMessage;
}
public string ResultMessage { get; private set; }
public IValidationMessage Validate(System.Reflection.PropertyInfo property, IValidatable sender)
{
string value = property.GetValue(sender).ToString();
// Validate
bool isFailed = string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(value);
if (isFailed)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(this.customErrorMessage))
{
DisplayNameAttribute displayName = property.GetCustomAttribute<DisplayNameAttribute>(true);
string errorMessage = displayName == null
? string.Format("You can not leave {0} empty.", property.Name)
: string.Format("You can not leave {0} empty.", displayName.DisplayName);
this.ResultMessage = errorMessage;
return new ValidationErrorMessage(errorMessage);
}
else
{
this.ResultMessage = this.customErrorMessage;
return new ValidationErrorMessage(customErrorMessage);
}
}
this.ResultMessage = string.Empty;
return null;
}
}
Within my model, I decorate my property with the attribute and validation object.
[RepositoryParameter(DbType.String)]
[ValidationRule(typeof(StringIsNotEmptyValidation))]
public string WorkDescription
{
get
{
return this.workDescription ?? string.Empty;
}
set
{
this.SetPropertyByReference(ref this.workDescription, value);
if (this.HasValidationMessageType<ValidationErrorMessage>(this.GetPropertyName(p => p.WorkDescription)))
{
this.Validate();
}
}
}
What I want to do, is write my attribute usage like this:
[ValidationRule(new StringIsNotEmptyValidation(minimumLength: 4))]
Since you can't instance objects in an attribute constructor, I'm forced to provide the attributes in my attribute constructor like this:
[ValidationRule(typeof(StringIsNotEmptyValidation), minLength: 4)]
I don't like this because if I have a ObjectIsNotNull or a StringIsInRange I will need to do two things:
Create a new attribute for each parameter variation (or a lot of overloads)
Set up the validation rule instances within the constructor, which will have varying property names.
The Validation object implements the following interface
public interface IValidationRule
{
string ResultMessage { get; }
IValidationMessage Validate(PropertyInfo property, IValidatable sender);
}
I don't want to bloat my interface with a large number of properties that might be used or might not be used depending on the Rule implementing it. It also makes it difficult to assign attribute params to the rule object.
So my question is how can I provide parameters to the IValidationRule concrete classes, without creating multiple attribute types to facilitate this? This is being used so that I an do cross-object validation. The PropertyInfo passed in to the validation rule is from a cache of PropertyInfo's. I need to keep the amount of reflection used down, otherwise I'd just use attributes for each rule parameter and use reflection on sender to figure out what ranges to use.
Update
After discussing this with Corey, it does indeed appear that attributes are supported in Universal Apps and it is only the DataAnnotations namespace that is missing. In order to get access to the attributes, I had to add a using statement to System.Reflection in order to gain access to a series of extension methods that expose the GetCustomAttribute methods. They are now extension methods and not built in to the Type class.
So I suppose in the end, I can just create my validation logic within the attributes, instead of individual objects. I can't think of any downsides to going this route.
In order to access the attributes in a Universal App, you have to include System.Reflection as a using statement, then access via the GetRuntimeProperties() extension method.
var validationRule = this
.GetType()
.GetRuntimeProperties() // Can be GetRuntimeFields or GetRuntimeMethods as well.
.FirstOrDefault(p => p.GetCustomAttribute<IntegerInRangeAttribute>() != null);
So there are a few options here.
First, and often used, is to have a different attribute for each type of rule you want to process. You are already building classes for each of your rules, so instead of having some encapsulating attribute that instantiates them all just make each rule an attribute:
[StringMinLengthRule(5)]
public string SomeString { get; set; }
Build the validation logic into your attributes - say with a base attribute that does the bulk of the work, calling a virtual method to do the actual validation. Then you can just enumerate the rule attributes and call them from your validation method.
Next, you can have a number of different properties on your attribute that can be set during declaration to provide the properties for your various rules:
[Validation(RuleType.StringMinLength, MinLength = 5)]
public string SomeString { get; set; }
You could still have the rules be processed in the ValidationAttribute itself, or create IValidationRule instances at run-time to process the actual validations. Unfortunately there's nothing to stop you from adding a Validation attribute that sets the wrong properties for the rule type, resulting in errors at run-time when you try to validate an instance.
Finally, something that works but probably shouldn't... and it's kinda ugly:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Field | AttributeTargets.Property)]
public class ValidationRuleAttribute : Attribute
{
public IValidationRule ValidationRule { get; private set; }
public ValidationRuleAttribute(RuleType type, params object[] parms)
{
if (type == RuleType.NotNull)
{
if (parms.Length != 0)
throw new ArgumentException("RuleType.NotNull requires 0 parameters", "parms");
ValidationRule = new NotNullValidation();
}
if (type == RuleType.StringMinLength)
{
if (parms.Length != 1)
throw new ArgumentException("RuleType.StringMinLength requires 1 parameter", "parms");
if (!(parms[0] is int))
throw new ArgumentException("RuleType.StringMinLength requires an integer", "parms");
ValidationRule = new StringLengthValidation((int)parms[0]);
}
}
}
The biggest problem with it is that it won't complain until you try to instantiate a class at run-time that has a bad Validation attribute. Your code can run quite happily up until the point where it tries to create an instance of that bad class, at which point all of the attributes will actually be constructed and those ArgumentExceptions start flying.
In fact only the first option doesn't suffer from run-time problems, because you can control the types of parameters being supplied by using the correct constructor formats. You can still tell it to do silly things - like requiring that strings must have less than 0 length for instance - but that's up to you :P
Today, I was cleaning up some of my code with FXCop and it complained about a Attribute class I had with this violation.
CA1019: Define accessor for attribute argument.
On this page, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182136.aspx there is more information, but I still do not get the reason for this as it seems to me more verbose and less relevant.
It gives two codes samples.
using System;
namespace DesignLibrary
{
// Violates rule: DefineAccessorsForAttributeArguments.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.All)]
public sealed class BadCustomAttribute :Attribute
{
string data;
// Missing the property that corresponds to
// the someStringData parameter.
public BadCustomAttribute(string someStringData)
{
data = someStringData;
}
}
// Satisfies rule: Attributes should have accessors for all arguments.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.All)]
public sealed class GoodCustomAttribute :Attribute
{
string data;
public GoodCustomAttribute(string someStringData)
{
data = someStringData;
}
//The constructor parameter and property
//name are the same except for case.
public string SomeStringData
{
get
{
return data;
}
}
}
}
I don't understand why the SomeStringData property is required. Isn't the someStringData a parameter? Why does it need to have its own property if it is already stored in another property?
Actually, mine is a little different as it looks like this.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]
public sealed class ExampleAttribute : Attribute
{
public ExampleAttribute(string attributeValue)
{
this.Path = attributeValue;
}
public string Name
{
get;
set;
}
// Add to add this to stop the CA1019 moaning but I find it useless and stupid?
public string AttributeValue
{
get
{
return this.Name;
}
}
}
Rather than a private field, I have used a public autoproperty, I had to add the last part to make the warning stop but I don't see the point and it also adds another public field to this class, which is redundant, and seems less clean.
That said, I assume that this warning is raised for a reason so what good reason I am missing here?
Thanks in advance.
FxCop is complaining because your existing property doesn't match the parameter name.
Therefore, it doesn't realize that the parameter actually is exposed.
You should rename the property or parameter to match (except for case), or suppress the warning.
FxCop rule CA1019 is just enforcing the .Net Framework coding guidelines for Attributes.
Use named arguments (read/write properties) for optional parameters. Provide a read/write property with the same name as each named argument, but change the case to differentiate between them.
Documentation Link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2ab31zeh(v=vs.71).aspx
The reason behind the FxCop warning is that every piece of data you pass into the attribute's constructor should be made publicly available to access when the attribute instance is being retrieved by Reflection.
Let's say you have this:
[BadCustom("My String Data")]
public class DecoratedClass
{
}
How will you get "My String Data" back from that attribute instance when you read it using:
BadCustomAttribute attr = typeof(DecoratedClass)
.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(BadCustomAttribute), false)
.Single() as BadCustomAttribute;
Now you have the instance of your attribute, but no way to read the string passed into the constructor because you didn't at least declare a read-only property for it.
the idea is that you should write just:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]
public sealed class ExampleAttribute : Attribute
{
public ExampleAttribute(string attributeValue)
{
this.AttributeValue = attributeValue;
}
public string AttributeValue
{
get;
set;
}
}
This violation will also be thrown when the parameter name matches the property name, but the data types are different.
I want to implement a simple attribute that is used to map Database Columns to Properties.
So what i have so far is something that attached like so:
[DataField("ID")]
public int ID { get; set; }
[DataField("Name")]
public String Name { get; set; }
[DataField("BirD8")]
public DateTime BirthDay { get; set; }
Is there a way that I can make the attribute "aware" of the field it is on, so that for the properties where the name is the same as the ColumnName I can just apply the attribute without the name parameter, or would I have to deal with that at the point where I reflect the properties. I want to end up doing just this:
[DataField]
public int ID { get; set; }
[DataField]
public String Name { get; set; }
[DataField("BirD8")]
public DateTime BirthDay { get; set; }
The attribute itself won't be aware of what it's applied to, but the code processing the attributes is likely to be running through PropertyInfo values etc and finding the attributes associated with them. That code can then use both the property and the attribute appropriately.
To make things simpler, you might want to write a method on the attribute to allow it to merge its information with the information from the property, so you'd call:
DataFieldAttribute dfa = propertyInfo.GetCustomAttributes(...); // As normal
dfa = dfa.MergeWith(propertyInfo);
Note that for the sake of sanity this should create a new instance of the attribute, rather than changing the existing one. Alternatively, you might want a whole separate class to represent "the information about a data field":
DataFieldAttribute dfa = propertyInfo.GetCustomAttributes(...); // As normal
DataFieldInfo info = dfa.MergeWith(propertyInfo);
That way you could also construct DataFieldInfo objects without any reference to attributes, which might be a nice conceptual separation - allowing you to easily load the config from an XML file or something similar if you wanted to.
If you don't mind using postsharp you can look Here, at a previous question I have asked which was close. I ended up using the compile time validate to do what I wanted, although there are other options, like CompileTimeInitalize.
public override void CompileTimeInitialize(object element)
{
PropertyInfo info = element as PropertyInfo;
//....
}