We Keep Coding

In C#, How can I create or overload an assignment operator to possibly assign two values at once?

This is probably a stupid question, but just in case....
We have a 3rd party package with weird models like:
public partial class CountingDevice
{
public int countingDeviceNo { get; set; }
public string countingDeviceName { get; set; }
public string obis { get; set; }
public int integralPart { get; set; }
public bool integralPartFieldSpecified;
public int fractionalPart { get; set; }
public bool fractionalPartFieldSpecified;
public double value { get; set; }
public bool valueFieldSpecified;
public bool offPeakFlag { get; set; }
public bool offPeakFlagFieldSpecified;
public ExpectedMeterReading expectedMeterReading { get; set; }
// snipped for brevity
}
You'll notice that sometimes there are pairs of fields like integralPart and integralPartFieldSpecified.
Here is the problem: If I simply assign some value to integralPart but do not set integralPartFieldSpecified = true, the value of integralPart will be completely ignored causing the solution to fail.
So when mapping our own models to this madness, I need to litter the code with constructs like:
if (IntegralPart != null)
{
countingDevice.integralPartSpecified = true;
countingDevice.integralPart = (int)IntegralPart!;
}
Both in the interest of reducing lines of code and not stumbling over a minefield, I would like to do any one of the following:
A. Overload the = operator so it will automatically check for a property which is a boolean and has "Specified" concatenated to the current property's name. If such a property exists, it will be assigned true when the value is assigned; if not, then assignment will operate as normal. Ideally, it should be "smart" enough to assign "...Specified" to false if the value assigned is null/default/empty.
B. Create some customer operator which will do the same as A.
C. Create some method which I could invoke in a concise and preferably typesafe way to do the same.
Is this possible?
If so, how?
To make it clear: I need to build quite a few wrappers.
I don't want to repeat this logic for every field and worry about missing some fields which it applies to.
I want a generic way of assigning both fields at once if the "Specified" field exists and being able to do assignments in exactly the same way if it does not exist.

not stumbling over a minefield
Encapsulate the minefield.
If you don't control this 3rd party DTO then don't use it throughout your domain. Encapsulate or wrap the integration of this 3rd party tool within a black box that you control. Then throughout your domain use your models.
Within the integration component for this 3rd party system, simply map to/from your Domain Models and this 3rd party DTO. So this one extra line of code which sets a second field on the DTO only exists in that one place.

Another (expensive) solution would be to write a method that takes in an object, a property name, and the new property value. You can then use reflection to both set the property value for the specified property, as well as search for the bool field that you want to set (if it exists).
Note that you need to pass the correct type for the property. There's no compile-time checking that you're passing a double instead of a string for the value property, for example.
Below I've created an extension method on the object type to simplify calling the method in our main code (the method becomes a member of the object itself):
public static class Extensions
{
// Requires: using System.Reflection;
public static bool SetPropertyAndSpecified(this object obj,
string propertyName, object propertyValue)
{
// Argument validation left to user
// Check if 'obj' has specified 'propertyName'
// and set 'propertyValue' if it does
PropertyInfo prop = obj.GetType().GetProperty(propertyName,
BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);
if (prop != null && prop.CanWrite)
{
prop.SetValue(obj, propertyValue, null);
// Check for related "FieldSpecified" field
// and set it to 'true' if it exists
obj.GetType().GetField($"{propertyName}FieldSpecified",
BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance)?.SetValue(obj, true);
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
After you add this class to your project, you can do something like:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var counter = new CountingDevice();
// Note that 'valueFieldSpecified' and `integralPartFieldSpecified'
// are set to 'false' on 'counter'
// Call our method to set some properties
counter.SetPropertyAndSpecified(nameof(counter.integralPart), 42);
counter.SetPropertyAndSpecified(nameof(counter.value), 69d);
// Now 'valueFieldSpecified' and 'integralPartFieldSpecified'
// are set to 'true' on 'counter'
}

You cannot overload the = operator in C#.
You can just use custom properties and set the "FieldSpecified" fields in the setters e.g.
private int _integralPart;
public int integralPart
{
get { return _integralPart; }
set
{
_integralPart = value;
integralPartFieldSpecified = true;
}
}
public bool integralPartFieldSpecified;
Update
If you want a generic solution you can use a generic class for properties that you want to achieve the specified behaviour with e.g.
public class ValueWithSpecifiedCheck<T>
{
private T _fieldValue;
public T FieldValue
{
get
{
return _fieldValue;
}
set
{
_fieldValue = value;
FieldSpecified = true;
}
}
public bool FieldSpecified { get; set; }
}
public class Data
{
public ValueWithSpecifiedCheck<int> IntegralPart { get; set; }
}
Then the class/property would be used as following:
public static void Main()
{
var data = new Data();
data.IntegralPart = new ValueWithSpecifiedCheck<int>();
data.IntegralPart.FieldValue = 7;
Console.WriteLine(data.IntegralPart.FieldSpecified);// Prints true
}

If you implement a generic solution and add implicit conversion operators, it's quite convenient to use.
Here's a sample Optional<T> struct (I made it a readonly struct to ensure immutable mechanics):
public readonly struct Optional<T> where T : struct
{
public Optional(T value)
{
_value = value;
}
public static implicit operator T(Optional<T> opt) => opt.Value;
public static implicit operator Optional<T>(T opt) => new(opt);
public T Value => _value!.Value;
public bool Specified => _value is not null;
public override string ToString() => _value is null ? "<NONE>" : _value.ToString()!;
readonly T? _value;
}
You could use that to implement your CountingDevice class like so:
public partial class CountingDevice
{
public int countingDeviceNo { get; set; }
public string countingDeviceName { get; set; }
public string obis { get; set; }
public Optional<int> integralPart { get; set; }
public Optional<int> fractionalPart { get; set; }
public Optional<double> value { get; set; }
public Optional<bool> offPeakFlag { get; set; }
// snipped for brevity
}
Usage is quite natural because of the implicit conversions:
public static void Main()
{
var dev = new CountingDevice
{
integralPart = 10, // Can initialise with the underlying type.
value = 123.456
};
Console.WriteLine(dev.fractionalPart.Specified); // False
Console.WriteLine(dev.integralPart.Specified); // True
Console.WriteLine(dev.value); // 123.456
Console.WriteLine(dev.value.ToString()); // 123.456
Console.WriteLine(dev.fractionalPart.ToString()); // "<NONE>"
dev.fractionalPart = 42; // Can set the value using int.
Console.WriteLine(dev.fractionalPart.Specified); // True
Console.WriteLine(dev.fractionalPart); // 42
var optCopy = dev.offPeakFlag;
Console.WriteLine(optCopy.Specified); // False
dev.offPeakFlag = true;
Console.WriteLine(dev.offPeakFlag.Specified); // True
Console.WriteLine(optCopy.Specified); // Still False - not affected by the original.
Console.WriteLine(optCopy); // Throws an exception because its not specified.
}
You might also want to use optional reference types, but to do that you will need to declare a generic with the class constraint:
public readonly struct OptionalRef<T> where T : class
{
public OptionalRef(T value)
{
_value = value;
}
public static implicit operator T(OptionalRef<T> opt) => opt.Value;
public static implicit operator OptionalRef<T>(T opt) => new(opt);
public T Value => _value ?? throw new InvalidOperationException("Accessing an unspecified value.");
public bool Specified => _value is not null;
public override string ToString() => _value is null ? "<NONE>" : _value.ToString()!;
readonly T? _value;
}
Personally, I think that's a bit overkill. I'd just use nullable value types, int?, double? etc, but it depends on the expected usage.

C# doesn't allow overloading the = operator (unlike eg C++). However, your suggestion C should work. It's a bit of a hassle, too, since you'll have to write a bunch of methods, but you could write an extension method such as
public static class Extensions
{
public static void UpdateIntegralPart(this CountingDevice dev, double value)
{
dev.integralPart = value;
dev.integralPartSpecified = true;
}
}
Then you can call
countingDevice.UpdateIntegralPart(1234);

My custom value converter causes XAML validation tool to fail

I've created a custom converter that performs converting of values based on configured mapping. It looks like below
public class UniversalConverter : List<ConverterItem>, IValueConverter
{
private bool useDefaultValue;
private object defaultValue;
public object DefaultValue
{
get { return defaultValue; }
set
{
defaultValue = value;
useDefaultValue = true;
}
}
public object Convert(object value, Type targetType, object parameter, CultureInfo culture)
{
foreach (var item in this)
if (Equals(item.From, value))
return item.To;
if (useDefaultValue)
return DefaultValue;
throw new ConversionException(string.Format("Value {0} can't be converted and default value is not allowed", value));
}
public object ConvertBack(object value, Type targetType, object parameter, CultureInfo culture)
{
foreach (var item in this)
if (Equals(item.To, value))
return item.From;
throw new ConversionException(string.Format("Value {0} can't be converted back", value));
}
}
public class ConverterItem
{
public object From { get; set; }
public object To { get; set; }
}
public class ConversionException : Exception
{
public ConversionException() { }
public ConversionException(string message) : base(message) { }
}
Sample XAML is below
<core:UniversalConverter x:Key="ItemCountToVisiblityConverter" DefaultValue="{x:Static Visibility.Collapsed}">
<core:ConverterItem To="{x:Static Visibility.Visible}">
<core:ConverterItem.From>
<system:Int32>0</system:Int32>
</core:ConverterItem.From>
</core:ConverterItem>
</core:UniversalConverter>
Now everything builds and works fine, but if I use it XAML Visual Studio underscores the whole file with curvy blue lines and shows two kind of mistakes:
1) If converter is put into ResourceDictionary AND is assigned an x:Key attribute it shows Missing key value on 'UniversalConverter' object
2) If I assign DefaultValue property any value (e.g {x:Null}) the message is XAML Node Stream: Missing EndMember for 'StuffLib.UniversalConverter.{http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml}_Items' before StartMember 'StuffLib.UniversalConverter.DefaultValue'
What is the reason for those messages? I can live with them but they hide all other compiler and ReSharper markings

Don't inherit from list, just create Items property in your converter:
[ContentProperty("Items")]
public class UniversalConverter : IValueConverter
{
public ConverterItem[] Items { get; set; }
public object DefaultValue { get; set; }
//all other stuff goes here
}
and xaml:
<l:UniversalConverter x:Key="MyConverter">
<x:Array Type="l:ConverterItem">
<l:ConverterItem From="..." To="..." />

Based on answer given by #Leiro
[ContentProperty("Items")]
public class UniversalConverter : IValueConverter
{
public UniversalConverter()
{
Items = new List<ConverterItem>();
}
public List<ConverterItem> Items { get; private set; }
//All other logic is the same
}
Note that this way you won't need to wrap items in collection in XAML
Resulting XAML
<core:UniversalConverter x:Key="ItemCountToVisiblityConverter" DefaultValue="{x:Static Visibility.Collapsed}">
<core:ConverterItem To="{x:Static Visibility.Visible}">
<core:ConverterItem.From>
<system:Int32>0</system:Int32>
</core:ConverterItem.From>
</core:ConverterItem>
</core:UniversalConverter>

It's because it is being used at design time but there is no data so I suspect a NullReferenceException is being thrown. Try checking for design time mode as follows at the top of the IValueConverter.Convert() method body:
// Check for design mode.
if ((bool)(DesignerProperties.IsInDesignModeProperty.GetMetadata(typeof(DependencyObject)).DefaultValue))
{
return false;
}

Which is better Params or List

My current code is following, it is a WCF service method exposed as a proxy to the client:
public UnifiedDTO GetAllCardTitle(string trainSymbolOrCarLocation,
DateTime startDate,
DateTime endDate,
string procedureName = CardTitle.procedureNameTrainRuns)
This method takes a procedure name (as the last parameter) and rest of the parameters are the binding the input parameters, however the issue is that we do not have the flexibility in the case of parameters numbers and types changing. The project is in its initial stage, so changes will surely be made.
The options that I have is convert the method as follows:
public UnifiedDTO GetAllCardTitle(params object [] parameters)
Where we have the freedom to pass the parameters and procedure details and can accordingly bind. However, there might be a performance issue due to boxing and unboxing. It would require client application to pass the parameters with correct order and value to bind as it would be expected by underlying layers
public UnifiedDTO GetAllCardTitle(List<Filter> parameter, string procedureName)
Where Parameter class would be defined as:
public class Filter
{
public string name { set; get; }
public string value { set; get; }
public string dataTypeID { set; get; }
public Filter(string _name, string _value, string _dataTypeID)
{
name = _name;
value = _value;
dataTypeID = _dataTypeID;
}
}
In this method for a given procedure, we bind each parameter with its name value and DataType, and it would need value to typecasted to the correct data type, it has more flexibility then last method and can be passed in any order, as binding is by name. However, it would need much more due diligence from the application.
Is there still a better way to take care of this situation using something new introduced in C#.Net?

None. Use Dynamic object instead
To create a C# class that works with the DLR, the easiest thing to do is derive from DynamicObject. One limitation arises when trying to use a dynamic type in a WCF service. Trying to use a DynamicObject-derived type will result in a runtime exception when trying to serialize with WCF’s DataContractSerializer.
[DataContract]
public class SerializableDynamicObject : IDynamicMetaObjectProvider
{
[DataMember]
private IDictionary<string,object> dynamicProperties = new Dictionary<string,object>();
#region IDynamicMetaObjectProvider implementation
public DynamicMetaObject GetMetaObject (Expression expression)
{
return new SerializableDynamicMetaObject(expression,
BindingRestrictions.GetInstanceRestriction(expression, this), this);
}
#endregion
#region Helper methods for dynamic meta object support
internal object setValue(string name, object value)
{
dynamicProperties.Add(name, value);
return value;
}
internal object getValue(string name)
{
object value;
if(!dynamicProperties.TryGetValue(name, out value)) {
value = null;
}
return value;
}
internal IEnumerable<string> getDynamicMemberNames()
{
return dynamicProperties.Keys;
}
#endregion
}
public class SerializableDynamicMetaObject : DynamicMetaObject
{
Type objType;
public SerializableDynamicMetaObject(Expression expression, BindingRestrictions restrictions, object value)
: base(expression, restrictions, value)
{
objType = value.GetType();
}
public override DynamicMetaObject BindGetMember (GetMemberBinder binder)
{
var self = this.Expression;
var dynObj = (SerializableDynamicObject)this.Value;
var keyExpr = Expression.Constant(binder.Name);
var getMethod = objType.GetMethod("getValue", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
var target = Expression.Call(Expression.Convert(self, objType),
getMethod,
keyExpr);
return new DynamicMetaObject(target,
BindingRestrictions.GetTypeRestriction(self, objType));
}
public override DynamicMetaObject BindSetMember (SetMemberBinder binder, DynamicMetaObject value)
{
var self = this.Expression;
var keyExpr = Expression.Constant(binder.Name);
var valueExpr = Expression.Convert(value.Expression, typeof(object));
var setMethod = objType.GetMethod("setValue", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
var target = Expression.Call(Expression.Convert(self, objType),
setMethod,
keyExpr,
valueExpr);
return new DynamicMetaObject(target,
BindingRestrictions.GetTypeRestriction(self, objType));
}
public override IEnumerable<string> GetDynamicMemberNames ()
{
var dynObj = (SerializableDynamicObject)this.Value;
return dynObj.getDynamicMemberNames();
}
}
One warning, dynamic members can be anything, meaning at runtime someone could assign a method to one of these fields. If this is possible in your application, you’ll need to ensure any methods assigned to the dynamic type are not serialized. I’m leaving this as an exercise for the reader.
Taken from Here

Is it possible to allow an "Interfaced" parameter. From that, you could handle multiple things based on the interfaced value setting. Just shooting out a simple sample.
public enum eWhatAmI
{
ListedObjects,
StringArrays,
Other
}
public interface IWhatParmType
{
eWhatAmI whatAmI { get; set; }
}
public class MyListVersion : IWhatParmType
{
public eWhatAmI whatAmI { get; set; }
public List<string> whatever { get; set; }
public MyListVersion()
{
whatAmI = eWhatAmI.ListedObjects;
whatever = new List<string>();
... build out list of strings
}
}
public class MyArrayVersion : IWhatParmType
{
public eWhatAmI whatAmI { get; set; }
public string[] whatever { get; set; }
public MyArrayVersion()
{
whatAmI = eWhatAmI.StringArrays;
... build out array of strings
}
}
etc...
Then in your process for handling whatever the incoming parameter is, you can handle either way.
public UnifiedDTO GetAllCardTitle(IWhatParmType parameter, string procedureName)
{
switch( parameter )
{
case (eWhatAmI.ListedObjects):
// Just for grins, test to make sure object really IS expected list version object
if( parameter is MyListVersion)
DoViaList( (MyListVersion)parameter );
break;
case (eWhatAmI.StringArrays ):
if( parameter is MyArrayVersion )
DoViaArray( (MyArrayVersion)parameter );
break;
}
}
private void DoViaList( MyListVersion parm1 )
{
.. do whatever based on the "List<string>" property
}
private void DoViaArray( MyArrayVersion parm1 )
{
.. do whatever based on the "string []" property
}
Then, if you ever needed to expand a setting per a particular object instance, you could and handle within the specific sub-handler method for populating or forcing whatever defaults to be implied.

C#: Properties with different return types on derived classes

I tried to search for an answer for this problem but could not find much, most probably because I do not know how to look for it properly, so here it goes. All help is very much appreciated.
With the base class that looks like
abstract public class Property
{
private String name;
public Property(String propertyName)
{
name = propertyName;
}
public String Name
{
get { return name; }
}
abstract public override String ToString();
}
And derived classes that look like
public class StringProperty : Property
{
private String value; // different properties for different types
public StringProperty(String propertyName, String value) : base(propertyName)
{
this.value = value;
}
public String Value // different signature for different properties
{
get { return value; }
}
public override String ToString()
{
return base.Name + ": " + value;
}
}
During runtime, the function receives a collection of "Property" objects. What do I need to do to be able to obtain the "Value" of each? Do I need to have a big if statement to query the type of each "Property" object? If not, is there a more elegant solution?
I tried to define an abstract "Value" property to be overridden but since the return types are different, it did not work. I also tried playing with shadowing the "Value" property, but I could not make it work. The idea of using an COM-like Variant does not sound very appropriate, either.
Thanks a lot in advance.
EDIT:
I should have added details as to what I am trying to do. The properties are displayed in a Winforms app. Different "TextBox"es represent different properties and are filtered for proper input (depending on the type). The updated values are read back and stored. The container object will be serialized into JSON and deserialized on an Android and iPhone client and eventually these values will be passed into a layer running native C++ code doing OpenGL stuff. I don't know in advance the kind of all needed properties so as the middleman, I wanted to make my code as robust as possible while being able to feed the OpenGL engine.

You can use a generic class:
public class AnyProperty<T> : Property
{
private T value;
// ... etc
I'd really recommend making the base class an Interface by now:
public interface IProperty
{
public String Name { get; }
}
public class Property<T> : IProperty
{
public Property(String name, T value)
{
Name = name;
Value = value;
}
public String Name { get; private set; }
public T Value { get; private set; }
public override String ToString()
{
return string.Format("{0}: {1}", Name, Value)
}
}
Here is sample usage:
var intProp = new Property<int> ("age", 32);
var strProp = new Property<string> ("name", "Earl");
var enumProp = new Property<ColorEnum> ("eye color", ColorEnum.Magenta);
To make the construction even simpler, you could have a factory method:
public static Property<T> MakeProperty(string name, T value)
{
return new Property<T>(name,value);
}
var intProp = MakeProperty("age", 32);
var strProp = MakeProperty("name", "Earl");
var enumProp = MakeProperty("eye color", ColorEnum.Magenta);
Not necessarily recommended, and a bit OT:
You could make it even funkier with an extension method:
public static Property<T> AsProp<T>(this T value, string name)
{
return new Property<T>(name,value);
}
var intProp = 32.AsProp("age");
var strProp = "Earl".AsProp("name");
var enumProp = ColorEnum.Magenta.AsProp("eye color");

You would have to simply use the object type. What are you trying to accomplish? The problem here isn't the structure of your classes, it's the function that receives the collection of Property objects. It's impossible to even cast something to an unknown type, since you don't know what type of variable it needs to be stored in.
So basically, your Property.Value property needs to be of type object. In your method that uses the Property objects, you need to do something with them, and what you're doing will decide how it should be structured. Are you printing values out? Have a *Value class inheriting from an abstract PropertyValue class and override ToString() to return an appropriate string represention.

I made a few changes to your sample code and got this result...
abstract public class Property
{
private readonly String _name;
public Property(String propertyName)
{
_name = propertyName;
}
public String Name
{
get { return _name; }
}
abstract public override String ToString();
}
public class StringProperty : Property
{
private readonly dynamic _value; // different properties for different types
public StringProperty(String propertyName, dynamic value)
: base(propertyName)
{
this._value = value;
}
public dynamic Value // different signature for different properties
{
get { return _value; }
}
public override String ToString()
{
return base.Name + ": " + _value;
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
StringProperty sp = new StringProperty("A double", 3.444);
StringProperty sp2 = new StringProperty("My int", 4343);
StringProperty sp3 = new StringProperty("My directory", new DirectoryInfo("Some directory"));
StringProperty sp4 = new StringProperty("My null", null);
Console.WriteLine(sp);
Console.WriteLine(sp2);
Console.WriteLine(sp3);
Console.WriteLine(sp4);
}
}
Values are properly printed to the console in the expected way.

It would require a bit of a rethink, but have you considered using the dynamic type (introduced in .net4)
Doesn't really solve your problem, but sidespteps it.
Your properties can bascically just be a
Dictionary<String, dynamic>
, the gotcha is they don't get evaluated until runtime, so you get no compiler support for typing.
so given you want
int SomeValue = MyProperties[SomePropertyName] + 10;
So if
MyProperties[SomePropertyName] = 10; // all is good
if its 76.52 or Fred, the addition will throw an exception at the point it executes.
Code is much simpler and cleaner, no extra casting and the amount of scaffolding required is minimal, BUT, you'll need to unit test code that uses the dictionary extensively and religiously.

Property Grid on Composite objects

When I bind this object
public class MyObject
{
public AgeWrapper Age
{
get;
set;
}
}
public class AgeWrapper
{
public int Age
{
get;
set;
}
}
to a property grid, what is shown in the value section of the property grid is the class name of AgeWrapper, but the value for AgeWrapper.Age.
Is there anyway to make it so that in the property grid I can show the value of the composite object ( in this case, it's AgeWrapper.Age), instead of the class name of that composite object?

You need to create a type converter and then apply that using an attribute to the AgeWrapper class. Then the property grid will use that type converter for getting the string to display. Create a type converter like this...
public class AgeWrapperConverter : ExpandableObjectConverter
{
public override bool CanConvertTo(ITypeDescriptorContext context,
Type destinationType)
{
// Can always convert to a string representation
if (destinationType == typeof(string))
return true;
// Let base class do standard processing
return base.CanConvertTo(context, destinationType);
}
public override object ConvertTo(ITypeDescriptorContext context,
System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture,
object value,
Type destinationType)
{
// Can always convert to a string representation
if (destinationType == typeof(string))
{
AgeWrapper wrapper = (AgeWrapper)value;
return "Age is " + wrapper.Age.ToString();
}
// Let base class attempt other conversions
return base.ConvertTo(context, culture, value, destinationType);
}
}
Notice that it inherits from ExpandableObjectConverter. This is because the AgeWrapper class has a child property called AgeWrapper.Age that needs to be exposed by having a + button next to the AgeWrapper entry in the grid. If your class did not have any child properties that you wanted to expose then instead inherit from TypeConverter. Now apply this converter to your class...
[TypeConverter(typeof(AgeWrapperConverter))]
public class AgeWrapper