We Keep Coding

Modify fields in extraneous function

I have a lot of duplicate code places:
if (claimSettingHistoryDto.NewClaimTypeName == claimSettingHistoryDto.OldClaimTypeName)
{
claimSettingHistoryDto.NewClaimTypeName = null;
claimSettingHistoryDto.OldClaimTypeName = null;
}
if (claimSettingHistoryDto.NewApplicantName == claimSettingHistoryDto.OldApplicantName)
{
claimSettingHistoryDto.NewApplicantName = null;
claimSettingHistoryDto.OldApplicantName = null;
}
if (claimSettingHistoryDto.NewDamageSparePartsTotalCostInsertion == claimSettingHistoryDto.OldDamageSparePartsTotalCostInsertion)
{
claimSettingHistoryDto.NewDamageSparePartsTotalCostInsertion = null;
claimSettingHistoryDto.OldDamageSparePartsTotalCostInsertion = null;
}
and so constantly for different classes of different fields
I wish I had a feature like this:
private void SetNull(object newData, object oldData)
{
if (newData == oldData)
{
newData = null;
oldData = null;
}
}
but of course I understand that this is not true, since I only change the local value inside the function. How do I change the class field?

There are multiple ways of doing that, with varying positions on the "good idea" to "bad idea" spectrum.
Fields as ref parameters (good idea)
(...) this is not true, since I only change the local value inside the function
You're wrong, because ref and out parameters allow you to change values non-locally.
If you have access to the actual fields, you can pass them as a ref parameter:
public class Dto
{
private string? _old;
private string? _new;
public string? Old => _old;
public string? New => _new;
public void Foo() {
SetNullIfEqual(ref _new, ref _old);
}
private static void SetNullIfEqual<T>(ref T? newData, ref T? oldData) where T: class
{
if (newData == oldData)
{
newData = null;
oldData = null;
}
}
}
More info on passing as reference here.
This won't work with properties, even if they have a default setter. Properties are not fields, they're methods in disguise. If you can't access the actual fields...
Properties as delegates (meh idea)
... having access to properties only you'd need to pass them as delegates like this:
public class Dto
{
public string? Old { get; set; }
public string? New { get; set; }
}
public class Outside
{
public void Foo(Dto dto) {
SetNullIfEqual(() => dto.New, () => dto.Old, v => dto.New = v, v => dto.Old = v);
}
private static void SetNullIfEqual<T>(
Func<T?> getNew,
Func<T?> getOld,
Action<T?> setNew,
Action<T?> setOld) where T: class
{
if (getNew() == getOld())
{
setNew(null);
setOld(null);
}
}
}
This is clunky though, you have to question how much space it'd actually save. An instance method working on fields as in the first suggestion works much better.
When you have reflection everything looks like a nail (probably bad idea)
You can also do this with reflection, which will remove all safety, give much worse performance, but the absolute most flexibility.
using System.Reflection;
public class Dto
{
public string? Old { get; set; }
public string? New { get; set; }
}
public class Outside
{
public void Foo(Dto dto) {
SetNullIfEqual(nameof(dto.New), nameof(dto.Old), dto);
}
private static void SetNullIfEqual<T>(
string newPropName,
string oldPropName,
T instance)
{
PropertyInfo newProp = typeof(T).GetProperty(newPropName);
PropertyInfo oldProp = typeof(T).GetProperty(oldPropName);
if (Equals(newProp.GetValue(instance), oldProp.GetValue(instance)))
{
newProp.SetValue(instance, null);
oldProp.SetValue(instance, null);
}
}
}
I removed all error handling for brevity.
Recommendation
I'd go with the fields-as-ref-parameters way. If the method in question lives outside of the type, so it can't have access to the fields (don't ever use public fields please), I'd just move it into the type. In your case it'd be a bunch of methods called SetClaimTypeName, SetApplicantName, etc.

Generic class and method binding with delegates(or not) for clean method expression

Lets say you have simple chained method but you are trying to access or set a value in a class property (internal/external doesnt matter). Using a Func seems to be working and finds the relation between generic class that is passed and access its properties correctly but i am not sure if its necessary.
Is there a way of setting the method variable cleanly as in Main method below since it is aware of the Generic class association without doing new Props().Property for example?
//sample console app
public class Props {
public string FirstProp = "lets say object";
public string SecondProp = "Pretend some other object";
}
public class Logic<T> where T : class, new()
{
private string outString { get; set; }
public Logic<T> GetPropertyValue(Func<T, object> propertySelector)
{
return this;
}
public Logic<T> GetLambda(Expression<Func<T, object>> propertySelector)
{
var breakpointCheck = propertySelector; //{x => x.SecondProp}
return this;
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var Test =
new Logic<Props>()
.GetPropertyValue(x => x.FirstProp) //dummy check
.GetLambda(x => x.SecondProp); //passed correctly {x => x.SecondProp}
var HowToGetThis =
new Logic<Props>()
.GetPropertyValue(FirstProp) // or GetPropertyValue(Props.FirstProp)
.GetLambda(x => x.SecondProp);
}
}

How to make the ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance method use a different constructor?

Is there a way the tell the ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<T>(IServiceProvider serviceProvider); method to try to use other constructors if the first one can't be constructed?
I have a class with multiple constructors:
public ViewModelB(SomeDependency someDependency): this one only takes SomeDependency which is registered in a DI container
public ViewModelB(SomeDependency someDependency, GetUserRequest request): this one takes SomeDependency which is registered in a DI container and a GetUserRequest which has to be passed in manually
And I'm trying to activate them and resolve dependencies like so:
IServiceProvider serviceProvider; //this gets passed from somewhere
Guid userId; //this gets passed manually by the caller
//works
var instanceAWithoutParams = ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<ViewModelA>(serviceProvider);
//works
var instanceAWithParams = ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<ViewModelA>(serviceProvider, new[] { new GetUserRequest { UserId = userId } });
//does NOT work, it tries to use the first constructor and fails
var instanceBWithoutParams = ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<ViewModelB>(serviceProvider);
//works
var instanceBWithParams = ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<ViewModelB>(serviceProvider,, new[] { new GetUserRequest { UserId = userId } });
The activation of instanceBWithoutParams fails because it can't resolve the request parameter. It tries to use the first constructor and doesn't check other ones when the activation fails.
Here's what the services look like, they're the same with one difference: the order of the constructors.
public class ViewModelA
{
private readonly SomeDependency _someDependency;
private readonly GetUserRequest? _request;
public ViewModelA(SomeDependency someDependency)
{
_someDependency = someDependency;
}
public ViewModelA(SomeDependency someDependency, GetUserRequest request)
{
_someDependency = someDependency;
_request = request;
}
}
public class ViewModelB
{
private readonly SomeDependency _someDependency;
private readonly GetUserRequest? _request;
public ViewModelB(SomeDependency someDependency, GetUserRequest request)
{
_someDependency = someDependency;
_request = request;
}
public ViewModelB(SomeDependency someDependency)
{
_someDependency = someDependency;
}
}
public class GetUserRequest
{
public Guid UserId { get; set; }
}
Thanks.

I struggled with the same issue. Eventually I came up with this solution:
I would use something like a factory which is able to construct ServiceB by calling a method.
For example:
var serviceBFactory = ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<ServiceBFactory>(serviceProvider);
var instanceBWithoutParams = serviceBFactory.CreateServiceB();
var instanceBWithParams = serviceBFactory.CreateServiceB(new Request());
This way you keep you DI clean. But this means that the ServiceBFactory need to know which services need to be injected in a ServiceB. (so that will be a tight coupling) They come as a package.

I've chosen to re-design the view models instead of trying to pass optional parameters next to services from DI (thanks to Steven for the helpful articles: 1 and 2).
There also seems to be no way of making the ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<T>(IServiceProvider serviceProvider); method try other constructors after one fails, so here's what my edited solution looks like.
I've moved the initialization of the optional parameter out of the constructor, that way I only have one constructor that only takes injectables. The parameter is then passed separately via the TakeParameter method. The only downside I can think of is that the parameter can no longer be readonly and I can live with that.
My custom activator utility:
public interface IAcceptParameter<T>
{
void TakeParameter(T parameter);
}
public static class CustomActivator
{
public static T CreateInstance<T>()
{
return ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<T>(_serviceProvider);
}
public static T CreateInstanceWithParam<T, K>(K parameter) where T : IAcceptParameter<K>
{
var instance = ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<T>(_serviceProvider);
instance.TakeParameter(parameter);
return instance;
}
}
Changed view model
public class SomeViewModel : IAcceptParameter<Guid>
{
private readonly SomeDependency _someDependency;
private Guid? _userId;
public SomeViewModel(SomeDependency someDependency)
{
_someDependency = someDependency;
}
public void TakeParameter(Guid parameter){
_userId = parameter;
}
}
How I use it
var instanceWithoutParam = CustomActivator.CreateInstance<SomeViewModel>(serviceProvider);
Guid userId;
var instanceWithParam = CustomActivator.CreateInstanceWithParam<SomeViewModel, Guid>(serviceProvider, userId);

Let say you have a class like this:
public class a
{
public string p { get; set; }
public a()
{
p = "default constructor";
}
public a(string pv)
{
p = pv;
}
}
You can use .GetConstructor method to use a specific constructor:
public class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var c = typeof(a).GetConstructor(new Type[] { typeof(string) });
if (c != null)
{
var myA = (a)c.Invoke(new object[] { "new value" });
Console.WriteLine($"Value of p is {myA.p}");
}
}
}

Generate a strongly-typed proxy that can track changes on property names not values when one property is set to another

Setup:
public class Data
{
public int A { get; set; }
public int B { get; set; }
}
public class Runner
{
public static void Run(Data data)
{
data.A = data.B;
data.A = 1;
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var data = new Data() { A = 1, B = 2 };
Runner.Run(data);
}
}
Problem: I need to implement change tracking here for property names not values. Inside Runner.Run on the first line data.A = data.B I need to record somehow that "A" was set to "B" (literally property names) and then on the next line data.A = 1 I need to record that "A" was set to constant and say forget about it.
Constrains:
When setting one property to another (e.g. A = B) that needs to be recorded
When setting property to anything else (e.g. A = 1 or A = B * 2) this change needs to be forgotten (e.g. remember A only)
Suppose this is the tracker contract being used:
void RecordChange(string setterName, string getterName);
void UnTrackChange(string setterName);
Question:
I would like to somehow proxy the Data class so it still can be used in the interface code (e.g. Runner - is a whole bunch of a business logic code that uses Data) INCLUDING strong-typing and it can track it's changes without modifying the code (e.g. there is lots of places like 'data.A = data.B').
Is there any way to do it without resorting to I guess some magic involving IL generation?
Already investigated/tried:
PostSharp interceptors/Castle.DynamicProxy with interceptors - these alone cannot help. The most I can get out of it is to have a value of data.B inside setter interceptor but not nameof(data.B).
Compiler services - haven't found anything suitable here - getting the name of caller doesn't really help.
Runtine code generation - smth like proxy inherited from DynamicObject or using Relfection.Emit (TypeBuilder probably) - I lose typings.
Current solution:
Use the Tracker implementation of the abovementioned contract and pass it around into every function down the road. Then instead of writing data.A = data.B use method tracker.SetFrom(x => x.A, x => x.B) - tracker holds a Data instance and so this works. BUT in a real codebase it is easy to miss something and it just makes it way less readable.

It is the closest the solution I've come up with. It isn't perfect as I still need to modify all the contracts/methods in the client code to use a new data model but at least all the logic stays the same.
So I'm open for other answers.
Here's the renewed Data model:
public readonly struct NamedProperty<TValue>
{
public NamedProperty(string name, TValue value)
{
Name = name;
Value = value;
}
public string Name { get; }
public TValue Value { get; }
public static implicit operator TValue (NamedProperty<TValue> obj)
=> obj.Value;
public static implicit operator NamedProperty<TValue>(TValue value)
=> new NamedProperty<TValue>(null, value);
}
public interface ISelfTracker<T>
where T : class, ISelfTracker<T>
{
Tracker<T> Tracker { get; set; }
}
public class NamedData : ISelfTracker<NamedData>
{
public virtual NamedProperty<int> A { get; set; }
public virtual NamedProperty<int> B { get; set; }
public Tracker<NamedData> Tracker { get; set; }
}
Basically I've copy-pasted the original Data model but changed all its properties to be aware of their names.
Then the tracker itself:
public class Tracker<T>
where T : class, ISelfTracker<T>
{
public T Instance { get; }
public T Proxy { get; }
public Tracker(T instance)
{
Instance = instance;
Proxy = new ProxyGenerator().CreateClassProxyWithTarget<T>(Instance, new TrackingNamedProxyInterceptor<T>(this));
Proxy.Tracker = this;
}
public void RecordChange(string setterName, string getterName)
{
}
public void UnTrackChange(string setterName)
{
}
}
The interceptor for Castle.DynamicProxy:
public class TrackingNamedProxyInterceptor<T> : IInterceptor
where T : class, ISelfTracker<T>
{
private const string SetterPrefix = "set_";
private const string GetterPrefix = "get_";
private readonly Tracker<T> _tracker;
public TrackingNamedProxyInterceptor(Tracker<T> proxy)
{
_tracker = proxy;
}
public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
if (IsSetMethod(invocation.Method))
{
string propertyName = GetPropertyName(invocation.Method);
dynamic value = invocation.Arguments[0];
var propertyType = value.GetType();
if (IsOfGenericType(propertyType, typeof(NamedProperty<>)))
{
if (value.Name == null)
{
_tracker.UnTrackChange(propertyName);
}
else
{
_tracker.RecordChange(propertyName, value.Name);
}
var args = new[] { propertyName, value.Value };
invocation.Arguments[0] = Activator.CreateInstance(propertyType, args);
}
}
invocation.Proceed();
}
private string GetPropertyName(MethodInfo method)
=> method.Name.Replace(SetterPrefix, string.Empty).Replace(GetterPrefix, string.Empty);
private bool IsSetMethod(MethodInfo method)
=> method.IsSpecialName && method.Name.StartsWith(SetterPrefix);
private bool IsOfGenericType(Type type, Type openGenericType)
=> type.IsGenericType && type.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == openGenericType;
}
And the modified entry point:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var data = new Data() { A = 1, B = 2 };
NamedData namedData = Map(data);
var proxy = new Tracker<NamedData>(namedData).Proxy;
Runner.Run(proxy);
Console.ReadLine();
}
The Map() function actually maps Data to NamedData filling in property names.

Refactoring a list of objects to implement a business rule

I need to refactor the following class:
public interface IEmployee
{
int VacationWeeks { get; }
int YearsWithCompany { set; get; }
double Salary { set; get; }
}
public class Employee : IEmployee
{
private readonly int vacationWeeks;
public Employee(int vacationWeeks)
{
this.vacationWeeks = vacationWeeks;
}
public int VacationWeeks
{
get { return vacationWeeks; }
}
public int YearsWithCompany { set; get; }
public double Salary { set; get; }
}
I need to make sure that VacationWeeks depends only on YearsWithCompany, and I am loading the mapping from the database. So far I have come up with this:
public class EmployeeNew : IEmployee
{
private Dictionary<int,int> vacationWeeksTable;
public EmployeeNew(Dictionary<int, int> vacationWeeksTable)
{
this.vacationWeeksTable = vacationWeeksTable;
}
public int VacationWeeks
{
get { return vacationWeeksTable[YearsWithCompany]; }
}
public int YearsWithCompany { set; get; }
public double Salary { set; get; }
}
This class implements what I want, but it still has one vulnerability: different instances of EmployeeNew in the same collection may have been created with different instances of vacationWeeksTable.
All instances of EmployeeNew in the same collection must refer to the same vacationWeeksTable.
The application I am refactoring uses lots of List all over the system, and we need to be able to modify YearsWithCompany and Salary, yet to guarantee that only one vacationWeeksTable is used per List. These lists are iterated several times; its elements are modified in each iteration.
Here is my imperfect solution. Suggestions are welcome:
// this class does two things, which I do not like
public class EmployeeList : IEnumerable<IEmployee>, IEmployee
{
private Dictionary<int, int> vacationWeeksTable;
private List<EmployeeSpecificData> employees;
private int currentIndex;
private EmployeeSpecificData CurrentEmployee
{
get { return employees[currentIndex]; }
}
public IEnumerator<IEmployee> GetEnumerator()
{
for (currentIndex = 0; currentIndex < employees.Count; currentIndex++)
{
yield return this;
}
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return GetEnumerator();
}
public int VacationWeeks
{
get { return vacationWeeksTable[YearsWithCompany]; }
}
// this is ugly repetitive code I don't like
public int YearsWithCompany
{
get { return CurrentEmployee.YearsWithCompany; }
set { CurrentEmployee.YearsWithCompany = value; }
}
// this is ugly repetitive code I don't like
public double Salary
{
get { return CurrentEmployee.Salary; }
set { CurrentEmployee.Salary = value; }
}
}

I use the following to create and init some of the classes that need default and shared behaviour. Maybe if you can refactor it will help:
It is some form of the Factory and FlyWeight patterns combined (the flyweight part can be removed in your scenario), which in addition has a concept of class Type shared handlers.
I simplified and removed some stuff that you wont need but there is more to remove, I added comments.
Usage would be: (app init)
Dictionary<int,int> vacationWeeksTable = new Dictionary<int,int>();
// fill the table
Factory<Employee>.Init(vacationWeeksTable);
The whenever you create a Employee class:
// remove grouping in the factory class to remove this null
Employee em = Factory<Employee>.Create(null);
It takes only a WeakReference to the classes so you don't have to worry about GC.
Each employee will have the shared vacationWeeksTable setup on creation, without the possibility to change it after from outside if not using the factory class.
You could change the vacation table for all running instances of Employee at any moment in the runtime of the app with:
// this will call the method registered for SetInitialdata on all instances of Employee classes.
// again remove grouping to remove that null
Factory<Employee>.Call(EventHandlerTypes.SetInitialData, null, vacTable);
Sample implementation of Employee:
class Employee : IBaseClass
{
private Dictionary<int, int> vacationWeeksTable;
public virtual void RegisterSharedHandlers(int? group, Action<IKey, int?, EventHandlerTypes, Action<object, SharedEventArgs>> register)
{
group = 0; // disable different groups
register(new Key<Employee, int>(0), group, EventHandlerTypes.SetInitialData, SetVacationWeeksTable);
}
public virtual void RegisterSharedData(Action<IKey, object> regData)
{
// remove this from factory and interface, you probably dont need it
// I have been using it as a FlyWeight data store for classes.
}
private void SetVacationWeeksTable(object sender, SharedEventArgs e)
{
vacationWeeksTable = e.GetData<Dictionary<int, int>>();
}
}
Code pattern Implementation:
IBaseClass : interface that each of my classes that are creatable through a factory implement
public enum EventHandlerTypes
{
SetInitialData // you can add additional shared handlers here and Factory<C>.Call - it.
}
public class SharedEventArgs : EventArgs
{
private object data;
public SharedEventArgs(object data)
{
this.data = data;
}
public T GetData<T>()
{
return (T)data;
}
}
public interface IBaseClass
{
void RegisterSharedHandlers(int? group, Action<IKey, int?, EventHandlerTypes, Action<object, SharedEventArgs>> regEvent);
void RegisterSharedData(Action<IKey, object> regData);
}
Utility generic classes:
public interface IKey
{
Type GetKeyType();
V GetValue<V>();
}
public class Key<T, V> : IKey
{
public V ID { get; set; }
public Key(V id)
{
ID = id;
}
public Type GetKeyType()
{
return typeof(T);
}
public Tp GetValue<Tp>()
{
return (Tp)(object)ID;
}
}
public class Triple<T, V, Z>
{
public T First { get; set; }
public V Second { get; set; }
public Z Third { get; set; }
public Triple(T first, V second, Z third)
{
First = first;
Second = second;
Third = third;
}
}
Factory class with slight modification to handle your scenario:
public static class Factory<C> where C : IBaseClass, new()
{
private static object initialData;
private static Dictionary<IKey, Triple<EventHandlerTypes, int, WeakReference>> handlers = new Dictionary<IKey, Triple<EventHandlerTypes, int, WeakReference>>();
private static Dictionary<IKey, object> data = new Dictionary<IKey, object>();
static Factory()
{
C newClass = new C();
newClass.RegisterSharedData(registerSharedData);
}
public static void Init<IT>(IT initData)
{
initialData = initData;
}
public static Dt[] GetData<Dt>()
{
var dataList = from d in data where d.Key.GetKeyType() == typeof(Dt) select d.Value;
return dataList.Cast<Dt>().ToArray();
}
private static void registerSharedData(IKey key, object value)
{
data.Add(key, value);
}
public static C Create(int? group)
{
C newClass = new C();
newClass.RegisterSharedHandlers(group, registerSharedHandlers);
// this is a bit bad here since it will call it on all instances
// it would be better if you can call this from outside after creating all the classes
Factory<C>.Call(EventHandlerTypes.SetInitialData, null, initialData);
return newClass;
}
private static void registerSharedHandlers(IKey subscriber, int? group, EventHandlerTypes type, Action<object, SharedEventArgs> handler)
{
handlers.Add(subscriber, new Triple<EventHandlerTypes, int, WeakReference>(type, group ?? -1, new WeakReference(handler)));
}
public static void Call<N>(EventHandlerTypes type, int? group, N data)
{
Call<N>(null, type, group, data);
}
public static void Call<N>(object sender, EventHandlerTypes type, int? group, N data)
{
lock (handlers)
{
var invalid = from h in handlers where h.Value.Third.Target == null select h.Key;
// delete expired references
foreach (var inv in invalid.ToList()) handlers.Remove(inv);
var events = from h in handlers where h.Value.First == type && (!#group.HasValue || h.Value.Second == (int)#group) select h.Value.Third;
foreach (var ev in events.ToList())
{
// call the handler
((Action<object, SharedEventArgs>)ev.Target)(sender, arg);
}
}
}
}

Make a class which contains a Dictionary. Creating or getting instance of this new class will load the dictionary in a consistent way. Then your BOs can take an instance of the class, thus ensuring they're all using the same data (because the class containingthe list knows how to load itself with the proper set of data).