I have below class
public class HydronicEquipment
{
public List<LibraryHydronicEquipment> Source { get; set; }
public List<LibraryHydronicEquipment> Distribution { get; set; }
public List<LibraryHydronicEquipment> Terminals { get; set; }
}
and then i have the below class for "libraryHydronicEquipment"
public class LibraryHydronicEquipment : IEquipmentRedundancy
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public RedundancyStatus RedundancyStatus { get; set; }
public EquipmentRedundancy EquipmentRedundancy { get; set; }
}
I am trying to concatenate the list of "LibraryHydronicEquipment" objects available from all three properties (i.e) from source, distribution and terminal and General concatenate method will looks like as this below
var source = hydronicEquipment.Source;
var distribution = hydronicEquipment.Distribution;
var teriminals = hydronicEquipment.Terminals;
Source.Concat(Distribution).Concat(Terminals)
I am trying to achieve the same using reflection and the code looks like as below
foreach (var (systemName, hydronicEquipment) in hydronicSystemEquipment)
{
bool isFirstSystem = true;
var equipmentList = new List<string> { "Source", "Distribution", "Terminals" };
var redundancyequipmentList = GetRedundancyEquipment(hydronicEquipment, equipmentList);
}
and the method GetRedundancyEquipment is looks like below
private static IEnumerable<IEquipmentRedundancy> GetRedundancyEquipment(HydronicEquipment hydronicEquipment, List<string> equipmentList)
{
IEnumerable<IEquipmentRedundancy> equipmentRedundancies = new List<IEquipmentRedundancy>();
dynamic equipmentResults = null;
foreach(var equipment in equipmentList)
{
var componentList = hydronicEquipment.GetType().GetProperty(equipment).GetValue(hydronicEquipment, null) as IEnumerable<IEquipmentRedundancy>;
equipmentResults = equipmentRedundancies.Concat(componentList);
}
return equipmentResults;
}
The problem here is even though i have Source is having list of objects and Distribution is having list of objects, the equipmentResults is giving only one object instead of list of concatenated objects.
I am trying to return the IEnumerable<IEquipmentRedundancy> at the end using reflection method but it seems not working with the above code.
Could any one please let me know how can i achieve this, Many thanks in advance.
GetRedundancyEquipment should preserve your values instead of reassign the reference with each iteration. Here's the fixed version:
private static IEnumerable<IEquipmentRedundancy> GetRedundancyEquipment(HydronicEquipment hydronicEquipment, List<string> equipmentList)
{
IEnumerable<IEquipmentRedundancy> equipmentRedundancies = new List<IEquipmentRedundancy>();
var equipmentResults = new List<IEquipmentRedundancy>();
foreach (var equipment in equipmentList)
{
var componentList = hydronicEquipment.GetType().GetProperty(equipment).GetValue(hydronicEquipment, null) as IEnumerable<IEquipmentRedundancy>;
equipmentResults.AddRange(equipmentRedundancies.Concat(componentList));
}
return equipmentResults;
}
If we look at what you're doing in GetRedundancyEquipment() it becomes clear.
First you create equipmentRedundancies = new List<IEquipmentRedundancy>();
Then you never modify equipmentRedundancies - e.g. via Add(). It remains an empty list until it goes out of scope and is garbage collected.
In a loop you then repeatedly make this assignment equipmentResults = equipmentRedundancies.Concat(componentList);
That is to say: Assign to equipmentResults the concatenation of componentList to equipmentRedundancies.
Note that Concat() is a lazily evaluated linq method. When you actually enumerate it results are produced. It doesn't modify anything, it's more like a description of how to produce a sequence.
So each time through the loop you're assigning a new IEnumerable that describes a concatentaion of an empty list followed by the property that you retrieved with reflection to equipmentResults. Then at the end you return the final one of these concatenations of an empty list and retrieved property.
If you want all of them together, you should concatenate each of them to the result of the previous concatenation, not to an empty list.
I have this piece of code
public class Ticket
{
public string strArticleID { get; set; }
public string strArticleDescription { get; set; }
public decimal decArticlePrice { get; set; }
public decimal decArticleVAT { get; set; }
public decimal decArticuleNetPrice { get; set; }
public decimal decArticleDiscount { get; set; }
public decimal decArticleQuantity { get; set; }
}
public static List<Ticket> _lstCurrentTicket = new List<Ticket>();
That I want so send to an external DLL to get all the lines in _lstCurrentTicket to print a ticket through
for (int i = 0; i < dataGridView1.Rows.Count; i++)
{
Ticket ticket = new Ticket();
string strRefID = this.dataGridView1.Rows[i].Cells[0].Value.ToString();
string strDescription = this.dataGridView1.Rows[i].Cells[1].Value.ToString();
decimal decQuantity = (decimal)this.dataGridView1.Rows[i].Cells[2].Value;
decimal decUPrice = (decimal)this.dataGridView1.Rows[i].Cells[3].Value;
decimal decDiscount = Convert.ToDecimal(this.dataGridView1.Rows[i].Cells[4].Value.ToString().Substring(0, this.dataGridView1.Rows[i].Cells[4].Value.ToString().Length - 1));
decimal decVAT = Convert.ToDecimal(this.dataGridView1.Rows[i].Cells[5].Value.ToString().Substring(0, this.dataGridView1.Rows[i].Cells[5].Value.ToString().Length - 1));
decimal decGPrice = (decimal)this.dataGridView1.Rows[i].Cells[6].Value;
ticket.strArticleID = strRefID;
ticket.strArticleDescription = strDescription;
ticket.decArticlePrice = decUPrice;
ticket.decArticleVAT = decVAT;
ticket.decArticuleNetPrice = decGPrice;
ticket.decArticleDiscount = decDiscount;
ticket.decArticleQuantity = decQuantity;
_lstCurrentTicket.Add(ticket);
}
TicketPrinting tktPrint = new TicketPrinting ();
//Ticket and copies
tktPrint.PrintTicketFromList(_lstCurrentTicket, 2);
Since it is an external DLL, I thought the easiest way to work with it in target DLL was
public void PrintTicketFromList<T>(List<T> lstArticles, short intCopies)
{
foreach (var prop in lstArticles.GetType().GetProperties())
{
if (prop.Name == "Item")
{
//Copy external list to local class for printing
}
}...
But I'm stuck there. How can I iterate each property and value from each original class in the list so I can copy it? If I make a breakpoint I can see that the fields and values are correctly passed, but I do not get how to access them so I can do something like creating a local class exactly like the original and clone the list (and if I try it will say local list(Ticket) and passed List(T) are not the same type).
Or how could I copy it if I create an exact class in the target and do something like
public void PrintTicketFromList(object lstArticles, short intCopies)
{
List<TargetDLLTicket> lst =((List<TargetDLLTicket>)lstArticles).ToList(); }
Any thoughts?
It sounds like you have a circular dependency issue. You need to move the types you are sending to your print function to a common assembly (new project) that is then referenced by both the calling project and your print project. Then both projects can access this shared type.
A note about your design. The way you are going about this is probably not good to begin with thus your error. The actual printer function should not have to know anything about the types passed in. A good rule of thumb is to try to make your code as loosly coupled as possible. A better idea is to create an Interface that takes care of writing to the printer canvas (or something like that, you did not provide your printer code so this is a guess) and the printer function can call that method on the incoming object. The printer method should then also only accept that interface as a parameter. This is based on a Visitor pattern. Here is an example.
public interface IPrintable {
void WriteToPrinter(PrinterCanvas canvas);
}
public class Printer {
public void Print(IPrintable somethingToPrint) {
var canvas = getCanvas();
somethingToPrint.WriteToPrinter(canvas);
}
}
If at any point possible you should try to avoid reflection like Igor does in his answer.
But if you really want to use reflection you are currently not inspecting the item but the list of items.
You should try something like (writing this from memory):
public void PrintTicketFromList<T>(List<T> lstArticles, short intCopies)
{
foreach (var item in lstArticles)
{
foreach (var prop in typeof(T).GetProperties())
{
var value = prop.getValue(item);
}
}
}
Instead of List<T> create an interface, ITicket for example and accept List<ITicket>. Using List<T> as a generic whenever you know you only can work with something that is a Ticket is creating an unnecessary wide range of potential inputs. Using an interface allows you to not worry about the concrete implementation, and instead get at only what your dll is concerned with, the contract.
You could put the interface in one of two places, either another external common assembly that both of your assemblies reference, or you could put the interface into your assembly that has the ticket printing logic. Your Ticket class could then implement the interface.
An example of what this could look like:
public interface ITicket
{
//properties and methods you want to have all implementations to contain.
}
public class Ticket : ITicket
{
}
public class LastTicket :ITicket
{
}
public void PrintTicketFromList(List<ITicket> lstArticles, short intCopies)
{
}
I am currently using a list to handle a JSON string which works fine for one instance of this, as can be seen below. What I want to do is make these methods that handle the conversion completely generic so I can use them for multiple JSON strings.
This is a snippet of my current code as it stands.
public class GetPerson
{
public string fooName { get; set; }
public string fooAddress { get; set; }
public string fooPosition { get; set; }
}
public class GetPosition
{
public string fooTitle { get; set; }
public string fooDepartment { get; set; }
public string fooSalary { get; set; }
}
private static List<GetPerson> ConvertToList(string jsonString)
{
List< listJson = new List<JsonObject>();
listJson = (List<GetPerson>)JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<GetPerson>>(jsonString);
return listJson;
}
This is just a quick sample but the List<GetPerson> is what I need to be generic so it can be reused, because as it stands the GetPosition will obviously not work with this, as I would want to be able to iterate through my code changing the type accordingly.
Is there a way I can assign a variable as a type? I saw another question about this but it didn't go into detail. Or is there another way that this could be achieved?
Thanks in advance.
Very Simple. You just have to make ConvertToList() generic and pass the desired class as Type Paramter in ConvertToList()
private static List<T> ConvertToList<T>(string jsonString)
{
var listJson = new List<JsonObject>();
listJson = (List<T>)JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<T>>(jsonString);
return listJson;
}
var personList = ConvertToList<GetPerson>(jsonString);
var positionList = ConvertToList<GetPosition>(jsonString);
You can use Generics to help make the ConvertToList function reusable for different types
private static List<T> ConvertToList<T>(string jsonString)
{
return (List<T>)JsonConverty.DeserializeObject<List<T>>(jsonString();
}
You can now call it using both GetPerson and GetPosition as the generic type.
var listOfPeople = ConvertToList<GetPerson>(personJson);
var listOfPositions = ConvertToList<GetPosition>(positionJson);
You can read more about Generics on MSDN.
Also, if all that you want to do is to [de]serialize JSON, you might want to consider a third-party library for that like JSON.net, Jil or ServiceStack.Text, all of which have built in functions to do what you are trying to do.
This is probably a simple question. Suppose I have a object called Users and it contains a lot of protected variables.
Inside that Users class I have a method that creates a temporary Users object, does something with it, and if successful, transfers all the variables from the temp Users object into the one I have.
Is there some fast way to transfer all the variables from one Users object into another Users object without doing this using C#?
this.FirstName = temp.FirstName;
this.LastName = temp.LastName;
........75 variables later......
this.FavoriteColor = temp.FavoriteColor
A better approach is to implement the IClonable interface. But you'll find it doesn't save you a lot of work.
You should check out cloning in C#.
Deep cloning objects
I think serializing and then deserializing an object will create a new object instance. This should be identical to the former object.
A better solution might be to move whatever this method is outside of your class, and then just assign the temp user object to your main user object reference like so:
_User = tmpUser;
sparing you the 75 lines of code. Whenever I have a class creating an instance of itself inside one of its own methods, I always like to blink a couple of times and make sure I really need to be doing that.
There's always the reflection option. Something substantially similar to this:
public static void Copy(object source, object target)
{
foreach (System.Reflection.PropertyInfo pi in source.GetType().GetProperties())
{
System.Reflection.PropertyInfo tpi = target.GetType().GetProperty(pi.Name);
if (tpi != null && tpi.PropertyType.IsAssignableFrom(pi.PropertyType))
{
tpi.SetValue(target, pi.GetValue(source, null), null);
}
}
}
Doesn't require the source and the target to have any relation what-so-ever, just a name and an IsAssignable check. It has the interesting side effects if you're using reference types anywhere, but for the kind of situation you just described, this isn't a bad option to explore.
class sourceTester
{
public bool Hello { get; set; }
public string World { get; set; }
public int Foo { get; set; }
public List<object> Bar { get; set; }
}
class targetTester
{
public int Hello {get; set;}
public string World { get; set; }
public double Foo { get; set; }
public List<object> Bar { get; set; }
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
sourceTester src = new sourceTester {
Hello = true,
World = "Testing",
Foo = 123,
Bar = new List<object>()
};
targetTester tgt = new targetTester();
Copy(src, tgt);
//Immediate Window shows the following:
//tgt.Hello
//0
//tgt.World
//"Testing"
//tgt.Foo
//0.0
//tgt.Bar
//Count = 0
//src.Bar.GetHashCode()
//59129387
//tgt.Bar.GetHashCode()
//59129387
}
How do you give a C# auto-property an initial value?
I either use the constructor, or revert to the old syntax.
Using the Constructor:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
Name = "Initial Name";
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Using normal property syntax (with an initial value)
private string name = "Initial Name";
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Is there a better way?
In C# 5 and earlier, to give auto implemented properties an initial value, you have to do it in a constructor.
Since C# 6.0, you can specify initial value in-line. The syntax is:
public int X { get; set; } = x; // C# 6 or higher
DefaultValueAttribute is intended to be used by the VS designer (or any other consumer) to specify a default value, not an initial value. (Even if in designed object, initial value is the default value).
At compile time DefaultValueAttribute will not impact the generated IL and it will not be read to initialize the property to that value (see DefaultValue attribute is not working with my Auto Property).
Example of attributes that impact the IL are ThreadStaticAttribute, CallerMemberNameAttribute, ...
Edited on 1/2/15
C# 6 :
With C# 6 you can initialize auto-properties directly (finally!), there are now other answers that describe that.
C# 5 and below:
Though the intended use of the attribute is not to actually set the values of the properties, you can use reflection to always set them anyway...
public class DefaultValuesTest
{
public DefaultValuesTest()
{
foreach (PropertyDescriptor property in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(this))
{
DefaultValueAttribute myAttribute = (DefaultValueAttribute)property.Attributes[typeof(DefaultValueAttribute)];
if (myAttribute != null)
{
property.SetValue(this, myAttribute.Value);
}
}
}
public void DoTest()
{
var db = DefaultValueBool;
var ds = DefaultValueString;
var di = DefaultValueInt;
}
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool DefaultValueBool { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue("Good")]
public string DefaultValueString { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(27)]
public int DefaultValueInt { get; set; }
}
When you inline an initial value for a variable it will be done implicitly in the constructor anyway.
I would argue that this syntax was best practice in C# up to 5:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
//do anything before variable assignment
//assign initial values
Name = "Default Name";
//do anything after variable assignment
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
As this gives you clear control of the order values are assigned.
As of C#6 there is a new way:
public string Name { get; set; } = "Default Name";
Sometimes I use this, if I don't want it to be actually set and persisted in my db:
class Person
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(_name) ? "Default Name" : _name;
}
set { _name = value; }
}
}
Obviously if it's not a string then I might make the object nullable ( double?, int? ) and check if it's null, return a default, or return the value it's set to.
Then I can make a check in my repository to see if it's my default and not persist, or make a backdoor check in to see the true status of the backing value, before saving.
In C# 6.0 this is a breeze!
You can do it in the Class declaration itself, in the property declaration statements.
public class Coordinate
{
public int X { get; set; } = 34; // get or set auto-property with initializer
public int Y { get; } = 89; // read-only auto-property with initializer
public int Z { get; } // read-only auto-property with no initializer
// so it has to be initialized from constructor
public Coordinate() // .ctor()
{
Z = 42;
}
}
Starting with C# 6.0, We can assign default value to auto-implemented properties.
public string Name { get; set; } = "Some Name";
We can also create read-only auto implemented property like:
public string Name { get; } = "Some Name";
See: C# 6: First reactions , Initializers for automatically implemented properties - By Jon Skeet
In Version of C# (6.0) & greater, you can do :
For Readonly properties
public int ReadOnlyProp => 2;
For both Writable & Readable properties
public string PropTest { get; set; } = "test";
In current Version of C# (7.0), you can do : (The snippet rather displays how you can use expression bodied get/set accessors to make is more compact when using with backing fields)
private string label = "Default Value";
// Expression-bodied get / set accessors.
public string Label
{
get => label;
set => this.label = value;
}
In C# 9.0 was added support of init keyword - very useful and extremly sophisticated way for declaration read-only auto-properties:
Declare:
class Person
{
public string Name { get; init; } = "Anonymous user";
}
~Enjoy~ Use:
// 1. Person with default name
var anonymous = new Person();
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {anonymous.Name}!");
// > Hello, Anonymous user!
// 2. Person with assigned value
var me = new Person { Name = "#codez0mb1e"};
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {me.Name}!");
// > Hello, #codez0mb1e!
// 3. Attempt to re-assignment Name
me.Name = "My fake";
// > Compilation error: Init-only property can only be assigned in an object initializer
In addition to the answer already accepted, for the scenario when you want to define a default property as a function of other properties you can use expression body notation on C#6.0 (and higher) for even more elegant and concise constructs like:
public class Person{
public string FullName => $"{First} {Last}"; // expression body notation
public string First { get; set; } = "First";
public string Last { get; set; } = "Last";
}
You can use the above in the following fashion
var p = new Person();
p.FullName; // First Last
p.First = "Jon";
p.Last = "Snow";
p.FullName; // Jon Snow
In order to be able to use the above "=>" notation, the property must be read only, and you do not use the get accessor keyword.
Details on MSDN
In C# 6 and above you can simply use the syntax:
public object Foo { get; set; } = bar;
Note that to have a readonly property simply omit the set, as so:
public object Foo { get; } = bar;
You can also assign readonly auto-properties from the constructor.
Prior to this I responded as below.
I'd avoid adding a default to the constructor; leave that for dynamic assignments and avoid having two points at which the variable is assigned (i.e. the type default and in the constructor). Typically I'd simply write a normal property in such cases.
One other option is to do what ASP.Net does and define defaults via an attribute:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.defaultvalueattribute.aspx
My solution is to use a custom attribute that provides default value property initialization by constant or using property type initializer.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)]
public class InstanceAttribute : Attribute
{
public bool IsConstructorCall { get; private set; }
public object[] Values { get; private set; }
public InstanceAttribute() : this(true) { }
public InstanceAttribute(object value) : this(false, value) { }
public InstanceAttribute(bool isConstructorCall, params object[] values)
{
IsConstructorCall = isConstructorCall;
Values = values ?? new object[0];
}
}
To use this attribute it's necessary to inherit a class from special base class-initializer or use a static helper method:
public abstract class DefaultValueInitializer
{
protected DefaultValueInitializer()
{
InitializeDefaultValues(this);
}
public static void InitializeDefaultValues(object obj)
{
var props = from prop in obj.GetType().GetProperties()
let attrs = prop.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(InstanceAttribute), false)
where attrs.Any()
select new { Property = prop, Attr = ((InstanceAttribute)attrs.First()) };
foreach (var pair in props)
{
object value = !pair.Attr.IsConstructorCall && pair.Attr.Values.Length > 0
? pair.Attr.Values[0]
: Activator.CreateInstance(pair.Property.PropertyType, pair.Attr.Values);
pair.Property.SetValue(obj, value, null);
}
}
}
Usage example:
public class Simple : DefaultValueInitializer
{
[Instance("StringValue")]
public string StringValue { get; set; }
[Instance]
public List<string> Items { get; set; }
[Instance(true, 3,4)]
public Point Point { get; set; }
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var obj = new Simple
{
Items = {"Item1"}
};
Console.WriteLine(obj.Items[0]);
Console.WriteLine(obj.Point);
Console.WriteLine(obj.StringValue);
}
Output:
Item1
(X=3,Y=4)
StringValue
little complete sample:
using System.ComponentModel;
private bool bShowGroup ;
[Description("Show the group table"), Category("Sea"),DefaultValue(true)]
public bool ShowGroup
{
get { return bShowGroup; }
set { bShowGroup = value; }
}
You can simple put like this
public sealed class Employee
{
public int Id { get; set; } = 101;
}
In the constructor. The constructor's purpose is to initialized it's data members.
private string name;
public string Name
{
get
{
if(name == null)
{
name = "Default Name";
}
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Have you tried using the DefaultValueAttribute or ShouldSerialize and Reset methods in conjunction with the constructor? I feel like one of these two methods is necessary if you're making a class that might show up on the designer surface or in a property grid.
Use the constructor because "When the constructor is finished, Construction should be finished". properties are like states your classes hold, if you had to initialize a default state, you would do that in your constructor.
To clarify, yes, you need to set default values in the constructor for class derived objects. You will need to ensure the constructor exists with the proper access modifier for construction where used. If the object is not instantiated, e.g. it has no constructor (e.g. static methods) then the default value can be set by the field. The reasoning here is that the object itself will be created only once and you do not instantiate it.
#Darren Kopp - good answer, clean, and correct. And to reiterate, you CAN write constructors for Abstract methods. You just need to access them from the base class when writing the constructor:
Constructor at Base Class:
public BaseClassAbstract()
{
this.PropertyName = "Default Name";
}
Constructor at Derived / Concrete / Sub-Class:
public SubClass() : base() { }
The point here is that the instance variable drawn from the base class may bury your base field name. Setting the current instantiated object value using "this." will allow you to correctly form your object with respect to the current instance and required permission levels (access modifiers) where you are instantiating it.
public Class ClassName{
public int PropName{get;set;}
public ClassName{
PropName=0; //Default Value
}
}
This is old now, and my position has changed. I'm leaving the original answer for posterity only.
Personally, I don't see the point of making it a property at all if you're not going to do anything at all beyond the auto-property. Just leave it as a field. The encapsulation benefit for these item are just red herrings, because there's nothing behind them to encapsulate. If you ever need to change the underlying implementation you're still free to refactor them as properties without breaking any dependent code.
Hmm... maybe this will be the subject of it's own question later
class Person
{
/// Gets/sets a value indicating whether auto
/// save of review layer is enabled or not
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool AutoSaveReviewLayer { get; set; }
}
I know this is an old question, but it came up when I was looking for how to have a default value that gets inherited with the option to override, I came up with
//base class
public class Car
{
public virtual string FuelUnits
{
get { return "gasoline in gallons"; }
protected set { }
}
}
//derived
public class Tesla : Car
{
public override string FuelUnits => "ampere hour";
}
I think this would do it for ya givng SomeFlag a default of false.
private bool _SomeFlagSet = false;
public bool SomeFlag
{
get
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
SomeFlag = false;
return SomeFlag;
}
set
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
_SomeFlagSet = true;
SomeFlag = value;
}
}