We Keep Coding

How to nicely call property with side effects?

This is purely a language matter, because I know, that this may (and possibly even should) be solved in a different way.
We have a property Prop, which in its getter has some side effects. How to "call" this property in a "nice" way to trigger these side effects?
One way:
object dummy = this.Prop;
But this doesn't seem to be a nice solution, because it involves creating unnecessary variable. I tried with:
(() => this.Prop)();
But it doesn't compile. Is there short and clean way to do it?

If you create a variable, you'll then get code complaining that it's unused, which can be annoying.
For benchmarking cases, I've sometimes added a generic Consume() extension method, which just does nothing:
public static void Consume<T>(this T ignored)
{
}
You can then write:
this.Prop.Consume();
and the compiler will be happy. Another alternative would be to put have a method which accepted a Func<T>:
public static void Consume<T>(Func<T> function)
{
function();
}
Then call it as:
Consume(() => this.Prop);
I rarely face this situation outside tests (both benchmarks, and "I should be able to call the property without an exception being thrown" test) but every so often it can be useful, e.g. to force a class to be initialized. Any time you find yourself wanting this, it's worth considering whether this would be more appropriate as a method.

How to enforce the use of a method's return value in C#?

I have a piece of software written with fluent syntax. The method chain has a definitive "ending", before which nothing useful is actually done in the code (think NBuilder, or Linq-to-SQL's query generation not actually hitting the database until we iterate over our objects with, say, ToList()).
The problem I am having is there is confusion among other developers about proper usage of the code. They are neglecting to call the "ending" method (thus never actually "doing anything")!
I am interested in enforcing the usage of the return value of some of my methods so that we can never "end the chain" without calling that "Finalize()" or "Save()" method that actually does the work.
Consider the following code:
//The "factory" class the user will be dealing with
public class FluentClass
{
//The entry point for this software
public IntermediateClass<T> Init<T>()
{
return new IntermediateClass<T>();
}
}
//The class that actually does the work
public class IntermediateClass<T>
{
private List<T> _values;
//The user cannot call this constructor
internal IntermediateClass<T>()
{
_values = new List<T>();
}
//Once generated, they can call "setup" methods such as this
public IntermediateClass<T> With(T value)
{
var instance = new IntermediateClass<T>() { _values = _values };
instance._values.Add(value);
return instance;
}
//Picture "lazy loading" - you have to call this method to
//actually do anything worthwhile
public void Save()
{
var itemCount = _values.Count();
. . . //save to database, write a log, do some real work
}
}
As you can see, proper usage of this code would be something like:
new FluentClass().Init<int>().With(-1).With(300).With(42).Save();
The problem is that people are using it this way (thinking it achieves the same as the above):
new FluentClass().Init<int>().With(-1).With(300).With(42);
So pervasive is this problem that, with entirely good intentions, another developer once actually changed the name of the "Init" method to indicate that THAT method was doing the "real work" of the software.
Logic errors like these are very difficult to spot, and, of course, it compiles, because it is perfectly acceptable to call a method with a return value and just "pretend" it returns void. Visual Studio doesn't care if you do this; your software will still compile and run (although in some cases I believe it throws a warning). This is a great feature to have, of course. Imagine a simple "InsertToDatabase" method that returns the ID of the new row as an integer - it is easy to see that there are some cases where we need that ID, and some cases where we could do without it.
In the case of this piece of software, there is definitively never any reason to eschew that "Save" function at the end of the method chain. It is a very specialized utility, and the only gain comes from the final step.
I want somebody's software to fail at the compiler level if they call "With()" and not "Save()".
It seems like an impossible task by traditional means - but that's why I come to you guys. Is there an Attribute I can use to prevent a method from being "cast to void" or some such?
Note: The alternate way of achieving this goal that has already been suggested to me is writing a suite of unit tests to enforce this rule, and using something like http://www.testdriven.net to bind them to the compiler. This is an acceptable solution, but I am hoping for something more elegant.

I don't know of a way to enforce this at a compiler level. It's often requested for objects which implement IDisposable as well, but isn't really enforceable.
One potential option which can help, however, is to set up your class, in DEBUG only, to have a finalizer that logs/throws/etc. if Save() was never called. This can help you discover these runtime problems while debugging instead of relying on searching the code, etc.
However, make sure that, in release mode, this is not used, as it will incur a performance overhead since the addition of an unnecessary finalizer is very bad on GC performance.

You could require specific methods to use a callback like so:
new FluentClass().Init<int>(x =>
{
x.Save(y =>
{
y.With(-1),
y.With(300)
});
});
The with method returns some specific object, and the only way to get that object is by calling x.Save(), which itself has a callback that lets you set up your indeterminate number of with statements. So the init takes something like this:
public T Init<T>(Func<MyInitInputType, MySaveResultType> initSetup)

I can think of three a few solutions, not ideal.
AIUI what you want is a function which is called when the temporary variable goes out of scope (as in, when it becomes available for garbage collection, but will probably not be garbage collected for some time yet). (See: The difference between a destructor and a finalizer?) This hypothetical function would say "if you've constructed a query in this object but not called save, produce an error". C++/CLI calls this RAII, and in C++/CLI there is a concept of a "destructor" when the object isn't used any more, and a "finaliser" which is called when it's finally garbage collected. Very confusingly, C# has only a so-called destructor, but this is only called by the garbage collector (it would be valid for the framework to call it earlier, as if it were partially cleaning the object immediately, but AFAIK it doesn't do anything like that). So what you would like is a C++/CLI destructor. Unfortunately, AIUI this maps onto the concept of IDisposable, which exposes a dispose() method which can be called when a C++/CLI destructor would be called, or when the C# destructor is called -- but AIUI you still have to call "dispose" manually, which defeats the point?
Refactor the interface slightly to convey the concept more accurately. Call the init function something like "prepareQuery" or "AAA" or "initRememberToCallSaveOrThisWontDoAnything". (The last is an exaggeration, but it might be necessary to make the point).
This is more of a social problem than a technical problem. The interface should make it easy to do the right thing, but programmers do have to know how to use code! Get all the programmers together. Explain simply once-and-for-all this simple fact. If necessary have them all sign a piece of paper saying they understand, and if they wilfully continue to write code which doesn't do anythign they're worse than useless to the company and will be fired.
Fiddle with the way the operators are chained, eg. have each of the intermediateClass functions assemble an aggregate intermediateclass object containing all of the parameters (you mostly do it this was already (?)) but require an init-like function of the original class to take that as an argument, rather than have them chained after it, and then you can have save and the other functions return two different class types (with essentially the same contents), and have init only accept a class of the correct type.
The fact that it's still a problem suggests that either your coworkers need a helpful reminder, or they're rather sub-par, or the interface wasn't very clear (perhaps its perfectly good, but the author didn't realise it wouldn't be clear if you only used it in passing rather than getting to know it), or you yourself have misunderstood the situation. A technical solution would be good, but you should probably think about why the problem occurred and how to communicate more clearly, probably asking someone senior's input.

After great deliberation and trial and error, it turns out that throwing an exception from the Finalize() method was not going to work for me. Apparently, you simply can't do that; the exception gets eaten up, because garbage collection operates non-deterministically. I was unable to get the software to call Dispose() automatically from the destructor either. Jack V.'s comment explains this well; here was the link he posted, for redundancy/emphasis:
The difference between a destructor and a finalizer?
Changing the syntax to use a callback was a clever way to make the behavior foolproof, but the agreed-upon syntax was fixed, and I had to work with it. Our company is all about fluent method chains. I was also a fan of the "out parameter" solution to be honest, but again, the bottom line is the method signatures simply could not change.
Helpful information about my particular problem includes the fact that my software is only ever to be run as part of a suite of unit tests - so efficiency is not a problem.
What I ended up doing was use Mono.Cecil to Reflect upon the Calling Assembly (the code calling into my software). Note that System.Reflection was insufficient for my purposes, because it cannot pinpoint method references, but I still needed(?) to use it to get the "calling assembly" itself (Mono.Cecil remains underdocumented, so it's possible I just need to get more familiar with it in order to do away with System.Reflection altogether; that remains to be seen....)
I placed the Mono.Cecil code in the Init() method, and the structure now looks something like:
public IntermediateClass<T> Init<T>()
{
ValidateUsage(Assembly.GetCallingAssembly());
return new IntermediateClass<T>();
}
void ValidateUsage(Assembly assembly)
{
// 1) Use Mono.Cecil to inspect the codebase inside the assembly
var assemblyLocation = assembly.CodeBase.Replace("file:///", "");
var monoCecilAssembly = AssemblyFactory.GetAssembly(assemblyLocation);
// 2) Retrieve the list of Instructions in the calling method
var methods = monoCecilAssembly.Modules...Types...Methods...Instructions
// (It's a little more complicated than that...
// if anybody would like more specific information on how I got this,
// let me know... I just didn't want to clutter up this post)
// 3) Those instructions refer to OpCodes and Operands....
// Defining "invalid method" as a method that calls "Init" but not "Save"
var methodCallingInit = method.Body.Instructions.Any
(instruction => instruction.OpCode.Name.Equals("callvirt")
&& instruction.Operand is IMethodReference
&& instruction.Operand.ToString.Equals(INITMETHODSIGNATURE);
var methodNotCallingSave = !method.Body.Instructions.Any
(instruction => instruction.OpCode.Name.Equals("callvirt")
&& instruction.Operand is IMethodReference
&& instruction.Operand.ToString.Equals(SAVEMETHODSIGNATURE);
var methodInvalid = methodCallingInit && methodNotCallingSave;
// Note: this is partially pseudocode;
// It doesn't 100% faithfully represent either Mono.Cecil's syntax or my own
// There are actually a lot of annoying casts involved, omitted for sanity
// 4) Obviously, if the method is invalid, throw
if (methodInvalid)
{
throw new Exception(String.Format("Bad developer! BAD! {0}", method.Name));
}
}
Trust me, the actual code is even uglier looking than my pseudocode.... :-)
But Mono.Cecil just might be my new favorite toy.
I now have a method that refuses to be run its main body unless the calling code "promises" to also call a second method afterwards. It's like a strange kind of code contract. I'm actually thinking about making this generic and reusable. Would any of you have a use for such a thing? Say, if it were an attribute?

What if you made it so Init and With don't return objects of type FluentClass? Have them return, e.g., UninitializedFluentClass which wraps a FluentClass object. Then calling .Save(0 on the UnitializedFluentClass object calls it on the wrapped FluentClass object and returns it. If they don't call Save they don't get a FluentClass object.

In Debug mode beside implementing IDisposable you can setup a timer that will throw a exception after 1 second if the resultmethod has not been called.

Use an out parameter! All the outs must be used.
Edit: I am not sure of it will help, tho...
It would break the fluent syntax.

General function question (C++ / Java / C#)

This question is probably language-agnostic, but I'll focus on the specified languages.
While working with some legacy code, I often saw examples of the functions, which (to my mind, obviously) are doing too much work inside them. I'm talking not about 5000 LoC monsters, but about functions, which implement prerequisity checks inside them.
Here is a small example:
void WorriedFunction(...) {
// Of course, this is a bit exaggerated, but I guess this helps
// to understand the idea.
if (argument1 != null) return;
if (argument2 + argument3 < 0) return;
if (stateManager.currentlyDrawing()) return;
// Actual function implementation starts here.
// do_what_the_function_is_used_for
}
Now, when this kind of function is called, the caller doesn't have to worry about all that prerequisities to be fulfilled and one can simply say:
// Call the function.
WorriedFunction(...);
Now - how should one deal with the following problem?
Like, generally speaking - should this function only do what it is asked for and move the "prerequisity checks" to the caller side:
if (argument1 != null && argument2 + argument3 < 0 && ...) {
// Now all the checks inside can be removed.
NotWorriedFunction();
}
Or - should it simply throw exceptions per every prerequisity mismatch?
if (argument1 != null) throw NullArgumentException;
I'm not sure this problem can be generalized, but still I want to here your thoughts about this - probably there is something I can rethink.
If you have alternative solutions, feel free to tell me about them :)
Thank you.

Every function/method/code block should have a precondition, which are the precise circumstances under which it is designed to work, and a postcondition, the state of the world when the function returns. These help your fellow programmers understand your intentions.
By definition, the code is not expected to work if the precondition is false, and is considered buggy if the postcondition is false.
Whether you write these down in your head, on paper in a design document, in comments, or in actual code checks is sort of a matter of taste.
But a practical issue, long-term, life is easier if you code the precondition and post-condition as explicit checks. If you code such checks, because the code is not expected to work
with a false precondition, or is buggy with a false postcondition, the pre- and post- condition checks should cause the program to report an error in a way that makes it easy to discover the point of failure. What code should NOT do is simply "return" having done nothing, as your example shows, as this implies that it has somehow executed correctly.
(Code may of course be defined to exit having done nothing, but if that's the case, the pre- and post- conditions should reflect this.)
You can obviously write such checks with an if statement (your example comes dangerously close):
if (!precondition) die("Precondition failure in WorriedFunction"); // die never comes back
But often the presence of a pre- or post-condition is indicated in the code by defining a special function/macro/statement... for the language called an assertion, and such special construct typically causes a program abort and backtrace when the assertion is false.
The way the code should have been written is as follows:
void WorriedFunction(...)
{ assert(argument1 != null); // fail/abort if false [I think your example had the test backwards]
assert(argument2 + argument3 >= 0);
assert(!stateManager.currentlyDrawing());
/* body of function goes here */
}
Sophisticated functions may be willing to tell their callers that some condition has failed. That's the real purpose of exceptions. If exceptions are present, technically the postcondition should say something to the effect of "the function may exit with an exception under condition xyz".

That's an interesting question. Check the concept of "Design By Contract", you may find it helpful.

It depends.
I'd like to seperate my answer between case 1, 3 and case 2.
case 1, 3
If you can safely recover from an argument problem, don't throw exceptions. A good example are the TryParse methods - if the input is wrongly formatted, they simply return false. Another example (for the exception) are all LINQ methods - they throw if the source is null or one of the mandatory Func<> are null. However, if they accept a custom IEqualityComparer<T> or IComparer<T>, they don't throw, and simply use the default implementation by EqualityComparer<T>.Default or Comparer<T>.Default. It all depends on the context of usage of the argument and if you can safely recover from it.
case 2
I'd only use this way if the code is in an infrastructure like environment. Recently, I started reimplementing the LINQ stack, and you have to implement a couple of interfaces - those implementations will never be used outside my own classes and methods, so you can make assumptions inside them - the outside will always access them via the interface and can't create them on their own.
If you make that assumption for API methods, your code will throw all sorts of exceptions on wrong input, and the user doesn't have a clue what is happening as he doesn't know the inside of your method.

"Or - should it simply throw exceptions per every prerequisity mismatch?"
Yes.

You should do checks before calling and function and if you own the function, you should make it throw exceptions if arguments passed are not as expected.
In your calling code these exceptions should be handled. Ofcourse arguments passed should be verified before the call.

When does a param that is passed by reference get updated?

Suppose I have a method like this:
public void MyCoolMethod(ref bool scannerEnabled)
{
try
{
CallDangerousMethod();
}
catch (FormatException exp)
{
try
{
//Disable scanner before validation.
scannerEnabled = false;
if (exp.Message == "FormatException")
{
MessageBox.Show(exp.Message);
}
}
finally
{
//Enable scanner after validation.
scannerEnabled = true;
}
}
And it is used like this:
MyCoolMethod(ref MyScannerEnabledVar);
The scanner can fire at any time on a separate thread. The idea is to not let it if we are handling an exception.
The question I have is, does the call to MyCoolMethod update MyScannerEnabledVar when scannerEnabled is set or does it update it when the method exits?
Note: I did not write this code, I am just trying to refactor it safely.

You can think of a ref as making an alias to a variable. It's not that the variable you pass is "passed by reference", it's that the parameter and the argument are the same variable, just with two different names. So updating one immediately updates the other, because there aren't actually two things here in the first place.
As SLaks notes, there are situations in VB that use copy-in-copy-out semantics. There are also, if I recall correctly, rare and obscure situations in which expression trees may be compiled into code that does copy-in-copy-out, but I do not recall the details.
If this code is intended to update the variable for reading on another thread, the fact that the variable is "immediately" updated is misleading. Remember, on multiple threads, reads and writes can be observed to move forwards and backwards in time with respect to each other if the reads and writes are not volatile. If the intention is to use the variable as a cross-thread communications mechanism them use an object actually designed for that purpose which is safe for that purpose. Use some sort of wait handle or mutex or whatever.

It gets updated live, as it is assigned inside the method.
When you pass a parameter by reference, the runtime passes (an equivalent to) a pointer to the field or variable that you referenced. When the method assigns to the parameter, it assigns directly to whatever the reference is pointing to.
Note, by the way, that this is not always true in VB.

Yes, it will be set when the variable is set within the method. Perhaps it would be best to return true or false whether the scanner is enabled rather than pass it in as a ref arg

The situation calls for more than a simple refactor. The code you posted will be subject to race conditions. The easy solution is to lock the unsafe method, thereby forcing threads to hop in line. The way it is, there's bound to be some bug(s) in the application due to this code, but its impossible to say what exactly they are without knowing a lot more about your requirements and implementation. I recommend you proceed with caution, a mutex/lock is an easy fix, but may have a great impact on performance. If this is a concern for you, then you all should review a better thread safe solution.

Unit testing void methods?

What is the best way to unit test a method that doesn't return anything? Specifically in c#.
What I am really trying to test is a method that takes a log file and parses it for specific strings. The strings are then inserted into a database. Nothing that hasn't been done before but being VERY new to TDD I am wondering if it is possible to test this or is it something that doesn't really get tested.

If a method doesn't return anything, it's either one of the following
imperative - You're either asking the object to do something to itself.. e.g change state (without expecting any confirmation.. its assumed that it will be done)
informational - just notifying someone that something happened (without expecting action or response) respectively.
Imperative methods - you can verify if the task was actually performed. Verify if state change actually took place. e.g.
void DeductFromBalance( dAmount )
can be tested by verifying if the balance post this message is indeed less than the initial value by dAmount
Informational methods - are rare as a member of the public interface of the object... hence not normally unit-tested. However if you must, You can verify if the handling to be done on a notification takes place. e.g.
void OnAccountDebit( dAmount ) // emails account holder with info
can be tested by verifying if the email is being sent
Post more details about your actual method and people will be able to answer better.
Update: Your method is doing 2 things. I'd actually split it into two methods that can now be independently tested.
string[] ExamineLogFileForX( string sFileName );
void InsertStringsIntoDatabase( string[] );
String[] can be easily verified by providing the first method with a dummy file and expected strings. The second one is slightly tricky.. you can either use a Mock (google or search stackoverflow on mocking frameworks) to mimic the DB or hit the actual DB and verify if the strings were inserted in the right location. Check this thread for some good books... I'd recomment Pragmatic Unit Testing if you're in a crunch.
In the code it would be used like
InsertStringsIntoDatabase( ExamineLogFileForX( "c:\OMG.log" ) );

Test its side-effects. This includes:
Does it throw any exceptions? (If it should, check that it does. If it shouldn't, try some corner cases which might if you're not careful - null arguments being the most obvious thing.)
Does it play nicely with its parameters? (If they're mutable, does it mutate them when it shouldn't and vice versa?)
Does it have the right effect on the state of the object/type you're calling it on?
Of course, there's a limit to how much you can test. You generally can't test with every possible input, for example. Test pragmatically - enough to give you confidence that your code is designed appropriately and implemented correctly, and enough to act as supplemental documentation for what a caller might expect.

As always: test what the method is supposed to do!
Should it change global state (uuh, code smell!) somewhere?
Should it call into an interface?
Should it throw an exception when called with the wrong parameters?
Should it throw no exception when called with the right parameters?
Should it ...?

Try this:
[TestMethod]
public void TestSomething()
{
try
{
YourMethodCall();
Assert.IsTrue(true);
}
catch {
Assert.IsTrue(false);
}
}

Void return types / Subroutines are old news. I haven't made a Void return type (Unless I was being extremely lazy) in like 8 years (From the time of this answer, so just a bit before this question was asked).
Instead of a method like:
public void SendEmailToCustomer()
Make a method that follows Microsoft's int.TryParse() paradigm:
public bool TrySendEmailToCustomer()
Maybe there isn't any information your method needs to return for usage in the long-run, but returning the state of the method after it performs its job is a huge use to the caller.
Also, bool isn't the only state type. There are a number of times when a previously-made Subroutine could actually return three or more different states (Good, Normal, Bad, etc). In those cases, you'd just use
public StateEnum TrySendEmailToCustomer()
However, while the Try-Paradigm somewhat answers this question on how to test a void return, there are other considerations too. For example, during/after a "TDD" cycle, you would be "Refactoring" and notice you are doing two things with your method... thus breaking the "Single Responsibility Principle." So that should be taken care of first. Second, you might have idenetified a dependency... you're touching "Persistent" Data.
If you are doing the data access stuff in the method-in-question, you need to refactor into an n-tier'd or n-layer'd architecture. But we can assume that when you say "The strings are then inserted into a database", you actually mean you're calling a business logic layer or something. Ya, we'll assume that.
When your object is instantiated, you now understand that your object has dependencies. This is when you need to decide if you are going to do Dependency Injection on the Object, or on the Method. That means your Constructor or the method-in-question needs a new Parameter:
public <Constructor/MethodName> (IBusinessDataEtc otherLayerOrTierObject, string[] stuffToInsert)
Now that you can accept an interface of your business/data tier object, you can mock it out during Unit Tests and have no dependencies or fear of "Accidental" integration testing.
So in your live code, you pass in a REAL IBusinessDataEtc object. But in your Unit Testing, you pass in a MOCK IBusinessDataEtc object. In that Mock, you can include Non-Interface Properties like int XMethodWasCalledCount or something whose state(s) are updated when the interface methods are called.
So your Unit Test will go through your Method(s)-In-Question, perform whatever logic they have, and call one or two, or a selected set of methods in your IBusinessDataEtc object. When you do your Assertions at the end of your Unit Test you have a couple of things to test now.
The State of the "Subroutine" which is now a Try-Paradigm method.
The State of your Mock IBusinessDataEtc object.
For more information on Dependency Injection ideas on the Construction-level... as they pertain to Unit Testing... look into Builder design patterns. It adds one more interface and class for each current interface/class you have, but they are very tiny and provide HUGE functionality increases for better Unit-Testing.

You can even try it this way:
[TestMethod]
public void ReadFiles()
{
try
{
Read();
return; // indicates success
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Assert.Fail(ex.Message);
}
}

it will have some effect on an object.... query for the result of the effect. If it has no visible effect its not worth unit testing!

Presumably the method does something, and doesn't simply return?
Assuming this is the case, then:
If it modifies the state of it's owner object, then you should test that the state changed correctly.
If it takes in some object as a parameter and modifies that object, then your should test the object is correctly modified.
If it throws exceptions is certain cases, test that those exceptions are correctly thrown.
If its behaviour varies based on the state of its own object, or some other object, preset the state and test the method has the correct Ithrough one of the three test methods above).
If youy let us know what the method does, I could be more specific.

Use Rhino Mocks to set what calls, actions and exceptions might be expected. Assuming you can mock or stub out parts of your method. Hard to know without knowing some specifics here about the method, or even context.

Depends on what it's doing. If it has parameters, pass in mocks that you could ask later on if they have been called with the right set of parameters.

What ever instance you are using to call the void method , You can just use ,Verfiy
For Example:
In My case its _Log is the instance and LogMessage is the method to be tested:
try
{
this._log.Verify(x => x.LogMessage(Logger.WillisLogLevel.Info, Logger.WillisLogger.Usage, "Created the Student with name as"), "Failure");
}
Catch
{
Assert.IsFalse(ex is Moq.MockException);
}
Is the Verify throws an exception due to failure of the method the test would Fail ?