Related
Here's code I write to check if properties in my viewmodel are null or not before attempting to update the database
var channel = _context.Channels.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Id == viewModel.Id);
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(viewModel.Part))
{
channel.Part = viewModel.Part;
}
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(viewModel.IndexName))
{
channel.IndexName = viewModel.IndexName;
}
if (viewModel.MeasurementId != null)
{
channel.MeasurementId = viewModel.MeasurementId;
}
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(viewModel.Direction))
{
channel.Direction = viewModel.Direction;
}
The code is working fine but I use alot of if statements here which for me doesn't look really effective. Can you suggest me changes like using other syntax or structures rather than if statement to make my code more concise and abit more "pro"?
As long as your channel object's properties do not have any side-effects other than changing a value (ie, firing events), you could do this:
string PickNonEmptyOrDefault(string value, string deflt)
{
return String.IsNullOrEmpty(value) ? deflt : value;
}
...
channel.Part = PickNonEmptyOrDefault(viewModel.Part, channel.Part);
channel.IndexName = PickNonEmptyOrDefault(viewModel.IndexName, channel.IndexName);
etc.
By the way, I wanted to know if there was a way this could be done without accidentally side effecting your property. The trick is to use reflection and to use a PropertyInfo object to do your work:
class Foo
{
public string Bar { get; set; }
public string Baz { get; set; }
public override string ToString()
{
return (Bar ?? "") + " " + (Baz ?? "");
}
}
delegate void propsetter(string prop, string value);
private static void SetOnNonEmpty(PropertyInfo pi, Object o, string value)
{
if (pi.PropertyType != typeof(string))
throw new ArgumentException("type mismatch on property");
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(value))
pi.SetValue(o, value);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var myObj = new Foo();
myObj.Baz = "nothing";
PropertyInfo piBar = myObj.GetType().GetProperty("Bar");
PropertyInfo piBaz = myObj.GetType().GetProperty("Baz");
SetOnNonEmpty(piBar, myObj, "something");
SetOnNonEmpty(piBaz, myObj, null);
Console.WriteLine(myObj);
}
output something nothing
I honestly don't recommend doing this as it doesn't really add to the readability and feels pretty gross.
I'd be more inclined to write a chunk of code that reflects across the properties of your view model and calls a Func<string, string> to get the corresponding property name in your data model and then if that returns non-null and the property types match, call the getter on the view object and pass it to the setter on the data object.
And I would only do this if I was doing this a significant number of times.
If it's just the if that bothers you you could use the conditional operator:
channel.Part = string.IsNullOrEmpty(viewModel.Part) ?
channel.Part : viewModel.Part;
etc.
of course that always calls the set accessor for Part, which is fine unless there's logic in it (change tracking, etc.) that would be bad if it were called when the value doesn't really change.
You could also refactor the conditional operator to a method, but there's no other way to conditionally set the value without using an if.
Your code is fine. Even Jon Skeet uses if statements.
If you want the best performing code, keep it like this. If you want to make your code look pro, use any suggestion done by others here. My opinion: keep it as is.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the code you have written.
If your objective is less lines of code, you can do this, however I think it will just add unnecessary complexity.
channel.Part = string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(viewModel.Part) ? channel.Part : viewModel.Part;
channel.IndexName = string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(viewModel.IndexName) ? channel.IndexName: viewModel.IndexName;
channel.MeasurementId = viewModel.MeasurementId == null ? channel.MeasurementId : viewModel.MeasurementId;
channel.Direction = string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(viewModel.Direction) ? channel.Direction : viewModel.Direction;
Note I have switched your call from IsNullOrEmpty to IsNullOrWhiteSpace
A string with the value of " " (one or more whitespace) will get through a IsNullOrEmpty check which you probably dont want.
You can also use the coalesce operator for your nullable types (but not empty strings) like this...
channel.MeasurementId = viewModel.MeasurementId ?? channel.MeasurementId;
If those are fields and not properties, you can use something like this:
void ReplaceIfNotEmpty(ref string destination, string source)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(source))
{
destination = source;
}
}
and then just
ReplaceIfNotEmpty(ref channel.Part, viewModel.Part);
Trying to wrap my head around perl's Autovivification and based on what it sounds like, It seems to work similar to dynamics in C# as a dynamic object is not assigned a type until runtime or, am I totally off here. If so then is there a comparable idea that I can bridge off of in C# that makes sense?
Edit
Okay so I'm apparently way off. So as second part of the 2 part question, is there anything conceptually comparable in C#? To be clear I'm looking for a concept in C# that is comparable to Autovivification. Doesn't have to be exactly the same but close enough conceptually to make sense. And as I stated eariler I am by no means a perl hacker or python hacker by any stretch of the imagination but, I am familar with c based languages C, C++, C#, java, javascript. I was thinking of C#'s dynamics but, as of right now I'm thinking lazy loading based on the info here if that helps....
I can't speak to C#, but in layman's terms, Perl's autovivification is the process of creating a container object out of an undefined value as soon as it is needed.
Despite most of Perl being quite dynamic, Perl's dereferencing syntax unambiguously specifies the type of the reference at compile time. This allows the interpreter to know what it needs out of a variable before the variable is ever defined.
my $var; # undefined
# to autovivify to an array:
#$var = 1..5; # # here implies ARRAY
$$var[4] = 5; # square brackets imply ARRAY
$#$var; # $# implies ARRAY (returns the last index number)
# to autovivify to a hash:
%$var = (a => 1); # % implies HASH
$$var{asdf} = 5; # curly braces imply HASH
This list could be longer, but should give you an idea.
So basically, when you have a line like this:
my $var;
$var->[1]{x}[3]{asdf}
Perl looks on the right side of the -> and sees square braces. This means that the invocant $var must be an array reference. Since the invocant is undefined, Perl creates a new array and installs its reference into $var. This same process is then repeated for every subsequent dereferencing.
So the line above really means:
(((($var //= [])->[1] //= {})->{x} //= [])->[3] //= {})->{asdf};
which is fairly hideous, and hence autovivification. (//= is the defined-or assignment operator in perl 5.10+)
Update:
As per cjm's comment, to put this into general non-perl terms, to achieve autovivification in another language, you need a lazy object that supports indexing via [...] and {...}. When either of these indexing operations are performed, the object replaces itself with either an array or hash. Every time the object is then accessed, if the cell is empty, it should return another lazy object.
obj = new lazy_obj()
level1 = obj[4] # sets obj to be an array, returns a new lazy_obj for level1
level2 = level1{asdf} # sets level1 (and obj[4]) to a hash,
# returns a new lazy_obj for level2
So basically you need two things, the ability to create an object that supports indexing with both array and hash subscripts (or the equivalent), and a mechanism such that an object can replace itself in memory with another object (or that can lock itself to one interpretation, and then store the new object internally.
Something like the following pseudo-code could be a start:
class autoviv {
private var content;
method array_subscript (idx) {
if (!content) {
content = new Array();
}
if (typeof content == Array) {
if (exists content[idx]) return content[idx];
return content[idx] = new autoviv();
} else {
throw error
}
}
method hash_subscript (idx) {
if (!content) {
content = new Hash();
}
if (typeof content == Hash) {
if (exists content{idx}) return content{idx};
return content{idx} = new autoviv();
} else {
throw error
}
}
// overload all other access to return undefined, so that the value
// still looks empty for code like:
//
// var auto = new autoviv();
// if (typeof auto[4] == autoviv) {should run}
// if (auto[4]) {should not run}
}
Uri Guttman's autovivification tutorial might be of some use.
Basically, it is the ability of hitherto untouched aggregates and members of aggregates to spring to life upon first use.
For example, I can do this:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict; use warnings;
use Data::Dumper;
my #dummy;
push #{ $dummy[0] }, split ' ', 'this that and the other';
push #{ $dummy[1] }, { qw(a b c d) };
print Dumper \#dummy;
Neither $dummy[0] nor $dummy[1] exist before they are dereferenced.
Now, if you are willing to forgo strict (which, you shouldn't be), you can also do things like:
use Data::Dumper;
#$x = qw(a b c d);
print Dumper $x;
whereby the undefined variable $x becomes an array reference because it is being dereferenced as such.
You can implement autovification-like behavior with creating say, an IDictionary<X,Y> that returns (and stores) a new IDictionary<X,Y> (e.g. recursively the same type) when a [] to an unset key occurs. This approach is used in Ruby to great success (an example) -- however, it's really not so useful in a statically typed language because there is no way to "get to" the leaf values cleanly -- at least in context of most existing contracts such as an IDictionary.
With the advent of dynamic, this may be possible in C# to do sanely, but I do not know.
How about something like this for a simple implementation of auto-vivification like behaviour of a Dictionary in C#? Obviously this doesn't handle it in the generic way that Perl does, but I believe that it has the same effect.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
// The purpose of this class is to provide a dictionary with auto-vivification behaviour similar to Perl's
// Using dict[index] will succeed regardless of whether index exists in the dictionary or not.
// A default value can be set to be used as an initial value when the key doesn't exist in the dictionary
namespace XMLTest
{
class AutoDictionary<TKey,TValue> : Dictionary<TKey,TValue> {
Object DefaultValue ;
public AutoDictionary(Object DefaultValue) {
this.DefaultValue = DefaultValue;
}
public AutoDictionary() {
this.DefaultValue = null;
}
public new TValue this[TKey index] {
get {
try {
return base[index];
}
catch (KeyNotFoundException) {
base.Add(index, (TValue)DefaultValue);
return (TValue)DefaultValue ;
}
}
set {
try {
base[index] = value ;
}
catch (KeyNotFoundException) {
base.Add(index, value);
}
}
}
}
}
I would recommend using extension methods instead of inheritance.
e.g.:
namespace DictionaryEx
{
public static class Ex
{
public static TV Vivify<TK, TV>(this IDictionary<TK, TV> dict, TK key)
{
var value = default(TV);
if (dict.TryGetValue(key, out value))
{
return value;
}
value = default(TV);
dict[key] = value;
return value;
}
public static TV Vivify<TK, TV>(this IDictionary<TK, TV> dict, TK key, TV defaultValue)
{
TV value;
if (dict.TryGetValue(key, out value))
{
return value;
}
dict[key] = defaultValue;
return defaultValue;
}
public static TV Vivify<TK, TV>(this IDictionary<TK, TV> dict, TK key, Func<TV> valueFactory)
{
TV value;
if (dict.TryGetValue(key, out value))
{
return value;
}
value = valueFactory();
dict[key] = value;
return value;
}
}
}
Using indexers and C# 4.0 dynamics,
class Tree
{
private IDictionary<string, object> dict = new Dictionary<string, object>();
public dynamic this[string key]
{
get { return dict.ContainsKey(key) ? dict[key] : dict[key] = new Tree(); }
set { dict[key] = value; }
}
}
// Test:
var t = new Tree();
t["first"]["second"]["third"] = "text";
Console.WriteLine(t["first"]["second"]["third"]);
DynamicObject can be used for implementing different syntaxes also,
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Dynamic;
class Tree : DynamicObject
{
private IDictionary<object, object> dict = new Dictionary<object, object>();
// for t.first.second.third syntax
public override bool TryGetMember(GetMemberBinder binder, out object result)
{
var key = binder.Name;
if (dict.ContainsKey(key))
result = dict[key];
else
dict[key] = result = new Tree();
return true;
}
public override bool TrySetMember(SetMemberBinder binder, object value)
{
dict[binder.Name] = value;
return true;
}
// for t["first"]["second"]["third"] syntax
public override bool TryGetIndex(GetIndexBinder binder, object[] indexes, out object result)
{
var key = indexes[0];
if (dict.ContainsKey(key))
result = dict[key];
else
dict[key] = result = new Tree();
return true;
}
public override bool TrySetIndex(SetIndexBinder binder, object[] indexes, object value)
{
dict[indexes[0]] = value;
return true;
}
}
// Test:
dynamic t = new Tree();
t.first.second.third = "text";
Console.WriteLine(t.first.second.third);
// or,
dynamic t = new Tree();
t["first"]["second"]["third"] = "text";
Console.WriteLine(t["first"]["second"]["third"]);
My situation is very simple. Somewhere in my code I have this:
dynamic myVariable = GetDataThatLooksVerySimilarButNotTheSame();
//How to do this?
if (myVariable.MyProperty.Exists)
//Do stuff
So, basically my question is how to check (without throwing an exception) that a certain property is available on my dynamic variable. I could do GetType() but I'd rather avoid that since I don't really need to know the type of the object. All that I really want to know is whether a property (or method, if that makes life easier) is available. Any pointers?
I think there is no way to find out whether a dynamic variable has a certain member without trying to access it, unless you re-implemented the way dynamic binding is handled in the C# compiler. Which would probably include a lot of guessing, because it is implementation-defined, according to the C# specification.
So you should actually try to access the member and catch an exception, if it fails:
dynamic myVariable = GetDataThatLooksVerySimilarButNotTheSame();
try
{
var x = myVariable.MyProperty;
// do stuff with x
}
catch (RuntimeBinderException)
{
// MyProperty doesn't exist
}
I thought I'd do a comparison of Martijn's answer and svick's answer...
The following program returns the following results:
Testing with exception: 2430985 ticks
Testing with reflection: 155570 ticks
void Main()
{
var random = new Random(Environment.TickCount);
dynamic test = new Test();
var sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
TestWithException(test, FlipCoin(random));
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Testing with exception: " + sw.ElapsedTicks.ToString() + " ticks");
sw.Restart();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
TestWithReflection(test, FlipCoin(random));
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Testing with reflection: " + sw.ElapsedTicks.ToString() + " ticks");
}
class Test
{
public bool Exists { get { return true; } }
}
bool FlipCoin(Random random)
{
return random.Next(2) == 0;
}
bool TestWithException(dynamic d, bool useExisting)
{
try
{
bool result = useExisting ? d.Exists : d.DoesntExist;
return true;
}
catch (Exception)
{
return false;
}
}
bool TestWithReflection(dynamic d, bool useExisting)
{
Type type = d.GetType();
return type.GetProperties().Any(p => p.Name.Equals(useExisting ? "Exists" : "DoesntExist"));
}
As a result I'd suggest using reflection. See below.
Responding to bland's comment:
Ratios are reflection:exception ticks for 100000 iterations:
Fails 1/1: - 1:43 ticks
Fails 1/2: - 1:22 ticks
Fails 1/3: - 1:14 ticks
Fails 1/5: - 1:9 ticks
Fails 1/7: - 1:7 ticks
Fails 1/13: - 1:4 ticks
Fails 1/17: - 1:3 ticks
Fails 1/23: - 1:2 ticks
...
Fails 1/43: - 1:2 ticks
Fails 1/47: - 1:1 ticks
...fair enough - if you expect it to fail with a probability with less than ~1/47, then go for exception.
The above assumes that you're running GetProperties() each time. You may be able to speed up the process by caching the result of GetProperties() for each type in a dictionary or similar. This may help if you're checking against the same set of types over and again.
Maybe use reflection?
dynamic myVar = GetDataThatLooksVerySimilarButNotTheSame();
Type typeOfDynamic = myVar.GetType();
bool exist = typeOfDynamic.GetProperties().Where(p => p.Name.Equals("PropertyName")).Any();
Just in case it helps someone:
If the method GetDataThatLooksVerySimilarButNotTheSame() returns an ExpandoObject you can also cast to a IDictionary before checking.
dynamic test = new System.Dynamic.ExpandoObject();
test.foo = "bar";
if (((IDictionary<string, object>)test).ContainsKey("foo"))
{
Console.WriteLine(test.foo);
}
The two common solutions to this include making the call and catching the RuntimeBinderException, using reflection to check for the call, or serialising to a text format and parsing from there. The problem with exceptions is that they are very slow, because when one is constructed, the current call stack is serialised. Serialising to JSON or something analogous incurs a similar penalty. This leaves us with reflection but it only works if the underlying object is actually a POCO with real members on it. If it's a dynamic wrapper around a dictionary, a COM object, or an external web service, then reflection won't help.
Another solution is to use IDynamicMetaObjectProvider to get the member names as the DLR sees them. In the example below, I use a static class (Dynamic) to test for the Age field and display it.
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
dynamic x = new ExpandoObject();
x.Name = "Damian Powell";
x.Age = "21 (probably)";
if (Dynamic.HasMember(x, "Age"))
{
Console.WriteLine("Age={0}", x.Age);
}
}
}
public static class Dynamic
{
public static bool HasMember(object dynObj, string memberName)
{
return GetMemberNames(dynObj).Contains(memberName);
}
public static IEnumerable<string> GetMemberNames(object dynObj)
{
var metaObjProvider = dynObj as IDynamicMetaObjectProvider;
if (null == metaObjProvider) throw new InvalidOperationException(
"The supplied object must be a dynamic object " +
"(i.e. it must implement IDynamicMetaObjectProvider)"
);
var metaObj = metaObjProvider.GetMetaObject(
Expression.Constant(metaObjProvider)
);
var memberNames = metaObj.GetDynamicMemberNames();
return memberNames;
}
}
Denis's answer made me think to another solution using JsonObjects,
a header property checker:
Predicate<object> hasHeader = jsonObject =>
((JObject)jsonObject).OfType<JProperty>()
.Any(prop => prop.Name == "header");
or maybe better:
Predicate<object> hasHeader = jsonObject =>
((JObject)jsonObject).Property("header") != null;
for example:
dynamic json = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject(data);
string header = hasHeader(json) ? json.header : null;
Well, I faced a similar problem but on unit tests.
Using SharpTestsEx you can check if a property existis. I use this testing my controllers, because since the JSON object is dynamic, someone can change the name and forget to change it in the javascript or something, so testing for all properties when writing the controller should increase my safety.
Example:
dynamic testedObject = new ExpandoObject();
testedObject.MyName = "I am a testing object";
Now, using SharTestsEx:
Executing.This(delegate {var unused = testedObject.MyName; }).Should().NotThrow();
Executing.This(delegate {var unused = testedObject.NotExistingProperty; }).Should().Throw();
Using this, i test all existing properties using "Should().NotThrow()".
It's probably out of topic, but can be usefull for someone.
Following on from the answer by #karask, you could wrap the function as a helper like so:
public static bool HasProperty(ExpandoObject expandoObj,
string name)
{
return ((IDictionary<string, object>)expandoObj).ContainsKey(name);
}
For me this works:
if (IsProperty(() => DynamicObject.MyProperty))
; // do stuff
delegate string GetValueDelegate();
private bool IsProperty(GetValueDelegate getValueMethod)
{
try
{
//we're not interesting in the return value.
//What we need to know is whether an exception occurred or not
var v = getValueMethod();
return v != null;
}
catch (RuntimeBinderException)
{
return false;
}
catch
{
return true;
}
}
If you control the type being used as dynamic, couldn't you return a tuple instead of a value for every property access? Something like...
public class DynamicValue<T>
{
internal DynamicValue(T value, bool exists)
{
Value = value;
Exists = exists;
}
T Value { get; private set; }
bool Exists { get; private set; }
}
Possibly a naive implementation, but if you construct one of these internally each time and return that instead of the actual value, you can check Exists on every property access and then hit Value if it does with value being default(T) (and irrelevant) if it doesn't.
That said, I might be missing some knowledge on how dynamic works and this might not be a workable suggestion.
If your use case is to convert an api response, carrying about only a few fields, you can use this:
var template = new { address = new { street = "" } };
var response = JsonConvert.DeserializeAnonymousType(await result.Content.ReadAsStringAsync(), template);
string street = response?.address?.street;
Here is the other way:
using Newtonsoft.Json.Linq;
internal class DymanicTest
{
public static string Json = #"{
""AED"": 3.672825,
""AFN"": 56.982875,
""ALL"": 110.252599,
""AMD"": 408.222002,
""ANG"": 1.78704,
""AOA"": 98.192249,
""ARS"": 8.44469
}";
public static void Run()
{
dynamic dynamicObject = JObject.Parse(Json);
foreach (JProperty variable in dynamicObject)
{
if (variable.Name == "AMD")
{
var value = variable.Value;
}
}
}
}
In my case, I needed to check for the existence of a method with a specific name, so I used an interface for that
var plugin = this.pluginFinder.GetPluginIfInstalled<IPlugin>(pluginName) as dynamic;
if (plugin != null && plugin is ICustomPluginAction)
{
plugin.CustomPluginAction(action);
}
Also, interfaces can contain more than just methods:
Interfaces can contain methods, properties, events, indexers, or any
combination of those four member types.
From: Interfaces (C# Programming Guide)
Elegant and no need to trap exceptions or play with reflexion...
I know this is really old post but here is a simple solution to work with dynamic type in c#.
can use simple reflection to enumerate direct properties
or can use the object extention method
or use GetAsOrDefault<int> method to get a new strongly typed object with value if exists or default if not exists.
public static class DynamicHelper
{
private static void Test( )
{
dynamic myobj = new
{
myInt = 1,
myArray = new[ ]
{
1, 2.3
},
myDict = new
{
myInt = 1
}
};
var myIntOrZero = myobj.GetAsOrDefault< int >( ( Func< int > )( ( ) => myobj.noExist ) );
int? myNullableInt = GetAs< int >( myobj, ( Func< int > )( ( ) => myobj.myInt ) );
if( default( int ) != myIntOrZero )
Console.WriteLine( $"myInt: '{myIntOrZero}'" );
if( default( int? ) != myNullableInt )
Console.WriteLine( $"myInt: '{myNullableInt}'" );
if( DoesPropertyExist( myobj, "myInt" ) )
Console.WriteLine( $"myInt exists and it is: '{( int )myobj.myInt}'" );
}
public static bool DoesPropertyExist( dynamic dyn, string property )
{
var t = ( Type )dyn.GetType( );
var props = t.GetProperties( );
return props.Any( p => p.Name.Equals( property ) );
}
public static object GetAs< T >( dynamic obj, Func< T > lookup )
{
try
{
var val = lookup( );
return ( T )val;
}
catch( RuntimeBinderException ) { }
return null;
}
public static T GetAsOrDefault< T >( this object obj, Func< T > test )
{
try
{
var val = test( );
return ( T )val;
}
catch( RuntimeBinderException ) { }
return default( T );
}
}
As ExpandoObject inherits the IDictionary<string, object> you can use the following check
dynamic myVariable = GetDataThatLooksVerySimilarButNotTheSame();
if (((IDictionary<string, object>)myVariable).ContainsKey("MyProperty"))
//Do stuff
You can make a utility method to perform this check, that will make the code much cleaner and re-usable
I'm writing an application that runs "things" to a schedule.
Idea being that the database contains assembly, method information and also the parameter values. The timer will come along, reflect the method to be run, add the parameters and then execute the method.
Everything is fine except for the parameters.
So, lets say the method accepts an ENUM of CustomerType where CustomerType has two values of CustomerType.Master and CustomerType.Associate.
EDIT
I don't know the type of parameter that will be getting passed in. ENUM used as an example
END OF EDIT
We want to run Method "X" and pass in parameter "CustomerType.Master". In the database, there will be a varchar entry of "CustomerType.Master".
How do I convert the string "CustomerType.Master" into a type of CustomerType with a value of "Master" generically?
Thanks in advance,
Jim
OK, the scope of the question shifted but my original observation and objection to some other solutions still stands.
I think you don't/can't want to use 'generics' here. You don't know the type ahead of time, and since you will need to create the type, there is no need to use a generic implementation because MethodBase.Invoke takes an array of Object.
This code assumes you are instantiating the target from database field. If not just adjust accordingly.
Of course this is not all encompassing and has no useful exception handling, but it will allow you to dynamically execute arbitrary methods on an arbitrary type with arbitrary parameters values all coming from string values in a row.
NOTE: there are many many many scenarios in which this simple executor will not work. You will need to ensure that you engineer your dynamic methods to cooperate with whatever strategy you do end up deciding to use.
using System;
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Drawing;
using System.Globalization;
using System.Reflection;
using NUnit.Framework;
namespace DynamicMethodInvocation
{
[TestFixture]
public class Tests
{
[Test]
public void Test()
{
// from your database
string assemblyQualifiedTypeName = "DynamicMethodInvocation.TestType, DynamicMethodInvocation";
string methodName = "DoSomething";
// this is how you would get the strings to put in your database
string enumString = Executor.ConvertToString(typeof(AttributeTargets), AttributeTargets.Assembly);
string colorString = Executor.ConvertToString(typeof(Color), Color.Red);
string stringString = "Hmm... String?";
object result = Executor.ExecuteMethod(assemblyQualifiedTypeName, methodName,
new[] { enumString, colorString, stringString });
Assert.IsInstanceOf<bool>(result);
Assert.IsTrue((bool)result);
}
}
public class TestType
{
public bool DoSomething(AttributeTargets #enum, Color color, string #string)
{
return true;
}
}
public class Executor
{
public static object ExecuteMethod(string assemblyQualifiedTypeName, string methodName,
string[] parameterValueStrings)
{
Type targetType = Type.GetType(assemblyQualifiedTypeName);
MethodBase method = targetType.GetMethod(methodName);
ParameterInfo[] pInfo = method.GetParameters();
var parameterValues = new object[parameterValueStrings.Length];
for (int i = 0; i < pInfo.Length; i++)
{
parameterValues[i] = ConvertFromString(pInfo[i].ParameterType, parameterValueStrings[i]);
}
// assumes you are instantiating the target from db and that it has a parameterless constructor
// otherwise, if the target is already known to you and instantiated, just use it...
return method.Invoke(Activator.CreateInstance(targetType), parameterValues);
}
public static string ConvertToString(Type type, object val)
{
if (val is string)
{
return (string) val;
}
TypeConverter tc = TypeDescriptor.GetConverter(type);
if (tc == null)
{
throw new Exception(type.Name + " is not convertable to string");
}
return tc.ConvertToString(null, CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, val);
}
public static object ConvertFromString(Type type, string val)
{
TypeConverter tc = TypeDescriptor.GetConverter(type);
if (tc == null)
{
throw new Exception(type.Name + " is not convertable.");
}
if (!tc.IsValid(val))
{
throw new Exception(type.Name + " is not convertable from " + val);
}
return tc.ConvertFrom(null, CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, val);
}
}
}
I would think you have 2 major options:
Store the type name along with the parameter value and use that to cast things using Type.GetType(string) to resolve the type in question.
Standardize all the methods to be called this way to accept an array of strings, and expect the methods to do any necessary casting.
I know you've stated that you're not doing option 1, but it would help things from the standpoint of calling the functions.
Option 2 is the far more 'generic' way to handle the situation, assuming all values can be represented by and cast/converted from strings to the appropriate type. Of course, that only helps if you actually have control over the definition of the methods being called.
Below is a useful extension method I use in .NET 3.5.
With this extension method available, your code could look like this:
var valueInDb = GetStringFromDb().Replace("CustomerType.", string.Empty);
var value = valueInDb.ToEnum(CustomerType.Associate);
By supplying the default value in the parameter, the compiler will know which Enum you want your string to be turned into. It will try to find your text in the Enum. If it doesn't it will return the default value.
Here is the extension method: (this version also does partial matches, so even "M" would work nicely!)
public static T ToEnum<T>(this string input, T defaultValue)
{
var enumType = typeof (T);
if (!enumType.IsEnum)
{
throw new ArgumentException(enumType + " is not an enumeration.");
}
// abort if no value given
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(input))
{
return defaultValue;
}
// see if the text is valid for this enumeration (case sensitive)
var names = Enum.GetNames(enumType);
if (Array.IndexOf(names, input) != -1)
{
// case insensitive...
return (T) Enum.Parse(enumType, input, true);
}
// do partial matching...
var match = names.Where(name => name.StartsWith(input, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase)).FirstOrDefault();
if(match != null)
{
return (T) Enum.Parse(enumType, match);
}
// didn't find one
return defaultValue;
}
I still don't fully understand your question... however, you say "Everything is fine except for the parameters."
I'll assume "CustomerType" the name of a property on your object, and "Master" is the string value you want to put in that property.
Here is (another) extension method that may help.
Once you have your new object and the value and property name from the database field, you could use this:
// string newValue = "Master";
// string propertyName = "CustomerType";
myNewObject.SetPropertyValue(propertyName, newValue)
Method:
/// <summary>Set the value of this property, as an object.</summary>
public static void SetPropertyValue(this object obj,
string propertyName,
object objValue)
{
const BindingFlags attr = BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance;
var type = obj.GetType();
var property = type.GetProperty(propertyName, attr);
if(property == null) return;
var propertyType = property.PropertyType;
if (propertyType.IsValueType && objValue == null)
{
// This works for most value types, but not custom ones
objValue = 0;
}
// need to change some types... e.g. value may come in as a string...
var realValue = Convert.ChangeType(objValue, propertyType);
property.SetValue(obj, realValue, null);
}
If you are using .NET 4 you can do the following.
var result = default(CustomerType);
if (!Enum.TryParse("Master", out result))
{
// handle error
}
I want to create a simple generic function
void Assign<T>(out T result)
{
Type type = typeof(T);
if (type.Name == "String")
{
// result = "hello";
}
else if (type.Name == "Int32")
{
// result = 100;
}
else result = default(T);
}
Usage:
int value;
string text;
Assign(value); // <<< should set value to 100
Assign(text); // <<< should set text to "hello"
My question is how do you program the code to set these values ie. the missing codes in comment section.
Thanks for any help.
It looks like in this case maybe you're doing it to try to avoid boxing? Difficult to say without more information, but for this specific example, it'd be much easier and probably less bug-prone to just use method overloading:
void Assign(out string value)
{
//...
}
void Assign(out int value)
{
//...
}
For the purposes of learning specifically what is wrong here, you do need to cast a value to an object before casting it to the generic type:
(T)(object)"hello world!";
Which IMO is pretty nasty and should be a last resort - certainly doesn't make your code any cleaner.
Any time you do type-checking of generic parameters, it's a good indication generics are not the right solution to your problem. Doing generic parameter type checks makes your code more complex, not simpler. It makes one method responsible for different behaviors based on type, instead of a series of single methods that are easy to change without accidentally affecting the others. See Single Responsibility Principle.
First of all that's a very bad pattern. You shouldn't use this kind of pattern. Maybe if you describe what you really want to achieve there will be better answers.
Code below works, but as I said writing code this way is a bad idea.
void Assign<T>(out T result)
{
Type type = typeof(T);
if (type.Name == "String")
{ result = (T) ((object)"hello"); }
else if (type.Name == "Int32")
{ result = (T) ((object)100); }
else result = default(T);
}
And usage:
int value;
string text;
Assign(out value);
Assign(out text);
public T GetObject<T>(string val)
{
T _object = default(T);
_object = (T)Convert.ChangeType(val, typeof(T));
return _object;
}
Here is one way:
static void Assign<T>(out T result) {
Type type = typeof(T);
if (type.Name == "String") {
result = (T)Convert.ChangeType("hello", typeof(T));
}
else if (type.Name == "Int32") {
result = (T)Convert.ChangeType(100, typeof(T));
}
else {
result = default(T);
}
}
But this code smells really bad and goes against the point of generics (instead use overloaded methods). I hope this doesn't end up in production code somewhere and is merely for edification.