With the move to EF6.1, our goal is to use exclusivity the Async/Await options speaking with our data sets. While porting from our previous Linq2Sql, there are many .ToList(), .FirstOrDefault(), and .Count()'s. I know we can search and fix those all, but it would be nice if we could, at compile time, prevent those functions from even being permitted into a build. Does anyone have have a creative idea on how to accomplish this? Even if they were compiler warnings that could be thrown (such as use of the Obsolete attribute).
You can use the .NET Compiler Platform to write a Diagnostic and Code Fix that will look for these patterns and provide warnings/errors.
You could even implement a Syntax Transformation to automatically change these constructs - though the effort might be more expensive than just doing it by hand.
Following up to this... i never found a solution that can detect this at compile time, but I was able to do this in code in the DataContext:
public EfMyCustomContext(string connctionString)
: base(string.Format(CONNECTION_STRING, connctionString))
{
#if DEBUG
this.Database.Log = LogDataBaseCall;
#endif
}
#if DEBUG
private void LogDataBaseCall(string s)
{
if (s.Contains("Executing "))
{
if (!s.Contains("asynchronously"))
{
// This code was not executed asynchronously
// Please look at the stack trace, and identify what needs
// to be loaded. Note, an entity.SomeOtherEntityOrCollection can be loaded
// with the eConnect API call entity.SomeOtherEntityOrCollectionLoadAsync() before using the
// object that is going to hit the sub object. This is the most common mistake
// and this breakpoint will help you identify all synchronous code.
// eConnect does not want any synchronous code in the code base.
System.Diagnostics.Debugger.Break();
}
}
}
#endif
Hope this helps someone else, and still would love if there was some option during compile.
A legacy app is in an endless loop at startup; I don't know why/how yet (code obfuscation contest candidate), but regarding the method that's being called over and over (which is called from several other methods), I thought, "I wonder if one of the methods that calls this is also calling another method that also calls it?"
I thought: "Nah, the compiler would be able to figure that out, and not allow it, or at least emit a warning!"
So I created a simple app to prove that would be the case:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
method1();
}
private void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
method2();
}
private void method1()
{
MessageBox.Show("method1 called, which will now call method2");
method2();
}
private void method2()
{
MessageBox.Show("method2 called, which will now call method1");
// Note to self: Write an article entitled, "Copy-and-Paste Considered Harmful"
method1();
}
}
...but no! It compiles just fine. Why wouldn't the compiler flag this code as questionable at best? If either button is mashed, you are in never-never land!
Okay, sometimes you may want an endless loop (pacemaker code, etc.), but still I think a warning should be emitted.
As you said sometimes people want infinite loops. And the jit-compiler of .net supports tailcall optimization, so you might not even get a stack overflow for endless recursion like you did it.
For the general case, predicting whether or not a program is going to terminate at some point or stuck in an infinite loop is impossible in finite time. It's called the halting problem. All a compiler can possibly find are some special cases, where it is easy to decide.
That's not an endless loop, but an endless recursion. And this is much worse, since they can lead to a stack overflow. Endless recursions are not desired in most languages, unless you are programming malware. Endless loops, however, are often intentional. Services typically run in endless loops.
In order to detect this kind of situation, the compiler would have to analyze the code by following the method calls; however the C# compiler limits this process to the immediate code within the current method. Here, uninitialized or unused variables can be tracked and unreachable code can be detected, for instance. There is a tradeoff to make between the compiling speed and the depth of static analysis and optimizations.
Also it is hardly possible to know the real intention of the programmer.
Imagine that you wrote a method that is perfectly legal. Suddenly because you are calling this method from another place, your compiler complains and tells you that your method is no more legal. I can already see the flood of posts on SO like: "My method compiled yesterday. Today it does not compile any more. But I didn't change it".
To put it very simply: it's not the compiler's job to question your coding patterns.
You could very well write a Main method that does nothing but throw an Exception. It's a far easier pattern to detect and a much more stupid thing to do; yet the compiler will happily allow your program to compile, run, crash and burn.
With that being said, since technically an endless loop / recursion is perfectly legal as far as the compiler is concerned, there's no reason why it should complain about it.
Actually, it would be very hard to figure out at compile time that the loop can't ever be broken at runtime. An exception could be thrown, user interaction could happen, a state might change somewhere on a specific thread, on a port you are monitoring, etc... there's way too much possibilities for any code analysis tool out there to establish, without any doubt, that a specific recursing code segment will inevitably cause an overflow at runtime.
I think the right way to prevent these situations is through unit testing organization. The more code paths you are covering in your tests, the less likely you are to ever face such a scenario.
Because its nearly impossible to detect!
In the example you gave, it is obvious (to us) that the code will loop forever. But the compiler just sees a function call, it doesn't necessarily know at the time what calls that function, what conditional logic could change the looping behavior etc.
For example, with this slight change you aren't in an infinite loop anymore:
private bool method1called = false;
private void method1()
{
MessageBox.Show("method1 called, which will now call method2");
if (!method1called)
method2();
method1called = true;
}
private void method2()
{
MessageBox.Show("method2 called, which will now call method1");
method1();
}
Without actually running the program, how would you know that it isn't looping? I could potentially see a warning for while (true), but that has enough valid use cases that it also makes sense to not put a warning in for it.
A compiler is just parsing the code and translating to IL (for .NET anyways). You can get limited information like variables not being assigned while doing that (especially since it has to generate the symbol table anyways) but advanced detection like this is generally left to code analysis tools.
I found this on the Infinite Loop Wiki found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_loop#Intentional_looping
There are a few situations when this is desired behavior. For example, the games on cartridge-based game consoles typically have no exit condition in their main loop, as there is no operating system for the program to exit to; the loop runs until the console is powered off.
Antique punchcard-reading unit record equipment would literally halt once a card processing task was completed, since there was no need for the hardware to continue operating, until a new stack of program cards were loaded.
By contrast, modern interactive computers require that the computer constantly be monitoring for user input or device activity, so at some fundamental level there is an infinite processing idle loop that must continue until the device is turned off or reset. In the Apollo Guidance Computer, for example, this outer loop was contained in the Exec program, and if the computer had absolutely no other work to do it would loop running a dummy job that would simply turn off the "computer activity" indicator light.
Modern computers also typically do not halt the processor or motherboard circuit-driving clocks when they crash. Instead they fall back to an error condition displaying messages to the operator, and enter an infinite loop waiting for the user to either respond to a prompt to continue, or to reset the device.
Hope this helps.
Problem Description:
As a single developer I've stumbled across this several times:
Sometimes on a project instead of choosing a cleaner approach it makes sense for efficiency reasons to just add some quick and dirty test-code within production code.
While it may sound like a dirty solution, please keep in mind, that I'm only talking about test-code that should be thrown away anyway, when I just want to quickly check something.
To be 100% sure to not forget to take this code out again I'd like to guard it by a compile time timebomb:
What I mean is some piece of code, preprocessor code or anything basically that allows for compilation for a certain timespan, like half an hour for instance and then automatically results in a compiler error after the time (half an hour) is over. A compiler error would be great because it could directly mark the place of the test-code. (I could have it as the first line(s) within such a throwaway region for instance)
So anything like "throw an error if system time is bigger than this specific DateTime" would be great.
I looked into the preprocessor (not too familiar with it) but the directives #if and #error didn't seem like an option since #if expects a symbol instead of an expression.
Question:
Is such a timebomb possible? Any idea on how to do that?
Or any idea on how to get the efficiency of quick and dirty test-code and be absolutely sure that taking it out again can't be forgotten?
(A run time error would be easy but if a compile time error isn't possible I would need something of a similar quality to it.)
I personally think, that timebombing is the wrong approach. Use build targets to distinguish different purpose of code usage.
// Constructor call will only be allowed for target DEBUG
public class Protect : IDisposable
{
#if DEBUG
[Obsolete("error", false)]
#else
[Obsolete("error", true)]
#endif
public Protect()
{
}
public void Dispose()
{
}
}
Usage
using (new Protect())
{
// do some testcode
// will only compile in DEBUG mode
}
One option is to generate file that has "current time" variable at build time and than simply add check that code should stop working after particular time.
Possible approach to generate file at build time - how to put computed value in RESX at build time C#
In Visual Studio, is there any way to make the debugger break whenever a certain file (or class) is entered? Please don't answer "just set a breakpoint at the beginning of every method" :)
I am using C#.
Macros can be your friend. Here is a macro that will add a breakpoint to every method in the current class (put the cursor somewhere in the class before running it).
Public Module ClassBreak
Public Sub BreakOnAnyMember()
Dim debugger As EnvDTE.Debugger = DTE.Debugger
Dim sel As EnvDTE.TextSelection = DTE.ActiveDocument.Selection
Dim editPoint As EnvDTE.EditPoint = sel.ActivePoint.CreateEditPoint()
Dim classElem As EnvDTE.CodeElement = editPoint.CodeElement(vsCMElement.vsCMElementClass)
If Not classElem Is Nothing Then
For Each member As EnvDTE.CodeElement In classElem.Children
If member.Kind = vsCMElement.vsCMElementFunction Then
debugger.Breakpoints.Add(member.FullName)
End If
Next
End If
End Sub
End Module
Edit: Updated to add breakpoint by function name, rather than file/line number. It 'feels' better and will be easier to recognise in the breakpoints window.
You could start by introducing some sort of Aspect-Oriented Programming - see for instance
this explanation - and then put a breakpoint in the single OnEnter method.
Depending on which AOP framework you choose, it'd require a little decoration in your code and introduce a little overhead (that you can remove later) but at least you won't need to set breakpoints everywhere. In some frameworks you might even be able to introduce it with no code change at all, just an XML file on the side?
Maybe you could use an AOP framework such as PostSharp to break into the debugger whenever a method is entered. Have a look at the very short tutorial on this page for an example, how you can log/trace whenever a method is entered.
Instead of logging, in your case you could put the Debugger.Break() statement into the OnEntry-handler. Although, the debugger would not stop in your methods, but in the OnEntry-handler (so I'm not sure if this really helps).
Here's a very basic sample:
The aspect class defines an OnEntry handler, which calls Debugger.Break():
[Serializable]
public sealed class DebugBreakAttribute : PostSharp.Laos.OnMethodBoundaryAspect
{
public DebugBreakAttribute() {}
public DebugBreakAttribute(string category) {}
public string Category { get { return "DebugBreak"; } }
public override void OnEntry(PostSharp.Laos.MethodExecutionEventArgs eventArgs)
{
base.OnEntry(eventArgs);
// debugger will break here. Press F10 to continue to the "real" method
System.Diagnostics.Debugger.Break();
}
}
I can then apply this aspect to my class, where I want the debugger to break whenever a method is called:
[DebugBreak("DebugBreak")]
public class MyClass
{
public MyClass()
{
// ...
}
public void Test()
{
// ...
}
}
Now if I build and run the application, the debugger will stop in the OnEntry() handler whenever one of the methods of MyClass is called. All I have to do then, is to press F10, and I'm in the method of MyClass.
Well, as everyone is saying, it involves setting a breakpoint at the beginning of every method. But you're not seeing the bigger picture.
For this to work at all, a breakpoint has to be set at the beginning of every method. Whether you do it manually, or the debugger does it automatically, those breakpoints must be set for this to work.
So, the question really becomes, "If there enough of a need for this functionality, that it is worth building into the debugger an automatic means of setting all those breakpoints?". And the answer is, "Not Really".
This feature is implemented in VS for native C++. crtl-B and specify the 'function' as "Classname::*", this sets a breakpoint at the beginning of every method on the class. The breakpoints set are grouped together in the breakpoints window (ctrl-alt-B) so they can be enabled, disabled, and removed as a group.
Sadly the macro is likely the best bet for managed code.
This works fine in WinDbg:
bm exename!CSomeClass::*
(Just to clarify, the above line sets a breakpoint on all functions in the class, just like the OP is asking for, without resorting to CRT hacking or macro silliness)
You could write a Visual Studio macro that obtained a list of all of the class methods (say, by reading the .map file produced alongside the executable and searching it for the proper symbol names (and then demangling those names)), and then used Breakpoints.add() to programmatically add breakpoints to those functions.
System.Diagnostics.Debugger.Break();
(at the beginning of every method)
No. Or rather, yes, but it involves setting a breakpoint at the beginning of every method.
Use Debugger.Break(); (from the System.Diagnostics namespace)
Put it at the top of each function you wish to have "broken"
void MyFunction()
{
Debugger.Break();
Console.WriteLine("More stuff...");
}
Isn't the simplest method to get closest to this to simply set a break point in the constructor (assuming you have only one - or each of them in the case of multiple constructors) ?
This will break into debugging when the class is first instantiated in the case of a non-static constructor, and in the case of a static constructor/class, you'll break into debugging as soon as Visual Studio decides to initialize your class.
This certainly prevents you from having to set a breakpoint in every method within the class.
Of course, you won't continue to break into debugging on subsequent re-entry to the class's code (assuming you're using the same instantiated object the next time around), however, if you re-instantiate a new object each time from within the calling code, you could simulate this.
However, in conventional terms, there's no simple way to set a single break point in one place (for example) and have it break into debugging every time a class's code (from whichever method) is entered (as far as I know).
Assuming that you're only interested in public methods i.e. when the class methods are called "from outside", I will plug Design by Contract once more.
You can get into the habit of writing your public functions like this:
public int Whatever(int blah, bool duh)
{
// INVARIANT (i)
// PRECONDITION CHECK (ii)
// BODY (iii)
// POSTCONDITION CHECK (iv)
// INVARIANT (v)
}
Then you can use the Invariant() function that you will call in (i) and set a breakpoint in it. Then inspect the call stack to know where you're coming from. Of course you will call it in (v), too; if you're really interested in only entry points, you could use a helper function to call Invariant from (i) and another one from (v).
Of course this is extra code but
It's useful code anyway, and the structure is boilerplate if you use Design by Contract.
Sometimes you want breakpoints to investigate some incorrect behaviour eg invalid object state, in that case invariants might be priceless.
For an object which is always valid, the Invariant() function just has a body that returns true. You can still put a breakpoint there.
It's just an idea, it admittedly has a footstep, so just consider it and use it if you like it.
Joel, the answer seems to be "no". There isn't a way without a breakpoint at every method.
To remove the breakpoints set by the accepted answer add another macro with the following code
Public Sub RemoveBreakOnAnyMember()
Dim debugger As EnvDTE.Debugger = DTE.Debugger
Dim bps As Breakpoints
bps = debugger.Breakpoints
If (bps.Count > 0) Then
Dim bp As Breakpoint
For Each bp In bps
Dim split As String() = bp.File.Split(New [Char]() {"\"c})
If (split.Length > 0) Then
Dim strName = split(split.Length - 1)
If (strName.Equals(DTE.ActiveDocument.Name)) Then
bp.Delete()
End If
End If
Next
End If
End Sub
Not that I'm aware of. The best you can do is to put a breakpoint in every method in the file or class. What are you trying to do? Are you trying to figure out what method is causing something to change? If so, perhaps a data breakpoint will be more appropriate.
You could write a wrapper method through which you make EVERY call in your app. Then you set a breakpoint in that single method. But... you'd be crazy to do such a thing.
You could put a memory break point on this, and set it to on read. I think there should be a read most of the time you call a member function. I'm not sure about static functions.
you can use the following macro:
#ifdef _DEBUG
#define DEBUG_METHOD(x) x DebugBreak();
#else
#define DEBUG_METHOD(x) x
#endif
#include <windows.h>
DEBUG_METHOD(int func(int arg) {)
return 0;
}
on function enter it will break into the debugger
IF this is C++ you are talking about, then you could probably get away with, (a hell of a lot of work) setting a break point in the preamble code in the CRT, or writing code that modifies the preamble code to stick INT 3's in there only for functions generated from the class in question... This, BTW, CAN be done at runtime... You'd have to have the PE file that's generated modify itself, possibly before relocation, to stick all the break's in there...
My only other suggestion would be to write a Macro that uses the predefined macro __FUNCTION__, in which you look for any function that's part of the class in question, and if necessary, stick a
__asm { int 3 }
in your macro to make VS break... This will prevent you from having to set break points at the start of every function, but you'd still have to stick a macro call, which is a lot better, if you ask me. I think I read somewhere on how you can define, or redefine the preamble code that's called per function.. I'll see what I can find.
I would think I similar hack could be used to detect which FILE you enter, but you STILL have to place YOUR function macro's all over your code, or it will never get called, and, well, that's pretty much what you didn't want to do.
If you are willing to use a macro then the accepted answer from this question
Should be trivially convertible to you needs by making the search function searching for methods, properties and constructors (as desired), there is also quite possibly a way to get the same information from the the ide/symbols which will be more stable (though perhaps a little more complex).
You can use Debugger.Launch() and Debugger.Break() in the assembly System.Diagnostics
Files have no existence at runtime (consider that partial classes are no different -- in terms of code -- from putting everything in a single file). Therefore a macro approach (or code in every method) is required.
To do the same with a type (which does exist at runtime) may be able to be done, but likely to be highly intrusive, creating more potential for heisenbugs. The "easiest" route to this is likely to be making use of .NET remoting's proxy infrastructure (see MOQ's implementation for an example of using transparent proxy).
Summary: use a macro, or select all followed by set breakpoint (ctrl-A, F9).
Mad method using reflection. See the documentation for MethodRental.SwapMethodBody for details. In pseudocode:
void SetBreakpointsForAllMethodsAndConstructorsInClass (string classname)
{
find type information for class classname
for each constructor and method
get MSIL bytes
prepend call to System.Diagnostics.Debugger.Break to MSIL bytes
fix up MSIL code (I'm not familiar with the MSIL spec. Generally, absolute jump targets need fixing up)
call SwapMethodBody with new MSIL
}
You can then pass in classname as a runtime argument (via the command line if you want) to set breakpoints on all methods and constructors of the given class.