We Keep Coding

Can I change this extension method to remove the "magic string"? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Finding the Variable Name passed to a Function in C#
The class below contains the field city.
I need to dynamically determine the field's name as it is typed in the class declaration
i.e. I need to get the string "city" from an instance of the object city.
I have tried to do this by examining its Type in DoSomething() but can't find it when examining the contents of the Type in the debugger.
Is it possible?
public class Person
{
public string city = "New York";
public Person()
{
}
public void DoSomething()
{
Type t = city.GetType();
string field_name = t.SomeUnkownFunction();
//would return the string "city" if it existed!
}
}
Some people in their answers below have asked me why I want to do this.
Here's why.
In my real world situation, there is a custom attribute above city.
[MyCustomAttribute("param1", "param2", etc)]
public string city = "New York";
I need this attribute in other code.
To get the attribute, I use reflection.
And in the reflection code I need to type the string "city"
MyCustomAttribute attr;
Type t = typeof(Person);
foreach (FieldInfo field in t.GetFields())
{
if (field.Name == "city")
{
//do stuff when we find the field that has the attribute we need
}
}
Now this isn't type safe.
If I changed the variable "city" to "workCity" in my field declaration in Person this line would fail unless I knew to update the string
if (field.Name == "workCity")
//I have to make this change in another file for this to still work, yuk!
{
}
So I am trying to find some way to pass the string to this code without physically typing it.
Yes, I could declare it as a string constant in Person (or something like that) but that would still be typing it twice.
Phew! That was tough to explain!!
Thanks
Thanks to all who answered this * a lot*. It sent me on a new path to better understand lambda expressions. And it created a new question.

Maybe you need this. Works fine.
I found this here.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var domain = "matrix";
Check(() => domain);
Console.ReadLine();
}
static void Check<T>(Expression<Func<T>> expr)
{
var body = ((MemberExpression)expr.Body);
Console.WriteLine("Name is: {0}", body.Member.Name);
Console.WriteLine("Value is: {0}", ((FieldInfo)body.Member)
.GetValue(((ConstantExpression)body.Expression).Value));
}
Output will be:
Name is: 'domain'
Value is: 'matrix'

I know this is old question, but I was trying to achieve the same and google sent me here. After many hours I finally found a way. I hope somebody else will find this useful.
There are actually more ways to accomplish this:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
GetName(new { var1 });
GetName2(() => var1);
GetName3(() => var1);
}
static string GetName<T>(T item) where T : class
{
return typeof(T).GetProperties()[0].Name;
}
static string GetName2<T>(Expression<Func<T>> expr)
{
return ((MemberExpression)expr.Body).Member.Name;
}
static string GetName3<T>(Func<T> expr)
{
return expr.Target.GetType().Module.ResolveField(BitConverter.ToInt32(expr.Method.GetMethodBody().GetILAsByteArray(), 2)).Name;
}
The first is fastest. The last 2 are approx 20 times slower than the 1st one.
http://abdullin.com/journal/2008/12/13/how-to-find-out-variable-or-parameter-name-in-c.html

city in this case is an instance of type string. When you call .GetType() you return the actual string type, which has no knowledge at all of your particular city instance.
I'm having a hard time seeing why you can't just type "city" in the code as a string literal here, if that's what you need. Perhaps it would help if you shared what you want to use this value for and in what circumstances you will call your DoSomething() function.
At the moment, my best guess is that what you really want to do is reflect the entire Person class to get a list of the fields in that class:
public void DoSomething()
{
MemberInfo[] members = this.GetType().GetMembers();
// now you can do whatever you want with each of the members,
// including checking their .Name properties.
}
Okay, based on your edit I have some more for you.
You can find the name of fields that are decorated with your attribute at run-time like this:
Type t = typeof(Person);
foreach (MemberInfo member in t.GetMembers()
.Where(m =>
m.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(MyCustomAttribute)).Any() ) )
{
// "member" is a MemberInfo object for a Peson member that is
// decorated with your attribute
}
You can also use binding flags in the first GetMembers() call to limit it to just fields, if you want.

You mentioned "i.e. I need to get the string "city" from an instance of the object city."
Are you looking to get the field name from the value of the field.
For example:If there are 2 Person object one with city "New York" and the other with city "London", are you looking for the function to return "city". Is this what you mean by dynamic?
With your current design you will always need to compare the name of the field from the FieldInfo against a string.
What if you instead decouple this so that you hold the identifier to use for comparison purposes during reflection as part of the attribute.
Something like this:
public enum ReflectionFields
{
CITY = 0,
STATE,
ZIP,
COUNTRY
}
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Field,AllowMultiple=false)]
public class CustomFieldAttr : Attribute
{
public ReflectionFields Field { get; private set; }
public string MiscInfo { get; private set; }
public CustomFieldAttr(ReflectionFields field, string miscInfo)
{
Field = field;
MiscInfo = miscInfo;
}
}
public class Person
{
[CustomFieldAttr(ReflectionFields.CITY, "This is the primary city")]
public string _city = "New York";
public Person()
{
}
public Person(string city)
{
_city = city;
}
}
public static class AttributeReader<T> where T:class
{
public static void Read(T t)
{
//get all fields which have the "CustomFieldAttribute applied to it"
var fields = t.GetType().GetFields().Where(f => f.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(CustomFieldAttr), true).Length == 1);
foreach (var field in fields)
{
var attr = field.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(CustomFieldAttr), true).First() as CustomFieldAttr;
if (attr.Field == ReflectionFields.CITY)
{
//You have the field and you know its the City,do whatever processing you need.
Console.WriteLine(field.Name);
}
}
}
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
PPerson p1 = new PPerson("NewYork");
PPerson p2 = new PPerson("London");
AttributeReader<PPerson>.Read(p1);
AttributeReader<PPerson>.Read(p2);
}
}
You can now freely rename _city field of Person to something else and your calling code will still work since the code using reflection is trying to identify the field using the ReflectionFields enum value set as part of initialization of the attribute set on the field.

Yes its possible !!!
Try this out...
public string DoSomething(object city)
{
return city.GetType().GetProperty("Name",typeof(string)).GetValue(city,null);
}

Two things here.
Number one, as someone above pointed out, you're getting the Type for string, not for Person. So typeof(Person).GetMembers() will get you the list of members.
Number two, and more importantly, it looks like you're misunderstanding the purpose of attributes. In general attributes are used to mark a member for specific processing or to add additional information. Here you're using the name to indicate what processing you want, and the attribute to specify parameters, which is mixing of metaphors, or something.
Abhijeet's answer is more appropriate, you mark the field as a city field, then do what you like with it. Where I disagree is that I would use different attribute classes, rather than an enumeration.
Something like:
public class MyAttribute : Attribute
{
}
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Field)]
public class MyCityAttribute : MyAttribute
{
}
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Field]
public class MyNameAttribute: MyAttribute
{
}
public class Person
{
[MyCity]
public string city = "New York";
[MyCity]
public string workCity = "Chicago";
[MyName]
public string fullName = "John Doe";
public Person()
{
}
public void DoSomething()
{
Type t = typeof(Person);
FieldInfo[] fields = t.GetFields(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public);
foreach (var field in fields)
{
MyAttribute[] attributes = field.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(MyAttribute));
if (attributes.Count > 0)
{
if (attributes[0] is MyCityAttribute)
{
//Dosomething for city
break;
}
if (attributes[0] is MyNameAttribute)
{
//Dosomething for names
break;
}
}
}
}
}
This would allow you to use different parameters for MyCity vs MyName that would make more sense in the context of processing each.
I think with your 'yuk' comment above, you hit the nail on the head. That you would have to change a string constant if you rename your variable is an indicator that you're doing something wrong.

t.GetField("city", BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);
or you can call GetFields() to get all fields

You need to call get type on the class Person. The iterate the fields of the class as in the answer below

This is not possible (I think it actually is but involes several hacks and using lambdas). If you want to store attributes about a Person and be able to get the name of the attribute easily, I suggest using a Dictionary<TKey, TValue> from the System.Collections.Generic namespace.
And you can always make public properties that wrap the dictionary.
public class Person
{
Dictionary<string, string> attributes = new Dictionary<string, string();
public string City
{
get { return attributes["city"]; }
set { attributes["city"] = value; }
}
public Person()
{
City = "New York";
}
}
And you can get a list of all attributes with attributes.Keys.

Have a look at this post as it looks similar to what you're trying to do:
Finding the variable name passed to a function
(especially Konrad Rudolph's answer) Another approach could be to just add "city" as one of the parameters in the attribute and fish that out later.

You are already looping through the collection of FieldInfo objects. Look for your attribute on those and when you find the FieldInfo that contains your attribute, you have the one you want. Then call .Name on it.
system.reflection.fieldinfo.attributes

C# Class Properties Code Difference

Im quietly confuse on what is the difference between this code
class Person
{
private string name = "N/A";
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
}
and this code
class Person
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Can anyone help me to explain their use, and when they are being used. The advantage and disadvantage. Thanks!

these two pieces of code are exactly the same. When you write the second piece of code the c# compiler actually translates it to the first. It's just a quicker way to write and read it.
However this being said the first example has its uses.
For example if you would like to change the name value in any way before it was set you would have to use the first example.
For example:
class Person
{
private string name = "N/A";
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = "My name is:" + value;
}
}
}

public String Name { get; set; }
Above is a short hand way to write a property and are called automatically implemented properties (AIPs). C# compiler will automatically create a private field for these behind the scenes.

Properties in a particular order

Using reflection I have a tool that gets the properties of a class:
foreach (MemberInfo member in typeof(T).GetProperties(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public))
{
WriteValue(streamWriter, member.Name);
}
Is there a way to ask "GetProperties" to return MemberInfo's in the order they are defined in the class. I seriously doubt it, but thought I'd ask.
class Person
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
}
I'd like to get MemberInfo's in this order then: Id, Age

[Caution: use at your own discresion as these are obviously Microsoft's impl details, which may change in future releases]
Update: Mono seems to work too
I've observed consitent behaviour using MS compilers since v3.5 when I stumbled upon this:
using System;
using System.Linq;
using System.Reflection;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
typeof(Test).GetMembers(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.DeclaredOnly)
.OrderBy(member => member.MetadataToken).ToList()
.ForEach(member => Console.WriteLine(member.Name));
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class Test
{
public int SecondProperty { get; set; }
public int FirstProperty { get; set; }
}
}

No, for auto-properties there isn't. You can get methods in order of declaration using debug symbols, and since property getters are methods, you can (with some work) obtain a list of properties with explicit getters (or setters) in order of declaration, but the getters of auto-properties have no source code and thus no debug symbols to indicate their location. As for CLI metadata, the compiler is not obliged to put them in order of declaration, and as reflection relies exclusively on metadata, it cannot be used for this purpose.

Looking for a short & simple example of getters/setters in C#

I am having trouble understanding the concept of getters and setters in the C# language. In languages like Objective-C, they seem an integral part of the system, but not so much in C# (as far as I can tell). I have read books and articles already, so my question is, to those of you who understand getters & setters in C#, what example would you personally use if you were teaching the concept to a complete beginner (this would include as few lines of code as possible)?

I think a bit of code will help illustrate what setters and getters are:
public class Foo
{
private string bar;
public string GetBar()
{
return bar;
}
public void SetBar(string value)
{
bar = value;
}
}
In this example we have a private member of the class that is called bar. The GetBar() and SetBar(string value) methods do exactly what they are named - one retrieves the bar member, and the other sets its value.
In C# 1.1 and later, you have properties. The basic functionality is also the same:
public class Foo
{
private string bar;
public string Bar
{
get { return bar; }
set { bar = value; }
}
}
The private member bar is not accessible outside the class, but the public Bar is, and it has two accessors: get, which returns the private member just as the GetBar() example above, and also a set, which corresponds to the SetBar(string value) method in the aforementioned example.
Starting with C# 3.0 and above, the compiler was optimized to the point that such properties do not need to be explicitly given a private member as their source. The compiler automatically generates a private member of that type and uses it as a source of a property.
public class Foo
{
public string Bar { get; set; }
}
What the code shows is an automatic property that has a private member generated by the compiler. You don't see the private member, but it is there. This also introduced a couple of other issues - mainly with access control. In C# 1.1 and 2.0, you could omit the get or set portion of a property entirely:
public class Foo
{
private string bar;
public string Bar
{
get { return bar; }
}
}
Giving you the chance to restrict how other objects interact with the Bar property of the Foo class. But from C# 3.0 to before 6.0, if you chose to use automatic properties, you would have to specify the access to the property as follows to emulate that behavior:
public class Foo
{
public string Bar { get; private set; }
}
The set accessor would still exist, but only the class itself could use it to set Bar to some value, and anyone could still get the value.
Thankfully, starting in C# 6.0, properties can be made read- or write-only again by simply omitting the property's get or set respectively (not to be confused with the readonly keyword):
public class Foo
{
// Read-only property
public string Bar { get; }
// Write-only property (less common)
public string Baz { set; }
}

In C#, Properties represent your Getters and Setters.
Here's an example:
public class PropertyExample
{
private int myIntField = 0;
public int MyInt
{
// This is your getter.
// it uses the accessibility of the property (public)
get
{
return myIntField;
}
// this is your setter
// Note: you can specify different accessibility
// for your getter and setter.
protected set
{
// You can put logic into your getters and setters
// since they actually map to functions behind the scenes
if (DoSomeValidation(value))
{
// The input of the setter is always called "value"
// and is of the same type as your property definition
myIntField = value;
}
}
}
}
You would access this property just like a field. For example:
PropertyExample example = new PropertyExample();
example.MyInt = 4; // sets myIntField to 4
Console.WriteLine( example.MyInt ); // prints 4
A few other things to note:
You don't have to specifiy both a getter and a setter, you can omit either one.
Properties are just "syntactic sugar" for your traditional getter and setter. The compiler will actually build get_ and set_ functions behind the scenes (in the compiled IL) and map all references to your property to those functions.

My explanation would be following. (It's not so short, but it's quite simple.)
Imagine a class with a variable:
class Something
{
int weight;
// and other methods, of course, not shown here
}
Well, there is a small problem with this class: no one can see the weight. We could make weight public, but then everyone would be able to change the weight at any moment (which is perhaps not what we want). So, well, we can do a function:
class Something
{
int weight;
public int GetWeight() { return weight; }
// and other methods
}
This is already better, but now everyone instead of plain something.Weight has to type something.GetWeight(), which is, well, ugly.
With properties, we can do the same, but the code stays clean:
class Something
{
public int weight { get; private set; }
// and other methods
}
int w = something.weight // works!
something.weight = x; // doesn't even compile
Nice, so with the properties we have finer control over the variable access.
Another problem: okay, we want the outer code to be able to set weight, but we'd like to control its value, and not allow the weights lower than 100. Moreover, there are is some other inner variable density, which depends on weight, so we'd want to recalculate the density as soon as the weight changes.
This is traditionally achieved in the following way:
class Something
{
int weight;
public int SetWeight(int w)
{
if (w < 100)
throw new ArgumentException("weight too small");
weight = w;
RecalculateDensity();
}
// and other methods
}
something.SetWeight(anotherSomething.GetWeight() + 1);
But again, we don't want expose to our clients that setting the weight is a complicated operation, it's semantically nothing but assigning a new weight. So the code with a setter looks the same way, but nicer:
class Something
{
private int _w;
public int Weight
{
get { return _w; }
set
{
if (value < 100)
throw new ArgumentException("weight too small");
_w = value;
RecalculateDensity();
}
}
// and other methods
}
something.Weight = otherSomething.Weight + 1; // much cleaner, right?
So, no doubt, properties are "just" a syntactic sugar. But it makes the client's code be better. Interestingly, the need for property-like things arises very often, you can check how often you find the functions like GetXXX() and SetXXX() in the other languages.

Most languages do it this way, and you can do it in C# too.
public void setRAM(int RAM)
{
this.RAM = RAM;
}
public int getRAM()
{
return this.RAM;
}
But C# also gives a more elegant solution to this:
public class Computer
{
int ram;
public int RAM
{
get
{
return ram;
}
set
{
ram = value; // value is a reserved word and it is a variable that holds the input that is given to ram ( like in the example below )
}
}
}
And later access it with:
Computer comp = new Computer();
comp.RAM = 1024;
int var = comp.RAM;
For newer versions of C# it's even better:
public class Computer
{
public int RAM { get; set; }
}
and later:
Computer comp = new Computer();
comp.RAM = 1024;
int var = comp.RAM;

C# introduces properties which do most of the heavy lifting for you...
ie
public string Name { get; set; }
is a C# shortcut to writing...
private string _name;
public string getName { return _name; }
public void setName(string value) { _name = value; }
Basically getters and setters are just means of helping encapsulation. When you make a class you have several class variables that perhaps you want to expose to other classes to allow them to get a glimpse of some of the data you store. While just making the variables public to begin with may seem like an acceptable alternative, in the long run you will regret letting other classes manipulate your classes member variables directly. If you force them to do it through a setter, you can add logic to ensure no strange values ever occur, and you can always change that logic in the future without effecting things already manipulating this class.
ie
private string _name;
public string getName { return _name; }
public void setName(string value)
{
//Don't want things setting my Name to null
if (value == null)
{
throw new InvalidInputException();
}
_name = value;
}

well here is common usage of getter setter in actual use case,
public class OrderItem
{
public int Id {get;set;}
public int quantity {get;set;}
public int Price {get;set;}
public int TotalAmount {get {return this.quantity *this.Price;}set;}
}

This would be a get/set in C# using the smallest amount of code possible. You get auto-implemented properties in C# 3.0+.
public class Contact
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}

As far as I understand getters and setters are to improve encapsulation.
There is nothing complex about them in C#.
You define a property of on object like this:
int m_colorValue = 0;
public int Color
{
set { m_colorValue = value; }
get { return m_colorValue; }
}
This is the most simple use. It basically sets an internal variable or retrieves its value.
You use a Property like this:
someObject.Color = 222; // sets a color 222
int color = someObject.Color // gets the color of the object
You could eventually do some processing on the value in the setters or getters like this:
public int Color
{
set { m_colorValue = value + 5; }
get { return m_colorValue - 30; }
}
if you skip set or get, your property will be read or write only. That's how I understand the stuff.

Simple example
public class Simple
{
public int Propery { get; set; }
}

Getters and Setters in C# are something that simplifies the code.
private string name = "spots";
public string Name
{
get { return name; }
set { name = value; }
}
And calling it (assume we have a person obj with a name property):
Console.WriteLine(Person.Name); //prints "spots"
Person.Name = "stops";
Console.Writeline(Person.Name); //prints "stops"
This simplifies your code. Where in Java you might have to have two methods, one to Get() and one to Set() the property, in C# it is all done in one spot. I usually do this at the start of my classes:
public string foobar {get; set;}
This creates a getter and setter for my foobar property. Calling it is the same way as shown before. Somethings to note are that you don't have to include both get and set. If you don't want the property being modified, don't include set!

Internally, getters and setters are just methods. When C# compiles, it generates methods for your getters and setters like this, for example:
public int get_MyProperty() { ... }
public void set_MyProperty(int value) { ... }
C# allows you to declare these methods using a short-hand syntax. The line below will be compiled into the methods above when you build your application.
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
or
private int myProperty;
public int MyProperty
{
get { return myProperty; }
set { myProperty = value; } // value is an implicit parameter containing the value being assigned to the property.
}

This is a basic example of an object "Article" with getters and setters:
public class Article
{
public String title;
public String link;
public String description;
public string getTitle()
{
return title;
}
public void setTitle(string value)
{
title = value;
}
public string getLink()
{
return link;
}
public void setLink(string value)
{
link = value;
}
public string getDescription()
{
return description;
}
public void setDescription(string value)
{
description = value;
}
}

In case someone is looking for a short version of getter only (I was):
public class Foo
{
private string bar;
public string Bar => bar;
}

System.Reflection GetProperties method not returning values

Can some one explain to me why the GetProperties method would not return public values if the class is setup as follows.
public class DocumentA
{
public string AgencyNumber = string.Empty;
public bool Description;
public bool Establishment;
}
I am trying to setup a simple unit test method to play around with
The method is as follows and it has all the appropriate using statements and references.
All I'm doing is calling the following but it returns 0
PropertyInfo[] pi = target.GetProperties(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);
But if I setup the class with private members and public properties it works fine.
The reason I didn't setup up the the class the old school way was because it has 61 properties and doing that would increase my lines of code to at least triple that. I would be a maintenance nightmare.

You haven't declared any properties - you've declared fields. Here's similar code with properties:
public class DocumentA
{
public string AgencyNumber { get; set; }
public bool Description { get; set; }
public bool Establishment { get; set; }
public DocumentA()
{
AgencyNumber = "";
}
}
I would strongly advise you to use properties as above (or possibly with more restricted setters) instead of just changing to use Type.GetFields. Public fields violate encapsulation. (Public mutable properties aren't great on the encapsulation front, but at least they give an API, the implementation of which can be changed later.)

Because the way you have declared your class now is using Fields. If you want to access the fields trough reflection you should use Type.GetFields() (see Types.GetFields Method1)
I don't now which version of C# you're using but the property syntax has changed in C# 2 to the following:
public class Foo
{
public string MyField;
public string MyProperty {get;set;}
}
Wouldn't this help in reducing the amount of code?

I see this thread is already four years old, but none the less I was unsatisfied with the answers provided. OP should note that OP is referring to Fields not Properties. To dynamically reset all fields (expansion proof) try:
/**
* method to iterate through Vehicle class fields (dynamic..)
* resets each field to null
**/
public void reset(){
try{
Type myType = this.GetType(); //get the type handle of a specified class
FieldInfo[] myfield = myType.GetFields(); //get the fields of the specified class
for (int pointer = 0; pointer < myfield.Length ; pointer++){
myfield[pointer].SetValue(this, null); //takes field from this instance and fills it with null
}
}
catch(Exception e){
Debug.Log (e.Message); //prints error message to terminal
}
}
Note that GetFields() only has access to public fields for obvious reasons.

As mentioned, these are fields not properties. The property syntax would be:
public class DocumentA {
public string AgencyNumber { get; set; }
public bool Description { get; set; }
public bool Establishment { get; set;}
}