We Keep Coding

Setter not running when assigning to the same reference

My setter code is not running here, I think by design because I am setting the same reference.
Is there syntax I can use to ensure the setter runs?
var settings = new Settings();
var a = settings.ReferenceVariable;
a.Value1++;
settings.ReferenceVariable = a; // Setter is not running here, so changes to 'a' are not persisted in database
// One workaround is to set to a different value, then set back to my value. This isn't a good solution for me
settings.ReferenceVariable = null; // Setter does run
settings.ReferenceVaraible = a; // Setter does run
public class Settings
{
public MyClass ReferenceVariable
{
get => GetSettingValueFromDatabase();
set => SetSettingValueToDatabase(value);
}
}
Edit: Thanks everyone for your help, I found the issue, I'm using Fody/PropertyChanged package, which does modify property setters, and checks for changes. Their changes aren't visible to me while debugging, so it was confusing to track down

When you say "the setter is not running" - are you saying the set => SetSettingValueToDatabase(value) line is never reached, or are you infering this only by the fact that the expected side effects from SetSettingValueToDatabase are not observed?
Because my gut feeling would be that the setter and the function SetSettingValueToDatabase itself are actually called, but MyClass has an internal optimization to skip the actual database operation if the value "hasn't changed", implemented like so:
private MyClass _cachedValue;
private bool _isLoaded = false;
private MyClass GetSettingValueFromDatabase() {
if (!_isLoaded) {
_cachedValue = DoActuallyLoadFromDatabase()
_isLoaded = true;
}
return _cachedValue;
}
private void SetSettingValueToDatabase(MyClass newValue) {
if (!_isLoaded || _cachedValue != newValue) {
DoActuallySaveToDatabase(newValue);
_cachedValue = newValue;
_isLoaded = true;
}
}
The != would then most likely fall back to object.ReferenceEquals, which would yield true since the reference of newValue and _cachedValue still match - hence no DB write or cache update, hence it looks as if the setter wasn't called, when actually just its side effect weren't triggered.
You can verify this by changing the property getter/setter to
get {
var res = GetSettingValueFromDatabase();
Debug.WriteLine($"get will return {res}");
return res;
}
set {
Debug.WriteLine($"set called with {value}");
SetSettingValueToDatabase(value);
}
My suspicion is that the debug output will be
get will return MyNamespace.MyClass
set called with MyNamespace.MyClass
set called with null
set called with MyNamespace.MyClass
rather than
get will return MyNamespace.MyClass
set called with null
set called with MyNamespace.MyClass
indicating the setter was indeed called as expected.
On a side note: a setter that triggers a database write operation is not a good design. Setters should be usually designed to be light-weight operations, not triggering a potentially locking hefty database operation. Rather use a method, that should potentially even be asynchronous.

Not clear what exactly you're doing here, but I think your comments are telling:
settings.ReferenceVariable = a; // Setter is not running here, so changes to 'a' are not persisted in database
but then you have:
settings.ReferenceVaraible = a; // Setter does run
Obviously the lines of code are exactly the same here, so my guess would be that you're expecting to link a to your Database, such that a would be a kind of a handle/portal to your database and you can modify a and get those changes telegraphed into your database.
This isn't going to work. The setter only runs when you set the value of settings, not when you set the value of a. It might be that you are updating a after the fact, but updating a doesn't force the call to SetSettingValueToDatabase.
How you handle this depends on how you want to restructure your code. I would wait to write a until you're done doing whatever operations you need to do with a, but you could also add a kind of a listener mechanic to a.
I have no idea what's in a, but you could do something like the following. This is a bit more code than I meant to write lol, but I'll put some closing comments after the code block.
public interface IChanged
{
void Subscribe(System.EventHandler subscriber);
void Unsubscribe(System.EventHandler subscriber);
}
public class MyClass : IChanged
{
private System.EventHandler subscribers;
private int myInt;
public int MyInt
{
get => myInt;
set
{
myInt = value;
subscribers?.Invoke(this, null);
}
}
private string myString;
public string MyString
{
get => myString;
set
{
myString = value;
subscribers?.Invoke(this, null);
}
}
public void Subscribe(System.EventHandler subscriber)
{
subscribers += subscriber;
}
public void Unsubscribe(System.EventHandler subscriber)
{
subscribers -= subscriber;
}
}
public class Settings
{
private MyClass myClass;
public MyClass ReferenceVariable
{
get => GetSettingValueFromDatabase();
set
{
if (myClass != null)
{
if (myClass != value)
{
myClass.Unsubscribe(OnReferenceVariableChanged);
}
}
myClass = value;
SetSettingValueToDatabase(value);
value.Subscribe(OnReferenceVariableChanged);
}
}
private void OnReferenceVariableChanged(object sender, System.EventArgs e)
{
SetSettingValueToDatabase(ReferenceVariable);
}
private MyClass GetSettingValueFromDatabase()
{
// You would get this from a Database
return new MyClass();
}
private void SetSettingValueToDatabase(MyClass myClass)
{
// do stuff
}
}
Here there's an IChanged interface that sets up a mechanism to subscribe to changes. You don't need any information here, you just need a heads up that a changed. You can slap the IChanged interface on whatever you want and use it for a variety of classes.
The trick then is to add the subscribers?.Invoke(this, null); line to each property in MyClass. If you don't use properties then you don't have a way to add this line and thus you won't get notifications if/when the fields are changed.
Then, in Settings, you keep track of a private MyClass myClass to know when you're getting a new instance of MyClass, so you can unsubscribe from the old one. Fire off your SetSettings methods, and then Settings adds itself as a subscriber to the MyClass's property changes.
Now, anytime a property changes, the MyClass class alerts all its subscribers, and the Settings subscriber in particular can use that as a trigger to re/write the settings to the database.
There's nothing special there in the Settings getter, so you might want to consider unsubscribing myClass there, setting it to whatever you pulled from the database, and hooking up the subscriber to that new instance, but I don't know anything about your code so I don't want to push that as "the" answer.

How to reset delegate to original code

given this delegate
public class XYZ
{
public static Action<Profile> DoSomething = (profile) =>
{
//some default code here
return;
};
}
at some time in my main execution I override it with this:
XYZ.DoSomething = (currProfile) =>
{
// some overriding code here
}
How do I set the code back to the original default code when I need to without duplicating code?

Here's a good reason to never use public fields...
Once you set it; its gone. You can hold onto the original value though:
var originalAction = XYZ.DoSomething;
XYZ.DoSomething = ...;
XYZ.DoSomething = originalAction;
Usually it is a bad idea to rely on client code to handle this however; so if I was writing it I would expose as a property like so:
public Action<X> DoSomethingOverride {get; set;}
public Action<X> DoSomething => doSomethingOverride ?? DefaultMethod;
private void DefaultMethod (X param)
{
}
There are a number of other ways to handle this, but all involve storing off the original method. All good ways to handle this will use a property to ensure that only the declaring class is actually setting the DoSomething method and that resetting to the default is possible.
Total aside; since this is static setting the action will affect everything that uses this class. This is asking for bugs later; don't do that.

Maybe somthing like this?
public static Action<Profile> _doSomethingBase = (profile) =>
{
//some default code here
return;
};
public static Action<Profile> _doSomething = _doSomethingBase;
public static Action<Profile> DoSomething
{
get => _doSomething;
set => _doSomething = value;
}
public static void RevertDoSomething()
{
DoSomething = _doSomethingBase;
}

C# 'set' that only raises an event

I would like to have a public property that can be both got / set. But I would also like an NameChanged event to be triggered when it is set, but I do not want to have a non-public field to store its value.
My problem is, within a setter, how can I assign the property with the new value without causing infinite recursion ?
public delegate void NameChangedHandler( object sender, EventArgs e );
event NameChangedHandler NameChanged;
public String Name
{
get;
set { Name = value; NameChanged(this, null); } // Recursion ?
}

[...] but I do not want to have a non-public field to store its value.
This requirement can't be met. Even auto-properties have a private field backing their values. They're still created during C# compilation. And, anwyay, you can't mix auto-properties and properties with body in the getter or setter.
Maybe you can be interested in some open source project I created and published some months ago called TrackerDog which can turn any object into a change-trackable one. And INotifyPropertyChanged is auto-implemented during run-time using proxies.
This way, you don't need to switch to non-auto-properties and you can still get the event injected and each set of properties within a given object will raise INotifyPropertyChanged.PropertyChanged event.
For example, given the following class:
public class User
{
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual byte Age { get; set; }
}
...you can turn an instance of User into change-trackable as follows:
User user = new User().AsTrackable();
// or
User user = Trackable.Of<User>();
...and now that User instance implements INotifyPropertyChanged:
INotifyPropertyChanged userWhichCanHookChangeHandlers =
(INotifyPropertyChanged)user;
userWhichCanHookChangeHandlers.PropertyChanged += (sender, e) =>
{
string propertyName = e.PropertyName;
};
Check project's full how-to to get further details.

If you want your Setter to not actually Set anything, you CAN do that. (Not sure why you want to, but, nothing is stopping you.)
public String Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set { NameChanged(this, null); }
}
That is valid and will compile just fine.
value is nothing more than a parameter to your setter method, and just like with any other method, you can choose to do absolutely nothing with your parameter(s).

C# Extension methods on "members"

I have some extension methods which could be used like this:
MyType myObject;
string displayName = myObject.GetDisplayName(x => x.Property);
The problem here is that it needs an instance, even if the extension method only needs the type MyType. So if there is no instance, it needs to be called like this:
string displayName = BlahBlahUtility.GetDisplayName((MyTpe x) => x.Property);
Which is not so nice anymore.
Is there a way to write better syntax for such cases?
What I actually want to do is this (pseudo language):
string displayName = MyType.Property.GetDisplayName()
Which of course does not work with C#.
But what about something like this:
string displayName = ((MyType x) => x.Property).GetDisplayName();
This is also not possible (after a lambda, a dot is not accepted).
Any ideas?
Edit:
My "favorite syntax" MyType.Property.GetDisplayName() seems to be misleading. I don't talk about static properties here. I know that this syntax won't be possible. I just tried to show in pseudo language, what information is necessary. This would be ideal, every additional stuff is just syntactical overhead. Any working syntax that is close to this would be great.
I don't want to write a certain extension method. I want an easy, readable and compile time safe syntax, using any language feature.

Have a look at the Express and Reflect classes in the Lokad Shared Libraries. Think they may help out with what you are trying to do. Read more here:
Strongly Typed Reflection in Lokad Shared
How to Find Out Variable or Parameter Name in C#?

From your comment: "I want an easy and compile time safe syntax to get information about members".
This is a very frequently requested feature and has been discussed in the C# team's meetings for about a decade, but has never been prioritised high enough to be included.
This blog post explains why:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/05/21/in-foof-we-trust-a-dialogue.aspx
So for now, you're just going to be fighting against a missing feature. Maybe you could post more information about your broader problem and see if people can suggest different approaches.
Update
Without more info about your problem this is just guesswork. But if you have a property that represents a value but also carries additional "meta" information, you could always represent that as a new type and use an "injection" step to set everything up.
Here's a suggested abstract interface to such a "meta property":
public interface IMetaProperty<TValue>
{
TValue Value { get; set; }
string DisplayName { get; }
event Action<TValue, TValue> ValueChanged;
}
The value of the property is just another sub-property, with its type defined by the user.
I've put in the display name, and also as a bonus you've got an event that fires when the value changes (so you get "observability" for free).
To have properties like this in a class, you'd declare it like this:
public class SomeClass
{
public IMetaProperty<string> FirstName { get; private set; }
public IMetaProperty<string> LastName { get; private set; }
public IMetaProperty<int> Age { get; private set; }
public SomeClass() { MetaProperty.Inject(this); }
}
Note how the setters on the properties are private. This stops anyone from accidentally setting the property itself instead of setting the Value sub-property.
So this means the class has to set up those properties so they aren't just null. It does this by calling a magic Inject method, which can work on any class:
public static class MetaProperty
{
// Make it convenient for us to fill in the meta information
private interface IMetaPropertyInit
{
string DisplayName { get; set; }
}
// Implementation of a meta-property
private class MetaPropertyImpl<TValue> : IMetaProperty<TValue>,
IMetaPropertyInit
{
private TValue _value;
public TValue Value
{
get { return _value; }
set
{
var old = _value;
_value = value;
ValueChanged(old, _value);
}
}
public string DisplayName { get; set; }
public event Action<TValue, TValue> ValueChanged = delegate { };
}
public static void Inject(object target)
{
// for each meta property...
foreach (var property in target.GetType().GetProperties()
.Where(p => p.PropertyType.IsGenericType &&
p.PropertyType.GetGenericTypeDefinition()
== typeof(IMetaProperty<>)))
{
// construct an implementation with the correct type
var impl = (IMetaPropertyInit)
typeof (MetaPropertyImpl<>).MakeGenericType(
property.PropertyType.GetGenericArguments()
).GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes).Invoke(null);
// initialize any meta info (could examine attributes...)
impl.DisplayName = property.Name;
// set the value
property.SetValue(target, impl, null);
}
}
}
It just uses reflection to find all the IMetaProperty slots hiding in the object, and fills them in with an implementation.
So now a user of SomeClass could say:
var sc = new SomeClass
{
FirstName = { Value = "Homer" },
LastName = { Value = "Simpson" },
Age = { Value = 38 },
};
Console.WriteLine(sc.FirstName.DisplayName + " = " + sc.FirstName.Value);
sc.Age.ValueChanged += (from, to) =>
Console.WriteLine("Age changed from " + from + " to " + to);
sc.Age.Value = 39;
// sc.Age = null; compiler would stop this
If you're already using an IOC container you may be able to achieve some of this without going directly to reflection.

It looks like you're trying to create a static extension method?
DateTime yesterday = DateTime.Yesterday(); // Static extension.
Instead of
DateTime yesterday = DateTime.Now.Yesterday(); // Extension on DateTime instance.
If this is what you're trying to pull off, I do not believe it is possible in the current version of C#.

It sounds like you are integrating layers a little too tightly. Normally in this type of situation I would let the presentation layer decide the implementation of GetDisplayName() instead of making it an extension of the property itself. You could create an interface called MyTypeDisplayer or whatever you fancy, and let there be multiple implementations of it not limiting you to a single display implementation.

The issue here is that one cannot get a reference to non-static methods via instance MyType.[Member]. These can only be seen through a reference to an instance of the type. You also cannot build an extension method on-top of a type declaration, only on an instance of a type - that is the extension method itself has to be defined using an instance of a type (this T x).
One can however define the expression like this to get a reference to static members:
((MyType x) => MyType.Property)
One could do something similar to string displayName = ((MyType x) => x.Property).GetDisplayName();
The first issue is guaranteeing that the compiler treats your (x=> x.Property) as an Expression rather than an action/func etc...
To do this one might need to do this:
string displayName = ((Expression<Func<PropertyType>>)((MyType x) => x.Property).GetDisplayName();
The extension method would then have to be defined like this:
public static string GetDisplayName<T>(this Expression<Func<T>> expression)
You might also have to define an extension method on top of Expression<Action>> and Expression<Action<T>> if your members are also methods.
You can do a dot after an Expression - this is where the Compile method would reside.
Appended:
I think the static call to the extension method in cases that one doesn't have an instance of the type one needs to do "reflection" on to determine a Members name would be the cleanest syntax still - this way you could still use the extension method when using an instance of a type and fall back to the static call definition => MyExtensionClass.GetDisplayName(TypeOfX x => TypeOfX.StaticMember OR x.Property/Member) when one doesn't have an instance

If you interface your properties, you could make the extension on the interface instead:
namespace Linq1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyType o = new MyType();
o.Property.GetDisplayName();
}
}
public class MyType
{
public IDisplayableProperty Property { get; set; }
}
public interface IDisplayableProperty
{
string GetText();
}
public class MyProperty1 : IDisplayableProperty
{
public string GetText() { return "MyProperty2"; }
}
public class MyProperty2 : IDisplayableProperty
{
public string GetText() { return "MyProperty2"; }
}
public static class Extensions
{
public static string GetDisplayName(this IDisplayableProperty o)
{
return o.GetText();
}
}
}

c# marking class property as dirty

The following is a simple example of an enum which defines the state of an object and a class which shows the implementation of this enum.
public enum StatusEnum
{
Clean = 0,
Dirty = 1,
New = 2,
Deleted = 3,
Purged = 4
}
public class Example_Class
{
private StatusEnum _Status = StatusEnum.New;
private long _ID;
private string _Name;
public StatusEnum Status
{
get { return _Status; }
set { _Status = value; }
}
public long ID
{
get { return _ID; }
set { _ID = value; }
}
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set { _Name = value; }
}
}
when populating the class object with data from the database, we set the enum value to "clean". with the goal of keeping most of the logic out of the presentation layer, how can we set the enum value to "dirty" when a property is changed.
i was thinking something along the lines of;
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set
{
if (value != _Name)
{
_Name = value;
_Status = StatusEnum.Dirty;
}
}
}
in the setter of each property of the class.
does this sound like a good idea, does anyone have any better ideas on how the dirty flag can be assigned without doing so in the presentation layer.

When you really do want a dirty flag at the class level (or, for that matter, notifications) - you can use tricks like below to minimise the clutter in your properties (here showing both IsDirty and PropertyChanged, just for fun).
Obviously it is a trivial matter to use the enum approach (the only reason I didn't was to keep the example simple):
class SomeType : INotifyPropertyChanged {
private int foo;
public int Foo {
get { return foo; }
set { SetField(ref foo, value, "Foo"); }
}
private string bar;
public string Bar {
get { return bar; }
set { SetField(ref bar, value, "Bar"); }
}
public bool IsDirty { get; private set; }
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
protected void SetField<T>(ref T field, T value, string propertyName) {
if (!EqualityComparer<T>.Default.Equals(field, value)) {
field = value;
IsDirty = true;
OnPropertyChanged(propertyName);
}
}
protected virtual void OnPropertyChanged(string propertyName) {
var handler = PropertyChanged;
if (handler != null) {
handler(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
}
}
You might also choose to push some of that into an abstract base class, but that is a separate discussion

One option is to change it on write; another is to keep a copy of all the original values and compute the dirtiness when anyone asks for it. That has the added benefit that you can tell exactly which fields have changed (and in what way) which means you can issue minimal update statements and make merge conflict resolution slightly easier.
You also get to put all the dirtiness-checking in one place, so it doesn't pollute the rest of your code.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's an option worth considering.

If you want to implement it in this way, and you want to reduce the amount of code, you might consider applying Aspect Oriented Programming.
You can for instance use a compile-time weaver like PostSharp , and create an 'aspect' that can be applied to properties. This aspect then makes sure that your dirty flag is set when appropriate.
The aspect can look like this:
[Serializable]
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]
public class ChangeTrackingAttribute : OnMethodInvocationAspect
{
public override void OnInvocation( MethodInvocationEventArgs e )
{
if( e.Delegate.Method.ReturnParameter.ParameterType == typeof(void) )
{
// we're in the setter
IChangeTrackable target = e.Delegate.Target as IChangeTrackable;
// Implement some logic to retrieve the current value of
// the property
if( currentValue != e.GetArgumentArray()[0] )
{
target.Status = Status.Dirty;
}
base.OnInvocation (e);
}
}
}
Offcourse, this means that the classes for which you want to implement ChangeTracking, should implement the IChangeTrackable interface (custom interface), which has at least the 'Status' property.
You can also create a custom attribute ChangeTrackingProperty, and make sure that the aspect that has been created above, is only applied to properties that are decorated with this ChangeTrackingProperty attribute.
For instance:
public class Customer : IChangeTrackable
{
public DirtyState Status
{
get; set;
}
[ChangeTrackingProperty]
public string Name
{ get; set; }
}
This is a little bit how I see it.
You can even make sure that PostSharp checks at compile-time whether classes that have properties that are decorated with the ChangeTrackingProperty attribute, implement the IChangeTrackable interface.

This method is based on a set of different concepts provided in this thread. I thought i'd put it out there for anyone that is looking for a way to do this cleanly and efficiently, as i was myself.
The key of this hybrid concept is that:
You don't want to duplicate the data to avoid bloating and resource hogging;
You want to know when the object's properties have changed from a given original/clean state;
You want to have the IsDirty flag be both accurate, and require little processing time/power to return the value; and
You want to be able to tell the object when to consider itself clean again. This is especially useful when building/working within the UI.
Given those requirements, this is what i came up with, and it seems to be working perfectly for me, and has become very useful when working against UIs and capturing user changes accurately. I have also posted an "How to use" below to show you how I use this in the UI.
The Object
public class MySmartObject
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Number { get; set; }
private int clean_hashcode { get; set; }
public bool IsDirty { get { return !(this.clean_hashcode == this.GetHashCode()); } }
public MySmartObject()
{
this.Name = "";
this.Number = -1;
MakeMeClean();
}
public MySmartObject(string name, int number)
{
this.Name = name;
this.Number = number;
MakeMeClean();
}
public void MakeMeClean()
{
this.clean_hashcode = this.Name.GetHashCode() ^ this.Number.GetHashCode();
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return this.Name.GetHashCode() ^ this.Number.GetHashCode();
}
}
It's simple enough and addresses all of our requirements:
The data is NOT duplicated for the dirty check...
This takes into account all property changes scenarios (see scenarios below)...
When you call the IsDirty property, a very simple and small Equals operation is performed and it is fully customizable via the GetHashCode override...
By calling the MakeMeClean method, you now have a clean object again!
Of course you can adapt this to encompass a bunch of different states... it's really up to you. This example only shows how to have a proper IsDirty flag operation.
Scenarios
Let's go over some scenarios for this and see what comes back:
Scenario 1
New object is created using empty constructor,
Property Name changes from "" to "James",
call to IsDirty returns True! Accurate.
Scenario 2
New object is created using paramters of "John" and 12345,
Property Name changes from "John" to "James",
Property Name changes back from "James" to "John",
Call to IsDirty returns False. Accurate, and we didn't have to duplicate the data to do it either!
How to use, a WinForms UI example
This is only an example, you can use this in many different ways from a UI.
Let's say you have a two forms ([A] and [B]).
The first([A]) is your main form, and the second([B]) is a form that allows the user to change the values within the MySmartObject.
Both the [A] and the [B] form have the following property declared:
public MySmartObject UserKey { get; set; }
When the user clicks a button on the [A] form, an instance of the [B] form is created, its property is set and it is displayed as a dialog.
After form [B] returns, the [A] form updates its property based on the [B] form's IsDirty check. Like this:
private void btn_Expand_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
SmartForm form = new SmartForm();
form.UserKey = this.UserKey;
if(form.ShowDialog() == DialogResult.OK && form.UserKey.IsDirty)
{
this.UserKey = form.UserKey;
//now that we have saved the "new" version, mark it as clean!
this.UserKey.MakeMeClean();
}
}
Also, in [B], when it is closing, you can check and prompt the user if they are closing the form with unsaved changes in it, like so:
private void BForm_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
//If the user is closing the form via another means than the OK button, or the Cancel button (e.g.: Top-Right-X, Alt+F4, etc).
if (this.DialogResult != DialogResult.OK && this.DialogResult != DialogResult.Ignore)
{
//check if dirty first...
if (this.UserKey.IsDirty)
{
if (MessageBox.Show("You have unsaved changes. Close and lose changes?", "Unsaved Changes", MessageBoxButtons.YesNo, MessageBoxIcon.Warning) == DialogResult.No)
e.Cancel = true;
}
}
}
As you can see from the examples above, this can be a very useful thing to have since it really streamlines the UI.
Caveats
Every time you implement this, you have to customize it to the object you're using. E.g.: there's no "easy" generic way of doing this without using reflection... and if you use reflection, you lose efficiency, especially in large and complex objects.
Hopefully this helps someone.

Take a look at PostSharp (http://www.postsharp.org/).
You can easily create a Attribute which marks it as dirty you can add the attrubute to each property that needs it and it keeps all your code in one place.
Roughly speaking Create an interface which has your status in make the class implement it.
Create an attribute which can be applied on properties and cast to your interface in order to set the value when something changes one of the marked properties.

Your approach is basically how I would do it. I would just
remove the setter for the Status property:
public StatusEnum Status
{
get { return _Status; }
// set { _Status = value; }
}
and instead add a function
public SetStatusClean()
{
_Status = StatusEnum.Clean;
}
As well as SetStatusDeleted() and SetStatusPurged(), because I find it better indicates the intention.
Edit
Having read the answer by Jon Skeet, I need to reconsider my approach ;-) For simple objects I would stick with my way, but if it gets more complex, his proposal would lead to much better organised code.

If your Example_Class is lightweight, consider storing the original state and then comparing the current state to the original in order to determine the changes. If not your approach is the best because stroing the original state consumes a lot of system resources in this case.

Apart from the advice of 'consider making your type immutable', here's something I wrote up (and got Jon and Marc to teach me something along the way)
public class Example_Class
{ // snip
// all properties are public get and private set
private Dictionary<string, Delegate> m_PropertySetterMap;
public Example_Class()
{
m_PropertySetterMap = new Dictionary<string, Delegate>();
InitializeSettableProperties();
}
public Example_Class(long id, string name):this()
{ this.ID = id; this.Name = name; }
private void InitializeSettableProperties()
{
AddToPropertyMap<long>("ID", value => { this.ID = value; });
AddToPropertyMap<string>("Name", value => { this.Name = value; });
}
// jump thru a hoop because it won't let me cast an anonymous method to an Action<T>/Delegate
private void AddToPropertyMap<T>(string sPropertyName, Action<T> setterAction)
{ m_PropertySetterMap.Add(sPropertyName, setterAction); }
public void SetProperty<T>(string propertyName, T value)
{
(m_PropertySetterMap[propertyName] as Action<T>).Invoke(value);
this.Status = StatusEnum.Dirty;
}
}
You get the idea.. possible improvements: Use constants for PropertyNames & check if property has really changed.
One drawback here is that
obj.SetProperty("ID", 700); // will blow up int instead of long
obj.SetProperty<long>("ID", 700); // be explicit or use 700L

Here is how i do it.
In cases where i do not need to test for specific fields being dirty,
I have an abstract class:
public abstract class SmartWrap : ISmartWrap
{
private int orig_hashcode { get; set; }
private bool _isInterimDirty;
public bool IsDirty
{
get { return !(this.orig_hashcode == this.GetClassHashCode()); }
set
{
if (value)
this.orig_hashcode = this.orig_hashcode ^ 108.GetHashCode();
else
MakeClean();
}
}
public void MakeClean()
{
this.orig_hashcode = GetClassHashCode();
this._isInterimDirty = false;
}
// must be overridden to return combined hashcodes of fields testing for
// example Field1.GetHashCode() ^ Field2.GetHashCode()
protected abstract int GetClassHashCode();
public bool IsInterimDirty
{
get { return _isInterimDirty; }
}
public void SetIterimDirtyState()
{
_isInterimDirty = this.IsDirty;
}
public void MakeCleanIfInterimClean()
{
if (!IsInterimDirty)
MakeClean();
}
/// <summary>
/// Must be overridden with whatever valid tests are needed to make sure required field values are present.
/// </summary>
public abstract bool IsValid { get; }
}
}
As well as an interface
public interface ISmartWrap
{
bool IsDirty { get; set; }
void MakeClean();
bool IsInterimDirty { get; }
void SetIterimDirtyState();
void MakeCleanIfInterimClean();
}
This allows me to do partial saves, and preserve the IsDirty state if there is other details to save. Not perfect, but covers a lot of ground.
Example of usage with interim IsDirty State (Error wrapping and validation removed for clarity):
area.SetIterimDirtyState();
if (!UpdateClaimAndStatus(area))
return false;
area.MakeCleanIfInterimClean();
return true;
This is good for most scenarios, however for some classes i want to test for each field with a backing field of original data, and either return a list of changes or at least an enum of fields changed.
With an enum of fields changed i can then push that up through a message chain for selective update of fields in remote caches.

You could also think about boxing your variables, which comes at a performance cost, but also has its merits. It is pretty consise and you cannot accidentally change a value without setting your dirty status.
public class Variable<T>
{
private T _value;
private readonly Action<T> _onValueChangedCallback;
public Variable(Action<T> onValueChangedCallback, T value = default)
{
_value = value;
_onValueChangedCallback = onValueChangedCallback;
}
public void SetValue(T value)
{
if (!EqualityComparer<T>.Default.Equals(_value, value))
{
_value = value;
_onValueChangedCallback?.Invoke(value);
}
}
public T GetValue()
{
return _value;
}
public static implicit operator T(Variable<T> variable)
{
return variable.GetValue();
}
}
and then hook in a callback that marks your class as dirty.
public class Example_Class
{
private StatusEnum _Status = StatusEnum.New;
private Variable<long> _ID;
private Variable<string> _Name;
public StatusEnum Status
{
get { return _Status; }
set { _Status = value; }
}
public long ID => _ID;
public string Name => _Name;
public Example_Class()
{
_ID = new Variable<long>(l => Status = StatusEnum.Dirty);
_Name = new Variable<string>(s => Status = StatusEnum.Dirty);
}
}

Another method is to override the GetHashCode() method to somthing like this:
public override int GetHashCode() // or call it GetChangeHash or somthing if you dont want to override the GetHashCode function...
{
var sb = new System.Text.StringBuilder();
sb.Append(_dateOfBirth);
sb.Append(_marital);
sb.Append(_gender);
sb.Append(_notes);
sb.Append(_firstName);
sb.Append(_lastName);
return sb.ToString.GetHashCode();
}
Once loaded from the database, get the hash code of the object. Then just before you save check if the current hash code is equal to the previous hash code. if they are the same, don't save.
Edit:
As people have pointed out this causes the hash code to change - as i use Guids to identify my objects, i don't mind if the hashcode changes.
Edit2:
Since people are adverse to changing the hash code, instead of overriding the GetHashCode method, just call the method something else. The point is detecting a change not whether i use guids or hashcodes for object identification.