So I have a big JSON file with lists and stuff that looks like this: link
I have also devised the necessary classes using json2csharp.com.
My problem is, I need to output the whole data into a textBox. I just need the text representation of this data.
I can obviously call each member, loop through al the list and manage their textual representation, but is there a quick and dirty way to just output the string? I am using JSON.net.
Thanks.
EDIT: I know how to do it using .net objeccts as given here:
www.newtonsoft.com/json/help/html/serializingjson.htm
I was looking for a one go method.
You can serialize a graph of objects as long as you have the right data structures. For example, you can see how the Bar objects are created as an array of objects:
public class Foo {
private List<Bar> names;
private string name;
public Foo() {
this.name = "Name";
this.names = new List<Bar>() {
new Bar("a"),
new Bar("b"),
new Bar("c")
};
}
public string Name {
get {
return this.name;
}
}
public List<Bar> Names {
get {
return this.names;
}
}
}
public class Bar {
public Bar(string name) {
this.Name = name;
}
public string Name {
get;
private set;
}
}
var o = new Foo();
Debug.WriteLine(JsonConvert.SerializeObject(o));
Related
I've made a class containing everything from the json file.
Now I want to loop trough every object within this object so I can for fill the application with those values.
I want to scroll trough every CM0xx and use that description:
I hope my goal is clear with that screenshot.
I know that I have to do something like
foreach(CM0XX step in Stepsss)
but that simply wont work.
If making a list<string[]> for it is easier from a json but im clueless for the solution.
this is the code I have now. And the json file ive converted is generated so that should be fine.
string testdata = File.ReadAllText(Application.StartupPath + "\\TestData\\SSH.json");
Root JsonDecoded = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Root>(testdata);
testSteps Stepsss = JsonDecoded.SmartShoulder.TestSteps;
foreach (testSteps step in Stepsss)
{
}
this is part of the json. there are alot more CM012
public class CM181
{
public string Name;
public string description;
public string minValue;
public string maxValue;
public string unit;
public string instructions;
public string prerequisites;
}
public class Root
{
public kkkk kk;
}
public class kkkk
{
public string preset;
public testSteps TestSteps;
}
public class testSteps
{
public CM011 CM011;
}
You could use reflection to loop through the names and the values. If you just need the items under TestSteps, this should work. If you need a full hierarchy, that is a bit more involved. Here is an example below and the fiddle to it:
using System;
using System.Reflection;
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
var record = new Root()
{
Foo = "foo",
Bar = "bar"
};
PropertyInfo[] rootProperties = typeof(Record).GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyInfo property in rootProperties)
{
var value = property.GetValue(record);
Console.WriteLine(property.Name + " - " + value);
}
}
}
public class Root
{
public string Foo {get;set;}
public string Bar {get;set;}
}
Making a class to deserialize to is generally done to avoid the need to loop through all the properties. You've defined all the properties in the class, so you can just use them. It's a lot of overhead to use reflection to put all the values into a class, then again using reflection to pull them back out. That's why Newtonsoft has JToken/JObject/JArray classes.
using Newtonsoft.Json.Linq;
...
// parse your JSON
var jo = JObject.Parse(jsonString);
// go through all properties
// just for an example, I put them all in a dictionary
var dict = new Dictionary<String, JToken>()
foreach( JProperty p in jo.Properties() ) {
dict.Add(p.Name, p.Value)
}
Now, each Value is a JToken, which could actually be another JObject, or a JArray or just a simple token. You can check JToken.Type to see what type the property really has, and do something logical accordingly.
Suppose we have a NodeData class:
public class NodeData<T>
{
public string Name;
public T Value;
public NodeData(string name, T value)
{
this.Name = name;
this.Value = value;
}
}
And a base Node class and child classes that have several properties with type NodaData:
public class Node
{
public List<NodeData<T>> listOutputs<T>()
{
var fieldInfos = GetType().GetFields();
var list = new List<NodeData<T>>();
foreach (var item in fieldInfos)
{
Type t = item.FieldType;
string name = item.Name;
if (t == typeof(NodeData<T>))
{
var output = new NodeData<T>(name, default(T));
list.Add(output);
}
}
return list;
}
}
public class TestNode : Node {
public NodeData<int> data;
public NodeData<double> data2;
public NodeData<double> data3;
public TestNode ()
{
data = new NodeData<int>("test", 111);
data2 = new NodeData<double>("test", 113);
}
}
As you can see there is a method which lists all outputs with type T in the Node class So I can find what are the output fields of the child class in runtime:
TestNode node = new TestNode ();
var list = node.listOutputs<int>(); // this returns data
But I need to know how to use this method to list all NodeOutputs of any type T. In this example int and double. Do I need to add a method with this signature public List<NodeData<T>> listOutputs() // should return all properties data, data2, data3. Is it possible to have method like this? return type is generic but there is no type argument for method.
Even after your edit(s) it is not entirely clear what you are trying to achieve but here are my assumptions:
-You want to have some kind of Node object that acts as a container for different types of NodeData elements.
-You want to be able to return one list from this Node object that contains all NodeData elements stored in the Node container, regardless of the NodeData objects' type.
Instead of returning a List> object from the listOutputs methods, just return the non-generic version of the List object. Then you don't have to deal with T in the method call.
The logic that loops through the objects in the non-generic list can then examine the type to process the contained NodeData objects correctly.
Important note: My proposed solution is by no means pretty but I think it answers the question. In my opinion something is already seriously flawed from an OO point of view in the presented code (e.g. use of reflection) and a better solution would have to start by changing the underlying data structures. But that can only be done if we have more information how this is to be used, e.g. what kind of logic consumes the returned list.
You can create a base interface that will be used to return the generic data.
public interface INodeData
{
string Name { get; }
}
public class NodeData<T> : INodeData
{
public string Name { get; private set; }
public T Value { get; private set; }
public NodeData(string name, T value)
{
this.Name = name;
this.Value = value;
}
}
I modified the function to return a list of the interface. Doing this you won't depend on T.
public class Node
{
public List<INodeData> listOutputs()
{
var fieldInfos = GetType().GetFields();
var list = new List<INodeData>();
foreach (var item in fieldInfos)
{
INodeData data = GetType().GetField(item.Name).GetValue(this) as INodeData;
list.Add(data);
}
return list;
}
}
If you test the method, it should return the fields in a list. To work with a specific type, you can make use of is before using the type you search for.
public class TestNode : Node
{
public NodeData<int> data;
public NodeData<double> data2;
public NodeData<double> data3;
public TestNode()
{
data = new NodeData<int>("test", 111);
data2 = new NodeData<double>("test", 113);
}
}
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
TestNode node = new TestNode();
var list = node.listOutputs(); // this returns data
}
This may well be an XY problem, in that you probably want to rethink how you are designing your classes because using reflection in this way doesn't seem right. But give the problem you've presented, I'd tackle it like this:
public abstract class NodeDataBase
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public NodeData(string name)
{
this.Name = name;
}
// this isn't actually needed, but might be helpful
public abstract object GetValue();
}
public class NodeData<T> : NodeDataBase
{
public T Value { get; set; }
public NodeData(string name, T value) : base(name)
{
this.Value = value;
}
public override object GetValue()
{
return Value;
}
}
And now your method signature would be:
public List<NodeDataBase> listOutputs()
And with the list returned, you can use the GetValue method to get the actual values without needing to cast to the right generic type to be able to get at the Value property.
You could also just have a return type of List<object>, but then you'll have to cast each member of that list to the right generic type before you can access it's properties.
You can also avoid that nasty reflection code, instead of having data, data1, and data2, you could simply do this in your Node class:
public class Node
{
public List<NodeDataBase> Data { get; protected set; }
public Node()
{
Data = new List<NodeDataBase>();
}
}
And now you don't even need your listOutputs method because you can just get the list from the node (unless you actually wanted a copy, but that's fairly trivial to implement).
And you TestNode would be just:
public class TestNode : Node {
public TestNode ()
{
Data.Add(new NodeData<int>("test", 111));
Data.Add(new NodeData<double>("test", 113));
}
}
I tried to search for an answer for this problem but could not find much, most probably because I do not know how to look for it properly, so here it goes. All help is very much appreciated.
With the base class that looks like
abstract public class Property
{
private String name;
public Property(String propertyName)
{
name = propertyName;
}
public String Name
{
get { return name; }
}
abstract public override String ToString();
}
And derived classes that look like
public class StringProperty : Property
{
private String value; // different properties for different types
public StringProperty(String propertyName, String value) : base(propertyName)
{
this.value = value;
}
public String Value // different signature for different properties
{
get { return value; }
}
public override String ToString()
{
return base.Name + ": " + value;
}
}
During runtime, the function receives a collection of "Property" objects. What do I need to do to be able to obtain the "Value" of each? Do I need to have a big if statement to query the type of each "Property" object? If not, is there a more elegant solution?
I tried to define an abstract "Value" property to be overridden but since the return types are different, it did not work. I also tried playing with shadowing the "Value" property, but I could not make it work. The idea of using an COM-like Variant does not sound very appropriate, either.
Thanks a lot in advance.
EDIT:
I should have added details as to what I am trying to do. The properties are displayed in a Winforms app. Different "TextBox"es represent different properties and are filtered for proper input (depending on the type). The updated values are read back and stored. The container object will be serialized into JSON and deserialized on an Android and iPhone client and eventually these values will be passed into a layer running native C++ code doing OpenGL stuff. I don't know in advance the kind of all needed properties so as the middleman, I wanted to make my code as robust as possible while being able to feed the OpenGL engine.
You can use a generic class:
public class AnyProperty<T> : Property
{
private T value;
// ... etc
I'd really recommend making the base class an Interface by now:
public interface IProperty
{
public String Name { get; }
}
public class Property<T> : IProperty
{
public Property(String name, T value)
{
Name = name;
Value = value;
}
public String Name { get; private set; }
public T Value { get; private set; }
public override String ToString()
{
return string.Format("{0}: {1}", Name, Value)
}
}
Here is sample usage:
var intProp = new Property<int> ("age", 32);
var strProp = new Property<string> ("name", "Earl");
var enumProp = new Property<ColorEnum> ("eye color", ColorEnum.Magenta);
To make the construction even simpler, you could have a factory method:
public static Property<T> MakeProperty(string name, T value)
{
return new Property<T>(name,value);
}
var intProp = MakeProperty("age", 32);
var strProp = MakeProperty("name", "Earl");
var enumProp = MakeProperty("eye color", ColorEnum.Magenta);
Not necessarily recommended, and a bit OT:
You could make it even funkier with an extension method:
public static Property<T> AsProp<T>(this T value, string name)
{
return new Property<T>(name,value);
}
var intProp = 32.AsProp("age");
var strProp = "Earl".AsProp("name");
var enumProp = ColorEnum.Magenta.AsProp("eye color");
You would have to simply use the object type. What are you trying to accomplish? The problem here isn't the structure of your classes, it's the function that receives the collection of Property objects. It's impossible to even cast something to an unknown type, since you don't know what type of variable it needs to be stored in.
So basically, your Property.Value property needs to be of type object. In your method that uses the Property objects, you need to do something with them, and what you're doing will decide how it should be structured. Are you printing values out? Have a *Value class inheriting from an abstract PropertyValue class and override ToString() to return an appropriate string represention.
I made a few changes to your sample code and got this result...
abstract public class Property
{
private readonly String _name;
public Property(String propertyName)
{
_name = propertyName;
}
public String Name
{
get { return _name; }
}
abstract public override String ToString();
}
public class StringProperty : Property
{
private readonly dynamic _value; // different properties for different types
public StringProperty(String propertyName, dynamic value)
: base(propertyName)
{
this._value = value;
}
public dynamic Value // different signature for different properties
{
get { return _value; }
}
public override String ToString()
{
return base.Name + ": " + _value;
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
StringProperty sp = new StringProperty("A double", 3.444);
StringProperty sp2 = new StringProperty("My int", 4343);
StringProperty sp3 = new StringProperty("My directory", new DirectoryInfo("Some directory"));
StringProperty sp4 = new StringProperty("My null", null);
Console.WriteLine(sp);
Console.WriteLine(sp2);
Console.WriteLine(sp3);
Console.WriteLine(sp4);
}
}
Values are properly printed to the console in the expected way.
It would require a bit of a rethink, but have you considered using the dynamic type (introduced in .net4)
Doesn't really solve your problem, but sidespteps it.
Your properties can bascically just be a
Dictionary<String, dynamic>
, the gotcha is they don't get evaluated until runtime, so you get no compiler support for typing.
so given you want
int SomeValue = MyProperties[SomePropertyName] + 10;
So if
MyProperties[SomePropertyName] = 10; // all is good
if its 76.52 or Fred, the addition will throw an exception at the point it executes.
Code is much simpler and cleaner, no extra casting and the amount of scaffolding required is minimal, BUT, you'll need to unit test code that uses the dictionary extensively and religiously.
I have a series of properties for an object which are themselves a class:
private ClassThing Thing1;
private ClassThing Thing2;
private ClassThing Thing3;
private class ClassThing
{
public string Name;
public int Foos;
}
In some areas I need to be able to access each property specifically, for example:
label1.Text = Thing1.Name;
However, it is also desirable to create a foreach loop to access each one, like this:
string CombinedString;
foreach(ClassThing Thing in SomeCollection)
{
CombinedString += Thing.Name;
}
The end result must be XML serializable. These examples are very basic, but I hope they more easily demonstrate my need.
I tried creating a dictionary of these properties instead, but a dictionary is not XML serializable. I'd like to simply make all of these properties members of a class that itself can be iterated over, but I'm not sure how.
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
I hope this clarifies some things for you, since i am not entirely sure i understand your question.
//many normal classes can be made xml serializable by adding [Serializable] at the top of the class
[Serializable]
private class ClassThing
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Foos { get; set; }
}
//here we create the objects so you can access them later individually
ClassThing thing1 = new ClassThing { Name = "name1", Foos = 1 };
ClassThing thing2 = new ClassThing { Name = "name2", Foos = 2 };
ClassThing thing3 = new ClassThing { Name = "name3", Foos = 3 };
//this is an example of putting them in a list so you can iterate through them later.
List<ClassThing> listOfThings = new List<ClassThing>();
listOfThings.Add(thing1);
listOfThings.Add(thing2);
listOfThings.Add(thing3);
//iteration example
string combined = string.Empty;
foreach (ClassThing thing in listOfThings)
{
combined += thing.Name;
}
//you could also have created them directly in the list, if you didnt need to have a reference for them individually, like this:
listOfThings.Add(new ClassThing { Name = "name4", Foos = 4 });
//and more advanced concepts like linq can also help you aggregate your list to make the combined string. the foreach makes the code more readable though. this gives the same result as the foreach above, ignore it if it confuses you :)
string combined = listOfThings.Aggregate(string.Empty, (current, thing) => current + thing.Name);
//Here is an example of how you could serialize the list of ClassThing objects into a file:
using (FileStream fileStream = new FileStream("classthings.xml", FileMode.Create))
{
XmlSerializer xmlSerializer = new XmlSerializer(typeof(List<ClassThing>));
xmlSerializer.Serialize(fileStream, listOfThings);
}
To be able to serialize the objects using this method, they cannot contain a constructor, which is why we use the new ClassThing{Name="",Foos=0} way of creating them.
You're looking for an implementation of the IEnumerable interface. See this link for a quick description of how to implement it.
class MyClass
{
private ClassThing Thing1;
private ClassThing Thing2;
private ClassThing Thing3;
internal IEnumerable<ClassThing> GetThings()
{
yield return Thing1;
yield return Thing2;
yield return Thing3;
}
void Test()
{
foreach(var thing in this.GetThings())
{
//use thing
}
}
}
public List<ClassThing> Things = new List<ClassThing>();
Then you can run your foreach over .Things
private List<T> newList;
public List<T> NewList
{
get{return newList;}
set{newList = value;}
}
I want to create something like this, but this is won't work. it's just an example to demonstrate my goal as it's pretty common creating proprties for string and int and even T but I've never seen a List property
Is it even possible do such a thing, creating a property for type List ?
EDIT
I have a normal class that has normal properties (string properties, int properties, etc) but I have this property that stores user options, So on the presentation layer I had to convert them into a string so I could be able to store them in the Object. Now is it possible to have a property of type List to store the multivalues in a better and clean way, instead of converting information into one string and then split it and again join it! Thanks Again =D
EDIT2
private List<KeyValuePair<string, string>> _settings;
public List<KeyValuePair<string, string>> MySettings
{
get { return _settings; }
set { _settings = value; }
}
I used the exact code you posted but the property still won't appear in the object's instance, so I tried adding code in the get and set (I wonder why you left them empty or does it means something?) and also added a private variable in the class but still it doesn't appear in the properties of the object's instance!
I hope you could provide the exact code to implement this property and a simple code that assigns or retrieves from/to an instance of this class object
It's the first time to even hear about this KeyValuePair and all the tutorials are pretty simple and not for my case, sorry!
The Last Edit: After a lot of researching and the help of Mark Avenius I found the perfect answer. hope everyone can benefit from this.
NOW! HOW TO CREATE A PROPERTY FOR A LIST :
The Options Class
Public Class Options
{
private string id;
private int option;
public int ID
{
get { return id; }
set { id= value; }
}
public string Option
{
get { return option; }
set { option = value; }
}
}
The Users Class
public class Users
{
private int userId;
private string pass;
private List<Options> userOptions = new List<Options>();
public int ID
{
get { return userId; }
set { user = userId; }
}
public string Pass
{
get { return pass; }
set { pass = value; }
}
public List<Options> OptionsList
{
get { return userOptions; }
set { userOptions = value; }
}
}
The Presentation Layer
Users newUser = new Users ();
Options userOption = new Options ();
userOption.ID = int.Parse(txtBxID.Text);
userOption.Option = txtBxOption.Text;
Item.Options.Add(userOption);
T must be defined within the scope in which you are working. Therefore, what you have posted will work if your class is generic on T:
public class MyClass<T>
{
private List<T> newList;
public List<T> NewList
{
get{return newList;}
set{newList = value;}
}
}
Otherwise, you have to use a defined type.
EDIT: Per #lKashef's request, following is how to have a List property:
private List<int> newList;
public List<int> NewList
{
get{return newList;}
set{newList = value;}
}
This can go within a non-generic class.
Edit 2:
In response to your second question (in your edit), I would not recommend using a list for this type of data handling (if I am understanding you correctly). I would put the user settings in their own class (or struct, if you wish) and have a property of this type on your original class:
public class UserSettings
{
string FirstName { get; set; }
string LastName { get; set; }
// etc.
}
public class MyClass
{
string MyClassProperty1 { get; set; }
// etc.
UserSettings MySettings { get; set; }
}
This way, you have named properties that you can reference instead of an arbitrary index in a list. For example, you can reference MySettings.FirstName as opposed to MySettingsList[0].
Let me know if you have any further questions.
EDIT 3:
For the question in the comments, your property would be like this:
public class MyClass
{
public List<KeyValuePair<string, string>> MySettings { get; set; }
}
EDIT 4: Based on the question's edit 2, following is how I would use this:
public class MyClass
{
// note that this type of property declaration is called an "Automatic Property" and
// it means the same thing as you had written (the private backing variable is used behind the scenes, but you don't see it)
public List<KeyValuePair<string, string> MySettings { get; set; }
}
public class MyConsumingClass
{
public void MyMethod
{
MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
myClass.MySettings = new List<KeyValuePair<string, string>>();
myClass.MySettings.Add(new KeyValuePair<string, string>("SomeKeyValue", "SomeValue"));
// etc.
}
}
You mentioned that "the property still won't appear in the object's instance," and I am not sure what you mean. Does this property not appear in IntelliSense? Are you sure that you have created an instance of MyClass (like myClass.MySettings above), or are you trying to access it like a static property (like MyClass.MySettings)?
Simple and effective alternative:
public class ClassName
{
public List<dynamic> MyProperty { get; set; }
}
or
public class ClassName
{
public List<object> MyProperty { get; set; }
}
For differences see this post: List<Object> vs List<dynamic>
public class MyClass<T>
{
private List<T> list;
public List<T> MyList { get { return list; } set { list = value; } }
}
Then you can do something like
MyClass<int> instance1 = new MyClass<int>();
List<int> integers = instance1.MyList;
MyClass<Person> instance2 = new MyClass<Person>();
IEnumerable<Person> persons = instance2.MyList;
You could do this but the T generic parameter needs to be declared at the containing class:
public class Foo<T>
{
public List<T> NewList { get; set; }
}
It's possible to have a property of type List<T> but your class needs to be passed the T too.
public class ClassName<T>
{
public List<T> MyProperty { get; set; }
}
Either specify the type of T, or if you want to make it generic, you'll need to make the parent class generic.
public class MyClass<T>
{
etc