We Keep Coding

c# Accessing my array inside a class constructor

I'm learning c# and have decided to try and create a functioning chance game, part by part.
I previously created a method that would create a random (yet likely inefficient) array of natural numbers that would not appear more than once.
However, as I try to piece together OOP I realised if I create multiple of these arrays they would be objects, thus should be created by a class.
I have the array created inside a constructor. Yet I cannot access this array from either within the constructor's class or in another class entirely.
class randomArray
{
Random rng = new Random();
protected int amountOfNumbers;
protected int rangeOfNumbers;
public randomArray(int amountOfNumbers, int rangeOfNumbers)
{
this.amountOfNumbers = amountOfNumbers;
this.rangeOfNumbers = rangeOfNumbers;
int[] randomizedArray = new int[amountOfNumbers];
for (int i = 0; i < amountOfNumbers; i++)
{
randomizedArray[i] = rng.Next(1, rangeOfNumbers + 1);
// A test to ensure that each new number generate is not
already part of the array.
for (int j = 0; j < i; j++)
{
while (randomizedArray[i] == randomizedArray[j])
{
randomizedArray[i] = rng.Next(1, rangeOfNumbers + 1);
j = 0;
}
if (randomizedArray[i] != randomizedArray[j])
continue;
}
}
}
public int RangeOfNumbers { get; set; }
public int AmountOfNumbers { get; set; }
I believe I'm failing to either understand the fundamentals of OOP or I am I failing to understand how to utilize classes.

Make your array a member of the actual class, ie property
public class randomArray
{
public int[] RandomizedArray { get; set; }
...
At about this time, you should probably have a read through this
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/keywords/class
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/properties
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/fields
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/constructors
Update
public randomArray(int amountOfNumbers, int rangeOfNumbers)
{
...
RandomizedArray = new int[amountOfNumbers]
// do stuff here

Although the response of #TheGeneral contains the solution and points you towards more documentation for learning about OOP.
I think it is better to give an explanation why your code did not work.
Everything in OOP has a Scope (a certain "area" where it is available) which is, for most of the things in OOP, fenced of by the brackets.
In this instance the scope is based around the constructor, which causes the variables declared in the brackets to only be available inside the brackets. Except when you use an "outside" link like a class variable or property.
public class Example
{
// this is a class variable, this variable is now reachable from outside the class
// definition.
public int aClassVariable;
// this is a class property which because we added the get and set calls generate
// automatically an get and set method (internally)
public bool aClassProperty { get; set; }
public Example()
{
// to set the class variable and property you just give them a value.
aClassVariable = 42;
aClassProperty = true;
// this variable is not available outside the scope of this function,
// this is because you declared the variable inside this function.
// So the variable is only available inside this function as long as this
// function runs (or as it is called "is in scope").
int[] arr = new int[10];
}
}
Also pay attention about the differences between variables and properties, a variable is something every OOP language contains.
But the properties are actually an extension for the variables where the accessing and setting can be modified with a definition of the get and set method.
I would strongly suggest to read the documentation linked from the answer of TheGeneral because it contains far more information about the intricacies of OOP and C# itself.

Replacing an object on so that all references to it are kept

I wanted to understand more about how the ref keyword works so I made the following experiment:
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var main = new Main { Property = 1 };
var dependent = new Dependent(main);
void ChangeRef(ref Main Oldmain, Main newMain)
{
Oldmain = newMain;
}
ChangeRef(ref main, new Main { Property = 5 });
Assert.AreEqual(5,dependent.Main.Property);
}
}
public class Main
{
public int Property { get; set; }
}
public class Dependent
{
public Dependent(Main main)
{
Main = main;
}
public Main Main { get; set; }
}
As you can see I was expecting to be able to replace the object that main was referencing while keeping the reference, but the test fails and with the value still being 1. Could someone elaborate abit on why that wasnt working or point me to a place where I can read more?
Update:
Like someone answered below, but later removed.
Why doesnt it work if I pass the main object by reference to the dependent in the constructor?
Shouldnt they all have the same reference?

As others have pointed, you cannot instantly make all variables and fields in your program point to a different instance.
But if you want to reflect a change in all parts of the program, the simplest way is to wrap it in a different class (like your Dependent class). Then you can share the class with other parts of the program, and change its properties instead:
class SomeOtherObject
{
readonly Dependent _dependent;
public Dependent { get { return _dependent; }}
public SomeOtherObject(Dependent dependent)
{
_dependent = dependent;
}
public void Print()
{
Console.WriteLine(_dependent.Main.Property);
}
}
So now you can do this:
var dependent = new Dependent(new Main { Property = 1 });
var someOtherObject = new SomeOtherObject(dependent);
// this will print "1"
someOtherObject.Print();
dependent.Main = new Main { Property = 5; };
// this will print "5"
someOtherObject.Print();
In this case, obviously, simply changing dependent.Main.Property would also do the trick. So, if all parts of your program point to a single object, you can mutate it (i.e. change its internal data) and everyone will see the change, but you cannot make all parts of your program change what they are pointing to.
It's worth noting that you need to be careful when doing this in multithreaded programs; you rarely want some other thread to be able to randomly change your internal data.
That's also why it's best to try to keep your properties readonly, and your objects immutable, if possible.

After doing that
var main = new Main { Property = 1 };
You have object of type Main allocated somewhere in memory (let's name it Main1), at some memory address X, and variable main points to that object. "Points" means it literally stores address of that object Main1, so main contains X.
Then you pass reference to Main1 to the constructor of Dependent object
var dependent = new Dependent(main);
Dependent object is also allocated somewhere in memory, and one of its fields stores reference to Main1 object. So dependent.Main also stores X.
When you do
ChangeRef(ref main, new Main { Property = 5 });
You allocate new object Main5 somewhere at memory address Y. Now you change what address variable main points to. Before it stored address X (address of Main1), now it stores address Y (address of Main5). But dependent.Main still stores address X, because you didn't change it in any way, so it still points to object Main1.

Solution for CA2227 or better approach?

I'm only using Code Analysis for cleaning, organizing and ensuring these changes are globally performed for all instances of a particular warning. I'm down to the final, and it's CA2227.
CA2227 Collection properties should be read only Change '' to be
read-only by removing the property setter.
Note this is for mapping of EDI documents. These classes are to represent a whole or part of an EDI document.
public class PO1Loop
{
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO1 PO1 { get; set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID1> PIDRepeat1 { get; set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID2> PIDRepeat2 { get; set; }
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO4 PO4 { get; set; }
/* Max Use: 8 */
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.ACK> ACKRepeat { get; set; }
}
You can see all of the Collection properties will give me this warning, and there are hundreds of them. When using the above class I instantiate it without any data. Then externally I add the data and set each individual variable through its public accessor. I do not instantiate this class with all the data prepared and passed using a constructor method (IMO for the size these can reach it can easily wreak havoc on the eyes). When complete and all properties are assigned the class as a whole is then used to generate that part of a document it represents.
My question is, for the usage described above, what would be a better approach for setting this up correctly? Do I keep the public accessors and suppress this warning entirely, or is there a entirely different solution that would work?

Here's what MSDN says about the error, and also how you can avoid it.
Here's my take on the issue.
Consider, the following class:
class BigDataClass
{
public List<string> Data { get; set; }
}
This class will throw that exact same issue. Why? Because Collections do not need a setter. Now, we can do anything with that object: assign Data to an arbitrary List<string>, add elements to Data, remove elements from Data, etc. If we remove the setter, we only lose the ability to directly assign to that property.
Consider the following code:
class BigDataClass
{
private List<string> data = new List<string>();
public List<string> Data { get { return data; } } // note, we removed the setter
}
var bigData = new BigDataClass();
bigData.Data.Add("Some String");
This code is perfectly valid and in fact the recommended way to do things. Why? Because the List<string> is a reference to a memory location, that contains the remainder of the data.
Now, the only thing you cannot now do with this, is directly set the Data property. I.e. the following is invalid:
var bigData = new BigDataClass();
bigData.Data = new List<string>();
This is not necessarily a bad thing. You'll notice that on many .NET types this model is used. It's the basics of immutability. You usually do not want direct access to the mutability of Collections, as this can cause some accidental behavior that has strange issues. This is why Microsoft recommends you omit setters.
Example:
var bigData = new BigDataClass();
bigData.Data.Add("Some String");
var l2 = new List<string>();
l2.Add("String 1");
l2.Add("String 2");
bigData.Data = l2;
Console.WriteLine(bigData.Data[0]);
We might be expecting Some String, but we'll get String 1. This also means that you cannot reliably attach events to the Collection in question, so you cannot reliably determine if new values are added or values are removed.
A writable collection property allows a user to replace the collection with a completely different collection.
Essentially, if you only ever need to run the constructor, or assignment, once, then omit the set modifier. You won't need it, direct assignment of collections is against best-practices.
Now, I'm not saying never use a setter on a Collection, sometimes you may need one, but in general you should not use them.
You can always use .AddRange, .Clone, etc. on the Collections, you only lose the ability of direct assignment.
Serialization
Lastly, what do we do if we wish to Serialize or Deserialize a class that contains our Collection without a set? Well, there is always more than one way to do it, the simplest (in my opinion) is to create a property that represents the serialized collection.
Take our BigDataClass for example. If we wished to Serialize, and then Deserialize this class with the following code, the Data property would have no elements.
JavaScriptSerializer jss = new JavaScriptSerializer();
BigDataClass bdc = new BigDataClass();
bdc.Data.Add("Test String");
string serd = jss.Serialize(bdc);
Console.WriteLine(serd);
BigDataClass bdc2 = jss.Deserialize<BigDataClass>(serd);
So, to fix this, we can simply modify our BigDataClass a bit to make it use a new string property for Serialization purposes.
public class BigDataClass
{
private List<string> data = new List<string>();
[ScriptIgnore]
public List<string> Data { get { return data; } } // note, we removed the setter
public string SerializedData { get { JavaScriptSerializer jss = new JavaScriptSerializer(); return jss.Serialize(data); } set { JavaScriptSerializer jss = new JavaScriptSerializer(); data = jss.Deserialize<List<string>>(value); } }
}
Another option is always the DataContractSerializer (which is really a better option, in general.) You can find information about it on this StackOverflow question.

With current VS2019 we can simply do this:
public List<string> Data { get; } = new List<string>();
This satisfies CA2227 and can be serialized/deserialized.
The deserialization works because List<> has an "Add" method, and the serializer knows how to handle a read-only collection property with an Add method (the property is read-only but not the elements) (I use Json.Net, other serializers may behave differently).
Edit:
As pointed out it should be "=" and not "=>" (compiler will prevent you using "=>"). If we used "public List Data => new List();" then it would create a new list every time the property was accessed which is not what we want either.
Edit:
Note that this will NOT work if the type of the property is an interface, such as IList
Edit:
I think the handling of interfaces is determined by the serializer used. The following works perfectly. I'm sure all common serializers know how to handle ICollection. And if you have some custom interface that does not implement ICollection then you should be able to configure the serializer to handle it, but in that case CA2227 probably won't be triggered making it irrelevant here. (As it is a read-only property you have to assign a concrete value within the class so it should always be serializing and de-serializing a non-null value)
public class CA2227TestClass
{
public IList Data { get; } = new List<string>();
}
[TestMethod]
public void CA2227_Serialization()
{
var test = new CA2227TestClass()
{
Data = { "One", "Two", "Three" }
};
var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(test);
Assert.AreEqual("{\"Data\":[\"One\",\"Two\",\"Three\"]}", json);
var jsonObject = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject(json, typeof(CA2227TestClass)) as CA2227TestClass;
Assert.IsNotNull(jsonObject);
Assert.AreEqual(3, jsonObject.Data.Count);
Assert.AreEqual("One", jsonObject.Data[0]);
Assert.AreEqual("Two", jsonObject.Data[1]);
Assert.AreEqual("Three", jsonObject.Data[2]);
Assert.AreEqual(typeof(List<string>), jsonObject.Data.GetType());
}

💡 Alternative Solution 💡
In my situation, making the property read-only was not viable because the whole list (as a reference) could change to a new list.
I was able to resolve this warning by changing the properties' setter scope to be internal.
public List<Batch> Batches
{
get { return _Batches; }
internal set { _Batches = value; OnPropertyChanged(nameof(Batches)); }
}
Note one could also use private set...
The hint's (achilleas heal) of this warning seems really pointed to libraries for the documentation says (Bolding mine):
An externally visible writable property is a type that implements
System.Collections.ICollection.
For me it was, "Ok, I won't make it viewable externally...." and internal was fine for the app.

Thanks to #Matthew, #CraigW and #EBrown for helping me understanding the solution for this warning.
public class PO1Loop
{
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO1 PO1 { get; set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID1> PIDRepeat1 { get; private set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID2> PIDRepeat2 { get; private set; }
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO4 PO4 { get; set; }
/* Max Use: 8 */
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.ACK> ACKRepeat { get; private set; }
public PO1Loop()
{
PIDRepeat1 = new Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID1>();
PIDRepeat2 = new Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID2>();
ACKRepeat = new Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.ACK>();
}
}
When wanting to assign data to the collection types use AddRange, Clear or any other variation of method for modifying a collection.

Only while binding DTO, you need to suppress warnings.
otherwise a custom ModelBinder is required custom ModelBinder to bind collections.
quoting the rule documentation:
When to suppress warnings
You can suppress the warning if the property is part of a Data Transfer Object (DTO) class.
Otherwise, do not suppress warnings from this rule.
https://learn.microsoft.com/pt-br/visualstudio/code-quality/ca2227?view=vs-2019

DTOs often require serialization and deserialization. Thus, they are required to be mutable.
Having to create an alternate backing property is a pain.
Simply change the property type from List<string> to IReadOnlyList<string> then this works as expected without CA2227.
The collection is set via the property but you can also cast to List<string> if you wish to append or delete items.
class Holder
{
public IReadOnlyList<string> Col { get; set; } = new List<string>();
}
var list = new List<string> { "One", "Two" };
var holder = new Holder() { Col = list } ;
var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(holder);
// output json {"Col":["One","Two"]}
var deserializedHolder = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Holder>(json);

I had to fix some of the CA2227 violations, so i had to add the "readonly" keyword to the collection field and then of course, had to remove the setter property. Some code that have used the setter, just created a new collection object which initially was empty. This code sure did not compile so i had to add a SetXxx() method in order to realize the missing setter's functionality. I did it like this:
public void SetXxx(List<string> list)
{
this.theList.Clear();
this.theList.AddRange(list);
}
The code of callers using the setter has been replaced with a call to the method SetXxx().
Instead of creating a complete new list, the existing list now will be cleared and filled with new items from another list, passed in as a parameter. The original list, due to the fact it is readonly and created only once, will always remain.
I believe this is also a good way to avoid that the garbagae collector has to delete old objects that got out of scope and second, to create new collection objects although there is already one.

As an addition to Der Kommissar's excellent answer.
Starting with .NET 5 (C# 9.0) there are init-only properties. These properties are only settable under specific circumstances, see here for reference.
The following example should not raise a warning CA2227, yet still allow for the collection being set during object initialization.
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace BookStore
{
public class BookModel
{
public ICollection<string> Chapters { get; init; }
}
}
Note that the current version of the .NET SDK still raises a warning when using the built-in analyzer (not the NuGet package). This is a known bug and should be fixed in the future.

To cover all the possible scenarios to resolve CA2227 error:
This covers the Entity relationship mapping when we use Entity Framework.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ParentClass obj = new ParentClass();
obj.ChildDetails.Clear();
obj.ChildDetails.AddRange();
obj.LstNames.Clear();
obj.LstNames.AddRange();
}
}
public class ChildClass
{ }
public class ParentClass
{
private readonly ICollection<ChildClass> _ChildClass;
public ParentClass()
{
_ChildClass = new HashSet<ChildClass>();
}
public virtual ICollection<ChildClass> ChildDetails => _ChildClass;
public IList<string> LstNames => new List<string>();
}

How to output the members of list items?

I'm a newbie in the C# and .NET at all.
So, I have a collection that contains objects
private List<object> trains = new List<object>();
...
trains.Add(trains[0]);
trains.Add(trains[1]);
trains.Add(trains[2]);
trains.Add(trains[3]);
trains.Add(trains[4]);
And later in my code I must to input all elements of my collection
I'm trying something like that, but it doesn't work
public void Display()
{
...
for (int i = 0; i<trains.Count; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(trains[i].Number);
Console.WriteLine(trains[i].Destination);
}
}
Help me please, I'm really dont understand how to input it to the console. I read Microsoft documentation about the "List" but :(

You have a list of objects. And object class doesn't have those members (Number and Destination). If you wanna access them either you need to cast your objects to your type or have a list of Train instead of object.

Currently you are storing your objects in a List<object>, Since your class (probably named) Train inherit from Object, you can store its object in object. You need List<Train> and then you can access each member property like:
private List<Train> trains = new List<Train>();
If you can do that for some reason then you have to explicitly cast your object to Train like:
Console.WriteLine(((Train)(trains[i])).Number);

Assuming this
class Train
{
public int Number { get; set; }
public string Destination { get; set; }
}
And that you are doing something like this:
var t1 = new Train();
t1.Number = 1;
t1.Destination = "somewhere";
var t2 = new Train();
t2.Number = 2;
t2.Destination = "somewhereelse";
trains.Add(t1);
trains.Add(t2);
Than you can output using this:
Train train;
foreach(object t in trains)
{
if ((train = t as Train) != null)
{
Console.WriteLine(t.Number);
Console.WriteLine(t.Destination);
}
}
The advantage of using a list of objects is that you can put "anything" there. Not only "Train". But as pointed by #Chris, foreach do not filter, so you have to filter it yourself.

To access the Train object directly, you will need to cast the generic object to a Train object prior to referencing it's exposed properties. This can be done on the fly, it's not necessary to declare the extra variable myTrain here, however for sake of clarity and readability, I generally do it like this.
public void Display()
{
...
for (int i = 0; i<trains.Count; i++)
{
Train myTrain = (Train)trains[i];
Console.WriteLine(myTrain.Number);
Console.WriteLine(myTrain.Destination);
}
}
Others have mentioned and I would agree, I can think of very few situations where you would NEED to use a:
List<object>();
rather than:
List<Train>();
The only thing that jumps out at me would be if you might be storing non Train objects in the same list with Train objects but I cannot think of a good reason to do something like that off the top of my head.

Anonymous classes, temporary data, and collections of anonymous classes

I'm new to anonymous classes, and today I think I ran into the first case where I felt like I could really use them. I'm writing a method that would benefit from storing temporary data inside of a class, and since that class doesn't have any meaning outside of that method, using an anonymous class sure made sense to me (at least at the time it did).
After starting on the coding, it sure seemed like I was going to have to make some concessions. I like to put assign things like calculations to temporary variables, so that during debugging I can verify bits of calculations at a time in logical chunks. Then I want to assign something simpler to the final value. This value would be in the anonymous class.
The problem is that in order to implement my code with anonymous classes concisely, I'd like to use LINQ. The problem here is that I don't think you can do such temporary calculations inside of the statement. or can you?
Here is a contrived example of what I want to do:
namespace AnonymousClassTest
{
/// <summary>
/// Interaction logic for Window1.xaml
/// </summary>
public partial class Window1 : Window
{
ObservableCollection<RectanglePoints> Points { get; set; }
public class RectanglePoints
{
public Point UL { get; set; }
public Point UR { get; set; }
public Point LL { get; set; }
public Point LR { get; set; }
}
public class DontWantThis
{
public double Width { get; set; }
public double Height { get; set; }
}
private Dictionary<string,string> properties = new Dictionary<string,string>();
private Dictionary<string,double> scaling_factors = new Dictionary<string,double>();
private void Sample()
{
// not possible to do temp variables, so need to have
// longer, more unreadable assignments
var widths_and_heights = from rp in Points
select new
{
Width = (rp.UR.X - rp.UL.X) * scaling_factors[properties["dummy"]],
Height = (rp.LL.Y - rp.UL.Y) * scaling_factors[properties["yummy"]]
};
// or do it in a for loop -- but then you have to use a concrete
// class to deal with the Width and Height storage
List<DontWantThis> other_widths_and_heights = new List<DontWantThis>();
foreach( RectanglePoints rp in Points) {
double base_width = rp.UR.X - rp.UL.X;
double width_scaling_factor = scaling_factors[properties["dummy"]];
double base_height = rp.LL.Y - rp.UL.Y;
double height_scaling_factor = scaling_factors[properties["yummy"]];
other_widths_and_heights.Add( new DontWantThis
{
Width=base_width * width_scaling_factor,
Height=base_height * height_scaling_factor
});
}
// now we want to use the anonymous class, or concrete class, in the same function
foreach( var wah in widths_and_heights)
Console.WriteLine( String.Format( "{0} {1}", wah.Width, wah.Height));
foreach( DontWantThis dwt in other_widths_and_heights)
Console.WriteLine( String.Format( "{0} {1}", dwt.Width, dwt.Height));
}
public Window1()
{
InitializeComponent();
Points = new ObservableCollection<RectanglePoints>();
Random rand = new Random();
for( int i=0; i<10; i++) {
Points.Add( new RectanglePoints { UL=new Point { X=rand.Next(), Y=rand.Next() },
UR=new Point { X=rand.Next(), Y=rand.Next() },
LL=new Point { X=rand.Next(), Y=rand.Next() },
LR=new Point { X=rand.Next(), Y=rand.Next() }
} );
}
Sample();
}
}
}
NOTE: don't try to run this unless you actually add the keys to the Dictionary :)
The creation of the anonymous class in LINQ is awesome, but forces me to do the calculation in one line. Imagine that the calc is way longer than what I've shown. But it is similar in that I will do some Dictionary lookups to get specific values. Debugging could be painful.
The usage of a concrete class gets around this problem of using temporary variables, but then I can't do everything concisely. Yes, I realize that I'm being a little contradictory in saying that I'm looking for conciseness, while asking to be able to save temp variables in my LINQ statement.
I was starting to try to create an anonymous class when looping over Points, but soon realized that I had no way to store it! You can't use a List because that just loses the entire anonymity of the class.
Can anyone suggest a way to achieve what I'm looking for? Or some middle ground? I've read a few other questions here on StackOverflow, but none of them are exactly the same as mine.

Assuming I understand you correctly, the problem is that you have to set all the properties in a single expression. That's definitely the case with anonymous types.
However, you don't have to do it all inline in that expression. I would suggest that if your properties are based on complex expressions, you break those expressions out into helper methods:
var complex = new {
First = ComputeFirstValue(x, y),
Second = ComputeSecondValue(a, b)
...
};
This has the additional potential benefit that you can unit test each of the helper methods individually, if you're a fan of white-box testing (I am).
This isn't going to avoid there being in one big anonymous type initializer expression, but it means the work will be broken up.

Anonymous classes are really intended to simplify stuff dealing with lambdas, not least LINQ. What you're trying to do sounds much more suited to a nested private class. That way, only your class really knows about your temp class. Trying to muck around with anonymous classes seems only to complicate your code.