See the code below. I want a class that automatically enumerates all the defined static readonly instances of its own type (see TestClass as an example, it defines 3 static readonly instances of its own type).
I want this automation because I want to loop over the defined types and not risk the change of forgetting to add a new instance to the list of All.
Ok, I have it working, that is not the point. But why doesn't FillAll work when called from a static constructor? See the commented static constructor in DefinedInstancesBase<T> code. I mean FieldInfo.GetValue(null) returns null in the static constructor, though the debugger has already hit creating the static readonly instances before the FieldInfo.GetValue(null) is called.
I'm very curious why it doesn't work. Is this by design?
public abstract class DefinedInstancesBase<T>
{
public static IList<T> All
{
get
{
if (_All == null)
{
FillAll();
}
return _All;
}
}
//Why this doesn't work? No idea.
//static DefinedInstancesBase()
//{
// FillAll();
//}
private static void FillAll()
{
var typeOfT = typeof(T);
var fields = typeOfT.GetFields(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static);
var fieldsOfTypeT = fields.Where(f => f.FieldType == typeOfT);
_All = new List<T>();
foreach (var fieldOfTypeT in fieldsOfTypeT)
{
_All.Add((T)fieldOfTypeT.GetValue(null));
}
}
private static List<T> _All = null;
}
[TestClass]
public class DefinedInstancesTest
{
[TestMethod]
public void StaticReadOnlyInstancesAreEnumerated()
{
//Given
var expectedClasses = new List<TestClass>
{
TestClass.First,
TestClass.Second,
TestClass.Third,
};
//When
var actualClasses = TestClass.All;
//Then
for (var i=0; i<expectedClasses.Count; i++)
{
Assert.AreEqual(expectedClasses[i].Id, actualClasses[i].Id);
}
}
private class TestClass : DefinedInstancesBase<TestClass>
{
public static readonly TestClass First = new TestClass(1);
public static readonly TestClass Second = new TestClass(2);
public static readonly TestClass Third = new TestClass(3);
public int Id { get; private set; }
private TestClass(int pId)
{
Id = pId;
}
}
}
There are two separate issues at work here.
There is a typo in your static constructor in the code above. Try changing static DefinedInstances() to static DefinedInstancesBase(), because currently it is just specified as a private static function.
The second and more important issue is to understand the order that the various constructors are being called in. What is happening is that the static constructor on the base abstract class is getting triggered by the instantiation (during member initializer) of the First field in the derived class. Therefore, First is still null when the static constructor of DefinedInstancesBase class is being called (and thus the FindAll() method).
See the following code (slightly modified to better illustrate the issue) and output:
public void Main()
{
DefinedInstancesTest dit = new DefinedInstancesTest();
dit.StaticReadOnlyInstancesAreEnumerated();
}
public abstract class DefinedInstancesBase<T>
{
public static IList<T> All
{
get
{
//if (_All == null)
// FillAll();
return _All;
}
}
// correctly named static ctor
static DefinedInstancesBase() { FillAll(); }
private static void FillAll()
{
Console.WriteLine("FillAll() called...");
var typeOfT = typeof(T);
var fields = typeOfT.GetFields(System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Public | System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Static);
var fieldsOfTypeT = fields.Where(f => f.FieldType == typeOfT);
_All = new List<T>();
foreach (var fieldOfTypeT in fieldsOfTypeT)
{
_All.Add((T)fieldOfTypeT.GetValue(null));
}
}
private static List<T> _All = null;
}
//[TestClass]
public class DefinedInstancesTest
{
//[TestMethod]
public void StaticReadOnlyInstancesAreEnumerated()
{
//Given
var expectedClasses = new List<TestClass>
{
TestClass.First,
TestClass.Second,
TestClass.Third,
};
//When
var actualClasses = TestClass.All;
//Then
for (var i=0; i<expectedClasses.Count; i++)
{
//Assert.AreEqual(expectedClasses[i].Id, actualClasses[i].Id);
if (expectedClasses[i].Id != actualClasses[i].Id)
Console.WriteLine("not equal!");
}
}
private class TestClass : DefinedInstancesBase<TestClass>
{
public static readonly TestClass First;
public static readonly TestClass Second;
public static readonly TestClass Third;
public int Id { get; private set; }
static TestClass()
{
Console.WriteLine("TestClass() static ctor called...");
First = new TestClass(1);
Second = new TestClass(2);
Third = new TestClass(3);
}
private TestClass(int pId)
{
Console.WriteLine("TestClass({0}) instance ctor called...", pId);
Id = pId;
}
}
}
TestClass() static ctor called...
// the line "First = new TestClass(1);" now triggers the base class static ctor to be called,
// but the fields First, Second, and Third are all still equal to null at this point!
FillAll() called...
TestClass(1) instance ctor called...
TestClass(2) instance ctor called...
TestClass(3) instance ctor called...
// this null reference exception to be expected because the field value actually was null when FindAll() added it to the list
Unhandled Expecption:
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
Related
I have two constructors which feed values to readonly fields.
public class Sample
{
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
_intField = i;
}
public Sample(int theInt) => _intField = theInt;
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
One constructor receives the values directly, and the other does some calculation and obtains the values, then sets the fields.
Now here's the catch:
I don't want to duplicate the
setting code. In this case, just one
field is set but of course there may
well be more than one.
To make the fields readonly, I need
to set them from the constructor, so
I can't "extract" the shared code to
a utility function.
I don't know how to call one
constructor from another.
Any ideas?
Like this:
public Sample(string str) : this(int.Parse(str)) { }
If what you want can't be achieved satisfactorily without having the initialization in its own method (e.g. because you want to do too much before the initialization code, or wrap it in a try-finally, or whatever) you can have any or all constructors pass the readonly variables by reference to an initialization routine, which will then be able to manipulate them at will.
public class Sample
{
private readonly int _intField;
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private void setupStuff(ref int intField, int newValue) => intField = newValue;
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
setupStuff(ref _intField,i);
}
public Sample(int theInt) => setupStuff(ref _intField, theInt);
}
Before the body of the constructor, use either:
: base (parameters)
: this (parameters)
Example:
public class People: User
{
public People (int EmpID) : base (EmpID)
{
// Add more statements here.
}
}
I am improving upon supercat's answer. I guess the following can also be done:
class Sample
{
private readonly int _intField;
public int IntProperty
{
get { return _intField; }
}
void setupStuff(ref int intField, int newValue)
{
//Do some stuff here based upon the necessary initialized variables.
intField = newValue;
}
public Sample(string theIntAsString, bool? doStuff = true)
{
//Initialization of some necessary variables.
//==========================================
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
// ................
// .......................
//==========================================
if (!doStuff.HasValue || doStuff.Value == true)
setupStuff(ref _intField,i);
}
public Sample(int theInt): this(theInt, false) //"false" param to avoid setupStuff() being called two times
{
setupStuff(ref _intField, theInt);
}
}
Here is an example that calls another constructor, then checks on the property it has set.
public SomeClass(int i)
{
I = i;
}
public SomeClass(SomeOtherClass soc)
: this(soc.J)
{
if (I==0)
{
I = DoSomethingHere();
}
}
Yeah, you can call other method before of the call base or this!
public class MyException : Exception
{
public MyException(int number) : base(ConvertToString(number))
{
}
private static string ConvertToString(int number)
{
return number.toString()
}
}
Constructor chaining i.e you can use "Base" for Is a relationship and "This" you can use for same class, when you want call multiple Constructor in single call.
class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass():this(10)
{
}
public BaseClass(int val)
{
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
new BaseClass();
ReadLine();
}
}
When you inherit a class from a base class, you can invoke the base class constructor by instantiating the derived class
class sample
{
public int x;
public sample(int value)
{
x = value;
}
}
class der : sample
{
public int a;
public int b;
public der(int value1,int value2) : base(50)
{
a = value1;
b = value2;
}
}
class run
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
der obj = new der(10,20);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.x);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.a);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.b);
}
}
Output of the sample program is
50 10 20
You can also use this keyword to invoke a constructor from another constructor
class sample
{
public int x;
public sample(int value)
{
x = value;
}
public sample(sample obj) : this(obj.x)
{
}
}
class run
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
sample s = new sample(20);
sample ss = new sample(s);
System.Console.WriteLine(ss.x);
}
}
The output of this sample program is
20
Error handling and making your code reusable is key. I added string to int validation and it is possible to add other types if needed. Solving this problem with a more reusable solution could be this:
public class Sample
{
public Sample(object inputToInt)
{
_intField = objectToInt(inputToInt);
}
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
public static int objectToInt(object inputToInt)
{
switch (inputToInt)
{
case int inputInt:
return inputInt;
break;
case string inputString:
if (!int.TryParse(inputString, out int parsedInt))
{
throw new InvalidParameterException($"The input {inputString} could not be parsed to int");
}
return parsedInt;
default:
throw new InvalidParameterException($"Constructor do not support {inputToInt.GetType().Name}");
break;
}
}
Please, please, and pretty please do not try this at home, or work, or anywhere really.
This is a way solve to a very very specific problem, and I hope you will not have that.
I'm posting this since it is technically an answer, and another perspective to look at it.
I repeat, do not use it under any condition. Code is to run with LINQPad.
void Main()
{
(new A(1)).Dump();
(new B(2, -1)).Dump();
var b2 = new B(2, -1);
b2.Increment();
b2.Dump();
}
class A
{
public readonly int I = 0;
public A(int i)
{
I = i;
}
}
class B: A
{
public int J;
public B(int i, int j): base(i)
{
J = j;
}
public B(int i, bool wtf): base(i)
{
}
public void Increment()
{
int i = I + 1;
var t = typeof(B).BaseType;
var ctor = t.GetConstructors().First();
ctor.Invoke(this, new object[] { i });
}
}
Since constructor is a method, you can call it with reflection. Now you either think with portals, or visualize a picture of a can of worms. sorry about this.
In my case, I had a main constructor that used an OracleDataReader as an argument, but I wanted to use different query to create the instance:
I had this code:
public Subscriber(OracleDataReader contractReader)
{
this.contract = Convert.ToString(contractReader["contract"]);
this.customerGroup = Convert.ToString(contractReader["customerGroup"]);
this.subGroup = Convert.ToString(contractReader["customerSubGroup"]);
this.pricingPlan= Convert.ToString(contractReader["pricingPlan"]);
this.items = new Dictionary<string, Member>();
this.status = 0;
}
So I created the following constructor:
public Subscriber(string contract, string customerGroup) : this(getSubReader(contract, customerGroup))
{ }
and this method:
private static OracleDataReader getSubReader(string contract, string customerGroup)
{
cmdSubscriber.Parameters[":contract"].Value = contract + "%";
cmdSubscriber.Parameters[":customerGroup"].Value = customerGroup+ "%";
return cmdSubscriber.ExecuteReader();
}
notes: a statically defined cmdSubscriber is defined elsewhere in the code; My main constructor has been simplified for this illustration.
In case you need to run something before calling another constructor not after.
public class Sample
{
static int preprocess(string theIntAsString)
{
return preprocess(int.Parse(theIntAsString));
}
static int preprocess(int theIntNeedRounding)
{
return theIntNeedRounding/100;
}
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
_intField = preprocess(theIntAsString)
}
public Sample(int theIntNeedRounding)
{
_intField = preprocess(theIntNeedRounding)
}
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
And ValueTuple can be very helpful if you need to set more than one field.
NOTE: most of the solutions above does not work for structs.
Unfortunately initializing struct fields in a method called by a constructor is not recognized by the compiler and will lead to 2 errors:
in the constructor: Field xxxx must be fully assigned...
in the method, if you have readonly fields: a read-only field cannot be assigned except in a constructor.
These can be really frustrating for example when you just need to do simple check to decide on which constructor to orient your call to.
Question
How do I define an incoming Type T constraint that will allow me to call a static method on the class (of type T) to get the intended IndexModel object for passing to Mongo?
Background
I'm currently trying to write a Mongo Provider class that will allow me to ensure my particular database and collection are present before doing any operations with them, since there is a potential that the container or server it resides in could be destroyed and recreated at any time, and I'd prefer to have a safe way in code to ensure that the external dependency is there (instance is beyond my control, so I have to trust that something is there).
One of the things I'm trying to do, since I've managed to do what I stated above for Database and Collection instantiation, is to also generate indexes. My idea was to have a static method on the classes that would return their specific definition of an index model. This way, each class would be responsible for their own Mongo indexes, rather than some convoluted switch-case statement in my Provider based on the incoming type of T.
My first idea was to have an interface that shared this method, but Interfaces don't allow you to declare a static method. Similarly, I tried an Abstract Base-class and found that the static implementation would call the base class that defined the method, rather than any overrides in an inheritor.
Sample Code
public class MyClass
{
public DateTime DateValue { get; set; }
public int GroupId { get; set; }
public string DataType { get; set; }
public static IEnumerable<CreateIndexModel<MyClass>> GetIndexModel(IndexKeysDefinitionBuilder<MyClass> builder)
{
yield return new CreateIndexModel<MyClass>(
builder.Combine(
builder.Descending(entry => entry.DateValue),
builder.Ascending(entry => entry.GroupId),
builder.Ascending(entry => entry.DataType)
)
);
}
}
Edit
I guess I should probably include a shell of my Mongo Provider class. See below:
Edit #2 due to questions about how this hasn't solved my problem, I'm updating the MongoProvider to have the problematic code. Note: Once this method is included, the class will no longer compile, since it isn't possible given what I've done thus far.
public class MongoProvider
{
private readonly IMongoClient _client;
private MongoPrivder(ILookup<string, string> lookup, IMongoClient client)
{
_client = client;
foreach(var database in lookup)
foreach(var collection in database)
Initialize(database.Key, collection);
}
public MongoProvider(IConfiguration config) :this(config.GetMongoObjects(), config.GetMongoClient())
{}
public MongoProvider(IConfiguration config, IMongoClient client) : this(config.GetMongoObjects(), client)
{}
private void Initialize(string database, string collection)
{
var db = _client.GetDatabase(database);
if (!db.ListCollectionNames().ToList().Any(name => name.Equals(collection)))
db.CreateCollection(collection);
}
// The Problem
private void InitializeIndex<T>(string database, string collection)
{
IEnumerable<CreateIndexModel<T>> models;
switch (T)
{
case MyClass:
model = MyClass.GetIndexModel();
break;
default:
break;
}
await _client.GetDatabase(database)
.GetCollection<T>(collection)
.Indexes
.CreateManyAsync(models);
}
}
Edit #3
As a stop-gap, I've gone ahead and done something terrible (not sure if it's going to work yet), and I'll supply the example so you can know my best solution thus far.
public static class Extensions
{
#region Object Methods
public static T TryCallMethod<T>(this object obj, string methodName, params object[] args) where T : class
{
var method = obj.GetType().GetMethod(methodName);
if (method != null)
{
return method.Invoke(obj, args) as T;
}
return default;
}
#endregion
}
This allows me to do the following (inside of MongoProvider)
private async void InitializeIndex<T>(string database, string collection) where T : new()
{
var models = new T().TryCallMethod<IEnumerable<CreateIndexModel<T>>>("GetIndexModel");
await _client.GetDatabase(database)
.GetCollection<T>(collection)
.Indexes
.CreateManyAsync(models);
}
Since it doesn't look like I'm going to get an answer to this, I figured I would provide my solution for future searches of this question. Basically, I added an extension method to the base object class, and used reflection to determine if the method I was looking for was there. From there, I returned a value of true or false, depending on if the method was found, and output the return value to a parameter, in the traditional TryGet pattern.
Note to Future Readers
I do not recommend this approach. This is just how I solved my problem for accessing a method on a type of T. Ideally, an instance method would be implemented, and a signature defined in a common Interface, but that wasn't going to work for my use case.
My Answer
public static class Extensions
{
#region Object Methods
public static bool TryCallMethod<T>(this object obj, string methodName, out T result, params object[] args) where T : class
{
result = null;
var method = obj.GetType().GetMethod(methodName);
if (method == null)
return false;
result = method.Invoke(obj, args) as T;
return true;
}
#endregion
}
My data class looks like this (obfuscated from actual usage)
[BsonDiscriminator("data")]
public class DataClass
{
#region Private Fields
private const string MongoCollectionName = "Data";
#endregion
#region Public Properties
public string CollectionName => MongoCollectionName;
[BsonId]
public ObjectId Id { get; set; }
[BsonElement("date_value")]
public DateTime DateValue { get; set; }
[BsonElement("group_id")]
public int GroupId { get; set; }
[BsonElement("data_type")]
public string DataType { get; set; }
[BsonElement("summary_count")]
public long SummaryCount { get; set; }
[BsonElement("flagged_count")]
public long FlaggedCount { get; set; }
[BsonElement("error_count")]
public long ErrorCount { get; set; }
#endregion
#region Constructor
public DataClass()
{
}
public DataClass(int groupId, string dataType = null, long summaryCount = 0, long flaggedCount = 0, long errorCount = 0)
{
Id = ObjectId.GenerateNewId();
DateValue = DateTime.UtcNow;
GroupId = groupId;
DocCount = summaryCount;
DataType = dataType ?? "default_name";
FlaggedCount = flaggedCount;
ErrorCount = errorCount;
}
#endregion
#region Public Methods
public static IEnumerable<CreateIndexModel<AuditEntry>> GetIndexModel(IndexKeysDefinitionBuilder<AuditEntry> builder)
{
yield return new CreateIndexModel<AuditEntry>(
builder.Combine(
builder.Descending(entry => entry.DateValue),
builder.Ascending(entry => entry.GroupId),
builder.Ascending(entry => entry.DataType)
)
);
}
#endregion
}
I would then call the method in the following fashion, inside my MongoProvider class. The ellipses are present to identify that more code exists within the class.
public class MongoProvider : IMongoProvider
{
#region Private Fields
private readonly IMongoClient _client;
#endregion
#region Constructor
...
#endregion
#region Private Methods
private void Initialize(string database, string collection)
{
var db = _client.GetDatabase(database);
if (!db.ListCollectionNames().ToList().Any(name => name.Equals(collection)))
db.CreateCollection(collection);
}
private async Task InitializeIndex<T>(string database, string collection) where T : new()
{
if(new T().TryCallMethod<IEnumerable<CreateIndexModel<T>>>("GetIndexModel", out var models, new IndexKeysDefinitionBuilder<T>()))
await _client.GetDatabase(database)
.GetCollection<T>(collection)
.Indexes
.CreateManyAsync(models);
}
private static void ValidateOptions<T>(ref FindOptions<T, T> options)
{
if(options != null)
return;
options = new FindOptions<T, T>
{
AllowPartialResults = null,
BatchSize = null,
Collation = null,
Comment = "AspNetWebService",
CursorType = CursorType.NonTailable,
MaxAwaitTime = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10),
MaxTime = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10),
Modifiers = null,
NoCursorTimeout = false,
OplogReplay = null
};
}
private static FilterDefinition<T> GetFilterDefinition<T>(Func<FilterDefinitionBuilder<T>, FilterDefinition<T>>[] builders)
{
if(builders.Length == 0)
builders = new Func<FilterDefinitionBuilder<T>, FilterDefinition<T>>[] {b => b.Empty};
return new FilterDefinitionBuilder<T>()
.And(builders
.Select(b => b(new FilterDefinitionBuilder<T>()))
);
}
#endregion
#region Public Methods
public async Task<IReadOnlyCollection<T>> SelectManyAsync<T>(string database, string collection, FindOptions<T, T> options = null, params Func<FilterDefinitionBuilder<T>, FilterDefinition<T>>[] builders) where T : new()
{
ValidateOptions(ref options);
await InitializeIndex<T>(database, collection);
var filter = GetFilterDefinition(builders);
var find = await _client.GetDatabase(database)
.GetCollection<T>(collection)
.FindAsync(filter, options);
return await find.ToListAsync();
}
...
#endregion
}
I'm developing a library for developers where they have to create a class that inherits from a class I created.
This base class essentially manages an array of objects for the developer, however the developer gets to specify the type of these objects they want the base class to manage.
So the developer essentially just tells the base class to create an array, then only has read only access to that array. The base class will (depending on the state of the application) add or remove objects from the array.
I'm stuck at finding the right data type to store such a thing. I've tried ref and out but that got me nowhere. The closest I got was with a Dictionary but that idea fell apart because C# is actually just copying the value into the dictionary instead of referencing or pointing to it.
Here is a quick example I threw together:
public static void Main()
{
Derived d = new Derived();
d.InitBase();
d.Init();
d.CheckArray();
d.AddElement<GenericObject>(new GenericObject{ i = 2 });
d.CheckArray();
}
public class Base {
Dictionary<Type, List<object>> ArrayReferences;
public void InitBase() {
ArrayReferences = new Dictionary<Type, List<object>>();
}
protected ReadOnlyCollection<T> RegisterArray<T>() {
List<object> managedArray = new List<object>();
ArrayReferences.Add(typeof(T), managedArray);
return Array.AsReadOnly(managedArray.Select(s => (T)s).ToArray());
}
public void AddElement<T>(T obj) {
ArrayReferences[typeof(T)].Add(obj);
}
public void RemoveElement<T>(T obj) {
ArrayReferences[typeof(T)].Remove(obj);
}
}
public class Derived: Base {
ReadOnlyCollection<GenericObject> arr;
public void Init() {
arr = RegisterArray<GenericObject>();
}
public void CheckArray() {
Console.WriteLine(arr.Count());
}
}
public class GenericObject {
public int i = 0;
}
Output:
0
0
Dictionary obviously doesn't store the values as references like I want it to. So what other technique does C# have or is this simply not possible? Also not sure how many issues unsafe will cause me so I'm scared going that route.
While I think there are better ways of handling this issue, this can be done.
Instead of storing a List<object> reference, which isn't compatible with a List<T>, store an object. Use a static in Base to hold the Dictionary so there is one Dictionary for all derived classes.
public static void Main() {
var d = new Derived();
d.CheckCollection("d before AddElement");
d.AddElement(new GenericObject { i = 2 });
d.CheckCollection("d after AddElement");
Console.WriteLine($"ListCount = {Base.ListCount}");
var d2 = new Derived2();
d2.CheckCollection("d2 before AddElement");
d2.AddElement(new GenericObject2 { i = 4 });
d2.AddElement(new GenericObject2 { i = 5 });
d2.CheckCollection("d2 after AddElement");
Console.WriteLine($"ListCount = {Base.ListCount}");
}
public class Base {
static Dictionary<Type, object> ListReferences = new Dictionary<Type, object>();
public static int ListCount => ListReferences.Count();
protected ReadOnlyCollection<T> RegisterList<T>() {
var managedList = new List<T>();
ListReferences.Add(typeof(T), managedList);
return managedList.AsReadOnly();
}
public void AddElement<T>(T obj) {
((List<T>)ListReferences[typeof(T)]).Add(obj);
}
public void RemoveElement<T>(T obj) {
((List<T>)ListReferences[typeof(T)]).Remove(obj);
}
}
public class Derived : Base {
ReadOnlyCollection<GenericObject> roc;
public Derived() {
roc = RegisterList<GenericObject>();
}
public void CheckCollection(string msg) {
Console.WriteLine(msg);
Console.WriteLine(roc.Count());
}
}
public class Derived2 : Base {
ReadOnlyCollection<GenericObject2> roc;
public Derived2() {
roc = RegisterList<GenericObject2>();
}
public void CheckCollection(string msg) {
Console.WriteLine(msg);
Console.WriteLine(roc.Count());
}
}
public class GenericObject {
public int i = 0;
}
public class GenericObject2 {
public int i = 0;
}
PS Also, don't name methods and variables with "array" when you are using Lists.
The following code you've written makes a copy of your list at the time you created it - so it is always empty, no matter what you add to the list afterwards.
List<object> managedArray = new List<object>();
ArrayReferences.Add(typeof(T), managedArray);
return Array.AsReadOnly(managedArray.Select(s => (T)s).ToArray());
Here is how you should write your code to get what you want:
public static void Main()
{
Derived d = new Derived();
Console.WriteLine(d.AsReadOnly().Count);
d.AddElement(new GenericObject { i = 2 });
Console.WriteLine(d.AsReadOnly().Count);
}
public class Base<T>
{
List<T> _items = new List<T>();
public ReadOnlyCollection<T> AsReadOnly()
{
return Array.AsReadOnly(_items.ToArray());
}
public void AddElement(T obj)
{
_items.Add(obj);
}
public void RemoveElement(T obj)
{
_items.Remove(obj);
}
}
public class Derived : Base<GenericObject>
{
}
public class GenericObject
{
public int i = 0;
}
That outputs:
0
1
Now, it's worth considering that List<T> already has a AsReadOnly() method, so you could simply write this:
public static void Main()
{
var d = new List<GenericObject>();
Console.WriteLine(d.AsReadOnly().Count);
d.Add(new GenericObject { i = 2 });
Console.WriteLine(d.AsReadOnly().Count);
}
public class GenericObject
{
public int i = 0;
}
That works too.
Here's how you should do this to hold more than one list at a time. There's no need for inheritance.
public static void Main()
{
Repository r = new Repository();
Console.WriteLine(r.AsReadOnly<GenericObject>().Count);
r.AddElement<GenericObject>(new GenericObject { i = 2 });
Console.WriteLine(r.AsReadOnly<GenericObject>().Count);
}
public class Repository
{
private Dictionary<Type, object> _references = new Dictionary<Type, object>();
private void Ensure<T>()
{
if (!_references.ContainsKey(typeof(T)))
{
_references[typeof(T)] = new List<T>();
}
}
public ReadOnlyCollection<T> AsReadOnly<T>()
{
this.Ensure<T>();
return (_references[typeof(T)] as List<T>).AsReadOnly();
}
public void AddElement<T>(T obj)
{
this.Ensure<T>();
(_references[typeof(T)] as List<T>).Add(obj);
}
public void RemoveElement<T>(T obj)
{
this.Ensure<T>();
(_references[typeof(T)] as List<T>).Remove(obj);
}
}
public class GenericObject
{
public int i = 0;
}
In your base (or encapsulated class if you choose to go that way):
protected ReadOnlyCollection<T> GetSnapshot<T>() {
return Array.AsReadOnly(ArrayReferences[typeof(T)].Select(s => (T)s).ToArray());
}
Then you'd also add any other methods to view the data, e.g. to get a count:
protected int GetCount<T>() {
return ArrayReferences[typeof(T)].Count;
}
I have a static Class and within it I have multiple public static attributes. I treat this class as my global class.
However now I need to treat this class as a variable so that I can pass it to a method of another class for processing..
I can't instantiate this class.. So in effect I can only assign the variables inside this class.
Is my understanding correct or am I missing something?
public static class Global
{
public const int RobotMax = 2;
// GUI sync context
public static MainForm mainForm;
public static SynchronizationContext UIContext;
// Database
public static Database DB = null;
public static string localDBName = "local.db";
public static Database localDB = null;
public static Database ChangeLogDB = null;
public static string changeLogDBName = "ChangeLog.db";
}
Let say I have a class like this, and I need to somehow keep a copy of this in another class maybe
public static class Global_bk
{
public const int RobotMax = 2;
// GUI sync context
public static MainForm mainForm;
public static SynchronizationContext UIContext;
// Database
public static Database DB = null;
public static string localDBName = "local.db";
public static Database localDB = null;
public static Database ChangeLogDB = null;
public static string changeLogDBName = "ChangeLog.db";
}
I need to copy the contents from Global to Global_bk.
And after that I need to compare the contents of the two classes in a method like
static class extentions
{
public static List<Variance> DetailedCompare<T>(T val1, T val2)
{
List<Variance> variances = new List<Variance>();
FieldInfo[] fi = val1.GetType().GetFields();
foreach (FieldInfo f in fi)
{
Variance v = new Variance();
v.Prop = f.Name;
v.valA = f.GetValue(val1);
v.valB = f.GetValue(val2);
if (!v.valA.Equals(v.valB))
variances.Add(v);
}
return variances;
}
}
class Variance
{
string _prop;
public string Prop
{
get { return _prop; }
set { _prop = value; }
}
object _valA;
public object valA
{
get { return _valA; }
set { _valA = value; }
}
object _valB;
public object valB
{
get { return _valB; }
set { _valB = value; }
}
}
So on my main form, how do I go about calling the compare method and passing the static Global class inside?
example: extentions.DetailedCompare(Global, Global_bk) ? Of course this would give me an error because I cant pass a type as a variable.
Please help me, this is driving me nuts...
How about the singleton pattern ? You can pass reference to shared interface (IDoable in exable below) and still have just one instance.
I.E.:
public interface IDoable {
int Value { get; set; }
void Foo();
}
public static class DoableWrapper {
private MyDoable : IDoable {
public int Value { get;set; }
public void Foo() {
}
}
private static IDoable s_Doable = new MyDoable();
public static IDoable Instance {
get { return s_Doable; }
}
}
Singleton is the way to go here. You can do it like this:
internal class SomeClass
{
private static SomeClass singleton;
private SomeClass(){} //yes: private constructor
public static SomeClass GetInstance()
{
return singleton ?? new SomeClass();
}
public int SomeProperty {get;set;}
public void SomeMethod()
{
//do something
}
}
The GetInstance Method will return you a SomeClass object that you can edit and pass into whatever you need.
You can access the members with classname.membername.
internal static class SomeClass
{
public static int SomeProperty {get;set;}
public static void SomeMethod()
{
//do something
}
}
static void main()
{
SomeClass.SomeProperty = 15;
SomeClass.SomeMethod();
}
The only way you are going to obtain a variable with the "class" information is using reflection. You can get a Type object for the class.
namespace Foo {
public class Bar
{
}
}
Type type = Type.GetType("Foo.Bar");
Otherwise, if you are really describing a class "instance" then use an object and simply instantiate one.
C# offers no other notation for class variables.
Say I have a class declared as follows:
public class ExampleClass
{
public Action<int> Do { get; set; }
public ExampleClass()
{
}
public void FuncA(int n)
{
//irrelevant code here
}
public void FuncB(int n)
{
//other irrelevant code here
}
}
I want to be able to use this class like this
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = FuncA }
or
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = excl.FuncA }
or
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = ExampleClass.FuncA }
I can compile the second option there, but I get a "Delegate to an instance method cannot have null 'this'." exception when I hit that code. The third one doesn't even make sense, because FuncA isn't static.
In my actual code, there will be maybe 10-15 different functions it could get tied to, and I could be adding or removing them at any time, so I don't want to have to have a large switch or it-else statement. Additionally, being able assign a value to 'Do' when instantiating the class is very convenient.
Am I just using incorrect syntax? Is there a better way to create a class and assign an action in one line? Should I just man up and manage a huge switch statement?
You have to create the instance of the class and later set the property to the instance member. Something like:
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass();
excl.Do = excl.FuncA;
For your line:
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = FuncA }
FuncA is not visible without an instance of the class.
For:
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = excl.FuncA }
Instance has not yet been created that is why you are getting the exception for null reference.
For:
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = ExampleClass.FuncA }
FuncA is not a static method, you can't access it with the class name.
In object initializer syntax you cannot access the variable being initialized before it is definitely assigned:
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass()
{
Do = excl.FuncA //excl is unavailable here
}
Read Object and Collection Initializers (C# Programming Guide) for more info.
You could do the following, for example:
public class ExampleClass
{
public Action<int> Do { get; set; }
public ExampleClass(bool useA)
{
if (useA)
Do = FuncA;
else
Do = FuncB;
}
public void FuncA(int n)
{
//irrelevant code here
}
public void FuncB(int n)
{
//other irrelevant code here
}
}
and use it:
ExampleClass exclA = new ExampleClass(true);
ExampleClass exclB = new ExampleClass(false);
Another idea is if these functions may be declared as static (i.e. they don't need any instance members of the ExampleClass), then this would work:
public class ExampleClass
{
public Action<int> Do { get; set; }
public ExampleClass() { }
public static void FuncA(int n) { /*...*/}
public static void FuncB(int n) { /*...*/}
}
and use it the way you want:
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = ExampleClass.FuncA };
If you have extension methods make sure that those values are not null before invoking the extension methods or handle nulls inside the extension methods.
For example
public static ExtensionClass
{
public static bool RunExtensionMethod(this object myObject)
{
var someExecutionOnMyObject = myObject.IsValid();
//the above line would invoke the exception when myObject is null
return someExecutionOnMyObject ;
}
}
public void CallingMethod()
{
var myObject = getMyObject();
if(myObject.RunExtensionMethod()) //This would cause "delete to an instance method cannot have null" if myObject is null
{
}
}
To handle this scenario handle nulls and assert nulls if you own the extension class.
public static ExtensionClass
{
public static bool RunExtensionMethod(this object myObject)
{
if(myObject == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(myObject));
var someExecutionOnMyObject = myObject.IsValid();
return someExecutionOnMyObject ;
}
}
public void CallingMethod()
{
var myObject = getMyObject();
if(myObject != null && myObject.RunExtensionMethod())
{
}
}