We Keep Coding

C# constructors sharing code and then referencing properties already set [duplicate]

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.

How to use an interface within a public interface with a main?

//Program.cs
public interface TestVal
{
//Input Param
string Input { get; }
//will return output
TestValRes ValidateRe(string input);
}
class MyClass : ITestVal
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var instance = new MyClass();
instance.Run();
}
public void Run()
{
ValidateRe("test");
}
public ITestValRes ValidateRe(string input)
{
return null; // return an instance of a class implementing ITestValRes here.
}
}
//TestvalRes.cs
public interface TestvalRes
{
string Input { get; }
bool IsValid { get; }
}
So I just want to pass a string to the TestVal, do validation and call TestvalRes to return whether it is Valid or not, and if Invalid, why? So the validation will be done in the first public interface - TestVal, however I still need to call it inside the Main(), right?

First off, I'd recommend following C# naming conventions and name your interfaces ITestVal and ITestValRes respectively.
Next, static method cannot call instance methods in the same class (without creating an instance and using that). You need to create an instance of the class and pass control of the application flow to that:
class MyClass : ITestVal
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var instance = new MyClass();
instance.Run();
}
public void Run()
{
ValidateRe("test");
}
public ITestValRes ValidateRe(string input)
{
return null; // return an instance of a class implementing ITestValRes here.
}
}

How to call a class method from another class instance

I'm new to C#, I'm in doubt about how to make this work:
namespace Core {
public class A{
private reandonly string _var;
public A(string var){
_var=var
}
public GetValue() => return _var;
}
}
using System;
namespace Core.Resources {
public static class B{
public static void DoSomething(){
Console.Writeline($"{A.GetValue()}");
}
}
}
public class C{
static void Main(string args[]){
A a = new A("name");
a.Resources.B.DoSomething();
}
}
A is in main folder, B is in Main/Resources folder, together they make a classlib, Program.cs is using this lib. Is there a way to make this work?

If you write a.Resources you are basically trying to retrieve the member Resources of the class A, which is obviously not defined. Since B is a static class defined in the Core.Resources namespace, all you have to do is to change your code as follows:
public class C
{
public static void Main(string args[])
{
A a = new A("A");
Core.Resources.B.DoSomething();
}
}
or, alternatively, if you don't want to reference the namespace every time:
using Core.Resources;
public class C
{
public static void Main(string args[])
{
A a = new A("A");
B.DoSomething();
}
}
Note that if yuu explicitly define a public constructor for A that accepts one or more arguments, the default parameterless constructor is no more available... hence you have to pass a string to the A constructor if you don't want to see an error in your console. Alternatively, you have to rewrite your A class so that it implements a default parameterless compiler, for example:
public class A
{
private reandonly String _var;
public A() : this(String.Empty) { }
public A(String var)
{
_var = var;
}
}
EDIT AS PER OP COMMENTS AND QUESTION CHANGES
public class A
{
private reandonly String _var;
public String Var
{
get { return _var; }
}
public A(String var)
{
_var = var;
}
}
public static class B
{
public static void DoSomething(String text)
{
Console.Writeline(text);
}
}
public class C
{
public static void Main(string args[])
{
A a = new A("name");
B.DoSomething(a.Var);
}
}

Simplify Constructor for class with multiple initialisable fields

I currently have the following problem:
I have a class which includes 3 different fields
Enum x
ActiveDirectoryUser y
CustomClass z
The enum can be initialised by passing a string or the enum object.
The ADUser can be initialised by passing a string (LoginName) or the user by itself and the CustomClass can be initialized by passing a string, int or the object.
Now I want to initialize the class to pass all different combinations like
class(string enumValue, string adUser, string customClass)
class(string enumValue, ADUser adUser, CustomClass customClass)
class(EnumValue enumValue, string adUser, CustomClass customClass)
Is there a way to simplify the constructors without typing all of the 12 possibilities (Enum-2 * ADUser-2 * CClass-3 = 12)?
I thought about chained constructors where i also ended up with 12 constructors but also thought about just passing the c# Object on each parameter and cast it and do stuff with it but i think that is just a dirty workaround?
Edit
The class is contained in an library and so can be used internal but also public. For the internal uses there is no problem to pass a concrete version of an object.
But if i use it public in other solutions these solutions can only refer to string or int values. So the class should be able to 'take' the values and convert them while beeing initialised because it have access to all the real objects.
Maybe this clarifies the problem a bit.
Here some code snippets with changed names:
#region Content of libraryOne
public class ClassName
{
internal EnumValueWrapper { get; set; }
internal CustomClass { get; set; }
internal ADUser { get; set; }
public ClassName() { ... } //Now via Builder Pattern
internal ClassName() { ... } //With Parameters for internal initialisations
public InformationContainer GetContentInfo()
{
//[...]Process Stuff and Return Container
}
}
internal CustomClass { ... }
internal EnumValueWrapper { ... }
internal ADUser { ... }
#endregion Content of libraryOne

If your class has only 3 properties (EnumValue, ADUser, CustomClass) then you should have only one constructor with these :class(EnumValue enumValue, ADUser adUser, CustomClass customClass). The ADUser and CustomClass should be instantiated outside of your class using their constructor which support string or int, etc;
Example:
class (EnumValue param, new ADUser(string_param), new CustomClass(int_param));
class (EnumValue param, new ADUser(ADUser_param), new CustomClass(string_param));
Edit
You can use it like I described above for internal scope and for the public part you can use and expose a factory (wrapper) class which actually can receive users and other parameters as strings or int and internally instantiate and return your class.
In addition to your snippet: Create a proxy like public class in your assembly that can be accessed from outside (from other assemblies).Make your class internal:
public class ClassNameBuilder
{
private ClassName _className;
public ClassNameBuilder(string enumValue, string user, string custom_class)
{
_className = new ClassName(EnumToString, new User(user), new CustomClass(custom_class));
}
public void CallClassNameMethod1()
{
return _className.Method1()
}
public void CallClassNameMethod2()
{
return _className.Method2()
}
}
The builder class can use whatever method you want to build the ClassName object; This way you can expose all your class methods without using multiple constructors.

I think the best thing to do is use the Builder pattern. You can even use it with derived classes.
My classes to build:
public class MyBaseClass
{
public MyBaseClass(SomeEnum enumValue, User user)
{
}
}
public class MyDerivedClass : MyBaseClass
{
public MyDerivedClass(SomeEnum enumValue, User user, CustomClass customStuff)
: base(enumValue, user)
{
}
}
Now let's add a builder class featuring an additional extension class for making things much more comfortable (it's sort of an extended Builder pattern using C# extension method wizadry):
public class MyBaseClassBuilder
{
public SomeEnum EnumValue { get; set; }
public User User { get; set; }
}
public static class MyBaseClassBuilderExtensions
{
public static T SetEnumValue<T>(this T instance, SomeEnum value)
where T : MyBaseClassBuilder
{
instance.EnumValue = value;
return instance;
}
public static T SetEnumValue<T>(this T instance, string value)
where T : MyBaseClassBuilder
{
instance.EnumValue = (SomeEnum)Enum.Parse(typeof(SomeEnum), value);
return instance;
}
public static T SetUser<T>(this T instance, User value)
where T : MyBaseClassBuilder
{
instance.User = value;
return instance;
}
public static T SetUser<T>(this T instance, string value)
where T : MyBaseClassBuilder
{
instance.User = new User(value);
return instance;
}
public static MyBaseClass Build(this MyBaseClassBuilder instance)
{
return new MyBaseClass(instance.EnumValue, instance.User);
}
}
Now let's do the same thing for our derived class:
public class MyDerivedClassBuilder : MyBaseClassBuilder
{
public CustomClass CustomStuff { get; set; }
}
public static class MyDerivedClassBuilderExtensions
{
public static T SetCustomStuff<T>(this T instance, CustomClass value)
where T : MyDerivedClassBuilder
{
instance.CustomStuff = value;
return instance;
}
public static T SetCustomStuff<T>(this T instance, string value)
where T : MyDerivedClassBuilder
{
instance.CustomStuff = new CustomClass(value);
return instance;
}
public static MyDerivedClass Build(this MyDerivedClassBuilder instance)
{
return new MyDerivedClass(instance.EnumValue, instance.User, instance.CustomStuff);
}
}
Now you can construct your instances in some fluent API style way:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyBaseClass baseInstance = new MyBaseClassBuilder()
.SetEnumValue("Alpha")
.SetUser("Big Duke")
.Build();
MyDerivedClass derivedInstance = new MyDerivedClassBuilder()
.SetEnumValue(SomeEnum.Bravo)
.SetUser(new User("Lt. Col. Kilgore"))
.SetCustomStuff("Smells like victory")
.Build();
}
Finally the additional types:
public enum SomeEnum
{
Alpha,
Bravo
}
public class User
{
public User(string name)
{
this.Name = name;
}
public string Name { get; private set; }
}
public class CustomClass
{
public CustomClass(string notation)
{
this.Notation = notation;
}
public string Notation { get; private set; }
}
This way you can construct instances which require many constructor arguments in a comfortable way.

Making a superclass have a static variable that's different for each subclass in c#

Without any code in the subclasses, I'd like an abstract class to have a different copy of a static variable for each subclass. In C#
abstract class ClassA
{
static string theValue;
// just to demonstrate
public string GetValue()
{
return theValue;
}
...
}
class ClassB : ClassA { }
class ClassC : ClassA { }
and (for example):
(new ClassB()).GetValue(); // returns "Banana"
(new ClassC()).GetValue(); // returns "Coconut"
My current solution is this:
abstract class ClassA
{
static Dictionary<Type, string> theValue;
public string GetValue()
{
return theValue[this.GetType()];
}
...
}
While this works fine, I'm wondering if there's a more elegant or built-in way of doing this?
This is similar to Can I have different copies of a static variable for each different type of inheriting class, but I have no control over the subclasses

There is a more elegant way. You can exploit the fact that statics in a generic base class are different for each derived class of a different type
public abstract class BaseClass<T> where T : class
{
public static int x = 6;
public int MyProperty { get => x; set => x = value; }
}
For each child class, the static int x will be unique for each unique T
Lets derive two child classes, and we use the name of the child class as the generic T in the base class.
public class ChildA: BaseClass<ChildA>
{
}
public class ChildB : BaseClass<ChildB>
{
}
Now the static MyProperty is unique for both ChildA and ChildB
var TA = new ChildA();
TA.MyProperty = 8;
var TB = new ChildB();
TB.MyProperty = 4;

While this works fine, I'm wondering if there's a more elegant or built-in way of doing this?
There isn't really a built-in way of doing this, as you're kind of violating basic OO principles here. Your base class should have no knowledge of subclasses in traditional object oriented theory.
That being said, if you must do this, your implementation is probably about as good as you're going to get, unless you can add some other info to the subclasses directly. If you need to control this, and you can't change subclasses, this will probably be your best approach.

This is a little different than what you're asking for, but perhaps accomplishes the same thing.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine((new B()).theValue);
Console.WriteLine((new C()).theValue);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
public abstract class A
{
public readonly string theValue;
protected A(string s)
{
theValue = s;
}
}
public class B : A
{
public B(): base("Banana")
{
}
}
public class C : A
{
public C(): base("Coconut")
{
}
}

There's an alternative solution which might or might not be better than yours, depending on the use case:
abstract class ClassA
{
private static class InternalClass<T> {
public static string Value;
}
public string GetValue()
{
return (string)typeof(InternalClass<>)
.MakeGenericType(GetType())
.GetField("Value", BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static)
.GetValue(null);
}
}
This approach is used in EqualityComparer<T>.Default. Of course, it's not used for this problem. You should really consider making GetValue abstract and override it in each derived class.

What about this?
class Base {
protected static SomeObjectType myVariable;
protected void doSomething()
{
Console.WriteLine( myVariable.SomeProperty );
}
}
class AAA : Base
{
static AAA()
{
myVariable = new SomeObjectType();
myVariable.SomeProperty = "A";
}
}
class BBB : Base
{
static BBB()
{
myVariable = new SomeObjectType();
myVariable.SomeProperty = "B";
}
}
It works for me.
Would be even nicer with Interface.

Simple solution: just use word "new".
public abstract class AbstractClass
{
public static int Variable;
}
public class RealizationA : AbstractClass
{
public new static int Variable;
}
public class RealizationB : AbstractClass
{
public new static int Variable;
}
And the result:
AbstractClass.Variable = 1;
RealizationA.Variable = 2;
RealizationB.Variable = 3;
Console.WriteLine(AbstractClass.Variable); //1
Console.WriteLine(RealizationA.Variable); //2
Console.WriteLine(RealizationB.Variable); //3
or you can use property:
//in abstract class
public static int Variable {get; set;}
//in child class
public static new int Variable {get; set;}
or function (but remember to add "new" to both variable and function):
//in abstract class
protected static int Variable;
public static int GetVariable() { return Variable; }
public static void SetVariable(int v) { Variable = v; }
//in child class
protected new static int Variable;
public static new int GetVariable() { return Variable; }
public static new void SetVariable(int v) { Variable = v; }
or you can use private variables (you don't need to use "new") with functions to get and set:
//in abstract class
private static int Variable;
//get and set methods
//in child class
private static int Variable;
//get and set methods