To clarify: I have two forms that use the same method in my Controller, and I was wondering how to use the same lines of code rather than copying and pasting the method and using a different parameter for each method.
Eg. What I have now:
public static void PopulateOriginCombo(CableID_QueryView QView)
{
if (QView.cmbAreaCode.Text != "")
{
//Code...
}
}
public static void PopulateOriginCombo(CableID_CreateView CView)
{
if (CView.cmbAreaCode.Text != "")
{
//Code...
}
}
Can I combine the parameters of each form into one somehow?
Since you want to avoid inheritance, create an interface:
interface IHasOriginCombo
{
ComboBox cmbAreaCode { get; }
}
then, in your class declarations, add the interface:
class CableID_QueryView : Form, IHasOriginCombo { //...
class CableID_CreateView : Form, IHasOriginCombo { //...
then:
public static void PopulateOriginCombo(IHasOriginCombo view)
{
if (view.cmbAreaCode.Text != "")
{
//Code...
}
}
You don't need to use inheritance to do this. Create another class which contains your methods and returns list of objects, then use it on different forms.
public class Origin
{
public string originName { get; set; }
public static List<Origin> PopulateOriginCombo(CableID_QueryView QView)
{
if (QView.cmbAreaCode.Text != "")
{
//Code...
}
}
public static List<Origin> PopulateOriginCombo(CableID_CreateView CView)
{
if (CView.cmbAreaCode.Text != "")
{
//Code...
}
}
}
Then in your form, call it like this:
combo1.DataSource = Origin.PopulateOriginCombo(test);
combo1.DisplayMember = "originName";
Using objects is hard at first, but eventually you will find it easier to manipulate.
how about create class that has this method than you can call this method :
public static string PopulateOriginCombo(CableID_CreateView CView)
{
if(CView != null)
{
if (CView.cmbAreaCode.Text != "")
{
return CView.Text ;
}
}
return string.Empty;
}
than just create object from that class and call this method and pass the CView to it like that :
SomeClass classObject = new SomeClass();
string value = classObject.PopulateOriginCombo(this.CView);
Related
because of this post I create a new question to make my probleme more clear. I have a class with a next class member, so there will be a daisy chain of class instances. A function in my class calls another member function or all instances in the chain.
c ++ has a resonable solution for this problem. In C# I tried it with a delegate. I made a short program to show what I mean.
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args)
{
DaisyChain TestClass = new DaisyChain(1);
TestClass.AddClass(new DaisyChain(2));
TestClass.AllprintID();
}
}
class DaisyChain {
private int ClassID;
private DaisyChain NextClass;
public DaisyChain(int ID) {ClassID = ID; }
public void AddClass(DaisyChain newClass) {
if (NextClass == null) {
NextClass = newClass;
} else {
NextClass.AddClass(newClass);
}
}
public void AllprintID() {
DoForEach(this.printID);
}
public delegate void doFunc();
public void DoForEach (doFunc aMemberFunc) {
aMemberFunc();
if (NextClass != null) {
NextClass.DoForEach(aMemberFunc);
}
}
public void printID() {
Console.WriteLine(ClassID);
}
};
This example do not work correct, because the class instance is not part of the function call.
I can add a class argumnet to my member function and chang the delegate,
public void printID(DaisyChain me) {
Console.WriteLine(me.ClassID);
}
but then the function will be static and no longer usable in the normal way.
I would be happy if ther another solution.
The delegate type should have an extra argument, since you want to call printID on different objects. You can either add one to doFunc, or just use the built in Action<T> delegate type.
public void DoForEach (Action<DaisyChain> aMemberFunc) {
aMemberFunc(this);
if (NextClass != null) {
NextClass.DoForEach(aMemberFunc);
}
}
When calling DoForEach, you can either pass a lambda expression:
public void AllprintID() {
DoForEach(x => x.printID());
}
Or if you really like the method group syntax for some reason, write a local function printID:
public void AllprintID() {
void PrintID(DaisyChain chain) {
chain.PrintID();
}
DoForEach(PrintID);
}
// method names should start with a capital letter :)
public void PrintID() {
Console.WriteLine(ClassID);
}
Other code can still call PrintID as usual - code outside AllprintID won't even notice the local function.
You are trying to reinvent the wheel. Check LinkedList and LinkedListNode in the documentation. Here is an example to get you on the way:
var daisyChain = new DaisyChain();
daisyChain.Add(1);
daisyChain.Add(2);
class DaisyChain: LinkedList<DaisyChainLink>
{
public void Add(int id) => AddLast(new LinkedListNode<DaisyChainLink>(new DaisyChainLink(id)));
public void Print()
{
var link = this.First;
link?.Value.Print();
while (null != link?.Next)
{
link = link.Next;
link?.Value.Print();
}
}
}
class DaisyChainLink
{
public DaisyChainLink(int id)
{
Id = id;
}
public int Id { get; }
public void Print() => Console.WriteLine(Id);
}
have created a ProdIgnoreAttribute which extends from IgnoreAttribute. And I have assigned this attribute to certain tests which I want to run in DEV/QA but not in PROD.
ApplyToTest(Test test) method is not being called in this case. How to resolve this?
public class ProdIgnoreAttribute : IgnoreAttribute
{
private string IgnoreReason { get; }
public ProdIgnoreAttribute(string reason) : base(reason)
{
IgnoreReason = reason;
}
public new void ApplyToTest(Test test)
{
if (test.RunState == RunState.NotRunnable)
return;
if (StaticInfoHelper.VrCurrentEnv == (int)RunEnv.PROD)
{
test.RunState = RunState.Ignored;
test.Properties.Set("_SKIPREASON", (object)IgnoreReason);
}
else
{
base.ApplyToTest(test);
}
}
}
How about extending Attribute rather than IgnoreAttribute?
public class ProdIgnoreAttribute : Attribute, ITestAction
{
public void BeforeTest(TestDetails details)
{
bool ignore = StaticInfoHelper.VrCurrentEnv == (int)RunEnv.PROD;
if (ignore)
Assert.Ignore("Test ignored during Prod runs");
}
//stub out rest of interface
}
If you want a custom ignore message you could make a ProdIgnoreAttribute constructor that accepts a string. You'd then use the attribute on tests like: [ProdIgnore("ignored because xyz")]
We are using HttpSessionStateBase to store messages in a set up similar to this working example:
public class HttpSessionMessageDisplayFetch : IMessageDisplayFetch
{
protected HttpSessionStateBase _session;
private IList<ICoreMessage> messages
{
get
{
if (_session[EchoCoreConstants.MESSAGE_KEY] == null)
_session[EchoCoreConstants.MESSAGE_KEY] = new List<ICoreMessage>();
return _session[EchoCoreConstants.MESSAGE_KEY] as IList<ICoreMessage>;
}
}
public HttpSessionMessageDisplayFetch()
{
if (HttpContext.Current != null)
_session = new HttpSessionStateWrapper(HttpContext.Current.Session);
}
public void AddMessage(ICoreMessage message)
{
if (message != null)
messages.Add(message);
}
public IEnumerable<IResultPresentation> FlushMessagesAsPresentations(IResultFormatter formatter)
{
var mToReturn = messages.Select(m => m.GetPresentation(formatter)).ToList();
messages.Clear();
return mToReturn;
}
}
When we pass in a QualityExplicitlySetMessage (which inherits from ICoreMessage, see below) it is saved correctly to messages.
This is how the object looks after being inserted into the messages list, at the end of AddMessage(ICoreMessage message) above.
But when we come to access it after changing controllers the inherited member's properties are null, which causes a variety of null reference exceptions.
This is how the object now looks after we call FlushMessagesAsPresentations. I've commented out var mToReturn... as this tries to access one of these null ref properties.
I'd like to ask the following:
Why is the HttpSessionStateBase failing to capture these values taken
by the inherited type?
Is this an issue in saving to the HttpSession or in retrieving?
Is this anything to do with, as I suspect, inheritance?
Or is the fact I'm potentially calling a new controller that dependency injects the HttpSessionMessageDisplayFetch causing an issue?
I'm a first-time poster so please let me know if I'm making any kind of faux pas - Super keen to learn! Any input is very welcome.
Some potentially useful code snippets:
QualityExplicitlySetMessage
public class QualityExplicitlySetMessage : QualityChangeMessage
{
public QualityExplicitlySetMessage(IQPossession before, IQPossession after, IQEffect qEffect)
: base(before, after, qEffect)
{
IsSetToExactly = true;
}
}
QualityChangeMessage - Working example
public abstract class QualityChangeMessage : CoreMessage, IQualityChangeMessage
{
protected PossessionChange Change;
public PossessionChange GetPossessionChange()
{
return Change;
}
protected QualityChangeMessage(IQPossession before, IQPossession after, IQEffect qEffect)
{
Change = new PossessionChange(before, after, qEffect);
StoreQualityInfo(qEffect.AssociatedQuality);
}
public override IResultPresentation GetPresentation(IResultFormatter formatter)
{
return formatter.GetQualityResult(this);
}
#region IQualityChangeMessage implementation
public int LevelBefore
{
get { return Change.Before.Level; }
}
//... And so on with values dependent on the Change property.
}
CoreMessage - Working example
public abstract class CoreMessage : ICoreMessage
{
public string MessageType
{
get { return GetType().ToString(); }
}
public string ImageTooltip
{
get { return _imagetooltip; }
set { _imagetooltip = value; }
}
public string Image
{
get { return _image; }
set { _image = value; }
}
public int? RelevantQualityId { get; set; }
protected void StoreQualityInfo(Quality q)
{
PyramidNumberIncreaseLimit = q.PyramidNumberIncreaseLimit;
RelevantQualityId = q.Id;
RelevantQualityName = q.Name;
ImageTooltip = "<strong>" + q.Name + "</strong><br/>" + q.Description + "<br>" +
q.EnhancementsDescription;
Image = q.Image;
}
public virtual IResultPresentation GetPresentation(IResultFormatter formatter)
{
return formatter.GetResult(this);
}
}
UserController - Working example.
public partial class UserController : Controller
{
private readonly IMessageDisplayFetch _messageDisplayFetch;
public UserController(IMessageDisplayFetch messageDisplayFetch)
{
_messageDisplayFetch = messageDisplayFetch;
}
public virtual ActionResult MessagesForStoryletWindow()
{
var activeChar = _us.CurrentCharacter();
IEnumerable<IResultPresentation> messages;
messages = _messageDisplayFetch.FlushMessagesAsPresentations(_storyFormatter);
var vd = new MessagesViewData(messages)
{
Character = new CharacterViewData(activeChar),
};
return View(Views.Messages, vd);
}
}
Hey I have two classes
class Main
{
public exLog exLog;
public Main()
{
}
}
and
class exLog
{
public exLog()
{
}
public exLog(String where)
{
}
public exLog(String where, String message)
{
}
}
i tried to call exLog direct without giving exLog a parameter. So I can call any class with the Main Method.
How should I do that?
public String ReadFileString(String fileType, String fileSaveLocation)
{
try
{
return "";
}
catch (Exception)
{
newMain.exLog("", "");
return null;
}
}
I like to call them like a funtion in Main
You can call it as soon as you instantiate it.
public Main()
{
exLog = new exLog();
exLog.MethodInClass();
}
Also, if you are not in the same assembly you'll need to make exLog public.
Finally, this is C# and the style dictates that class names should be PascalCased. It's a good habit to form.
Methinks you want something like Adapter Pattern
class Main
{
private exLog exLog;
public Main()
{
}
public void ExLog()
{
exLog = new exLog();
}
public void ExLog(String where)
{
exLog = new exLog(where);
}
public void ExLog(String where, String message)
{
exLog = new exLog(where, message);
}
}
I think you're confused about classes, instances, constructors, and methods. This does not work:
newMain.exLog("", "");
because exLog in this case is a property, not a method. (It's confusing because you use the same name for the class and the property, which is why most conventions discourage that).
You can call a method on the instance:
newMain.exLog.Log("", "");
but then you'll need to change the names of the methods (and add a return type) in your exLog class so they don't get interpreted as constructors:
class exLog
{
public void Log()
{
}
public void Log(String where)
{
}
public void Log(String where, String message)
{
}
}
class Main
{
public exLog exLog;
public Main()
{
exLog = new exLog();
exLog.ReadFileString("", "");
}
}
Methods specific for customers:
I try to refactore a code, where are a lot of logic for specifi customer:
public void SendDocumentsToCustomer(List<Case> cases)
{
foreach(var case in cases)
{
if(case.CustomerId==123)
{
if(case.Type==1 || case.Type==2)
{
SendDocumentsToCustomer123(case)
}
else if(case.CustomerId==456)
{
if(case.Type==1 || case.Type==3)
{
SendDocumentsToCustomer456(case);
}
}
else if(case.CustomerId==768)
{
if(case.Type==2)
{
SendDocumentsToCustomer456(case);
}
else
{
SendDocumentsToCustomer(case);
}
}
}
The list of specific customer will grow, and the conditions will be modified as well. I will have a generic solution, but maybe code like this with method DoItForClient123 is not a bad solution and I should leave it like that and goint this way introduce methods like CanDocumentsBeSendToClient123 and so on?
I will be very gratefull for some input
To separate logic for each specific customer I would use such code:
abstract class DocumentSender //Base class for all document sending components
{
public abstract bool CanSend(Case #case); // Check if sender can send the document
public abstract void SendDocument(Case #case); // Send the document
}
class DefaultDocumentSender : DocumentSender
{
public override bool CanSend(Case #case)
{
return true; //Can process all requests
}
public override void SendDocument(Case #case)
{
// Do something
}
}
class Customer123DocumentSender : DocumentSender
{
public override bool CanSend(Case #case)
{
return #case.CustomerId == 123; //Specific case
}
public override void SendDocument(Case #case)
{
if(#case.Type==1 || #case.Type==2)
{
// Do something different
}
}
}
//Separate class for getting the correct sender
class CaseSenderFactory
{
readonly List<DocumentSender> _senders = new List<DocumentSender>();
public DocumentSenderFactory()
{
//Initialize the list of senders from the most specific.
_senders.Add(new Customer123DocumentSender());
// Add more specific cases here
_senders.Add(new DefaultDocumentSender()); //Last item should be the default sender
}
public DocumentSender GetDocumentSender(Case #case)
{
//At least one sender needs to satisfy the condition
return _senders.First(x => x.CanSend(#case));
}
}
You then can use the senders like this:
var factory = new DocumentSenderFactory();
foreach(var #case in cases)
{
var sender = factory.GetDocumentSender(#case);
sender.SendDocument(#case);
}
I think it would be a good ideea to make something like this:
The ideea is if the code is really specific to some of the Customers then you could make a class for them. If the code for specific customers somehow related but combined in a diferent way then you should take a loot at DecoratorPattern(mabye it helps)
class Customer
{
public abstract SendDocumentsTo(Customer c);
}
class SpecificCustomerA
{
public overwrite SendDocumentsTo(Customer c)
{
if (c is SpecificCustomerB)
{
//Logic here
}
}
}
class SpecificCustomerB { ... }