We Keep Coding

C#: Override inherited method, but not for the whole class

I'm just playing around a bit with inheritance and/or polymorphism in C#, and since my OOP skills are very, very basic I'm wondering if this is possible:
I have a class which inherits a method from a base class:
class BaseClass {
public void Init () {
// Do basic stuff.
}
}
class LoginTest : BaseClass {
public void StraightMethod () {
// Do stuff based on the actions in the inherited Init() method from BaseClass.
}
public void ExceptionMethod () {
// Do stuff where I don't want to do the actions in the inherited method.
// That is, skip or override the Init() method in the BaseClass class.
}
}
I know I can override the Init() method for the whole class, but is it possible to override it, or the code in it, for just the ExceptionMethod() method? These methods are run exclusively, so that for example one initialization of the LoginTest class will only run LoginClass.ExceptionMethod(), while another one might run LoginClass.StraightMethod().
And yes, I know that good design will eliminate the need for things like this. But first of all, I'm not doing software engineering here, so being pragmatic is often OK without ruining some design or other principles. Second, this is more a question of whether or not something can be done, rather than the wiseness of it.
Note that these classes and methods are UnitTest methods, so the Init() method is a [TestInitialize] method. Hence, it's called automatically when LoginTest inherits from the BaseClass.

No, you can't selectively override the Init method, but by making the Init method virtual, you can specify which version of the method you want to call with the base and this keywords:
class BaseClass
{
// This method must become virtual
public virtual void Init()
{
// Do basic stuff.
}
}
class LoginTest : BaseClass
{
public override void Init()
{
// Other stuff
}
public void StraightMethod()
{
// Do stuff based on the actions in the inherited Init() method from BaseClass.
base.Init();
}
public void ExceptionMethod()
{
// Do stuff where I don't want to do the actions in the inherited method.
// That is, skip or override the Init() method in the BaseClass class.
this.Init();
}
}

The method isn't virtual, so it's not possible to override it at all, ever.

You can't conditionally override the method, but you can call each one individually (if you provide the base functionality in the base class).
class BaseClass {
public virtual void Init () {
// Do basic stuff.
}
}
class LoginTest : Baseclass {
public override void Init() {
//do overridden stuff
}
public void StraightMehthod () {
this.Init(); // Call the overridden
}
public void ExceptionMethod () {
base.Init(); // Call the base specifically
}
}
As you have said though, this is probably not something you want to do as someone using this code will be very confused by the behavior.

You also have the option to do this.
class BaseClass
{
public void Init()
{
// Do basic stuff.
Console.WriteLine("BaseClass.Init");
}
}
class LoginTest : BaseClass
{
public void StraightMehthod()
{
// Do stuff based on the actions in the inherited Init() method from BaseClass.
base.Init();
}
public void ExceptionMethod()
{
// Do stuff where I don't want to do the actions in the inherited method.
this.Init();
// That is, skip or override the Init() method in the BaseClass class.
}
private new void Init()
{
Console.WriteLine("LoginTest.Init");
}
}

Require child classes to call super.doSomething() if overrides it?

I have a abstract class named Vehicle:
public abstract class Vehicle {
public void run() {
addToRunningVehicleList();
}
}
I want that every classes that extends Vehicle must call super.run() if they override run method. For example:
public class Car {
#Override
public void run() { // Error here because does not call super.run()
carRunningAnimation();
}
}
Is it possible in OOP concept, or Java/C#?
EDIT: Following Petar Ivanov, I have this code:
public abstract class Vehicle {
public final void run() {
Log.e("Run", "Add To List");
runImp();
}
public void runImp() {}
}
public class Car extends Vehicle {
#Override
public void runImp() {
Log.e("Run", "Run in Car");
}
}
However, it's not very good for public APIs. When extending Vehicle, the end-users must override runImp, but then they have to call run() method, so I have to make public both run and runImp, which make nothing better.

Here is how I would do it (C#):
public abstract class Vehicle {
public void Run() {
//code that will always run
addToRunningVehicleList();
//code that can be overriden
RunImpl();
}
protected virtual void RunImpl() { }
}
public class Car : Vehicle {
protected override void RunImpl() {
carRunningAnimation();
}
}
You can make the RunImpl protected to make sure it can't be called outside the subclasses of Vehicle.

If you need to require certain code to run in addition to the child class' implementation, perhaps you need to split this into multiple methods:
(C# example)
public abstract class Vehicle
{
public void Run()
{
// Code that always runs before...
RunCore();
// Code that always runs after...
}
protected virtual void RunCore()
{
}
}

Remember who you are designing for. If it's an internal piece of code a comment will suffice. If it's a public API and you want people to inherit then you need to write a piece of documentation telling them to do it.
In C# you can do some sneaky stuff with virtual and non-virtual methods but in Java as all inheritence is virtual it's a lot harder to enforce this without using an abstract base class.
Using an ABT may limit your ability to provide further inheritence and force modification of other code.

C# How to execute code after object construction (postconstruction)

As you can see in the code below, the DoStuff() method is getting called before the Init() one during the construction of a Child object.
I'm in a situation where I have numerous child classes. Therefore, repeating a call to the DoStuff() method directly after Init() in the constructor of each child wouldn't be an elegant solution.
Is there any way I could create some kind of post constructor in the parent class that would be executed after the child's constructor? This way, I could call to the DoStuff() method there.
If you have any other design idea which could solve my problem, I'd like to hear it too!
abstract class Parent
{
public Parent()
{
DoStuff();
}
protected abstract void DoStuff();
}
class Child : Parent
{
public Child()
// DoStuff is called here before Init
// because of the preconstruction
{
Init();
}
private void Init()
{
// needs to be called before doing stuff
}
protected override void DoStuff()
{
// stuff
}
}

If you have a complex logic for constructing your objects then consider FactoryMethod pattern.
In your case I would implement it as a simple
public static Parent Construct(someParam)
method that takes some parameter and based on it decides which child class to instantiate.
You can remove your DoStuff() method call from the constructor and call it inside Construct() on the new instance.
Also, you should avoid virtual/abstract method calls in the constructors. See this question for more details: Virtual member call in a constructor

Let me introduce a general solution using some C# features. Note that this solution does not require you to use a factory pattern or invoke anything after constructing the object, and it works on any class with just implementing an interface with a single method.
First we declare an interface that our classes will have to implement:
public interface IInitialize {
void OnInitialize();
}
Next we add a static extension class for this interface, and add the Initialize method:
public static class InitializeExtensions
{
public static void Initialize<T>(this T obj) where T: IInitialize
{
if (obj.GetType() == typeof(T))
obj.OnInitialize();
}
}
Now, if we need a class and all of its descendants to call an initializer right after the object is fully constructed, all we need to do is implement IInitialize and append a line in the constructor:
public class Parent : IInitialize
{
public virtual void OnInitialize()
{
Console.WriteLine("Parent");
}
public Parent()
{
this.Initialize();
}
}
public class Child : Parent
{
public Child()
{
this.Initialize();
}
public override void OnInitialize()
{
Console.WriteLine("Child");
}
}
public class GrandChild : Child
{
public GrandChild()
{
this.Initialize();
}
public override void OnInitialize()
{
Console.WriteLine("GrandChild");
}
}
The trick is that when a derived class calls the extension method Initialize, that will suppress any calls not made from the actual class.

How about this:
abstract class Parent
{
public Parent()
{
Init();
DoStuff();
}
protected abstract void DoStuff();
protected abstract void Init();
}
class Child : Parent
{
public Child()
{
}
protected override void Init()
{
// needs to be called before doing stuff
}
protected override void DoStuff()
{
// stuff
}
}

As others have mentioned, you should use a Factory Pattern.
public class Parent
{
public Parent()
{
}
public virtual void PostConstructor()
{
}
}
public class Child : Parent
{
public override void PostConstructor()
{
base.PostConstructor();
// Your code here
}
}
public void FactoryMethod<T>() where T : Parent
{
T newobject = new T();
newobject.PostConstructor();
}

I would strongly suggest use Factory like a pattern.
If it's possible:
1. Push all your childs and abstract class into separate assembly.
2. Declare ctors of childs like internal methods, so no one out of that assembly is can construct them just by calling ctor.
3. Implement the Factory class to construct for caller specified objects type, which obviuoly will forse calling of abstract DoStuff() method after actual creation of anobject, but before returning it to caller.
Good thing about this is that: It will give you also additional level of abstraction, so if in the future you will need some more functions call or any other type of logical complexity, what you will need, is just add them into your Factory class.
That is.
Regards

In WPF applications, you can postpone the invokation of DoStuff() with the help of Dispatcher:
abstract class Parent
{
public Parent()
{
Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(this.DoStuff));
}
private void DoStuff()
{
// stuff, could also be abstract or virtual
}
}
However, it is not guaranteed that DoStuff() will be called immediately after the constructor.

Correction: As per this answer, you can't determine when the base class's constructor is invoked during construction of the subclass.
E.g. This doesn't work:
public Child()
// DoStuff is called here after Init
// because of the overridden default constructor
{
Init();
base();
}
So, yes, as others have noted, if sequence of events matters, then the base class needs to be able to accommodate that by declaring abstract methods in order, or (better yet) by having the child class's implementation of DoStuff represent the sequence of events:
protected override void DoStuff()
{
Init();
base.DoStuff();
}

DoStuff is abstract. Just call Init from the top of DoStuff.

class MyBase
{
public MyBase()
{
//... do something
// finally call post constructor
PostConstructor<MyBase>();
}
public void PostConstructor<T>( )
{
// check
if (GetType() != typeof(T))
return;
// info
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("Post constructor : " + GetType());
}
}
class MyChild : MyBase
{
public MyChild()
{
// ... do something
// ... call post constructor
PostConstructor<MyChild>();
}
}

How about...
public MyClass()
{
Dispatcher.UIThread.Post(RunAfterConstructor);
}
I also tried with Task.Run but that didn't work reliably.

Rather than using an abstract method, which would require you to implement the method in all descendant classes, you might try:
public class Parent
{
public Parent()
{
PostConstructor();
}
protected virtual void PostConstructor()
{
}
}
public class Child : Parent
{
protected override void PostConstructor()
{
base.PostConstructor();
/// do whatever initialization here that you require
}
}
public class ChildWithoutOverride
{
/// not necessary to override PostConstructor
}

C#: Any way to skip over one of the base calls in polymorphism?

class GrandParent
{
public virtual void Foo() { ... }
}
class Parent : GrandParent
{
public override void Foo()
{
base.Foo();
//Do additional work
}
}
class Child : Parent
{
public override void Foo()
{
//How to skip Parent.Foo and just get to the GrandParent.Foo base?
//Do additional work
}
}
As the code above shows, how can I have the Child.Foo() make a call into GrandParent.Foo() instead of going into Parent.Foo()? base.Foo() takes me to the Parent class first.

Your design is wrong if you need this.
Instead, put the per-class logic in DoFoo and don't call base.DoFoo when you don't need to.
class GrandParent
{
public void Foo()
{
// base logic that should always run here:
// ...
this.DoFoo(); // call derived logic
}
protected virtual void DoFoo() { }
}
class Parent : GrandParent
{
protected override void DoFoo()
{
// Do additional work (no need to call base.DoFoo)
}
}
class Child : Parent
{
protected override void DoFoo()
{
// Do additional work (no need to call base.DoFoo)
}
}

I think there is something wrong with your design here. Essentially, you want to "break" the rules of polymorphism. You are saying Child should derive from Parent but want to conveniently skip the implementation in it's parent.
Re-think your design.

No. It wouldn't be reliable anyway. You, as the implementer of your class, get to choose your immediate base class. But who is to say that a later release of Parent might not inherit from ParentBase, that in turn inherits from GrandParent? So long as Parent is still implementing the correct contract, this should not cause any issues for those classes inheriting from Parent.

No, this isn't possible. Imagine how crazy things would be if this was possible.
If you want something specific skipped in the Child case, consider reworking your design to better represent what you need (e.g. maybe you need to override something else in the Child class, too). Or, you could provide another Foo() in the Parent class that doesn't do anything except call its base.Foo().

If you have control of the code, the simplest way is to create a protected method in Parent class that only call base.Foo() and your child class Foo implementation call that method explicitly

We had exactly this scenario on a large project where the derived methods were called from various locations. Due to change management and QA scripts not to be broken, among other constraints, "drastic" refactoring and class re-structuring are not always possible on a large mature project. Also we did not want to override the method and exclude all base functionality. Most solutions seen elsewhere, looked a bit clumsy, but the solution from Josh Jordan on How to call base.base was quite useful.
However we followed the approach below (which I see now is very similar to what Dan Abramov propose).
public class Base
{
public virtual void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello from Base");
}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
public override void Foo()
{
base.Foo();
Console.WriteLine("Text 1");
WriteText2Func();
Console.WriteLine("Text 3");
}
protected virtual void WriteText2Func()
{
Console.WriteLine("Text 2");
}
}
public class Special : Derived
{
public override void WriteText2Func()
{
//WriteText2Func will write nothing when method Foo is called from class Special.
//Also it can be modified to do something else.
}
}

All these strong opinions...
Sometimes it just makes sense to use 99% of something...
public class Base
{
public virtual void Foo()
{
// Do something
}
}
public class DerivedLevel1 : Base
{
public override void Foo()
{
DerivedLevel1Foo();
}
protected void DerivedLevel1Foo()
{
// Do something
base.Foo();
}
}
public class DerivedLevel2 : DerivedLevel1
{
public override void Foo()
{
DerivedLevel2Foo();
}
protected void DerviedLevel2Foo()
{
// Do something
base.Foo();
}
}
public class Special : Derived
{
public override void Foo()
{
// Don't do DerivedLevel2Foo()
base.DerivedLevel1Foo();
}
}

How to call base.base.method()?

// Cannot change source code
class Base
{
public virtual void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Base.");
}
}
// Cannot change source code
class Derived : Base
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived.");
base.Say();
}
}
class SpecialDerived : Derived
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
base.Say();
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SpecialDerived sd = new SpecialDerived();
sd.Say();
}
}
The result is:
Called from Special Derived.
Called from Derived. /* this is not expected */
Called from Base.
How can I rewrite SpecialDerived class so that middle class "Derived"'s method is not called?
UPDATE:
The reason why I want to inherit from Derived instead of Base is Derived class contains a lot of other implementations. Since I can't do base.base.method() here, I guess the best way is to do the following?
// Cannot change source code
class Derived : Base
{
public override void Say()
{
CustomSay();
base.Say();
}
protected virtual void CustomSay()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived.");
}
}
class SpecialDerived : Derived
{
/*
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
base.Say();
}
*/
protected override void CustomSay()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
}
}

Just want to add this here, since people still return to this question even after many time. Of course it's bad practice, but it's still possible (in principle) to do what author wants with:
class SpecialDerived : Derived
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
var ptr = typeof(Base).GetMethod("Say").MethodHandle.GetFunctionPointer();
var baseSay = (Action)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(Action), this, ptr);
baseSay();
}
}

This is a bad programming practice, and not allowed in C#. It's a bad programming practice because
The details of the grandbase are implementation details of the base; you shouldn't be relying on them. The base class is providing an abstraction overtop of the grandbase; you should be using that abstraction, not building a bypass to avoid it.
To illustrate a specific example of the previous point: if allowed, this pattern would be yet another way of making code susceptible to brittle-base-class failures. Suppose C derives from B which derives from A. Code in C uses base.base to call a method of A. Then the author of B realizes that they have put too much gear in class B, and a better approach is to make intermediate class B2 that derives from A, and B derives from B2. After that change, code in C is calling a method in B2, not in A, because C's author made an assumption that the implementation details of B, namely, that its direct base class is A, would never change. Many design decisions in C# are to mitigate the likelihood of various kinds of brittle base failures; the decision to make base.base illegal entirely prevents this particular flavour of that failure pattern.
You derived from your base because you like what it does and want to reuse and extend it. If you don't like what it does and want to work around it rather than work with it, then why did you derive from it in the first place? Derive from the grandbase yourself if that's the functionality you want to use and extend.
The base might require certain invariants for security or semantic consistency purposes that are maintained by the details of how the base uses the methods of the grandbase. Allowing a derived class of the base to skip the code that maintains those invariants could put the base into an inconsistent, corrupted state.

You can't from C#. From IL, this is actually supported. You can do a non-virt call to any of your parent classes... but please don't. :)

The answer (which I know is not what you're looking for) is:
class SpecialDerived : Base
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
base.Say();
}
}
The truth is, you only have direct interaction with the class you inherit from. Think of that class as a layer - providing as much or as little of it or its parent's functionality as it desires to its derived classes.
EDIT:
Your edit works, but I think I would use something like this:
class Derived : Base
{
protected bool _useBaseSay = false;
public override void Say()
{
if(this._useBaseSay)
base.Say();
else
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived");
}
}
Of course, in a real implementation, you might do something more like this for extensibility and maintainability:
class Derived : Base
{
protected enum Mode
{
Standard,
BaseFunctionality,
Verbose
//etc
}
protected Mode Mode
{
get; set;
}
public override void Say()
{
if(this.Mode == Mode.BaseFunctionality)
base.Say();
else
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived");
}
}
Then, derived classes can control their parents' state appropriately.

Why not simply cast the child class to a specific parent class and invoke the specific implementation then? This is a special case situation and a special case solution should be used. You will have to use the new keyword in the children methods though.
public class SuperBase
{
public string Speak() { return "Blah in SuperBase"; }
}
public class Base : SuperBase
{
public new string Speak() { return "Blah in Base"; }
}
public class Child : Base
{
public new string Speak() { return "Blah in Child"; }
}
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
Child childObj = new Child();
Console.WriteLine(childObj.Speak());
// casting the child to parent first and then calling Speak()
Console.WriteLine((childObj as Base).Speak());
Console.WriteLine((childObj as SuperBase).Speak());
}
}

public class A
{
public int i = 0;
internal virtual void test()
{
Console.WriteLine("A test");
}
}
public class B : A
{
public new int i = 1;
public new void test()
{
Console.WriteLine("B test");
}
}
public class C : B
{
public new int i = 2;
public new void test()
{
Console.WriteLine("C test - ");
(this as A).test();
}
}

You can also make a simple function in first level derived class, to call grand base function

My 2c for this is to implement the functionality you require to be called in a toolkit class and call that from wherever you need:
// Util.cs
static class Util
{
static void DoSomething( FooBase foo ) {}
}
// FooBase.cs
class FooBase
{
virtual void Do() { Util.DoSomething( this ); }
}
// FooDerived.cs
class FooDerived : FooBase
{
override void Do() { ... }
}
// FooDerived2.cs
class FooDerived2 : FooDerived
{
override void Do() { Util.DoSomething( this ); }
}
This does require some thought as to access privilege, you may need to add some internal accessor methods to facilitate the functionality.

In cases where you do not have access to the derived class source, but need all the source of the derived class besides the current method, then I would recommended you should also do a derived class and call the implementation of the derived class.
Here is an example:
//No access to the source of the following classes
public class Base
{
public virtual void method1(){ Console.WriteLine("In Base");}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
public override void method1(){ Console.WriteLine("In Derived");}
public void method2(){ Console.WriteLine("Some important method in Derived");}
}
//Here should go your classes
//First do your own derived class
public class MyDerived : Base
{
}
//Then derive from the derived class
//and call the bass class implementation via your derived class
public class specialDerived : Derived
{
public override void method1()
{
MyDerived md = new MyDerived();
//This is actually the base.base class implementation
MyDerived.method1();
}
}

As can be seen from previous posts, one can argue that if class functionality needs to be circumvented then something is wrong in the class architecture. That might be true, but one cannot always restructure or refactor the class structure on a large mature project. The various levels of change management might be one problem, but to keep existing functionality operating the same after refactoring is not always a trivial task, especially if time constraints apply. On a mature project it can be quite an undertaking to keep various regression tests from passing after a code restructure; there are often obscure "oddities" that show up.
We had a similar problem in some cases inherited functionality should not execute (or should perform something else). The approach we followed below, was to put the base code that need to be excluded in a separate virtual function. This function can then be overridden in the derived class and the functionality excluded or altered. In this example "Text 2" can be prevented from output in the derived class.
public class Base
{
public virtual void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello from Base");
}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
public override void Foo()
{
base.Foo();
Console.WriteLine("Text 1");
WriteText2Func();
Console.WriteLine("Text 3");
}
protected virtual void WriteText2Func()
{
Console.WriteLine("Text 2");
}
}
public class Special : Derived
{
public override void WriteText2Func()
{
//WriteText2Func will write nothing when
//method Foo is called from class Special.
//Also it can be modified to do something else.
}
}

There seems to be a lot of these questions surrounding inheriting a member method from a Grandparent Class, overriding it in a second Class, then calling its method again from a Grandchild Class. Why not just inherit the grandparent's members down to the grandchildren?
class A
{
private string mystring = "A";
public string Method1()
{
return mystring;
}
}
class B : A
{
// this inherits Method1() naturally
}
class C : B
{
// this inherits Method1() naturally
}
string newstring = "";
A a = new A();
B b = new B();
C c = new C();
newstring = a.Method1();// returns "A"
newstring = b.Method1();// returns "A"
newstring = c.Method1();// returns "A"
Seems simple....the grandchild inherits the grandparents method here. Think about it.....that's how "Object" and its members like ToString() are inherited down to all classes in C#. I'm thinking Microsoft has not done a good job of explaining basic inheritance. There is too much focus on polymorphism and implementation. When I dig through their documentation there are no examples of this very basic idea. :(

I had the same problem as the OP, where I only wanted to override a single method in the middle Class, leaving all other methods alone. My scenario was:
Class A - base class, DB access, uneditable.
Class B : A - "record type" specific functionality (editable, but only if backward compatible).
Class C : B - one particular field for one particular client.
I did very similar to the second part of the OP posting, except I put the base call into it's own method, which I called from from Say() method.
class Derived : Base
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived.");
BaseSay();
}
protected virtual void BaseSay()
{
base.Say();
}
}
class SpecialDerived : Derived
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
base.BaseSay();
}
}
You could repeat this ad infinitum, giving, for example SpecialDerived a BaseBaseSay() method if you needed an ExtraSpecialDerived override to the SpecialDerived.
The best part of this is that if the Derived changes its inheritance from Base to Base2, all other overrides follow suit without needing changes.

If you want to access to base class data you must use "this" keyword or you use this keyword as reference for class.
namespace thiskeyword
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
I i = new I();
int res = i.m1();
Console.WriteLine(res);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class E
{
new public int x = 3;
}
public class F:E
{
new public int x = 5;
}
public class G:F
{
new public int x = 50;
}
public class H:G
{
new public int x = 20;
}
public class I:H
{
new public int x = 30;
public int m1()
{
// (this as <classname >) will use for accessing data to base class
int z = (this as I).x + base.x + (this as G).x + (this as F).x + (this as E).x; // base.x refer to H
return z;
}
}
}