We Keep Coding

Resolving concrete types when using polymorphism in Autofac

Consider the following code:
public interface IFileBackup
{
Task Backup(byte[] file);
}
public class BackUpMechanismA : IFileBackup
{
//Implementation
public async Task Backup(byte[] file)
{
//Attempts to backup using mechanism A
}
}
public class BackUpMechanismB : IFileBackup
{
//Implementation
public async Task Backup(byte[] file)
{
//Attempts to backup using mechanism B
}
}
Then the calling class looks like this:
public class Caller
{
private readonly IFileBackup _backupA;
private readonly IFileBackup _backupB;
public Caller(IFileBackup backupA, IFileBackup backupB)
{
_backupA = backupA;
_backupB = backupB;
}
public async Task BackupFile(byte[] file)
{
try
{
await _backupA.Backup(file);
}
catch(SomeException)
{
await _backupB.Backup(file);
}
}
}
So what I'm trying to do here is to use polymorphism. So both BackupMechanismA and BackupMechanismB implements the Backup method in their own way. In the caller I want to attempt the first mechanism and if that doesn't work we catch an exception and try the second approach.
I'm having trouble resolving the correct implementations using Autofac. I have tried with:
builder.RegisterType<BackupMechanismA>().As<IFileBackup>().AsSelf();
builder.RegisterType<BackupMechanismB>().As<IFileBackUp>().AsSelf();
But this won't work because I still need to tell the caller which of the types to resolve. How do I do that in the caller?
Also, I'm in doubt whether this design is really the right design to go with. Before this design I just had one class with two different methods, one for mechanism A and one for mechanism B and then the caller would just call the different methods in the try catch. So I wanted to refactor this because the class got quite big and I wanted to separate the two different mechanisms into their own classes.
So, can I resolve this using Autofac? And is it the right design to go with for this scenario?

Agree with Jogge that iterating IFileBackups would be a better option, but creating an interface for each type is a no go. Instead, you could add a class which provides IEnumerable<IFileBackup> (an aggregate). For example:
public class BackupBundle : IEnumerable<IFileBackup>
{
private readonly List<IFileBackup> _backups = new List<IFileBackup>();
// default constructor creates default implementations
public BackupBundle()
: this(new List<IFileBackup> {new BackUpMechanismA(), new BackUpMechanismB()}) {}
// allow users to add custom backups
public BackupBundle(IEnumerable<IFileBackup> backups)
{
foreach (var backup in backups)
Add(backup);
}
public void Add(IFileBackup backup)
{
if (backup == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(backup));
_backups.Add(backup);
}
public IEnumerator<IFileBackup> GetEnumerator()
{
foreach (var backup in _backups)
yield return backup;
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return GetEnumerator();
}
}
public class Caller
{
private readonly IEnumerable<IFileBackup> _backups;
public Caller(IEnumerable<IFileBackup> backups)
{
_backups = backups ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(backups));
}
public async Task BackupFile(byte[] file)
{
foreach (var b in _backups)
{
try
{
await b.Backup(file);
break;
}
catch (Exception e) { }
}
}
}
Registration can be done as follows:
builder.RegisterInstance(new BackupBundle()).As<IEnumerable<IFileBackup>>();
builder.RegisterType<Caller>();
which allows you to resolve by class name:
var caller = scope.Resolve<Caller>();
As you see, the BackupBundle has a dependency of BackUpMechanismA and BackUpMechanismB. You could get rid of it by introducing another layer of abstraction but I'd prefer not to do that. My main concern would be to make Caller more robust. You might want to introduce retry logic, timeouts, etc.

Try registering with a name and then resolve using the name:
builder.RegisterType<BackupMechanismA>().Named<IFileBackup>("BackUpMechanismA");
builder.RegisterType<BackupMechanismB>().Named<IFileBackUp>("BackUpMechanismB");
_backupA = container.ResolveNamed<IFileBackUp>
("BackUpMechanismA");
_backupB = container.ResolveNamed<IFileBackUp>
("BackUpMechanismB");
Resolve the instances during runtime, rather than injecting through the constructor. This will let you resolve to the respective type, as needed.
Let me know if this works.

To make your design work, you can try the next approach:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterType<BackUpMechanismA>().Keyed<IFileBackup>("A");
builder.RegisterType<BackUpMechanismB>().Keyed<IFileBackup>("B");
builder.RegisterType<Caller>()
.WithParameter((p, ctx) => p.Position == 0, (p, ctx) => ctx.ResolveKeyed<IFileBackup>("A"))
.WithParameter((p, ctx) => p.Position == 1, (p, ctx) => ctx.ResolveKeyed<IFileBackup>("B"));
IContainer container = builder.Build();
var caller = container.Resolve<Caller>();
Console.ReadKey();
}
However in my opinion you probably don't need such a polymorphism here. It will be much more obvious and descriptive to implement something like this:
public async Task BackupFile(byte[] file)
{
try
{
await BackUpToAmazonS3(file);
}
catch (AmazonS3LoadingException)
{
await BackUpToLocalDisk(file);
}
}
In this example it is obvious what is going on. And there in BackUpToAmazonS3 you can use some injected AmazonS3FileBackUp and in BackUpToLocalDisk use LocalDiskFileBackUp or whatever. The point is that you don't need a polymorphism, when you don't plan to change the implementation. In your context it should be clear? that you try to put backup to some remote storage, and then, if it fails, put in on local disk. You don't need to hide the meaning here. This is your logic and should be clear, when you read the code, I suppose. Hope it helps.

In my experience, you're better off by creating an interface for each type:
public interface IFileBackup
{
Task Backup(byte[] file);
}
public interface IBackUpMechanismA : IFileBackup
{
}
public class BackUpMechanismA : IBackUpMechanismA
{
//...
}
public interface IBackUpMechanismB : IFileBackup
{
}
public class BackUpMechanismB : IBackUpMechanismB
{
//...
}
If you don't want that, what you could do is getting injected a list of IFileBackup and just iterate them. If you register BackUpMechanismA first it will be the first in the list. I'm not sure if this is guaranteed, you have to look it up.
public class Caller
{
private readonly ICollection<IFileBackup> _fileBackups;
public Caller(ICollection<IFileBackup> fileBackups)
{
_fileBackups = fileBackups;
}
public async Task BackupFile(byte[] file)
{
foreach (var fileBackup in _fileBackups)
{
try
{
await fileBackup.Backup(file);
break;
}
catch { }
}
}
}

Generic Static Class as Service Locator

I am applying the Service Locator pattern as described in Game Programming Patterns, and am wondering about a possible generic implementation. The following code does work, but I am confused about using a class that is both generic and static.
The idea of the following C# code is to provide a "global" service to other parts of the application, exposing only an interface rather than the full implementation. Each service registered using this method will only have one instance in the application, but I want to be able to easily swap in/out different implementations of the provided interfaces.
My question is: when I use the following class to provide different services throughout my application, how does C# know that I am referring to different services of different types? Intuitively, I would almost think that the static variable, _service, would be overridden with each new service.
public static class ServiceLocator<T>
{
static T _service;
public static T GetService()
{
return _service;
}
public static void Provide(T service)
{
_service = service;
}
}
Here's some usage:
// Elsewhere, providing:
_camera = new Camera(GraphicsDevice.Viewport);
ServiceLocator<ICamera>.Provide(_camera);
// Elsewhere, usage:
ICamera camera = ServiceLocator<ICamera>.GetService();
// Elsewhere, providing a different service:
CurrentMap = Map.Create(strategy);
ServiceLocator<IMap>.Provide(CurrentMap);
// Elsewhere, using this different service:
IMap map = ServiceLocator<IMap>.GetService();

C# creates a separate closed type for every combination of generic parameters for open type.
Since every combination of generic parameters creates a separate class, calling a static constructor and creating own members for each of them.
You can think of them like of different classes.
public static class GenericCounter<T>
{
public static int Count { get; set; } = 0;
}
GenericCounter<int>.Count++;
GenericCounter<int>.Count++;
GenericCounter<string>.Count++;
Console.WriteLine(GenericCounter<double>.Count); // 0
Console.WriteLine(GenericCounter<int>.Count); // 2
Console.WriteLine(GenericCounter<string>.Count); // 1
This code outputs:
0
2
1
For example, in your case, behavior will be the same as if you created two separate classes:
public static class ServiceLocatorOfIMap
{
static IMap _service;
public static IMap GetService()
{
return _service;
}
public static void Provide(IMap service)
{
_service = service;
}
}
public static class ServiceLocatorOfICamera
{
static ICamera _service;
public static ICamera GetService()
{
return _service;
}
public static void Provide(ICamera service)
{
_service = service;
}
}
and used it like this:
// Elsewhere, providing:
_camera = new Camera(GraphicsDevice.Viewport);
ServiceLocatorForICamera.Provide(_camera);
// Elsewhere, usage:
ICamera camera = ServiceLocatorForICamera.GetService();
// Elsewhere, providing a different service:
CurrentMap = Map.Create(strategy);
ServiceLocatorForIMap.Provide(CurrentMap);
// Elsewhere, using this different service:
IMap map = ServiceLocatorForIMap.GetService();
In general, it is similar to what C# does when it meets static generic classes.

I use this for cases where I can't use dependency injection all the way down (like WebForms) but I want to write testable classes that are resolved by a DI container.
The usage looks like
using(var resolved = new ResolvedService<ISomeService>())
{
resolved.Service.DoSomething();
}
The good:
You can use a DI container to resolve and release resources
It's disposable, and disposing causes the container to release the resources
It keeps the container and service registrations out of sight
The bad:
It requires a static class, but that's also in the composition root so it's not too bad.
As written it depends directly on Windsor. It's easy to replace that with any other container. Maybe one day I'll break this apart so that ServiceLocator isn't coupled to any particular container. But for now it's trivial to change that.
Using this means that while the larger component (like an .aspx page) isn't testable, what I inject into it is testable. It just gave me a crazy thought - I could write orchestrators for WebForms pages so that they're mostly testable. But hopefully I'll never need to do that.
internal class ServiceLocator
{
private static IWindsorContainer _container;
internal static void Initialize(IWindsorContainer container)
{
_container = container;
}
internal static TService Resolve<TService>(string key = null)
{
if (_container == null)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException(
"ServiceLocator must be initialized with a container by calling Initialize(container).");
}
try
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(key)
? _container.Resolve<TService>()
: _container.Resolve<TService>(key);
}
catch (ComponentNotFoundException ex)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException(string.Format("No component for {0} has been registered.", typeof(TService).FullName), ex);
}
}
internal static void Release(object resolved)
{
_container.Release(resolved);
}
}
public class ResolvedService<TService> : IDisposable
{
private bool _disposed;
private readonly TService _resolvedInstance;
public TService Service
{
get { return _resolvedInstance; }
}
public ResolvedService(string key = null)
{
_resolvedInstance = ServiceLocator.Resolve<TService>(key);
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
~ResolvedService()
{
Dispose(false);
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (_disposed) return;
ServiceLocator.Release(_resolvedInstance);
_disposed = true;
}
}

Isolating Service Fabric ServiceContext for unit testing

I have a method in my Service fabric Stateless service application which get the configuration stored in Settings.xml from ServiceContext
public static string GetConnectionString()
{
if (context == null)
return string.Empty;
// return context.CodePackageActivationContext.GetConfigurationPackageObject("Config").Settings.Sections["MySection"].Parameters["ConnectionString"].Value;
ICodePackageActivationContext activationContext = context.CodePackageActivationContext;
ConfigurationPackage configPackage = activationContext.GetConfigurationPackageObject("Config");
ConfigurationSettings configSettings = configPackage.Settings;
string connectionString = configSettings.Sections["ConnectionData"].Parameters["ConnectionString"].Value;
return connectionString;
}
In the above code I split the code into many lines for easier understanding, actually i use the commented code in my application.
I need to write unit test for this method.
I could mock ServiceContext and ICodeActivationContext
But i could not create objects for ConfigurationSettings and ConfigurationPackage since they have internal constructors.
How do I isolate these classes in my unit test. Or should i exclude the service context part from my unit test.

Now you can use a NuGet package named ServiceFabric.Mocks, which offers mocks for most Service Fabric classes.
For example, you can use MockStatelessServiceContextFactory.Default to get a StatelessServiceContext mock.

I would create an interface that returns parameters from service fabric (one of them is the connection string). Then a class that implements the interface the way you wrote in the question. And that interface can be mocked used in unittesting.
The result is - that you cannot test the method that actually read from service parameters, but at least you can test everyone who uses it without the need to mock ServiceContext and alike.

I had an almost identical issue with the System.Printing PrintSystemJobInfo class, it has a sealed constructor so it proved very difficult to mock. I assume you are creating an interface that closely resembles the class you wish to mock, then creating a wrapper for the actual class that implements the interface.
A solution to your problem is to pass the parent class as a parameter in the constructor of the child class (so the child class has access to the parent methods and can build the real implementation that you intend to wrap).
The following code demonstrates how I did it with PrintSystemJobInfo;
using System;
using System.Printing;
namespace ConsoleApplication6
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var server = new LocalPrintServer();
IPrintQueue testablePrintQueue = new RealPrintQueue(server);
IPrintSystemJobInfo printSystemJobInfo = testablePrintQueue.AddJob();
var result = printSystemJobInfo.IsBlocked;
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
public interface IPrintSystemJobInfo
{
bool IsBlocked { get; }
}
public interface IPrintQueue
{
IPrintSystemJobInfo AddJob();
}
public class RealPrintQueue:IPrintQueue
{
private PrintQueue _queue;
public RealPrintQueue(LocalPrintServer server)
{
_queue = server.DefaultPrintQueue;
}
public IPrintSystemJobInfo AddJob()
{
return new RealPrintSystemJobInfo(_queue);
}
}
public class RealPrintSystemJobInfo: IPrintSystemJobInfo
{
private PrintSystemJobInfo job;
public RealPrintSystemJobInfo(PrintQueue queue)
{
job = queue.AddJob();
}
public bool IsBlocked
{
get { return job.IsBlocked; }
}
}
}
}
I have tried to keep this as simple as possible so I have only wrapped IsBlocked property, but you could extend it to what ever you liked (obviously).

How to type cast interface to a concrete type

I am trying to mock the ManagementObjectSearcher class and have created a IManagementInfo interface, so how can i cast the interface to the ManagementObjectSearcher class?
ManagementObjectSearcher s = new ManagementObjectSearcher();
IManagementInfo info = s as IManagementInfo;
this creates me a null info object
ManagementObjectSearcher s = new ManagementObjectSearcher();
IManagementInfo info =IManagementInfo(s);
this gives me run time error (cannot typecast)

You cannot do that. Do you want to do it so that you can write unit tests? If you are trying to mock a class that you have no control of, then you have to wrap it in another class.
public class MyManagementObjectSearcherWrapper : IManagementInfo
{
public void TheMethodToMock()
{
var searcher = new ManagementObjectSearcher();
// The code you want to mock goes here
}
}
And you run your code like this:
public void YourCode(IManagementInfo info)
{
info.TheMethodToMock();
}
Then YourCode() will take either your wrapper or the mocked object. You create your mock using the IManagementInfo interface.

It looks as if you are trying to wrap a 3rd party/system object in order to aid unit testing.
Say that your starting point is
public class Dependency {
public string Foo() {
return "foo"; // machine, system, time, something else, dependent result
}
public string Bar() {
return "bar";
}
}
public class MySimpleClass {
public string MyFunc() {
return new Dependency().Foo();
}
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestSimple() {
var client = new MySimpleClass();
Assert.AreEqual("foo", client.MyFunc());
}
We are creating the Dependency inside the call because we are considering the creation cost to be less important than holding on to an instance of the Dependency. This will be dependent upon the situation. We could as easily have created a Dependency in the ctor and stored a copy which we invoked each time. Either way, we have no control over the output which makes unit testing messy.
We need to create a proxy for it.
1. Define an interface for the members that we need
Most likely, we do not need to use all of the members of the wrappee so only include in the interface those about which we care.
public interface IDependencyProxy {
string Foo();
}
2. Create a Proxy Class
We then create a proxy class wrapping the dependency and implementing interface. Again, we can create at start or on a call by call basis.
public class DependencyProxy : IDependencyProxy {
public string Foo() {
return new Dependency.Foo();
}
}
3. Define our client code in terms of the interface
We modify our client code slightly to use the IDependencyProxy interface instead of the Dependency. There are a few ways of doing this. I generally use an internal ctor which takes the dependency chained from a public ctor. (Use [InternalsVisibleTo] to allow the unit tests to see it)
public class MyRevisedClass {
private readonly IDependencyProxy dependency;
public MyRevisedClass()
: this( new DependencyProxy()) {}
internal MyRevisedClass(IDependencyProxy dependency) {
this.dependency = dependency;
}
public string MyFunc() {
return dependency.Foo();
}
}
This allows us a default behaviour for the production code (invokes the System object) and allows us to mock out the results for unit testing.
[TestMethod]
public void TestRevisedDefault() {
var client = new MyRevisedClass();
Assert.AreEqual("foo", client.MyFunc());
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestRevisedWithMockedDependency() {
var dep = new Mock<IDependencyProxy>();
dep.Setup(mk => mk.Foo()).Returns("bar");
var client = new MyRevisedClass(dep.Object);
Assert.AreEqual("bar", client.MyFunc());
}

Fake ASMX Web Service Call

I built a .NET ASMX web service connecting to an SQL Server database. There is a web service call GetAllQuestions().
var myService = new SATService();
var serviceQuestions = myService.GetAllQuestions();
I saved the result of GetAllQuestions to GetAllQuestions.xml in the local application folder
Is there any way to fake the web service call and use the local xml result?
I just want to take the contents of my entire sql table and have the array of objects with correlating property names automatically generated for me just like with LINQ to SQL web services.
Please keep in mind that I am building a standalone Monotouch iPhone application.

Use dependency injection.
//GetSATService returns the fake service during testing
var myService = GetSATService();
var serviceQuestions = myService.GetAllQuestions();
Or, preferably, in the constructor for the object set the SATService field (so the constructor requires the SATService to be set. If you do this, it will be easier to test.
Edit: Sorry, I'll elaborate here. What you have in your code above is a coupled dependency, where your code creates the object it is using. Dependency injection or the Inversion of Control(IOC) pattern, would have you uncouple that dependency. (Or simply, don't call "new" - let something else do that - something you can control outside the consumer.)
There are several ways to do this, and they are shown in the code below (comments explain):
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//ACTUAL usage
//Setting up the interface injection
IInjectableFactory.StaticInjectable = new ConcreteInjectable(1);
//Injecting via the constructor
EverythingsInjected injected =
new EverythingsInjected(new ConcreteInjectable(100));
//Injecting via the property
injected.PropertyInjected = new ConcreteInjectable(1000);
//using the injected items
injected.PrintInjectables();
Console.WriteLine();
//FOR TESTING (normally done in a unit testing framework)
IInjectableFactory.StaticInjectable = new TestInjectable();
EverythingsInjected testInjected =
new EverythingsInjected(new TestInjectable());
testInjected.PropertyInjected = new TestInjectable();
//this would be an assert of some kind
testInjected.PrintInjectables();
Console.Read();
}
//the inteface you want to represent the decoupled class
public interface IInjectable { void DoSomething(string myStr); }
//the "real" injectable
public class ConcreteInjectable : IInjectable
{
private int _myId;
public ConcreteInjectable(int myId) { _myId = myId; }
public void DoSomething(string myStr)
{
Console.WriteLine("Id:{0} Data:{1}", _myId, myStr);
}
}
//the place to get the IInjectable (not in consuming class)
public static class IInjectableFactory
{
public static IInjectable StaticInjectable { get; set; }
}
//the consuming class - with three types of injection used
public class EverythingsInjected
{
private IInjectable _interfaceInjected;
private IInjectable _constructorInjected;
private IInjectable _propertyInjected;
//property allows the setting of a different injectable
public IInjectable PropertyInjected
{
get { return _propertyInjected; }
set { _propertyInjected = value; }
}
//constructor requires the loosely coupled injectable
public EverythingsInjected(IInjectable constructorInjected)
{
//have to set the default with property injected
_propertyInjected = GetIInjectable();
//retain the constructor injected injectable
_constructorInjected = constructorInjected;
//using basic interface injection
_interfaceInjected = GetIInjectable();
}
//retrieves the loosely coupled injectable
private IInjectable GetIInjectable()
{
return IInjectableFactory.StaticInjectable;
}
//method that consumes the injectables
public void PrintInjectables()
{
_interfaceInjected.DoSomething("Interface Injected");
_constructorInjected.DoSomething("Constructor Injected");
_propertyInjected.DoSomething("PropertyInjected");
}
}
//the "fake" injectable
public class TestInjectable : IInjectable
{
public void DoSomething(string myStr)
{
Console.WriteLine("Id:{0} Data:{1}", -10000, myStr + " For TEST");
}
}
The above is a complete console program that you can run and play with to see how this works. I tried to keep it simple, but feel free to ask me any questions you have.
Second Edit:
From the comments, it became clear that this was an operational need, not a testing need, so in effect it was a cache. Here is some code that will work for the intended purpose. Again, the below code is a full working console program.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ServiceFactory factory = new ServiceFactory(false);
//first call hits the webservice
GetServiceQuestions(factory);
//hists the cache next time
GetServiceQuestions(factory);
//can refresh on demand
factory.ResetCache = true;
GetServiceQuestions(factory);
Console.Read();
}
//where the call to the "service" happens
private static List<Question> GetServiceQuestions(ServiceFactory factory)
{
var myFirstService = factory.GetSATService();
var firstServiceQuestions = myFirstService.GetAllQuestions();
foreach (Question question in firstServiceQuestions)
{
Console.WriteLine(question.Text);
}
return firstServiceQuestions;
}
}
//this stands in place of your xml file
public static class DataStore
{
public static List<Question> Questions;
}
//a simple question
public struct Question
{
private string _text;
public string Text { get { return _text; } }
public Question(string text)
{
_text = text;
}
}
//the contract for the real and fake "service"
public interface ISATService
{
List<Question> GetAllQuestions();
}
//hits the webservice and refreshes the store
public class ServiceWrapper : ISATService
{
public List<Question> GetAllQuestions()
{
Console.WriteLine("From WebService");
//this would be your webservice call
DataStore.Questions = new List<Question>()
{
new Question("How do you do?"),
new Question("How is the weather?")
};
//always return from your local datastore
return DataStore.Questions;
}
}
//accesses the data store for the questions
public class FakeService : ISATService
{
public List<Question> GetAllQuestions()
{
Console.WriteLine("From Fake Service (cache):");
return DataStore.Questions;
}
}
//The object that decides on using the cache or not
public class ServiceFactory
{
public bool ResetCache{ get; set;}
public ServiceFactory(bool resetCache)
{
ResetCache = resetCache;
}
public ISATService GetSATService()
{
if (DataStore.Questions == null || ResetCache)
return new ServiceWrapper();
else
return new FakeService();
}
}
Hope this helps. Good luck!

when you say fake the call, are you just testing the client side?
you could use fiddler, intercept the request and return the local xml file to the client. No messing around with your client code then.

To elaborate on Audie's answer
Using DI would get you what you want. Very simply you would create an interface that your real object and your mock object both implement
public interface IFoo
{}
Then you would have your GetSATService method return either a MockSATSerivce or the real SATService object based on your needs.
This is where you would use a DI container (some object that stores interface to concrete type mappings) You would bootstrap the container with the types you want. So, for a unit test, you could contrstruct a mock container that registers the MockSATService as the implementer of the IFoo interface.
Then you would as the container for the concrete type but interface
IFoo mySATService = Container.Resolve<IFoo>();
Then at runtime you would just change out the container so that it bootstraps with the runtime types instead of the mock types but you code would stay the same (Because you are treating everything as IFoo instead SATService)
Does that make sense?

Over time I found that an interesting way to do this is by extracting an interface and creating a wrapper class. This adapts well to a IoC container and also works fine without one.
When testing, create the class passing a fake service. When using it normally, just call the empty constructor, which might simply construct a provider or resolve one using a config file.
public DataService : IDataService
{
private IDataService _provider;
public DataService()
{
_provider = new RealService();
}
public DataService(IDataService provider)
{
_provider = provider;
}
public object GetAllQuestions()
{
return _provider.GetAllQuestions();
}
}