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 can I access private members from other classes?

I'm not that new to C# but don't have as much experience as in Java.
As you know, in Java, we can access all the private members from outer classes.
So I tried the same thing in C# because I had some fields and methods needed to be accessed from only inside my plugin library and didn't want it to be shown to users. A simple example can be like this.
public static class StaticClass {
public class InstanceClass {
private int oldValue;
public int Value;
}
public static void Backup(InstanceClass ic) {
ic.oldValue = ic.Value;
}
public static void Restore(InstanceClass ic) {
ic.Value = ic.oldValue;
}
}
If I make the field oldValue public, then it'll be mess and look dirty when end users use the plugin. It doesn't have to be an Inner class or in a some specific form. I just want to know if there is any way to control or access private members of an instance from other static classes in the same assembly only by me.

For allowing access only within assembly use internal modifier.
public class InstanceClass {
internal int oldValue;
public int Value;
}

This is not possible in C#. The container class has no special access over the nested class.
You can access private members of the container from the nested class, but not vice versa. The pattern you're trying to use simply isn't used in C# - it's a violation of member accessibility. There are some hacks to force the Java pattern on C# (using reflection or abusing interfaces), but they are just that - hacks.
The "cleanest" approach might look something like this:
public static class StaticClass
{
private interface IInstanceClassInternal
{
int OldValue { get; set; }
}
public sealed class InstanceClass : IInstanceClassInternal
{
int IInstanceClassInternal.OldValue { get; set; }
public int Value;
}
public static void Backup(InstanceClass ic)
{
((IInstanceClassInternal)ic).OldValue = ic.Value;
}
public static void Restore(InstanceClass ic)
{
ic.Value = ((IInstanceClassInternal)ic).OldValue;
}
}
It's obvious that you're trying to write Java in C# - the patterns, the coding style... That's probably a bad idea. Those static methods should probably be extension methods. The "hidden functionality in an object" doesn't quite sit with C#'s notion of OOP - your parent shouldn't have free access to your guts, it should only really have the same public interface everyone else has. After all, that's the whole point of LSP - such tight coupling is quite tricky for any extensibility. Why separate StaticClass from InstanceClass in the first place, if you want StaticClass to mess with InstanceClasses privates? Just make Backup and Restore public members of InstanceClass - or even a part of an interface (perhaps even through explicit implementation, if you want to "hide" it from users of InstanceClass).

You can use the internal access modifier, see https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173121.aspx
Internal is only visible from inside the assembly
Example: https://dotnetfiddle.net/FNavfE

Have you tried to make it "internal"? It will be available in same dll but not external dll.
public class InstanceClass {
internal int oldValue;
public int Value;
}

Technically, you can use Reflection (if you insist on private field and a static class methods):
using System.Reflection;
...
public static void Backup(InstanceClass ic) {
if (null == ic)
throw new ArgumentNullException("ic");
ic.GetType()
.GetField("oldValue", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance)
.SetValue(ic, ic.Value);
}
public static void Restore(InstanceClass ic) {
if (null == ic)
throw new ArgumentNullException("ic");
ic.Value = (int) (ic.GetType()
.GetField("oldValue", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance)
.GetValue(ic));
}
however, a much better approach is to change access modifier from private to internal:
public class InstanceClass {
internal int oldValue;
public int Value;
}
Even better solution is to move both Backup and Restore methods into InstanceClass:
public class InstanceClass {
private int oldValue;
public int Value;
public void Backup() {
oldValue = Value;
}
public void Restore() {
Value = oldValue;
}
}

This field oldValue is an implementation detail of both StaticClass and InstanceClass. Lets make InstanceClass an implementation detail of StaticClass and export an interface StaticClass.IInstance to external clients:
public static class StaticClass {
public interface IInstance {
int Value { get; set; }
}
private class InstanceClass: IInstance {
public int oldValue;
public Value { get; set; }
}
// Static class becomes responsible for handing out `IInstance` objects
public static IInstance GetInstance() {
return new InstanceClass();
}
public static void Backup(IInstance i) {
if (i is InstanceClass ic) {
ic.oldValue = ic.Value;
}
else {
throw new InvallidOperationException("Can only Backup IInstance objects that were created by GetInstance");
}
}
public static void Restore(IInstance i) {
if (I is InstanceClass ic)
{
ic.Value = ic.oldValue;
}
else {
throw new InvallidOperationException("Can only Restore IInstance objects that were created by GetInstance");
}
}
This solution is similar to the one Luaan proposes. But instead of using an interface to export private data, it uses an interface to limit the publicly available data; to my opinion this is a cleaner design with less surprises.
It does change Value from a field to a property; so when you really need a field, this pattern does not work.
The static class in the example of OP makes it a bit awkward and having better solutions, but imagine this in a regular class, perhaps in a repository. Working on a repository, where observers should be notified when properties of items in the repository are set and not wanting the items to contain a reference to the repository or to the repositories observers, led me to searching for "method only accessible to container class?" which led me to this question.
I intend to solve it as follows:
public class Repo
{
public interface IItem
{
int Id { get; }
string MyProperty { get; }
}
private class Item
{
public int Id { get; }
public string MyProperty { get; private set; }
public bool TrySetMyProperty(string newValue)
{
if (!Equals(MyProperty, newValue) &&
IsPreconditionValid())
{
MyProperty = newValue;
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
IsPreconditionValid() => true;
}
}
public event EventHandler<EventArgs> OnChanged;
private readonly ConcurrentDictionary<int, Item> items = new ConcurrentDictionary<int, Item>();
public IItem GetOrCreateItemById(int id)
{
bool changed = false;
IItem result = items.GetOrAdd(int, CreateItem);
if (changed)
{
OnChanged?.Invoke(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
return result;
IItem CreateItem(int key)
{
changed = true;
return new Item() { Id = key };
}
}
public bool TrySetItemMyProperty(int id, string newValue)
{
if (items.TryGet(id, out Item i))
{
if (i.TrySetMyProperty(newValue))
{
OnChanged?.Invoke(this, EventArgs.Empty);
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
}

C# How to treat static class as a variable

I have a static Class and within it I have multiple public static attributes. I treat this class as my global class.
However now I need to treat this class as a variable so that I can pass it to a method of another class for processing..
I can't instantiate this class.. So in effect I can only assign the variables inside this class.
Is my understanding correct or am I missing something?
public static class Global
{
public const int RobotMax = 2;
// GUI sync context
public static MainForm mainForm;
public static SynchronizationContext UIContext;
// Database
public static Database DB = null;
public static string localDBName = "local.db";
public static Database localDB = null;
public static Database ChangeLogDB = null;
public static string changeLogDBName = "ChangeLog.db";
}
Let say I have a class like this, and I need to somehow keep a copy of this in another class maybe
public static class Global_bk
{
public const int RobotMax = 2;
// GUI sync context
public static MainForm mainForm;
public static SynchronizationContext UIContext;
// Database
public static Database DB = null;
public static string localDBName = "local.db";
public static Database localDB = null;
public static Database ChangeLogDB = null;
public static string changeLogDBName = "ChangeLog.db";
}
I need to copy the contents from Global to Global_bk.
And after that I need to compare the contents of the two classes in a method like
static class extentions
{
public static List<Variance> DetailedCompare<T>(T val1, T val2)
{
List<Variance> variances = new List<Variance>();
FieldInfo[] fi = val1.GetType().GetFields();
foreach (FieldInfo f in fi)
{
Variance v = new Variance();
v.Prop = f.Name;
v.valA = f.GetValue(val1);
v.valB = f.GetValue(val2);
if (!v.valA.Equals(v.valB))
variances.Add(v);
}
return variances;
}
}
class Variance
{
string _prop;
public string Prop
{
get { return _prop; }
set { _prop = value; }
}
object _valA;
public object valA
{
get { return _valA; }
set { _valA = value; }
}
object _valB;
public object valB
{
get { return _valB; }
set { _valB = value; }
}
}
So on my main form, how do I go about calling the compare method and passing the static Global class inside?
example: extentions.DetailedCompare(Global, Global_bk) ? Of course this would give me an error because I cant pass a type as a variable.
Please help me, this is driving me nuts...

How about the singleton pattern ? You can pass reference to shared interface (IDoable in exable below) and still have just one instance.
I.E.:
public interface IDoable {
int Value { get; set; }
void Foo();
}
public static class DoableWrapper {
private MyDoable : IDoable {
public int Value { get;set; }
public void Foo() {
}
}
private static IDoable s_Doable = new MyDoable();
public static IDoable Instance {
get { return s_Doable; }
}
}

Singleton is the way to go here. You can do it like this:
internal class SomeClass
{
private static SomeClass singleton;
private SomeClass(){} //yes: private constructor
public static SomeClass GetInstance()
{
return singleton ?? new SomeClass();
}
public int SomeProperty {get;set;}
public void SomeMethod()
{
//do something
}
}
The GetInstance Method will return you a SomeClass object that you can edit and pass into whatever you need.

You can access the members with classname.membername.
internal static class SomeClass
{
public static int SomeProperty {get;set;}
public static void SomeMethod()
{
//do something
}
}
static void main()
{
SomeClass.SomeProperty = 15;
SomeClass.SomeMethod();
}

The only way you are going to obtain a variable with the "class" information is using reflection. You can get a Type object for the class.
namespace Foo {
public class Bar
{
}
}
Type type = Type.GetType("Foo.Bar");
Otherwise, if you are really describing a class "instance" then use an object and simply instantiate one.
C# offers no other notation for class variables.

Constructing class which's property can only be set in constructor, but get anywhere?

I'm trying to create a class which takes value a as a parameters in it's constructor.
It has a private member variable which stores this value. The value should not be changed afterwards.
Here's what I have, it works but I don't think it's the best solution out there:
internal class Foo
{
private int a;
public int A
{
get
{
return this.a;
}
}
public Foo(int a)
{
this.a = a;
}
}
So this way you can not access a from outside of the class, and A-property only has a get method. However, you can still change a from inside the class, and using a property which only returns one variable and nothing else feels stupid.
Am I doing this right, or is there a way to improve my code/more proper way to do this?

Additionally declare your private field readonly and you're there!
public class Foo
{
public Foo(int bar)
{
this.bar = bar;
}
public int Bar
{
get
{
return bar;
}
}
private readonly int bar;
}

“In C# 6 and later, you can initialize auto-implemented properties similarly to fields”. Just like you can initialize a readonly field in a constructor, you can initialize a get-only auto-implemented property in a constructor. Thus, the following now compiles:
public class Class1
{
public int A { get; }
public Class1(int a)
{
A = a;
}
}
…and the following yields an error:
public class Class1
{
public int A { get; }
public Class1(int a)
{
A = a;
}
public void Mutate()
{
// Class1.cs(11,9,11,10): error CS0200: Property or indexer 'Class1.A' cannot be assigned to -- it is read only
A++;
}
}
I like it—you get the terseness of field initialization with the interface/OOP-friendliness of properties.

internal class Foo
{
private readonly int _a;
public int A
{
get
{
return _a;
}
}
public Foo(int a)
{
_a = a;
}
}
This should do it.

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