I need to extend the Omu.ValueInjecter to perform a check before a property assignment is made. Given the code example below, assignment of prop A should only occur if SetA is true. I suspect LoopValueInjection is not the right base class here, but could someone correct the code below so that I can check SetA during the injection process?
var source = new Source() { A = 3 };
var dest = new Dest();
dest.InjectFrom<MyInjector>(source);
public class Source
{
public int A { get; set; }
public bool SetA { get; set; }
}
public class Dest
{
public int A { get; set; }
}
public class MyInjector : LoopValueInjection // or some other base class!
{
protected override bool AllowSetValue(object value)
{
// check SetA!!
//return base.AllowSetValue(value);
}
}
Ok, I have it working now. Below is the correct code. I missed the UseSourceProp overload which served my purposes exactly.
The problem I was trying to solve was with MVC after a view model is posted to an action, you must copy the view model data into the data model. When the data model is initialized there could be certain defaults that are set. And when the view model was injected, those defaults would be overwritten. It would be correct to overwrite those if the view model properties had been set, but I had default values being overwritten by view model values that had not been set from a post operation.
The solution was to put a flag in the view model that would indicate whether a property had been set are not. And the setter for each property I simply updated a common list string object in the base class.
In the code below in the UseSourceProp method, you can see that if the property name being processed does not exist in SetProperties, then the method returns false and the property is not set.
var source = new Source() { A = 3 };
var dest = new Dest();
dest.InjectFrom<MyInjector>(source);
public class Source
{
public int A { get; set; }
public bool SetA { get; set; }
}
public class Dest
{
public int A { get; set; }
}
public class MyInjector : LoopValueInjection // or some other base class!
{
protected override void Inject(object source, object target)
{
if (source is BaseEntityViewModel) _baseEntityViewModel = (BaseEntityViewModel)source;
base.Inject(source, target);
}
protected override bool UseSourceProp(string sourcePropName)
{
if (_baseEntityViewModel is BaseEntityViewModel)
return _baseEntityViewModel.SetProperties.Contains(sourcePropName);
else
return base.UseSourceProp(sourcePropName);
}
}
I think overridding the SetValue method might be what you need. This is a slight modification of the docs from here: http://valueinjecter.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Getting%20started&referringTitle=Documentation and http://valueinjecter.codeplex.com/discussions/355101
public class MyInjector : LoopValueInjection
{
//by default is return sourcePropertyValue; override to change behaviour
protected override object SetValue(ConventionInfo c)
{
// this is just a sample, but you could write anything here
return new Dest
{
//Check if source value is true and only then set property
if(c.SourceProp.Name == "SetA")
{
var setASourceVal = c.TargetProp.Value As bool;
if(setASourceVal)
{
A = sourcePropertyValue;
}
}
}
}
}
depends which injection your using,
with ConventionInjection you have the value in the Match method
https://valueinjecter.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=step%20by%20step%20explanation&referringTitle=Home
for the LoopValueInjection you can override AllowSetValue
the latest (fastest) injection is this: https://valueinjecter.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=SmartConventionInjection&referringTitle=Home
It has one limitation comparing to the ConventionInjection, you don't have the values of the Source and Target Properties in the Match method but you have them in the SetValue Method and you can cancel the setting of the value to that property if you set false to the ref parameter setValue
Related
How do you give a C# auto-property an initial value?
I either use the constructor, or revert to the old syntax.
Using the Constructor:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
Name = "Initial Name";
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Using normal property syntax (with an initial value)
private string name = "Initial Name";
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Is there a better way?
In C# 5 and earlier, to give auto implemented properties an initial value, you have to do it in a constructor.
Since C# 6.0, you can specify initial value in-line. The syntax is:
public int X { get; set; } = x; // C# 6 or higher
DefaultValueAttribute is intended to be used by the VS designer (or any other consumer) to specify a default value, not an initial value. (Even if in designed object, initial value is the default value).
At compile time DefaultValueAttribute will not impact the generated IL and it will not be read to initialize the property to that value (see DefaultValue attribute is not working with my Auto Property).
Example of attributes that impact the IL are ThreadStaticAttribute, CallerMemberNameAttribute, ...
Edited on 1/2/15
C# 6 :
With C# 6 you can initialize auto-properties directly (finally!), there are now other answers that describe that.
C# 5 and below:
Though the intended use of the attribute is not to actually set the values of the properties, you can use reflection to always set them anyway...
public class DefaultValuesTest
{
public DefaultValuesTest()
{
foreach (PropertyDescriptor property in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(this))
{
DefaultValueAttribute myAttribute = (DefaultValueAttribute)property.Attributes[typeof(DefaultValueAttribute)];
if (myAttribute != null)
{
property.SetValue(this, myAttribute.Value);
}
}
}
public void DoTest()
{
var db = DefaultValueBool;
var ds = DefaultValueString;
var di = DefaultValueInt;
}
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool DefaultValueBool { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue("Good")]
public string DefaultValueString { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(27)]
public int DefaultValueInt { get; set; }
}
When you inline an initial value for a variable it will be done implicitly in the constructor anyway.
I would argue that this syntax was best practice in C# up to 5:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
//do anything before variable assignment
//assign initial values
Name = "Default Name";
//do anything after variable assignment
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
As this gives you clear control of the order values are assigned.
As of C#6 there is a new way:
public string Name { get; set; } = "Default Name";
Sometimes I use this, if I don't want it to be actually set and persisted in my db:
class Person
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(_name) ? "Default Name" : _name;
}
set { _name = value; }
}
}
Obviously if it's not a string then I might make the object nullable ( double?, int? ) and check if it's null, return a default, or return the value it's set to.
Then I can make a check in my repository to see if it's my default and not persist, or make a backdoor check in to see the true status of the backing value, before saving.
In C# 6.0 this is a breeze!
You can do it in the Class declaration itself, in the property declaration statements.
public class Coordinate
{
public int X { get; set; } = 34; // get or set auto-property with initializer
public int Y { get; } = 89; // read-only auto-property with initializer
public int Z { get; } // read-only auto-property with no initializer
// so it has to be initialized from constructor
public Coordinate() // .ctor()
{
Z = 42;
}
}
Starting with C# 6.0, We can assign default value to auto-implemented properties.
public string Name { get; set; } = "Some Name";
We can also create read-only auto implemented property like:
public string Name { get; } = "Some Name";
See: C# 6: First reactions , Initializers for automatically implemented properties - By Jon Skeet
In Version of C# (6.0) & greater, you can do :
For Readonly properties
public int ReadOnlyProp => 2;
For both Writable & Readable properties
public string PropTest { get; set; } = "test";
In current Version of C# (7.0), you can do : (The snippet rather displays how you can use expression bodied get/set accessors to make is more compact when using with backing fields)
private string label = "Default Value";
// Expression-bodied get / set accessors.
public string Label
{
get => label;
set => this.label = value;
}
In C# 9.0 was added support of init keyword - very useful and extremly sophisticated way for declaration read-only auto-properties:
Declare:
class Person
{
public string Name { get; init; } = "Anonymous user";
}
~Enjoy~ Use:
// 1. Person with default name
var anonymous = new Person();
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {anonymous.Name}!");
// > Hello, Anonymous user!
// 2. Person with assigned value
var me = new Person { Name = "#codez0mb1e"};
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {me.Name}!");
// > Hello, #codez0mb1e!
// 3. Attempt to re-assignment Name
me.Name = "My fake";
// > Compilation error: Init-only property can only be assigned in an object initializer
In addition to the answer already accepted, for the scenario when you want to define a default property as a function of other properties you can use expression body notation on C#6.0 (and higher) for even more elegant and concise constructs like:
public class Person{
public string FullName => $"{First} {Last}"; // expression body notation
public string First { get; set; } = "First";
public string Last { get; set; } = "Last";
}
You can use the above in the following fashion
var p = new Person();
p.FullName; // First Last
p.First = "Jon";
p.Last = "Snow";
p.FullName; // Jon Snow
In order to be able to use the above "=>" notation, the property must be read only, and you do not use the get accessor keyword.
Details on MSDN
In C# 6 and above you can simply use the syntax:
public object Foo { get; set; } = bar;
Note that to have a readonly property simply omit the set, as so:
public object Foo { get; } = bar;
You can also assign readonly auto-properties from the constructor.
Prior to this I responded as below.
I'd avoid adding a default to the constructor; leave that for dynamic assignments and avoid having two points at which the variable is assigned (i.e. the type default and in the constructor). Typically I'd simply write a normal property in such cases.
One other option is to do what ASP.Net does and define defaults via an attribute:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.defaultvalueattribute.aspx
My solution is to use a custom attribute that provides default value property initialization by constant or using property type initializer.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)]
public class InstanceAttribute : Attribute
{
public bool IsConstructorCall { get; private set; }
public object[] Values { get; private set; }
public InstanceAttribute() : this(true) { }
public InstanceAttribute(object value) : this(false, value) { }
public InstanceAttribute(bool isConstructorCall, params object[] values)
{
IsConstructorCall = isConstructorCall;
Values = values ?? new object[0];
}
}
To use this attribute it's necessary to inherit a class from special base class-initializer or use a static helper method:
public abstract class DefaultValueInitializer
{
protected DefaultValueInitializer()
{
InitializeDefaultValues(this);
}
public static void InitializeDefaultValues(object obj)
{
var props = from prop in obj.GetType().GetProperties()
let attrs = prop.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(InstanceAttribute), false)
where attrs.Any()
select new { Property = prop, Attr = ((InstanceAttribute)attrs.First()) };
foreach (var pair in props)
{
object value = !pair.Attr.IsConstructorCall && pair.Attr.Values.Length > 0
? pair.Attr.Values[0]
: Activator.CreateInstance(pair.Property.PropertyType, pair.Attr.Values);
pair.Property.SetValue(obj, value, null);
}
}
}
Usage example:
public class Simple : DefaultValueInitializer
{
[Instance("StringValue")]
public string StringValue { get; set; }
[Instance]
public List<string> Items { get; set; }
[Instance(true, 3,4)]
public Point Point { get; set; }
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var obj = new Simple
{
Items = {"Item1"}
};
Console.WriteLine(obj.Items[0]);
Console.WriteLine(obj.Point);
Console.WriteLine(obj.StringValue);
}
Output:
Item1
(X=3,Y=4)
StringValue
little complete sample:
using System.ComponentModel;
private bool bShowGroup ;
[Description("Show the group table"), Category("Sea"),DefaultValue(true)]
public bool ShowGroup
{
get { return bShowGroup; }
set { bShowGroup = value; }
}
You can simple put like this
public sealed class Employee
{
public int Id { get; set; } = 101;
}
In the constructor. The constructor's purpose is to initialized it's data members.
private string name;
public string Name
{
get
{
if(name == null)
{
name = "Default Name";
}
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Have you tried using the DefaultValueAttribute or ShouldSerialize and Reset methods in conjunction with the constructor? I feel like one of these two methods is necessary if you're making a class that might show up on the designer surface or in a property grid.
Use the constructor because "When the constructor is finished, Construction should be finished". properties are like states your classes hold, if you had to initialize a default state, you would do that in your constructor.
To clarify, yes, you need to set default values in the constructor for class derived objects. You will need to ensure the constructor exists with the proper access modifier for construction where used. If the object is not instantiated, e.g. it has no constructor (e.g. static methods) then the default value can be set by the field. The reasoning here is that the object itself will be created only once and you do not instantiate it.
#Darren Kopp - good answer, clean, and correct. And to reiterate, you CAN write constructors for Abstract methods. You just need to access them from the base class when writing the constructor:
Constructor at Base Class:
public BaseClassAbstract()
{
this.PropertyName = "Default Name";
}
Constructor at Derived / Concrete / Sub-Class:
public SubClass() : base() { }
The point here is that the instance variable drawn from the base class may bury your base field name. Setting the current instantiated object value using "this." will allow you to correctly form your object with respect to the current instance and required permission levels (access modifiers) where you are instantiating it.
public Class ClassName{
public int PropName{get;set;}
public ClassName{
PropName=0; //Default Value
}
}
This is old now, and my position has changed. I'm leaving the original answer for posterity only.
Personally, I don't see the point of making it a property at all if you're not going to do anything at all beyond the auto-property. Just leave it as a field. The encapsulation benefit for these item are just red herrings, because there's nothing behind them to encapsulate. If you ever need to change the underlying implementation you're still free to refactor them as properties without breaking any dependent code.
Hmm... maybe this will be the subject of it's own question later
class Person
{
/// Gets/sets a value indicating whether auto
/// save of review layer is enabled or not
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool AutoSaveReviewLayer { get; set; }
}
I know this is an old question, but it came up when I was looking for how to have a default value that gets inherited with the option to override, I came up with
//base class
public class Car
{
public virtual string FuelUnits
{
get { return "gasoline in gallons"; }
protected set { }
}
}
//derived
public class Tesla : Car
{
public override string FuelUnits => "ampere hour";
}
I think this would do it for ya givng SomeFlag a default of false.
private bool _SomeFlagSet = false;
public bool SomeFlag
{
get
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
SomeFlag = false;
return SomeFlag;
}
set
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
_SomeFlagSet = true;
SomeFlag = value;
}
}
I have a class say Base Which contains a Property say Id
public abstract class Base
{
public abstract int Id { get; }
}
This abstract class has many concrete derived classes. e.g;
public class Concrete: Base
{
public override int Id
{
get { return importChangekeyLogId; }
}
}
Also In my code solution, there are places where this Property Value is stored in a local variable or passed as a parameter to the method. Check below example where local variable id stores property value and SampleChild2 method accepts int which is the value of Property Id.
public int Sample1(Concrete obj)
{
int id = obj.Id;
SmapleChild2(obj.Id);
return id;
}
public void SmapleChild2(int id)
{
}
Requirement: The above property is just an example we have many such kinds of properties and the estimated time if done manually is 38 days. Therefore, I want to write a utility using Roslyn Through which I can change the data type of Properties to long and also I could find all the references of Properties and update the local variable data types and method signatures. So the final code should be like
public abstract class Base
{
public abstract long Id { get; }
}
public class Concrete: Base
{
public override long Id
{
get { return importChangekeyLogId; }
}
}
public long Sample1(Concrete obj)
{
long id = obj.Id;
SmapleChild2(obj.Id);
return id;
}
public void SmapleChild2(long id)
{
}
Code done till now: I am able to change the abstract class property data type to long using code like below
public override SyntaxNode VisitPropertyDeclaration(PropertyDeclarationSyntax node)
{
PredefinedTypeSyntax _longType = SyntaxFactory.PredefinedType(SyntaxFactory.Token(SyntaxKind.LongKeyword)).WithTrailingTrivia(SyntaxFactory.SyntaxTrivia(SyntaxKind.WhitespaceTrivia, " "));
if (node.Type.ToString() == "int")
{
var propertyName = node.Identifier.ValueText;
if (propertyName == "Id")
{
return node.ReplaceNode(node.Type, _longType);
}
}
return node;
}
I am able to find all the references where the property is being used from the below code. But I am not able to find a way to update the local variable's data type and method signatures which deal with the property value.
if (propertyName == "Id")
{
var propertySymbol = (IPropertySymbol)_semanticModel.GetDeclaredSymbol(node);
var references = SymbolFinder.FindReferencesAsync(propertySymbol, this._solution).Result;
}
When using EF Core we have the ability to set the default value on the property.
public class Foo
{
public int Bar { get; set; }
}
public class FooConfiguration : IEntityTypeConfiguration<Foo>
{
public void Configure(EntityTypeBuilder<Foo> builder)
{
builder.Property(s => s.Bar).HasDefaultValue(1337);
}
}
When should we prefer using HasDefaultValue over initializing the default inside a class?
public class Foo
{
public int Bar { get; set; } = 1337;
// or inside constructor...
// public Foo { Bar = 1337; }
}
Or should we do both? But in this case, HasDefaultValue seems redundant. It seems like a choice where you can choose only 1 option.
The HasDefaultValue() method specifies
The default value of a column is the value that will be inserted if a new row is inserted but no value is specified for the column.
Initializing the property with default value in the class will make all objects initialized of the class have the specified default value if not instructed otherwise. In your case, that means even non attached objects will have the default value, while using the HasValue() method will be used when inserting the object into the database. It also means, if there already is empty values in the database when you are adding the HasDefaultValue() method, they will not be overwritten.
I don't know if I undestand right but you can use getter/setter methods for setting different default values for different properties like below,
private int _bar = 1337;
public int Bar{
get{
return _bar;
}
set{
_bar = value;
}
}
private int _secondBar = 1234;
public int SecondBar{
get{
return _secondBar;
}
set{
_secondBar = value;
}
}
I have a class that contains a list of parameters. For example:
public class Container
{
public List<Parameter> Parameters { get; set; }
}
public class Parameter
{
puplic string Name {get; set;}
}
Class Сontainer obtained from the database through Entity Framework. Many classes contain Container. I need to ensure that all classes that contain Сontainer and also retrieved from the database containing the sorted list of Parameters. That is, the Container must sort Parameters or request step or immediately thereafter.
How this can be achieved?
Maybe write to the configuration
internal class ContainerConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<Container>
{
public ContainerConfiguration()
{
ToTable("Container");
HasKey(p => p.Id);
... ???
}
}
Or wright in dataSet
protected override IQueryable<Container> DataSet(DbContext db)
{
return db.Set<ProcessMeasurer>()
.Include(it => it.Parameters.Select(p => p.Parameter));
}
Another option for solving the problem:
Create your attribute and specify which field to use for sorting by default:
public class DefaultOrderFieldAttribute : Attribute
{
public DefaultOrderFieldAttribute()
{
}
public string FieldName { get; set; }
}
[DefaultOrderField(FieldName = "ParameterName")]
public partial class Parameter
{
}
Write a Visitor, which in the case of detection of our attribute modifies select:
public class DefaultOrderVisitor : DefaultExpressionVisitor
{
public override DbExpression Visit(DbScanExpression expression)
{
const string NAMESPACE = "OrderTest";
var type =
Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetType(string.Format("{0}.{1}", NAMESPACE, expression.Target.Name));
var attribute =
type.GetCustomAttributes(typeof (DefaultOrderFieldAttribute)).SingleOrDefault() as
DefaultOrderFieldAttribute;
if (attribute != null)
return expression.OrderBy(ex => ex.Property(attribute.FieldName));
return expression;
}
}
Put in our Visitor Interceptor:
public class DefaultOrderInterceptor : IDbCommandTreeInterceptor
{
public void TreeCreated(DbCommandTreeInterceptionContext interceptionContext)
{
if (interceptionContext.OriginalResult.DataSpace == DataSpace.SSpace)
{
var queryCommand = interceptionContext.Result as DbQueryCommandTree;
if (queryCommand != null)
{
var newQuery = queryCommand.Query.Accept(new DefaultOrderVisitor());
interceptionContext.Result = new DbQueryCommandTree(queryCommand.MetadataWorkspace,
queryCommand.DataSpace, newQuery);
}
}
}
}
and register it in the configuration (this class just has to be in the same assembly as the model):
public class EntityFrameworkConfiguration : DbConfiguration
{
public EntityFrameworkConfiguration()
{
AddInterceptor(new DefaultOrderInterceptor());
}
}
Need to work with the entity class.
If we want to sort the collection was in all the elements that comprise it, we have to change the appropriate property.
Obvious variant - creating property setter.
private List<Parameter> _parameters;
public List<Parameter> Parameters
{
get { return _parameters; }
set { _parameters = value.OrderBy(...).ToList();
}
But the behavior of the compiler (call the setter once, and the multiple callin to the getter) gave me a reason to assume that the target collection is not put in a property all at once. The items in the query is gradually added to the collection. Therefore, sorting in setter does not always work.
Therefore, we must carry out sorting the return value
get
{
if(_parameters == null) return null;
_parameters = _parameters.OrderBy(...).ToList();
return _parameters;
}
It works. But the problem is that an appeal to the getter, and hence sorting, will be carried out when EntityFramework inserts each value. This affects the performance.
The best variant that I know at the moment is to inherit all entities from the interface with the function Prepare
public interface IEntity
{
void Prepare();
}
and implement it in each class model. Models that comprise other models cause a method to prepare, for each desired properties.
public class SomeModel : IEntity
{
public CustomType SomeProperty { get; set; }
public OneMoreCustomType AnotherProrerty { get; set; }
public void Prepare()
{
SomeProperty.Prepare();
AnotherProperty.Prepare();
}
}
For the respective classes it will take appropriate action. Including sorting.
Сall a method to prepare the Сontainer (in this case) you before using.
For example, in the Business Logic (MVPVM).
How do you give a C# auto-property an initial value?
I either use the constructor, or revert to the old syntax.
Using the Constructor:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
Name = "Initial Name";
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Using normal property syntax (with an initial value)
private string name = "Initial Name";
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Is there a better way?
In C# 5 and earlier, to give auto implemented properties an initial value, you have to do it in a constructor.
Since C# 6.0, you can specify initial value in-line. The syntax is:
public int X { get; set; } = x; // C# 6 or higher
DefaultValueAttribute is intended to be used by the VS designer (or any other consumer) to specify a default value, not an initial value. (Even if in designed object, initial value is the default value).
At compile time DefaultValueAttribute will not impact the generated IL and it will not be read to initialize the property to that value (see DefaultValue attribute is not working with my Auto Property).
Example of attributes that impact the IL are ThreadStaticAttribute, CallerMemberNameAttribute, ...
Edited on 1/2/15
C# 6 :
With C# 6 you can initialize auto-properties directly (finally!), there are now other answers that describe that.
C# 5 and below:
Though the intended use of the attribute is not to actually set the values of the properties, you can use reflection to always set them anyway...
public class DefaultValuesTest
{
public DefaultValuesTest()
{
foreach (PropertyDescriptor property in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(this))
{
DefaultValueAttribute myAttribute = (DefaultValueAttribute)property.Attributes[typeof(DefaultValueAttribute)];
if (myAttribute != null)
{
property.SetValue(this, myAttribute.Value);
}
}
}
public void DoTest()
{
var db = DefaultValueBool;
var ds = DefaultValueString;
var di = DefaultValueInt;
}
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool DefaultValueBool { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue("Good")]
public string DefaultValueString { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(27)]
public int DefaultValueInt { get; set; }
}
When you inline an initial value for a variable it will be done implicitly in the constructor anyway.
I would argue that this syntax was best practice in C# up to 5:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
//do anything before variable assignment
//assign initial values
Name = "Default Name";
//do anything after variable assignment
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
As this gives you clear control of the order values are assigned.
As of C#6 there is a new way:
public string Name { get; set; } = "Default Name";
Sometimes I use this, if I don't want it to be actually set and persisted in my db:
class Person
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(_name) ? "Default Name" : _name;
}
set { _name = value; }
}
}
Obviously if it's not a string then I might make the object nullable ( double?, int? ) and check if it's null, return a default, or return the value it's set to.
Then I can make a check in my repository to see if it's my default and not persist, or make a backdoor check in to see the true status of the backing value, before saving.
In C# 6.0 this is a breeze!
You can do it in the Class declaration itself, in the property declaration statements.
public class Coordinate
{
public int X { get; set; } = 34; // get or set auto-property with initializer
public int Y { get; } = 89; // read-only auto-property with initializer
public int Z { get; } // read-only auto-property with no initializer
// so it has to be initialized from constructor
public Coordinate() // .ctor()
{
Z = 42;
}
}
Starting with C# 6.0, We can assign default value to auto-implemented properties.
public string Name { get; set; } = "Some Name";
We can also create read-only auto implemented property like:
public string Name { get; } = "Some Name";
See: C# 6: First reactions , Initializers for automatically implemented properties - By Jon Skeet
In Version of C# (6.0) & greater, you can do :
For Readonly properties
public int ReadOnlyProp => 2;
For both Writable & Readable properties
public string PropTest { get; set; } = "test";
In current Version of C# (7.0), you can do : (The snippet rather displays how you can use expression bodied get/set accessors to make is more compact when using with backing fields)
private string label = "Default Value";
// Expression-bodied get / set accessors.
public string Label
{
get => label;
set => this.label = value;
}
In C# 9.0 was added support of init keyword - very useful and extremly sophisticated way for declaration read-only auto-properties:
Declare:
class Person
{
public string Name { get; init; } = "Anonymous user";
}
~Enjoy~ Use:
// 1. Person with default name
var anonymous = new Person();
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {anonymous.Name}!");
// > Hello, Anonymous user!
// 2. Person with assigned value
var me = new Person { Name = "#codez0mb1e"};
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {me.Name}!");
// > Hello, #codez0mb1e!
// 3. Attempt to re-assignment Name
me.Name = "My fake";
// > Compilation error: Init-only property can only be assigned in an object initializer
In addition to the answer already accepted, for the scenario when you want to define a default property as a function of other properties you can use expression body notation on C#6.0 (and higher) for even more elegant and concise constructs like:
public class Person{
public string FullName => $"{First} {Last}"; // expression body notation
public string First { get; set; } = "First";
public string Last { get; set; } = "Last";
}
You can use the above in the following fashion
var p = new Person();
p.FullName; // First Last
p.First = "Jon";
p.Last = "Snow";
p.FullName; // Jon Snow
In order to be able to use the above "=>" notation, the property must be read only, and you do not use the get accessor keyword.
Details on MSDN
In C# 6 and above you can simply use the syntax:
public object Foo { get; set; } = bar;
Note that to have a readonly property simply omit the set, as so:
public object Foo { get; } = bar;
You can also assign readonly auto-properties from the constructor.
Prior to this I responded as below.
I'd avoid adding a default to the constructor; leave that for dynamic assignments and avoid having two points at which the variable is assigned (i.e. the type default and in the constructor). Typically I'd simply write a normal property in such cases.
One other option is to do what ASP.Net does and define defaults via an attribute:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.defaultvalueattribute.aspx
My solution is to use a custom attribute that provides default value property initialization by constant or using property type initializer.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)]
public class InstanceAttribute : Attribute
{
public bool IsConstructorCall { get; private set; }
public object[] Values { get; private set; }
public InstanceAttribute() : this(true) { }
public InstanceAttribute(object value) : this(false, value) { }
public InstanceAttribute(bool isConstructorCall, params object[] values)
{
IsConstructorCall = isConstructorCall;
Values = values ?? new object[0];
}
}
To use this attribute it's necessary to inherit a class from special base class-initializer or use a static helper method:
public abstract class DefaultValueInitializer
{
protected DefaultValueInitializer()
{
InitializeDefaultValues(this);
}
public static void InitializeDefaultValues(object obj)
{
var props = from prop in obj.GetType().GetProperties()
let attrs = prop.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(InstanceAttribute), false)
where attrs.Any()
select new { Property = prop, Attr = ((InstanceAttribute)attrs.First()) };
foreach (var pair in props)
{
object value = !pair.Attr.IsConstructorCall && pair.Attr.Values.Length > 0
? pair.Attr.Values[0]
: Activator.CreateInstance(pair.Property.PropertyType, pair.Attr.Values);
pair.Property.SetValue(obj, value, null);
}
}
}
Usage example:
public class Simple : DefaultValueInitializer
{
[Instance("StringValue")]
public string StringValue { get; set; }
[Instance]
public List<string> Items { get; set; }
[Instance(true, 3,4)]
public Point Point { get; set; }
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var obj = new Simple
{
Items = {"Item1"}
};
Console.WriteLine(obj.Items[0]);
Console.WriteLine(obj.Point);
Console.WriteLine(obj.StringValue);
}
Output:
Item1
(X=3,Y=4)
StringValue
little complete sample:
using System.ComponentModel;
private bool bShowGroup ;
[Description("Show the group table"), Category("Sea"),DefaultValue(true)]
public bool ShowGroup
{
get { return bShowGroup; }
set { bShowGroup = value; }
}
You can simple put like this
public sealed class Employee
{
public int Id { get; set; } = 101;
}
In the constructor. The constructor's purpose is to initialized it's data members.
private string name;
public string Name
{
get
{
if(name == null)
{
name = "Default Name";
}
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Have you tried using the DefaultValueAttribute or ShouldSerialize and Reset methods in conjunction with the constructor? I feel like one of these two methods is necessary if you're making a class that might show up on the designer surface or in a property grid.
Use the constructor because "When the constructor is finished, Construction should be finished". properties are like states your classes hold, if you had to initialize a default state, you would do that in your constructor.
To clarify, yes, you need to set default values in the constructor for class derived objects. You will need to ensure the constructor exists with the proper access modifier for construction where used. If the object is not instantiated, e.g. it has no constructor (e.g. static methods) then the default value can be set by the field. The reasoning here is that the object itself will be created only once and you do not instantiate it.
#Darren Kopp - good answer, clean, and correct. And to reiterate, you CAN write constructors for Abstract methods. You just need to access them from the base class when writing the constructor:
Constructor at Base Class:
public BaseClassAbstract()
{
this.PropertyName = "Default Name";
}
Constructor at Derived / Concrete / Sub-Class:
public SubClass() : base() { }
The point here is that the instance variable drawn from the base class may bury your base field name. Setting the current instantiated object value using "this." will allow you to correctly form your object with respect to the current instance and required permission levels (access modifiers) where you are instantiating it.
public Class ClassName{
public int PropName{get;set;}
public ClassName{
PropName=0; //Default Value
}
}
This is old now, and my position has changed. I'm leaving the original answer for posterity only.
Personally, I don't see the point of making it a property at all if you're not going to do anything at all beyond the auto-property. Just leave it as a field. The encapsulation benefit for these item are just red herrings, because there's nothing behind them to encapsulate. If you ever need to change the underlying implementation you're still free to refactor them as properties without breaking any dependent code.
Hmm... maybe this will be the subject of it's own question later
class Person
{
/// Gets/sets a value indicating whether auto
/// save of review layer is enabled or not
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool AutoSaveReviewLayer { get; set; }
}
I know this is an old question, but it came up when I was looking for how to have a default value that gets inherited with the option to override, I came up with
//base class
public class Car
{
public virtual string FuelUnits
{
get { return "gasoline in gallons"; }
protected set { }
}
}
//derived
public class Tesla : Car
{
public override string FuelUnits => "ampere hour";
}
I think this would do it for ya givng SomeFlag a default of false.
private bool _SomeFlagSet = false;
public bool SomeFlag
{
get
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
SomeFlag = false;
return SomeFlag;
}
set
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
_SomeFlagSet = true;
SomeFlag = value;
}
}