Is it possible to use 'if - else - elseif' in that order? - c#

If possible I need to use some code where an 'if' follows after an 'else' as follows:
if (Car1.isEmpty)
{
Do stuff
}
else
{
Car1.EmptyOut();
}
else if (Car2.isEmpty)
{
Do stuff
}
else
{
Car2.EmptyOut()
}
Etcetera. This needs to be done multiple times. Basically if Car1 isn't available (because it's not empty), Car2 needs to be used and Car1 needs to be send home to get emptied.
I'm wondering if it will get to the next 'else-if' statement though.

Maybe you are looking for "when first car is not free use second one"?
if (Car1.isEmpty)
{
Do stuff
}
else
{
Car1.EmptyOut();
if (Car2.isEmpty)
{
Do stuff
}
else
{
Car2.EmptyOut()
}
}
Note that if you have multiple "cars" using list of some sort and LINQ queries could make more sense. I.e.
var firstEmpty = cars.Where(car => car.IsEmpty).FirstOrDefault();
if (firstEmpty != null)
{
// use empty car
}
else
{
// no empty cars - recover and maybe retry...
}

No, this is not possible. If you need to perform an action like this then it would be a good idea to use a loop
var carList = new List<car>();
for(var car in carList ) {
if(car.isEmpty){
//Do stuff
} else {
car.emptyOut();
}
}
if you don't want to use a loop, for whatever reason, you can simply put a lot of if statements together
if(car1.isEmpty) {
//Do stuff
} else {
car1.emptyOut();
}
if(car2.isEmpty) {
//Do stuff
} else {
car2.emptyOut();
}

Do you mean this?
if (Car1.isEmpty)
{
//Do stuff
}
else
{
Car1.EmptyOut();
if (Car2.isEmpty)
{
//Do stuff
}
else
{
Car2.EmptyOut()
}
}

No. This is not allowed. Do this instead:
if (Car1.isEmpty)
{
// Do stuff.
}
else
{
Car1.EmptyOut();
if (Car2.isEmpty)
{
// Do stuff.
}
else
{
Car2.EmptyOut();
}
}
Since you have lots of cars, if you can enumerate their variable names, then you can use reflection. For example:
using System;
class Car
{
public Car(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public bool isEmpty { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public void EmptyOut() { }
}
static class Program
{
public static Car Car0 = new Car("Car0");
public static Car Car1 = new Car("Car1");
public static Car Car2 = new Car("Car2");
public static Car Car3 = new Car("Car3");
public static Car Car4 = new Car("Car4");
public static Car Car5 = new Car("Car5");
public static Car Car6 = new Car("Car6");
public static Car Car7 = new Car("Car7");
public static Car Car8 = new Car("Car8");
public static Car Car9 = new Car("Car9");
static void Main()
{
var type = typeof(Program);
for (int i = 0; i <= 9; i++)
{
var field = type.GetField("Car" + i);
var temp = (Car)field.GetValue(null);
if (temp.isEmpty)
{
// Do stuff.
break;
}
else
{
temp.EmptyOut();
}
}
}
}

10 cars? If you've got more than a couple of cars, something like this should do you:
public bool Process( IEnumerable<Car> cars , Action<Car> process )
{
bool success = false ;
foreach( Car car in cars )
{
if ( car.IsEmpty )
{
process(car) ;
success = true ;
break ;
}
car.EmptyOut() ;
}
return success ;
}

That s not possible in C# syntax, manage to use a Switch statement, or nested If Else statements

Related

How to pass value in ArrayList from method to method

public Program()
{
amount_bike = new ArrayList();
}
public void push(int value)
{
this.amount_bike.Add(value);
}
public int amount_bike_pop()
{
if (this.amount_bike.Count == 0)
{
return -100000;
}
int lastItem = (int)this.amount_bike[this.amount_bike.Count - 1];
this.amount_bike.RemoveAt(this.amount_bike.Count - 1);
return lastItem;
}
public static void Bike_status()
{
bool exit = false;
Program available = new Program();
available.push(0);
available.push(0);
available.push(50);
WriteLine("E-bike available for rent is : " + available.amount_bike_pop() + " bikes.");
WriteLine("Rented E-bike is : " + available.amount_bike_pop() + " bikes.");
WriteLine("Broke E-bike is : " + available.amount_bike_pop() + " bikes.");
WriteLine("\n");
WriteLine("Please enter a number: 1 is back to pervoius menu or 0 to Exit");
int input = Convert.ToInt32(ReadLine());
while (exit == false)
{
if (input == 1)
{
Clear();
exit = true;
continue;
}
else if (input == 0)
{
Clear();
Exit();
}
else
{
Clear();
Bike_status();
}
}
}
public static void Add_bike()
{
}
I study data structures and Algorithms. In this code, I keep the value in an ArrayList named "available" in the Bike_status method. I need to pass a value in an ArrayList to the Add_bike method. How do I pass a value from one method to another? Actually, I need to pass valus such as 50 to plus some number that I push in Console.ReadLine.
Try to slow down.at starting point of programming sometimes it's confusing.
How do I pass a value from one method to another?
The simple answer is easy ,you want something to use in the function then in your method(s) you create parameter and pass the things you want to it.
like
//edit method to get int value -> public static void Bike_status()
public static void Bike_status(int value)
//edit when to call
else
{
Clear();
Bike_status(input);//send int value in
}
But really, what is that do you really want to learn?
if it OOP? I recommend you study this
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/fundamentals/object-oriented/
To put it simply you has bicycle shop class separate from main program then use the method in that class
e.g.
//bicycle class
public class Bicycles{
public int ID {get;set;}
pulibc string status {get;set; }
public Bicycles(int p_id, string p_status)
{
ID = p_id;
status=p_status;
}
}
//bicycle shop class
public class BicyclesShop{
public List<Bicycle> available {get;set;} // class member
public BicyclesShop() // go search keyword "constructor"
{
available = new List<Bicycle> ();
}
//other method
public void Add_bike()
{
// I can access available object !
// do anything with this class member(s) !
}
public void Bike_status(int inputVal)
{
// do something with inputVal , change some properties?
}
//other methods
public int amount_bike_pop()
{
return available.Count();
}
public int amount_bike_broken_pop()
{
return available.Where(o=>o.status =="Broken").Count(); // go search linq
}
}
//To use in Main program method
BicyclesShop bs =new BicyclesShop();
bs.available.Add( new Bicycle(1 ,"OK") ); //add bicycle #1 in list
bs.available.Add( new Bicycle(2),"Broken" ); //add bicycle #2 in list
WriteLine("Broke E-bike is : " + bs.amount_bike_broken_pop() + " bikes.");

Getting the callstack from a method 'A' (MethodBase/MethodInfo) being called from 'B' or 'C' without the stacktrace

Well, I would like to do my own benchmarking system like spark in Minecraft (https://github.com/lucko/spark):
I'm using Harmony lib (https://github.com/pardeike/Harmony) which allows me to interact/modify methods and allows me to add a Prefix/Postfix on each call that will help me out with this stack.
The basic structure has something similar to (https://github.com/pardeike/Harmony/issues/355):
[HarmonyPatch]
class MyPatches
{
static IEnumerable<MethodBase> TargetMethods()
{
return AccessTools.GetTypesFromAssembly(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly())
.SelectMany(type => type.GetMethods())
.Where(method => method.ReturnType != typeof(void) && method.Name.StartsWith("Do"));
}
static void Prefix(out Stopwatch __state, MethodBase __originalMethod)
{
__state = Stopwatch.StartNew();
// ...
}
static void Postfix(Stopwatch __state, MethodBase __originalMethod)
{
__state.Stop();
// ....
}
}
The problem here is that the __originalMethod doesn't take care if it was called from A or B.
So for example, we had patched string.Join method. And the we call from A or B, where A or B, is the full callstack of this method.
So first, we need to assign a ID to this call, and we need to create a Tree-based structure (which is hard to serialize later), from here (https://stackoverflow.com/a/36649069/3286975):
public class TreeModel : Tree<TreeModel>
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public TreeModel() { }
public TreeModel(TreeModel parent) : base(parent) { }
}
public class Tree<T> where T : Tree<T>
{
protected Tree() : this(null) { }
protected Tree(T parent)
{
Parent=parent;
Children=new List<T>();
if(parent!=null)
{
parent.Children.Add(this as T);
}
}
public T Parent { get; set; }
public List<T> Children { get; set; }
public bool IsRoot { get { return Parent==null; } }
public T Root { get { return IsRoot?this as T:Parent.Root; } }
public T RecursiveFind(Predicate<T> check)
{
if(check(this as T)) return this as T;
foreach(var item in Children)
{
var result=item.RecursiveFind(check);
if(result!=null)
{
return result;
}
}
return null;
}
}
Now, the thing is that we need to fill the Tree as long as we iterate all the method and instructions got from Harmony. Forget about Harmony for a second, I will explain only two facts about it.
The lib allows you first to get all patched methods through IEnumerable<MethodBase> TargetMethods() so, you have the Assembly X passed through reflection and filtered all methods that are allowed to be patched (some of them broke Unity, so I decided to skip methods from UnityEngine., UnityEditor. and System.* namespaces).
And we have also the ReadMethodBody method (https://harmony.pardeike.net/api/HarmonyLib.PatchProcessor.html#HarmonyLib_PatchProcessor_ReadMethodBody_System_Reflection_MethodBase_) from a given MethodBase it returns all IL stack instructions.
So we can start to iterate over and over in order to get all instructions and fill the entire tree. This is what I wrote last night:
internal static class BenchmarkEnumerator
{
internal static Dictionary<MethodBase, int> Mappings { get; } = new Dictionary<MethodBase, int>();
internal static Dictionary<int, TreeModel> TreeIDs { get; } = new Dictionary<int, TreeModel>();
internal static Dictionary<MethodBase, BenchmarkTreeModel> TreeMappings { get; } = new Dictionary<MethodBase, BenchmarkTreeModel>();
private static HashSet<int> IDUsed { get; } = new HashSet<int>();
public static int GetID(this MethodBase method)
{
return GetID(method, out _);
}
public static int GetID(this MethodBase method, out bool contains)
{
// A > X = X1
// B > X = X2
if (!Mappings.ContainsKey(method))
{
var id = Mappings.Count;
Mappings.Add(method, Mappings.Count);
IDUsed.Add(id);
contains = false;
return id;
}
contains = true;
return Mappings[method];
}
public static int GetFreeID()
{
int id;
Random rnd = new Random();
do
{
id = rnd.Next();
} while (IDUsed.Contains(id));
IDUsed.Add(id);
return id;
}
public static BenchmarkCall GetCall(int id)
{
return TreeIDs[id]?.Call;
}
public static BenchmarkCall GetCall(this MethodBase method)
{
return TreeIDs[Mappings[method]]?.Call;
}
}
The BenchmarkEnumerator class allow us to differentiate between A or B, but it doesn't care about the full hierarchy, only from the parent MethodBase itself, so I need to write something complex to take in care of the full call stack, which I said I have a problem to understand.
Then we have the TargetMethods:
private static IEnumerable<MethodBase> TargetMethods()
{
Model = new BenchmarkTreeModel();
var sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
//int i = 0;
return Filter.GetTargetMethods(method =>
{
try
{
var instructions = PatchProcessor.ReadMethodBody(method);
var i = method.GetID(out var contains);
var tree = new TreeModel
{
ID = i
};
if (contains)
{
//var lastId = i;
i = GetFreeID();
tree.ID = i;
tree.FillMethodName($"{method.GetMethodSignature()}_{i}"); // TODO: Check this
tree.Parent = null;
tree.Children = TreeMappings[method].Forest.First().Children; // ??
//DictionaryHelper.AddOrAppend(TreeMappings, method, tree);
TreeMappings[method].Forest.Add(tree);
TreeIDs.Add(i, tree);
Model.Forest.Add(tree);
// UNIT TESTING: All contained methods at this point will have a parent.
// string.Join is being added as a method by a instruction, so when we try to patch it, it will have already a reference on the dictionary
// Here, we check if the method was already added by a instruction CALL
// Logic: If the method is already contained by the mapping dictionary
// then, we will exit adding a new that will have the same childs but a new ID
return false;
}
TreeIDs.Add(i, tree);
tree.FillMethodName($"{method.GetMethodSignature()}_{i}"); // TODO: Check this
foreach (var pair in instructions)
{
var opcode = pair.Key;
if (opcode != OpCodes.Call || opcode != OpCodes.Callvirt) continue;
var childMethod = (MethodBase)pair.Value;
var id = childMethod.GetID(out var _contains);
var subTree = new TreeModel(tree)
{
ID = id
};
if (_contains)
{
id = GetFreeID();
subTree.ID = id;
subTree.FillMethodName($"{childMethod.GetMethodSignature()}_{id}"); // TODO: Check this
subTree.Parent = TreeIDs[i];
subTree.Children = TreeMappings[childMethod].Forest.First().Children;
TreeIDs.Add(id, subTree);
continue;
}
TreeIDs.Add(id, subTree);
subTree.FillMethodName($"{childMethod.GetMethodSignature()}_{id}");
tree.Children.Add(subTree);
TreeMappings.Add(childMethod, new BenchmarkTreeModel());
TreeMappings[childMethod].Forest.Add(subTree);
}
TreeMappings.Add(method, new BenchmarkTreeModel());
TreeMappings[method].Forest.Add(tree);
Model.Forest.Add(tree);
return true;
//var treeModel = new TreeModel();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Debug.LogException(new Exception(method.GetMethodSignature(), ex));
return false;
}
}, sw);
//return methods;
}
The GetMethodSignature is something like:
public static string GetMethodSignature(this MethodBase method)
{
if (method == null) return null;
return method.DeclaringType == null ? method.Name : $"{method.DeclaringType.FullName}.{method.Name}";
}
I think I'll replace it with the MethodBase.ToString instead (what do you think?)
Also, we have the BenchmarkCall class which allow us to take in care how many times the call was done and how many time it has spent at all:
[Serializable]
public class BenchmarkCall
{
public string Method { get; set; }
public double SpentMilliseconds { get; set; }
public long SpentTicks { get; set; }
public double MinSpentMs { get; set; } = double.MaxValue;
public double MaxSpentMs { get; set; } = double.MinValue;
public long MinSpentTicks { get; set; } = long.MaxValue;
public long MaxSpentTicks { get; set; } = long.MinValue;
public double AvgMs => SpentMilliseconds / TimesCalled;
public double AvgTicks => SpentTicks / (double)TimesCalled;
public BenchmarkCall()
{
}
public BenchmarkCall(MethodBase method)
{
Method = method.GetMethodSignature();
}
public override string ToString()
{
if (TimesCalled > 0)
return "BenchmarkCall{\n" +
$"Ticks[SpentTicks={SpentTicks},MinTicks={MinSpentTicks},MaxTicks={MaxSpentTicks},AvgTicks={AvgTicks:F2}]\n" +
$"Ms[SpentMs={SpentMilliseconds:F2},MinMs={MinSpentMs:F2},MaxMs={MaxSpentMs:F2},AvgMs={AvgMs:F2}]\n" +
"}";
return "BenchmarkCall{}";
}
}
}
So I think that my next movement will be to differentiate between X method being called from A or B (Xa or Xb) taking care of the full hierarchy (which I'm not sure how to do) instead of the parent method that calls it, maybe the code I wrote has some to do it with it, but I'm not sure (last night I was so tired, so I didn't code it taking care those facts), build up a list of method signatures with different IDs, and then fill up the tree, ID 1 is Xa and ID 2 is Xb (where I have problems also filling up the tree).
Also I'll need to use the Transpiler in order to alter all code instructions, so if a method has:
void method() {
X1();
X2();
}
We will need to add 2 methods (like prefix/postfix) to measure each instruction call:
void method() {
Start(1);
X1();
End(1);
Start(2);
X2();
End(2);
}
This will be a hard task, but I hope somebody could guide me with this out.

Is it possible to clear objects with the get property after calling the class?

this below to sample code;
private ExampleStatus _status;
public ExampleStatus status
{
get
{
if (_status == null) _status = new ExampleStatus();
//if (_status.receivedData) _status.receivedData = false; //this line is incorrect !
return _status;
}
}
public class ExampleStatus
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool receivedData { get; set; }
//I don't want to use this method
public void Clear()
{
Id = 0;
Name = string.Empty;
receivedData = false;
}
}
int stateType = 0;
void ContinuousLoop(ExampleStatus statusObj)
{
while (true)
{
//I don't want to use the options below
//statusObj.Clear();
//or
//statusObj = new ExampleStatus();
if (stateType == 0)
{
statusObj.Id = 0;
statusObj.Name = "Firs Status";
}
else if (stateType == 1)
{
statusObj.Id = 1;
statusObj.Name = "Second Status";
statusObj.receivedData = true;
}
else if (stateType == 2)
{
statusObj.Id = 2;
statusObj.Name = "Third Status";
}
}
}
void RunThread()
{
var t1 = new Thread(() =>
{
ContinuousLoop(status);
});
t1.Start();
}
Is it possible to set default values ​​without a method or new instance, as shown in the example?
Actually that's why I'm asking this question:
I will use the class I have defined in many places. I will need to add a block of code, such as the Clear method, to every place I use it.
I'm also curious about one more thing. If I assign a new instance every time to reset my objects, does this cause problems in memory?
I know more or less how garbage collections work. However, they say that in practice it does not work as said in theory.
So if I add "IDisposable" to my Class, it would tell the garbage collector: Welcome, I'm a litter. Will you take me too?

Entity Framework, Method with any entity as parameter (How to make code more generic)

I have a method that takes a context and entity object as parameters.
This method should be able to determine if a common property (COID in my code) of any class(table) has a value.
I can't find a way to rewrite this code so it is more generic, and at the moment I am checking the type of each entity passed to the method.
public async static Task<bool> IsCOIDAssigned(ProjectEntities _context, object _entity)
{
var bSuccess = false;
//First type to check
if (_entity is tblLine)
{
var _line = _entity as tblLine;
await _context.Entry(_entity).ReloadAsync().ContinueWith(x =>
{
if (!x.IsFaulted)
{
var query = from c in _context.tblLines
where c.ID.Equals(_line.ID)
select c;
if(query.Single().COID.GetValueOrDefault() == 0)
{
Console.WriteLine("Not assigned");
bSuccess = true;
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Assigned");
bSuccess = false;
}
}
else
{
bSuccess = false;
}
}, TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext());
};
//Second type to check
if (_entity is tblDevice)
{
var _device = _entity as tblDevice;
await _context.Entry(_entity).ReloadAsync().ContinueWith(x =>
{
if (!x.IsFaulted)
{
var query = from c in _context.tblDevices
where c.ID.Equals(_device.ID)
select c;
if (query.Single().COID.GetValueOrDefault() == 0)
{
Console.WriteLine("Not assigned");
bSuccess = true;
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Assigned");
bSuccess = false;
}
}
else
{
bSuccess = false;
}
}, TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext());
};
//Third type to check ....
//Fourth type to check ....
return bSuccess;
}
Does anyone see a better solution to the problem?
I followed arekzyla's solution to make my tables inheret tblBase.
However, since I have a database-first model it was not possible to modify my model through code (not sure if this is possible?)
I managed to get what I was looking for thanks to arekzyla, but with less linq queries involved, I am casting my entities as TblBase which is a class containing ID and COID (common table properties.)
public static async Task<bool> IsEntityCheckedOut(ProjectEntities _context, object _entity)
{
var bCheckedOut = false;
await _context.Entry(_entity).ReloadAsync().ContinueWith(x =>
{
if (!x.IsFaulted)
{
var _baseentity = _entity as TblBase;
if (_baseentity.COID.GetValueOrDefault() != 0)
{
Console.WriteLine("Assigned");
bCheckedOut = true;
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Not Assigned");
}
}
}, TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext());
return bCheckedOut;
}
You can make base abstract class for both tblLine and tblDevice containing at least properties COID and Id.
public abstract class TblBase
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int COID { get; set; }
//other common properties
}
public class TblLine : TblBase
{
// properties
}
public class TblDevice : TblBase
{
// properties
}
So in your context you will have:
public DbSet<TblBase> TblBases { get; set; }
You have to set inheritance to TPC (Table-per-Concrete-Type) for both classes:
modelBuilder.Entity<TblLine>().Map(m =>
{
m.MapInheritedProperties();
m.ToTable("tblLines");
});
modelBuilder.Entity<TblDevice>().Map(m =>
{
m.MapInheritedProperties();
m.ToTable("tblDevices");
});
Then you can use context.TblBases to query data.

Where's the best place for validation... constructor or leave to client to call?

This is really a generic (and probably a more subjective too) question. I have some classes where I use an interface to define a standard approach to validating the object state. When I did this, I got to scratching my head... is it best to
1.) allow the constructor (or initializing method) to silently filter out the errant information automatically or...
2.) allow the client to instantiate the object however and let the client also call the interface's IsValid property or Validate() method before moving forward?
Basically one approach is silent but could be misleading in that the client may not be aware that certain pieces of information were filtered away due to it not meeting the validation criteria. The other approach then would be more straight forward, but also adds a step or two? What's typical here?
Okay, after a long day of trying to keep up with some other things, I finally did come up with an example. Please for me for it as it's not ideal and by no means something wonderful, but hopefully should serve well enough to get the point across. My current project is just too complicated to put something simple out for this, so I made something up... and trust me... totally made up.
Alright, the objects in the example are this:
Client: representing client-side code (Console App btw)
IValidationInfo: This is the actual interface I'm using in my current project. It allows me to create a validation framework for the "back-end" objects not necessarily intended for the Client to use since the business logic could be complicated enough. This also allowed me to separate validation code and call as-needed for the business logic.
OrderManager: This is an object the client-side code can use to manage their orders. It's client-friendly so-to-speak.
OrderSpecification: This is an object the client-side code can use to request an order. But if the business logic doesn't work out, an exception can be raised (or if necessary the order not added and exceptions ignored...) In my real-world example I actually have an object that's not quite so black-and-white as to which side of this fence it goes... thus my original question when I realized I could push validation request (calling IsValid or Validate()) to the cilent.
CustomerDescription: represents customers to which I've classified (pretending to have been read from a DB.
Product: Represents a particular product which is classified also.
OrderDescription: Represents the official order request.The business rule is that the Customer cannot order anything to which they've not been classified (I know.. that's not very real-world, but it gave me something to work with...)
Ok... I just realized I can't attach a file here, so here's the code. I apologize for it's lengthy appearance. That was the best I could do to create a client-friendly front-end and business logic back-end using my Validation interface:
public class Client
{
static OrderManager orderMgr = new OrderManager();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//Request a new order
//Note: Only the OrderManager and OrderSpecification are used by the Client as to keep the
// Client from having to know and understand the framework beyond that point.
OrderSpecification orderSpec = new OrderSpecification("Customer1", new Product(IndustryCategory.FoodServices, "Vending Items"));
orderMgr.SubmitOrderRequest(orderSpec);
Console.WriteLine("The OrderManager has {0} items for {1} customers.", orderMgr.ProductCount, orderMgr.CustomerCount);
//Now add a second item proving that the business logic to add for an existing customer works
Console.WriteLine("Adding another valid item for the same customer.");
orderSpec = new OrderSpecification("Customer1", new Product(IndustryCategory.FoodServices, "Sodas"));
orderMgr.SubmitOrderRequest(orderSpec);
Console.WriteLine("The OrderManager now has {0} items for {1} customers.", orderMgr.ProductCount, orderMgr.CustomerCount);
Console.WriteLine("Adding a new valid order for a new customer.");
orderSpec = new OrderSpecification("Customer2", new Product(IndustryCategory.Residential, "Magazines"));
orderMgr.SubmitOrderRequest(orderSpec);
Console.WriteLine("The OrderManager now has {0} items for {1} customers.", orderMgr.ProductCount, orderMgr.CustomerCount);
Console.WriteLine("Adding a invalid one will not work because the customer is not set up to receive these kinds of items. Should get an exception with message...");
try
{
orderSpec = new OrderSpecification("Customer3", new Product(IndustryCategory.Residential, "Magazines"));
orderMgr.SubmitOrderRequest(orderSpec);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public interface IValidationInfo
{
string[] ValidationItems { get; }
bool IsValid { get; }
void Validate();
List<string> GetValidationErrors();
string GetValidationError(string itemName);
}
public class OrderManager
{
private List<OrderDescription> _orders = new List<OrderDescription>();
public List<OrderDescription> Orders
{
get { return new List<OrderDescription>(_orders); }
private set { _orders = value; }
}
public int ProductCount
{
get
{
int itemCount = 0;
this.Orders.ForEach(o => itemCount += o.Products.Count);
return itemCount;
}
}
public int CustomerCount
{
get
{
//since there's only one customer per order, just return the number of orders
return this.Orders.Count;
}
}
public void SubmitOrderRequest(OrderSpecification orderSpec)
{
if (orderSpec.IsValid)
{
List<OrderDescription> orders = this.Orders;
//Since the particular customer may already have an order, we might as well add to an existing
OrderDescription existingOrder = orders.FirstOrDefault(o => string.Compare(orderSpec.Order.Customer.Name, o.Customer.Name, true) == 0) as OrderDescription;
if (existingOrder != null)
{
List<Product> existingProducts = orderSpec.Order.Products;
orderSpec.Order.Products.ForEach(p => existingOrder.AddProduct(p));
}
else
{
orders.Add(orderSpec.Order);
}
this.Orders = orders;
}
else
orderSpec.Validate(); //Let the OrderSpecification pass the business logic validation down the chain
}
}
public enum IndustryCategory
{
Residential,
Textile,
FoodServices,
Something
}
public class OrderSpecification : IValidationInfo
{
public OrderDescription Order { get; private set; }
public OrderSpecification(string customerName, Product product)
{
//Should use a method in the class to search and retrieve Customer... pretending here
CustomerDescription customer = null;
switch (customerName)
{
case "Customer1":
customer = new CustomerDescription() { Name = customerName, Category = IndustryCategory.FoodServices };
break;
case "Customer2":
customer = new CustomerDescription() { Name = customerName, Category = IndustryCategory.Residential };
break;
case "Customer3":
customer = new CustomerDescription() { Name = customerName, Category = IndustryCategory.Textile };
break;
}
//Create an OrderDescription to potentially represent the order... valid or not since this is
//a specification being used to request the order
this.Order = new OrderDescription(new List<Product>() { product }, customer);
}
#region IValidationInfo Members
private readonly string[] _validationItems =
{
"OrderDescription"
};
public string[] ValidationItems
{
get { return _validationItems; }
}
public bool IsValid
{
get
{
List<string> validationErrors = GetValidationErrors();
if (validationErrors != null && validationErrors.Count > 0)
return false;
else
return true;
}
}
public void Validate()
{
List<string> errorMessages = GetValidationErrors();
if (errorMessages != null && errorMessages.Count > 0)
{
StringBuilder errorMessageReported = new StringBuilder();
errorMessages.ForEach(em => errorMessageReported.AppendLine(em));
throw new Exception(errorMessageReported.ToString());
}
}
public List<string> GetValidationErrors()
{
List<string> errorMessages = new List<string>();
foreach (string item in this.ValidationItems)
{
string errorMessage = GetValidationError(item);
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(errorMessage))
errorMessages.Add(errorMessage);
}
return errorMessages;
}
public string GetValidationError(string itemName)
{
switch (itemName)
{
case "OrderDescription":
return ValidateOrderDescription();
default:
return "Invalid item name.";
}
}
#endregion
private string ValidateOrderDescription()
{
string errorMessage = string.Empty;
if (this.Order == null)
errorMessage = "Order was not instantiated.";
else
{
if (!this.Order.IsValid)
{
List<string> orderErrors = this.Order.GetValidationErrors();
orderErrors.ForEach(ce => errorMessage += "\n" + ce);
}
}
return errorMessage;
}
}
public class CustomerDescription : IValidationInfo
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Street { get; set; }
public string City { get; set; }
public string State { get; set; }
public int ZipCode { get; set; }
public IndustryCategory Category { get; set; }
#region IValidationInfo Members
private readonly string[] _validationItems =
{
"Name",
"Street",
"City",
"State",
"ZipCode",
"Category"
};
public string[] ValidationItems
{
get { return _validationItems; }
}
public bool IsValid
{
get
{
List<string> validationErrors = GetValidationErrors();
if (validationErrors != null && validationErrors.Count > 0)
return false;
else
return true;
}
}
public void Validate()
{
List<string> errorMessages = GetValidationErrors();
if (errorMessages != null && errorMessages.Count > 0)
{
StringBuilder errorMessageReported = new StringBuilder();
errorMessages.ForEach(em => errorMessageReported.AppendLine(em));
throw new Exception(errorMessageReported.ToString());
}
}
public List<string> GetValidationErrors()
{
List<string> errorMessages = new List<string>();
foreach (string item in this.ValidationItems)
{
string errorMessage = GetValidationError(item);
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(errorMessage))
errorMessages.Add(errorMessage);
}
return errorMessages;
}
public string GetValidationError(string itemName)
{
//Validation methods should be called here... pretending nothings wrong for sake of discussion & simplicity
switch (itemName)
{
case "Name":
return string.Empty;
case "Street":
return string.Empty;
case "City":
return string.Empty;
case "State":
return string.Empty;
case "ZipCode":
return string.Empty;
case "Category":
return string.Empty;
default:
return "Invalid item name.";
}
}
#endregion
}
public class Product
{
public IndustryCategory Category { get; private set; }
public string Description { get; private set; }
public Product(IndustryCategory category, string description)
{
this.Category = category;
this.Description = description;
}
}
public class OrderDescription : IValidationInfo
{
public CustomerDescription Customer { get; private set; }
private List<Product> _products = new List<Product>();
public List<Product> Products
{
get { return new List<Product>(_products); }
private set { _products = value; }
}
public OrderDescription(List<Product> products, CustomerDescription customer)
{
this.Products = products;
this.Customer = customer;
}
public void PlaceOrder()
{
//If order valid, place
if (this.IsValid)
{
//Do stuff to place order
}
else
Validate(); //cause the exceptions to be raised with the validate because business rules were broken
}
public void AddProduct(Product product)
{
List<Product> productsToEvaluate = this.Products;
//some special read, validation, quantity check, pre-existing, etc here
// doing other stuff...
productsToEvaluate.Add(product);
this.Products = productsToEvaluate;
}
#region IValidationInfo Members
private readonly string[] _validationItems =
{
"Customer",
"Products"
};
public string[] ValidationItems
{
get { return _validationItems; }
}
public bool IsValid
{
get
{
List<string> validationErrors = GetValidationErrors();
if (validationErrors != null && validationErrors.Count > 0)
return false;
else
return true;
}
}
public void Validate()
{
List<string> errorMessages = GetValidationErrors();
if (errorMessages != null && errorMessages.Count > 0)
{
StringBuilder errorMessageReported = new StringBuilder();
errorMessages.ForEach(em => errorMessageReported.AppendLine(em));
throw new Exception(errorMessageReported.ToString());
}
}
public List<string> GetValidationErrors()
{
List<string> errorMessages = new List<string>();
foreach (string item in this.ValidationItems)
{
string errorMessage = GetValidationError(item);
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(errorMessage))
errorMessages.Add(errorMessage);
}
return errorMessages;
}
public string GetValidationError(string itemName)
{
switch (itemName)
{
case "Customer":
return ValidateCustomer();
case "Products":
return ValidateProducts();
default:
return "Invalid item name.";
}
}
#endregion
#region Validation Methods
private string ValidateCustomer()
{
string errorMessage = string.Empty;
if (this.Customer == null)
errorMessage = "CustomerDescription is missing a valid value.";
else
{
if (!this.Customer.IsValid)
{
List<string> customerErrors = this.Customer.GetValidationErrors();
customerErrors.ForEach(ce => errorMessage += "\n" + ce);
}
}
return errorMessage;
}
private string ValidateProducts()
{
string errorMessage = string.Empty;
if (this.Products == null || this.Products.Count <= 0)
errorMessage = "Invalid Order. Missing Products.";
else
{
foreach (Product product in this.Products)
{
if (product.Category != Customer.Category)
{
errorMessage += string.Format("\nThe Product, {0}, category does not match the required Customer category for {1}", product.Description, Customer.Name);
}
}
}
return errorMessage;
}
#endregion
}
Any reason you wouldn't want the constructor to noisily throw an exception if the information is valid? It's best to avoid ever creating an object in an invalid state, in my experience.
It's completely depends on the client. There's a trade-off as you already mentioned. By default approach number 1 is my favorite. Creating smart classes with good encapsulation and hiding details from client. The level of smartness depends who is going to use the object. If client is business aware you can reveal details according to the level of this awareness. This is a dichotomy and should not be treated as black or white.
Well if I correctly understood, there are basically two question - whether you should fail right away or later and whether you should omit/assume certain information.
1) I always prefer failing as soon as possible - good example is failing at compile time vs failing at run time - you always want to fail at compile time. So if something is wrong with the state of some object, as Jon said - throw exception right away as loudly as you can and deal with it - do not introduce additional complexity down the road as you'll be heading for if/elseif/elseif/elseif/else mumbo jumbo.
2) When it comes to user input, if you are in position to simply filter out errors automatically - just do it. For example, I almost never ask users for country - if I really need it, I automatically detect it from IP and display it in the form. It's way easier if user just needs to confirm/change the data - and I don't need to deal with null situation.
Now, in case we are talking about the data generated by code during some processing - for me situation is drastically different - I always want to know an much as possible (for easier debugging down the road) and ideally you never should destroy any piece of information.
To wrap up, in your case I would recommend that you keep IsValid as simple yes/no (not yes/no/maybe/kindaok/etc). If you can fix some problems automatically - do it, but consider that they keep object in IsValid yes. For everything else, you throw exception and go to IsValid=no.

Categories