I'm trying to convert some anonymous type back to its original strong type class.
I have some legacy code (which I cannot touch) which create an anonymous class:
public class Cat : FooId
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
var result = new
{
Id = Mapper.Map<TFooId>(someCat)
};
NOTE: I've tried to make this fake class and interface similar to my code.
This then gives me:
result.GetType().ToString() : <>f__AnonymousType1``1[MyProject.Cat]
From here, I'm not sure how to convert this back to a MyProject.Cat instance?
I've tried (and fails):
(MyProject.Cat)result
(dynamic)result
but both fail. The dynamic doesn't throw an error ... but I can't access any properties in it.
C# is a statically typed language, and those two types are not in any way related to one another. Unless you're able to modify the code which defines those types, the way you'd convert from one to the other would be to create a new instance of the target type and populate it from the source object.
For example:
var resultCat = new Cat { Id = result.Id };
Edit: From comments it looks like it may be possible that the Id property on the result object may be an instance of Cat or some other object? You're going to need to do some debugging to find out what your types are.
But the overall concept doesn't really change. If you have an instance of Cat in your results then you can use that instance. If you don't then in order to create one you'd need to create a new instance and populate it with the data you have. Even if two types are intuitively or semantically similar, they are different types.
It's true what David said with regard to the fact that C# is a statically-typed language and that the new instance should be populated from the source the way he suggested.
However, there are work-arounds (though less performant) for that, such as reflection.
Consider you have a console app where you have defined ObjectExtensions as follows:
public static class ObjectExtensions
{
public static TOut Map<TOut>(this object #in)
where TOut : new()
{
TOut #out = new TOut();
if (#in?.GetType() is Type tin)
{
Type tout = typeof(TOut);
foreach ((PropertyInfo pout, PropertyInfo pin) in tout.GetProperties().Join(tin.GetProperties(), pi => pi.Name, pi => pi.Name, (pout, pin) => (pout, pin)))
{
pout.SetValue(#out, pin.GetValue(#in));
}
}
return #out;
}
}
And Class1 as follows:
public class Class1
{
public string A { get; set; } = "A";
public string B { get; set; } = "B";
public string C { get; set; } = "C";
public override string ToString()
{
return $"{{A={A}, B={B}, C={C}}}";
}
}
You will be able to map your anonymous type back to its original strongly-typed class like this:
Console.WriteLine(new { A = "Anonymous A", B = "Anonymous B", C = "Anonymous C" }.Map<Class1>());
Therefore the bloc above should show the following output:
{A=Anonymous A, B=Anonymous B, C=Anonymous C}
In this case, of course, I have assumed that Class1 (Cat in your example) must have a public parameterless constructor. That may not always be the case. There are more sophisticated scenarios of course that might involve other techniques for creating the object such as cloning or dependency injection. Just saying that the idea of yours is possible.
Is it possible to assign a base class object to a derived class reference with an explicit typecast in C#?.
I have tried it and it creates a run-time error.
No. A reference to a derived class must actually refer to an instance of the derived class (or null). Otherwise how would you expect it to behave?
For example:
object o = new object();
string s = (string) o;
int i = s.Length; // What can this sensibly do?
If you want to be able to convert an instance of the base type to the derived type, I suggest you write a method to create an appropriate derived type instance. Or look at your inheritance tree again and try to redesign so that you don't need to do this in the first place.
No, that's not possible since assigning it to a derived class reference would be like saying "Base class is a fully capable substitute for derived class, it can do everything the derived class can do", which is not true since derived classes in general offer more functionality than their base class (at least, that's the idea behind inheritance).
You could write a constructor in the derived class taking a base class object as parameter, copying the values.
Something like this:
public class Base {
public int Data;
public void DoStuff() {
// Do stuff with data
}
}
public class Derived : Base {
public int OtherData;
public Derived(Base b) {
this.Data = b.Data;
OtherData = 0; // default value
}
public void DoOtherStuff() {
// Do some other stuff
}
}
In that case you would copy the base object and get a fully functional derived class object with default values for derived members. This way you can also avoid the problem pointed out by Jon Skeet:
Base b = new Base();//base class
Derived d = new Derived();//derived class
b.DoStuff(); // OK
d.DoStuff(); // Also OK
b.DoOtherStuff(); // Won't work!
d.DoOtherStuff(); // OK
d = new Derived(b); // Copy construct a Derived with values of b
d.DoOtherStuff(); // Now works!
Solution with JsonConvert (instead of typecast)
Today i faced the same issue and i found a simple and quick solution to the problem using JsonConvert.
var base = new BaseClass();
var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(base);
DerivedClass derived = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<DerivedClass>(json);
I had this problem and solved it by adding a method that takes a type parameter and converts the current object into that type.
public TA As<TA>() where TA : Base
{
var type = typeof (TA);
var instance = Activator.CreateInstance(type);
PropertyInfo[] properties = type.GetProperties();
foreach (var property in properties)
{
property.SetValue(instance, property.GetValue(this, null), null);
}
return (TA)instance;
}
That means that you can use it in you code like this:
var base = new Base();
base.Data = 1;
var derived = base.As<Derived>();
Console.Write(derived.Data); // Would output 1
As many others have answered, No.
I use the following code on those unfortunate occasions when I need to use a base type as a derived type. Yes it is a violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP) and yes most of the time we favor composition over inheritance. Props to Markus Knappen Johansson whose original answer this is based upon.
This code in the base class:
public T As<T>()
{
var type = typeof(T);
var instance = Activator.CreateInstance(type);
if (type.BaseType != null)
{
var properties = type.BaseType.GetProperties();
foreach (var property in properties)
if (property.CanWrite)
property.SetValue(instance, property.GetValue(this, null), null);
}
return (T) instance;
}
Allows:
derivedObject = baseObect.As<derivedType>()
Since it uses reflection, it is "expensive". Use accordingly.
No it is not possible, hence your runtime error.
But you can assign an instance of a derived class to a variable of base class type.
As everyone here said, that's not possible directly.
The method I prefer and is rather clean, is to use an Object Mapper like AutoMapper.
It will do the task of copying properties from one instance to another (Not necessarily the same type) automatically.
In c# 9.0 you can try to use records for this. They have default copy constructor that copy all fields - no need to use reflection / constructor with all fields.
public record BaseR
{
public string Prop1 { get; set; }
}
public record DerivedR : BaseR
{
public DerivedR(BaseR baseR) : base(baseR) { }
public string Prop2 { get; set; }
}
var baseR = new BaseR { Prop1 = "base prob" };
var derivedR = new DerivedR(baseR) { Prop2 = "new prop" };
Not in the Traditional Sense... Convert to Json, then to your object, and boom, done! Jesse above had the answer posted first, but didn't use these extension methods which make the process so much easier. Create a couple of extension methods:
public static string ConvertToJson<T>(this T obj)
{
return JsonConvert.SerializeObject(obj);
}
public static T ConvertToObject<T>(this string json)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(json))
{
return Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
}
return JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<T>(json);
}
Put them in your toolbox forever, then you can always do this:
var derivedClass = baseClass.ConvertToJson().ConvertToObject<derivedClass>();
Ah, the power of JSON.
There are a couple of gotchas with this approach: We really are creating a new object, not casting, which may or may not matter. Private fields will not be transferred, constructors with parameters won't be called, etc. It is possible that some child json won't be assigned. Streams are not innately handled by JsonConvert. However, if our class doesn't rely on private fields and constructors, this is a very effective method of moving data from class to class without mapping and calling constructors, which is the main reason why we want to cast in the first place.
Expanding on #ybo's answer - it isn't possible because the instance you have of the base class isn't actually an instance of the derived class. It only knows about the members of the base class, and doesn't know anything about those of the derived class.
The reason that you can cast an instance of the derived class to an instance of the base class is because the derived class actually already is an instance of the base class, since it has those members already. The opposite cannot be said.
You can cast a variable that is typed as the base-class to the type of a derived class; however, by necessity this will do a runtime check, to see if the actual object involved is of the correct type.
Once created, the type of an object cannot be changed (not least, it might not be the same size). You can, however, convert an instance, creating a new instance of the second type - but you need to write the conversion code manually.
You have to use an object cloner/copier that will assign all the properties one by one.
Doing this by hand is inefficient and not future-proof. But serializing & deserializing to JSON and back is not the best solution, it is slow and very memory inefficient.
However, using AutoMapper is fast. PropMapper is even faster.
PS. Disclosure: I am a contributor at PropMapper open source project.
No, it is not possible.
Consider a scenario where an ACBus is a derived class of base class Bus. ACBus has features like TurnOnAC and TurnOffAC which operate on a field named ACState. TurnOnAC sets ACState to on and TurnOffAC sets ACState to off. If you try to use TurnOnAC and TurnOffAC features on Bus, it makes no sense.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
a a1 = new b();
a1.print();
}
}
class a
{
public a()
{
Console.WriteLine("base class object initiated");
}
public void print()
{
Console.WriteLine("base");
}
}
class b:a
{
public b()
{
Console.WriteLine("child class object");
}
public void print1()
{
Console.WriteLine("derived");
}
}
}
when we create a child class object,the base class object is auto initiated so base class reference variable can point to child class object.
but not vice versa because a child class reference variable can not point to base class object because no child class object is created.
and also notice that base class reference variable can only call base class member.
There actually IS a way to do this. Think about how you might use Newtonsoft JSON to deserialize an object from json. It will (or at least can) ignore missing elements and populate all the elements that it does know about.
So here's how I did it. A small code sample will follow my explanation.
Create an instance of your object from the base class and populate it accordingly.
Using the "jsonconvert" class of Newtonsoft json, serialize that object into a json string.
Now create your sub class object by deserializing with the json string created in step 2. This will create an instance of your sub class with all the properties of the base class.
This works like a charm! So.. when is this useful? Some people asked when this would make sense and suggested changing the OP's schema to accommodate the fact that you can't natively do this with class inheritance (in .Net).
In my case, I have a settings class that contains all the "base" settings for a service. Specific services have more options and those come from a different DB table, so those classes inherit the base class. They all have a different set of options. So when retrieving the data for a service, it's much easier to FIRST populate the values using an instance of the base object. One method to do this with a single DB query. Right after that, I create the sub class object using the method outlined above. I then make a second query and populate all the dynamic values on the sub class object.
The final output is a derived class with all the options set. Repeating this for additional new sub classes takes just a few lines of code. It's simple, and it uses a very tried and tested package (Newtonsoft) to make the magic work.
This example code is vb.Net, but you can easily convert to c#.
' First, create the base settings object.
Dim basePMSettngs As gtmaPayMethodSettings = gtmaPayments.getBasePayMethodSetting(payTypeId, account_id)
Dim basePMSettingsJson As String = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(basePMSettngs, Formatting.Indented)
' Create a pmSettings object of this specific type of payment and inherit from the base class object
Dim pmSettings As gtmaPayMethodAimACHSettings = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject(Of gtmaPayMethodAimACHSettings)(basePMSettingsJson)
You can use an Extention:
public static void CopyOnlyEqualProperties<T>(this T objDest, object objSource) where T : class
{
foreach (PropertyInfo propInfo in typeof(T).GetProperties())
if (objSource.GetType().GetProperties().Any(z => z.Name == propInfo.Name && z.GetType() == propInfo.GetType()))
propInfo.SetValue(objDest, objSource.GetType().GetProperties().First(z => z.Name == propInfo.Name && z.GetType() == propInfo.GetType()).GetValue(objSource));
}
In Code:
public class BaseClass
{
public string test{ get; set;}
}
public Derived : BaseClass
{
//Some properies
}
public void CopyProps()
{
BaseClass baseCl =new BaseClass();
baseCl.test="Hello";
Derived drv=new Derived();
drv.CopyOnlyEqualProperties(baseCl);
//Should return Hello to the console now in derived class.
Console.WriteLine(drv.test);
}
Might not be relevent, but I was able to run code on a derived object given its base. It's definitely more hacky than I'd like, but it works:
public static T Cast<T>(object obj)
{
return (T)obj;
}
...
//Invoke parent object's json function
MethodInfo castMethod = this.GetType().GetMethod("Cast").MakeGenericMethod(baseObj.GetType());
object castedObject = castMethod.Invoke(null, new object[] { baseObj });
MethodInfo jsonMethod = baseObj.GetType ().GetMethod ("ToJSON");
return (string)jsonMethod.Invoke (castedObject,null);
You can do this using generic.
public class BaseClass
{
public int A { get; set; }
public int B { get; set; }
private T ConvertTo<T>() where T : BaseClass, new()
{
return new T
{
A = A,
B = B
}
}
public DerivedClass1 ConvertToDerivedClass1()
{
return ConvertTo<DerivedClass1>();
}
public DerivedClass2 ConvertToDerivedClass2()
{
return ConvertTo<DerivedClass2>();
}
}
public class DerivedClass1 : BaseClass
{
public int C { get; set; }
}
public class DerivedClass2 : BaseClass
{
public int D { get; set; }
}
You get three benefits using this approach.
You are not duplicating the code
You are not using reflection (which is slow)
All of your conversions are in one place
I know this is old but I've used this successfully for quite a while.
private void PopulateDerivedFromBase<TB,TD>(TB baseclass,TD derivedclass)
{
//get our baseclass properties
var bprops = baseclass.GetType().GetProperties();
foreach (var bprop in bprops)
{
//get the corresponding property in the derived class
var dprop = derivedclass.GetType().GetProperty(bprop.Name);
//if the derived property exists and it's writable, set the value
if (dprop != null && dprop.CanWrite)
dprop.SetValue(derivedclass,bprop.GetValue(baseclass, null),null);
}
}
I combined some portions of the previous answers (thanks to those authors) and put together a simple static class with two methods that we're using.
Yes, it's simple, no it doesn't cover all scenarios, yes it could be expanded and made better, no it's not perfect, yes it could possibly be made more efficient, no it's not the greatest thing since sliced bread, yes there are full-on robust nuget package object mappers out there that are way better for heavy use, etc etc, yada yada - but it works for our basic needs though :)
And of course it will try to map values from any object to any object, derived or not (only the public properties that are named the same of course - ignores the rest).
USAGE:
SesameStreetCharacter puppet = new SesameStreetCharacter() { Name = "Elmo", Age = 5 };
// creates new object of type "RealPerson" and assigns any matching property
// values from the puppet object
// (this method requires that "RealPerson" have a parameterless constructor )
RealPerson person = ObjectMapper.MapToNewObject<RealPerson>(puppet);
// OR
// create the person object on our own
// (so RealPerson can have any constructor type that it wants)
SesameStreetCharacter puppet = new SesameStreetCharacter() { Name = "Elmo", Age = 5 };
RealPerson person = new RealPerson("tall") {Name = "Steve"};
// maps and overwrites any matching property values from
// the puppet object to the person object so now our person's age will get set to 5 and
// the name "Steve" will get overwritten with "Elmo" in this example
ObjectMapper.MapToExistingObject(puppet, person);
STATIC UTILITY CLASS:
public static class ObjectMapper
{
// the target object is created on the fly and the target type
// must have a parameterless constructor (either compiler-generated or explicit)
public static Ttarget MapToNewObject<Ttarget>(object sourceobject) where Ttarget : new()
{
// create an instance of the target class
Ttarget targetobject = (Ttarget)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(Ttarget));
// map the source properties to the target object
MapToExistingObject(sourceobject, targetobject);
return targetobject;
}
// the target object is created beforehand and passed in
public static void MapToExistingObject(object sourceobject, object targetobject)
{
// get the list of properties available in source class
var sourceproperties = sourceobject.GetType().GetProperties().ToList();
// loop through source object properties
sourceproperties.ForEach(sourceproperty => {
var targetProp = targetobject.GetType().GetProperty(sourceproperty.Name);
// check whether that property is present in target class and is writeable
if (targetProp != null && targetProp.CanWrite)
{
// if present get the value and map it
var value = sourceobject.GetType().GetProperty(sourceproperty.Name).GetValue(sourceobject, null);
targetobject.GetType().GetProperty(sourceproperty.Name).SetValue(targetobject, value, null);
}
});
}
}
You can use a copy constructor that immediately invokes the instance constructor, or if your instance constructor does more than assignments have the copy constructor assign the incoming values to the instance.
class Person
{
// Copy constructor
public Person(Person previousPerson)
{
Name = previousPerson.Name;
Age = previousPerson.Age;
}
// Copy constructor calls the instance constructor.
public Person(Person previousPerson)
: this(previousPerson.Name, previousPerson.Age)
{
}
// Instance constructor.
public Person(string name, int age)
{
Name = name;
Age = age;
}
public int Age { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Referenced the Microsoft C# Documentation under Constructor for this example having had this issue in the past.
With regarding #MarkusKnappenJohansson answer and below comments we can change his code extending extension function :) so it may update an existing deriving class instance via this code :
public static TDerived As<TDerived>(this Base baseInstance, TDerived updateDerivedInstance = null) where TDerived : Base, new()
{
Type baseType = typeof(Base);
Type derivedType = typeof(TDerived);
PropertyInfo[] properties = baseType.GetProperties();
object instanceDerived = null;
if (updateDerivedInstance == null)
{
instanceDerived = Activator.CreateInstance(derivedType);
}
else
{
instanceDerived = (object)(updateDerivedInstance);
}
foreach (PropertyInfo property in properties)
{
if (property.CanWrite)
{
property.SetValue(instanceDerived, property.GetValue(baseInstance, null), null);
}
}
return (TDerived)instanceDerived;
}
Usage for getting new derived Instance is var base = new Base(); base.Data = 1; var derived = base.As<Derived>(); Console.Write(derived.Data); // Would output 1
Usage for updating existing derived Instance is var derived = new Derived(); var base = new Base(); base.Data = 1; var derivedUpdated = base.As<Derived>(derived); Console.Write(derivedUpdated.Data); // Would output 1
Another solution is to add extension method like so:
public static void CopyProperties(this object destinationObject, object sourceObject, bool overwriteAll = true)
{
try
{
if (sourceObject != null)
{
PropertyInfo[] sourceProps = sourceObject.GetType().GetProperties();
List<string> sourcePropNames = sourceProps.Select(p => p.Name).ToList();
foreach (PropertyInfo pi in destinationObject.GetType().GetProperties())
{
if (sourcePropNames.Contains(pi.Name))
{
PropertyInfo sourceProp = sourceProps.First(srcProp => srcProp.Name == pi.Name);
if (sourceProp.PropertyType == pi.PropertyType)
if (overwriteAll || pi.GetValue(destinationObject, null) == null)
{
pi.SetValue(destinationObject, sourceProp.GetValue(sourceObject, null), null);
}
}
}
}
}
catch (ApplicationException ex)
{
throw;
}
}
then have a constructor in each derived class that accepts base class:
public class DerivedClass: BaseClass
{
public DerivedClass(BaseClass baseModel)
{
this.CopyProperties(baseModel);
}
}
It will also optionally overwrite destination properties if already set (not null) or not.
Is it possible to assign a base class object to a derived class reference with an explicit typecast in C#?.
Not only explicit, but also implicit conversions are possible.
C# language doesn't permit such conversion operators, but you can still write them using pure C# and they work. Note that the class which defines the implicit conversion operator (Derived) and the class which uses the operator (Program) must be defined in separate assemblies (e.g. the Derived class is in a library.dll which is referenced by program.exe containing the Program class).
//In library.dll:
public class Base { }
public class Derived {
[System.Runtime.CompilerServices.SpecialName]
public static Derived op_Implicit(Base a) {
return new Derived(a); //Write some Base -> Derived conversion code here
}
[System.Runtime.CompilerServices.SpecialName]
public static Derived op_Explicit(Base a) {
return new Derived(a); //Write some Base -> Derived conversion code here
}
}
//In program.exe:
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
Derived z = new Base(); //Visual Studio can show squiggles here, but it compiles just fine.
}
}
When you reference the library using the Project Reference in Visual Studio, VS shows squiggles when you use the implicit conversion, but it compiles just fine. If you just reference the library.dll, there are no squiggles.
How about:
public static T As<T>(this object obj)
{
return JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<T>(JsonConvert.SerializeObject(obj));
}
Best way to add all base properties to derived item is use reflection in costructor. Try this code, without creating methods or instances.
public Derived(Base item) :base()
{
Type type = item.GetType();
System.Reflection.PropertyInfo[] properties = type.GetProperties();
foreach (var property in properties)
{
try
{
property.SetValue(this, property.GetValue(item, null), null);
}
catch (Exception) { }
}
}
I disagree that it is not possible. You can do it like this:
public class Auto
{
public string Make {get; set;}
public string Model {get; set;}
}
public class Sedan : Auto
{
public int NumberOfDoors {get; set;}
}
public static T ConvertAuto<T>(Sedan sedan) where T : class
{
object auto = sedan;
return (T)loc;
}
Usage:
var sedan = new Sedan();
sedan.NumberOfDoors = 4;
var auto = ConvertAuto<Auto>(sedan);
This is how I solved this for fields. You can do the same iteration through properties if you want. You may want to do some checks for null etc. but this is the idea.
public static DerivedClass ConvertFromBaseToDerived<BaseClass, DerivedClass>(BaseClass baseClass)
where BaseClass : class, new()
where DerivedClass : class, BaseClass, new()
{
DerivedClass derived = (DerivedClass)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(DerivedClass));
derived.GetType().GetFields().ToList().ForEach(field =>
{
var base_ = baseClass.GetType().GetField(field.Name).GetValue(baseClass);
field.SetValue(derived, base_);
});
return derived;
}
You can just serialize the base object to JSON and then deserialize it to the derived object.
No, see this question which I asked - Upcasting in .NET using generics
The best way is to make a default constructor on the class, construct and then call an Initialise method
I have a class that contains multiple string fields. Whenever an object of this class is instantiated, I'd like those fields to be automatically assigned with the same specific default value (something like "Undefined"). The reason is:
If I have to serialize the object before all fields are populated with real data, I want those fields to display as this default value rather than being null or string.Empty.
String fields may be added/removed from this class as the project progresses. I'd like to not have to touch the constructor every time that occurs.
Is there any way to do this other than explicitly assigning the default value to each of the string fields one by one in the class constructor?
In C# 6.0 and above, you can use Auto-Property Initializer:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/csharp-6#auto-property-initializers
Basically:
public string Property { get; set; } = "UNDEFINED";
You would have to use reflection. Something like this
Type type = obj.GetType();
PropertyInfo[] properties = type.GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyInfo property in properties)
{
if (property.PropertyType == typeof(string)) property.setValue(obj, "UNDEFINED");
}
First of all: I don't see how it could be best practice to do what you want.
If you want something like this to show up in your code:
public string Property { get; set; } = "UNDEFINED";
You should probably look into creating custom snippets that simply write exactly that. e.g. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms165394.aspx
If you don't want that, you could use reflection to find all fields (e.g. strings) in the constructor and set them.
C# Reflection - Get field values from a simple class
FieldInfo[] fields = data.GetType().GetFields(BindingFlags.Public |
BindingFlags.NonPublic |
BindingFlags.Instance);
Setting a property by reflection with a string value
Ship ship = new Ship();
string value = "5.5";
PropertyInfo propertyInfo = ship.GetType().GetProperty("Latitude");
propertyInfo.SetValue(ship, Convert.ChangeType(value, propertyInfo.PropertyType), null);
Well, why not have an extension method like
public static class MyClass
{
public static string GetDefault(this str, string defaultVal)
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(str) ? defaultVal : str;
}
}
For a type
public class SomeClass
{
public string str = string.Empty;
}
You can call
SomeClass s = new SomeClass();
s.str.GetDefault("UNDEFINED");
You can initialize values to fields directly instead of in the constructor.
private string myStringVariable = "UNDEFINED";
Perhaps you should reconsider the structure of your program though if it permits many fields to be initialized to undefined.
Maybe I am misunderstanding this but why not do word for word what you described in the question in your constructor?
public class Weee
{
public string name { get; set; }
public int order { get; set; }
public string whatever { get; set; }
public Weee()
{
foreach(var p in typeof(Weee).GetProperties().Where(a => a.PropertyType == typeof(string)))
{
p.SetValue(this, "wut");
}
}
}
You can create a property initializer and have a base class use it. Your classes can then inherit from the base and have their properties automatically initialized:
public class PropertyInitializer
{
public void Initialize<T>(object obj, T value)
{
PropertyInfo[] properties = obj.GetType().GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyInfo property in properties)
{
if (property.PropertyType == typeof(T))
{
property.SetValue(obj, value);
}
}
}
}
public class InitializedBase
{
protected InitializedBase()
{
var initializer = new PropertyInitializer();
//Initialize all strings
initializer.Initialize<string>(this, "Juan");
//Initialize all integers
initializer.Initialize<int>(this, 31);
}
}
//Sample class to illustrate
public class AutoInitializedClass : InitializedBase
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
public override string ToString()
{
return string.Format("My name is {0} and I am {1} years old", Name, Age);
}
}
Sample usage:
AutoInitializedClass sample = new AutoInitializedClass();
Console.WriteLine(sample);
Console output:
My name is Juan and I am 31 years old
Notice the base class is using the PropertyInitializer class to initialize fields. This is a simplified example. You can expand it as it fits you (it may not work out of the box with all types).
I personally don't recommend this. It's called a constructor for a reason but you asked a question and I provided an answer.
Here is a simple class from which you can inherit that does exactly what you want:
Example usage:
public class MyClass : DefaultedObject<string>
{
public string MyStringField;
protected override string Default => "UNDEFINED";
}
var myClass = new MyClass();
// myClass.MyStringField == "UNDEFINED"
Implementation:
public abstract class DefaultedObject<T>
{
protected DefaultedObject()
{
T defaultValue = Default;
FieldInfo[] fields = GetType().GetFields(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
foreach(FieldInfo field in fields) {
if(field.FieldType == typeof(T)) {
field.SetValue(this, defaultValue);
}
}
}
protected abstract T Default { get; }
}
I appreciate all the feedback to this question. Here's what ended up working. First, for any string attributes in the class that I wanted to receive an automatic default value, I established as a property:
public string attribute1 {get; set;}
public string attribute2 {get; set;}
And so on. Then, in the class constructor, I included the following loop which iterates through each property of type string:
foreach(PropertyInfo property in GetType().GetProperties())
{
if (property.PropertyType == typeof(string))
property.SetValue(this, "UNDEFINED"));
}
This produced the desired outcome for me.
I have a class MyDatabaseContext that has a series of DbSet collection properties:
public DbSet<EntityA> EntitiesA { get; set; }
public DbSet<EntityB> EntitiesB { get; set; }
public DbSet<EntityC> EntitiesC { get; set; }
I need to get the name of the collection given the type of the entity.
For example, I have "EntityB" and want to get as a result "EntitiesB".
I really wanted to avoid switch-case statements, since MyDatabaseContext is generated automatically (T4 templates).
if you just want the name of the property here you go. I would just refine the answer given by hunter. You can use the same method with string as return type.
public string GetEntitiName<T>() where T : class
{
PropertyInfo propInfo = typeof(MyDatabaseContext).GetProperties().Where(p => p.PropertyType == typeof(DbSet<T>)).FirstOrDefault();
string propertyName = propInfo.Name; //The string has the property name ..
return propertyName;
}
I tried a sample similar to your situation. Try replacing List with DbSet.
class Program
{
public static void GetEntities<T>() where T : class
{
var info = typeof(TestClass1).GetProperties().Where(p => p.PropertyType == typeof(List<T>));
Console.WriteLine(info.FirstOrDefault().Name);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
GetEntities<int>();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class TestClass1
{
public List<int> IntTest { get; set; }
public List<double> DoubleTest { get; set; }
public List<string> IStringTest { get; set; }
}
This sample works.
I know this is old page, But my answer maybe useful for other guys referring here. (like me)
I think you want to accessing EntitiesB to run a query on it, like EntitiesB.Where(a=>a.bla=="blabla"). If I'm right or another visitor of this page needs something like this, just easily use the following code:
using System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure;
using System.Data.Objects;
((IObjectContextAdapter)_dbContext).ObjectContext.CreateObjectSet<EntityB>()
Description:
_dbContext is Context class inherting from DbContext.
EntitiesB is DbSet<EntityB> defined in Context class.
Example:
Ilist result = ((IObjectContextAdapter)_dbContext).ObjectContext.CreateObjectSet<EntityB>().Where(b=>b.bla=="blabla").ToList();
Your generated file is a partial class, you could create a new file and declare a class with same name using the keyword partial, then make a method which will return the desired Collection...
I haven't actually done this myself, but it sounds like what you want to do is to use reflection to locate the property of type "DbSet" that has the appropriate generic type parameter. The following pseudo-C# should get you started:
foreach ( FieldInfo field in this.GetType() )
{
if ( field.FieldType.IsGenericType )
{
foreach ( Type param in field.FieldType.GetGenericArguments() )
{
if ( param.Name == soughtType )
{
return field.Name;
}
}
}
}
I'm using reflection to iterate over all the members of a given type. This interaction must support inheritance, since most type will be extended as necessary.
I've just found out that the order in which types present themselves when iterating over GetMembers isn't really what I'd expect -- the types of the derived classes appear first, in their current order, and the types of the base classes later, again in their current order.
Source:
using System;
class Program
{
class SomeClass
{
public string First { get; set; }
public int Second;
}
class AnotherClass : SomeClass
{
public int Third { get; set; }
public string Fourth;
}
public static void Main()
{
var obj = new AnotherClass { First = "asd", Second = 10};
foreach (var member in obj.GetType().GetMembers())
{
Console.WriteLine(member.Name);
}
}
}
Output:
get_Third
set_Third
get_First
set_First
Equals
GetHashCode
GetType
ToString
.ctor
Third
First
Fourth
Second
You can check a run here.
I'd like to invert this situation, using reflection to get only types from the base class, then from the derived. Is there any way to do this?
Another question on the same line: when searching members, properties come first and fields second. Anyway to change this behavior as well, or the metadata created will always present in that order?
Thanks!
To access the base type use BaseType property.
To check if a member is declared in the same type, use DeclaringType property:
public static bool DeclaredInType(Type typeToCheck, MemberInfo member)
{
return typeToCheck.Equals(member.DeclaringType);
}
EDIT: you can sort by type by using LINQ:
public static MemberInfo[] SortMembers(IEnumerable<MemberInfo> members)
{
return members.OrderBy(m => m.GetType().Name)
.ToArray();
}
This is not exactly an answer to the OP (and I'm a bit late for that), but I'll just describe what I did, in the hopes someone may find it helpful.
I have a home-made program that serializes to XML. It is driven by a List of CopierField objects that I create that contain the data I need to expedite the serialization. Here is a much-redacted version of that class:
private class CopierField
{
// Name of the field or property and a reference to the declaring Type
public string MemberName;
public Type DeclaringType;
// Reference to the FieldInfo or PropertyInfo object for this field or property. One of
// these will be null and the other non-null.
public FieldInfo MemberInfoForField = null;
public PropertyInfo MemberInfoForProperty = null;
// Ordering of this field, as returned by Type.GetMembers(). This is only used while
// building the List<> of these objects for XML serialization
public int FieldOrder;
/// <summary>
/// Comparison method that can be used to sort a collection of CopierField objects so they
/// are in the order wanted for XML serialization. This ordering is dependent on the depth
/// of derivation, and when that is equal it maintains the original ordering.
/// </summary>
public static readonly Comparison<CopierField> CompareForXml =
delegate(CopierField a, CopierField b)
{
int aDepth = GetTypeDepth(a.DeclaringType);
int bDepth = GetTypeDepth(b.DeclaringType);
if (aDepth != bDepth)
return aDepth.CompareTo(bDepth);
return a.FieldOrder.CompareTo(b.FieldOrder);
};
/// <summary>
/// Method to determine the depth of derivation for a type.
/// </summary>
private static int GetTypeDepth(Type aType)
{
int i = 0;
while (aType.BaseType != null)
{
i++;
aType = aType.BaseType;
}
return i;
}
}
Before serializing an object type to XML the first time I create a List of these objects sorted in the order I want using a method somewhat like this, where the input is a List of the CopierField objects that is based on data from Type.GetMembers().
private static List<CopierField> CreateCopierFieldListForXml(List<CopierField> copierFields)
{
// Build the new list, and note the original ordering as created by Type.GetMembers()
List<CopierField> copierFieldsForXml = new List<CopierField>(copierFields.Count);
for (int listIndex = 0; listIndex < copierFields.Count; listIndex++)
{
CopierField copierField = copierFields[listIndex];
copierField.FieldOrder = listIndex;
copierFieldsForXml.Add(copierField);
}
// Sort the new list as wanted for XML serialization
copierFieldsForXml.Sort(CopierField.CompareForXml);
return copierFieldsForXml;
}
TL;DR
orderby typeof(T).Equals(mi.DeclaringType) ? 1 : -1
will push base memberInfo first, and keep the order defined in the class.
Full answer:
to achieve the same goal, and using the DeclaringType as suggested previously, I defined the following method:
public static IEnumerable<MemberInfo> GetAllFieldsAndPropertiesOfClass<T>()
{
return
from mi in typeof(T).GetMembers(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Static)
let ignoreAttr = (IgnoreSerializationAttribute)Attribute.GetCustomAttribute(mi, typeof(IgnoreSerializationAttribute))
where (mi.MemberType == MemberTypes.Field || mi.MemberType == MemberTypes.Property)
&& (ignoreAttr == null || ignoreAttr != null && !ignoreAttr.Ignore)
orderby typeof(T).Equals(mi.DeclaringType) ? 1 : -1
select mi;
}
In that method, I also defined a custom attribute to explicitely ignore some properties from the serialization:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Field | AttributeTargets.Property)]
public class IgnoreSerializationAttribute : Attribute
{
public bool Ignore { get; private set; }
public IgnoreSerializationAttribute(bool ignore)
{
Ignore = ignore;
}
}
It is also possible to add an other custom Attribute to define the order, e.g.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Field | AttributeTargets.Property)]
public class ColumnOrderAttribute : Attribute
{
public int Order { get; private set; }
public ColumnOrderAttribute(int order)
{
Order = order;
}
}
used as follow:
public static IEnumerable<MemberInfo> GetAllFieldsAndPropertiesOfClassOrdered<T>()
{
return
from mi in GetAllFieldsAndPropertiesOfClass<T>()
let orderAttr = (ColumnOrderAttribute)Attribute.GetCustomAttribute(mi, typeof(ColumnOrderAttribute))
orderby orderAttr == null ? int.MaxValue : orderAttr.Order, mi.Name
select mi;
}
I am using those methods to serialize list of objects using other objects to CSV files...