I am trying to compare values that I am getting from web service, but sometimes I get int value, sometimes i get string. So it would be great that i could only check for Type.value1.
for example:
enum Type { value1 = 1 , value1="one"}
and like that for more value2, etc...
But of course, I cannot do this because it I cannot add two definitons for value1.
Sometimes a type that behaves mostly like an enum but has some richer behaviour can be very useful:
public sealed class MyFakeEnum {
private MyFakeEnum(int value, string description) {
Value = value;
Description = description;
}
public int Value { get; private set; }
public string Description { get; private set; }
// Probably add equality and GetHashCode implementations too.
public readonly static MyFakeEnum Value1 = new MyFakeEnum(1, "value1");
public readonly static MyFakeEnum Value2 = new MyFakeEnum(2, "value2");
}
You can consider adding attributes to the enums and use reflection.
enum Type
{
[Description("One")]
value1 = 1
}
I also make use of using decorating the enum with a description attribute as described by BSoD_ZA. But I would suggest that you then implement an extension method for the enumeration to obtain the string description for example:
public static class EnumExtension
{
public static string ToDescription<TEnum>(this TEnum enumValue) where TEnum : struct
{
return ReflectionService.GetClassAttribute<DescriptionAttribute>(enumValue);
}
}
enum Type
{
[Description("One")]
value1 = 1
}
var value = Type.Value1;
Console.Writeline(value.ToDescription());
Related
This is probably a stupid question, but just in case....
We have a 3rd party package with weird models like:
public partial class CountingDevice
{
public int countingDeviceNo { get; set; }
public string countingDeviceName { get; set; }
public string obis { get; set; }
public int integralPart { get; set; }
public bool integralPartFieldSpecified;
public int fractionalPart { get; set; }
public bool fractionalPartFieldSpecified;
public double value { get; set; }
public bool valueFieldSpecified;
public bool offPeakFlag { get; set; }
public bool offPeakFlagFieldSpecified;
public ExpectedMeterReading expectedMeterReading { get; set; }
// snipped for brevity
}
You'll notice that sometimes there are pairs of fields like integralPart and integralPartFieldSpecified.
Here is the problem: If I simply assign some value to integralPart but do not set integralPartFieldSpecified = true, the value of integralPart will be completely ignored causing the solution to fail.
So when mapping our own models to this madness, I need to litter the code with constructs like:
if (IntegralPart != null)
{
countingDevice.integralPartSpecified = true;
countingDevice.integralPart = (int)IntegralPart!;
}
Both in the interest of reducing lines of code and not stumbling over a minefield, I would like to do any one of the following:
A. Overload the = operator so it will automatically check for a property which is a boolean and has "Specified" concatenated to the current property's name. If such a property exists, it will be assigned true when the value is assigned; if not, then assignment will operate as normal. Ideally, it should be "smart" enough to assign "...Specified" to false if the value assigned is null/default/empty.
B. Create some customer operator which will do the same as A.
C. Create some method which I could invoke in a concise and preferably typesafe way to do the same.
Is this possible?
If so, how?
To make it clear: I need to build quite a few wrappers.
I don't want to repeat this logic for every field and worry about missing some fields which it applies to.
I want a generic way of assigning both fields at once if the "Specified" field exists and being able to do assignments in exactly the same way if it does not exist.
not stumbling over a minefield
Encapsulate the minefield.
If you don't control this 3rd party DTO then don't use it throughout your domain. Encapsulate or wrap the integration of this 3rd party tool within a black box that you control. Then throughout your domain use your models.
Within the integration component for this 3rd party system, simply map to/from your Domain Models and this 3rd party DTO. So this one extra line of code which sets a second field on the DTO only exists in that one place.
Another (expensive) solution would be to write a method that takes in an object, a property name, and the new property value. You can then use reflection to both set the property value for the specified property, as well as search for the bool field that you want to set (if it exists).
Note that you need to pass the correct type for the property. There's no compile-time checking that you're passing a double instead of a string for the value property, for example.
Below I've created an extension method on the object type to simplify calling the method in our main code (the method becomes a member of the object itself):
public static class Extensions
{
// Requires: using System.Reflection;
public static bool SetPropertyAndSpecified(this object obj,
string propertyName, object propertyValue)
{
// Argument validation left to user
// Check if 'obj' has specified 'propertyName'
// and set 'propertyValue' if it does
PropertyInfo prop = obj.GetType().GetProperty(propertyName,
BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);
if (prop != null && prop.CanWrite)
{
prop.SetValue(obj, propertyValue, null);
// Check for related "FieldSpecified" field
// and set it to 'true' if it exists
obj.GetType().GetField($"{propertyName}FieldSpecified",
BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance)?.SetValue(obj, true);
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
After you add this class to your project, you can do something like:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var counter = new CountingDevice();
// Note that 'valueFieldSpecified' and `integralPartFieldSpecified'
// are set to 'false' on 'counter'
// Call our method to set some properties
counter.SetPropertyAndSpecified(nameof(counter.integralPart), 42);
counter.SetPropertyAndSpecified(nameof(counter.value), 69d);
// Now 'valueFieldSpecified' and 'integralPartFieldSpecified'
// are set to 'true' on 'counter'
}
You cannot overload the = operator in C#.
You can just use custom properties and set the "FieldSpecified" fields in the setters e.g.
private int _integralPart;
public int integralPart
{
get { return _integralPart; }
set
{
_integralPart = value;
integralPartFieldSpecified = true;
}
}
public bool integralPartFieldSpecified;
Update
If you want a generic solution you can use a generic class for properties that you want to achieve the specified behaviour with e.g.
public class ValueWithSpecifiedCheck<T>
{
private T _fieldValue;
public T FieldValue
{
get
{
return _fieldValue;
}
set
{
_fieldValue = value;
FieldSpecified = true;
}
}
public bool FieldSpecified { get; set; }
}
public class Data
{
public ValueWithSpecifiedCheck<int> IntegralPart { get; set; }
}
Then the class/property would be used as following:
public static void Main()
{
var data = new Data();
data.IntegralPart = new ValueWithSpecifiedCheck<int>();
data.IntegralPart.FieldValue = 7;
Console.WriteLine(data.IntegralPart.FieldSpecified);// Prints true
}
If you implement a generic solution and add implicit conversion operators, it's quite convenient to use.
Here's a sample Optional<T> struct (I made it a readonly struct to ensure immutable mechanics):
public readonly struct Optional<T> where T : struct
{
public Optional(T value)
{
_value = value;
}
public static implicit operator T(Optional<T> opt) => opt.Value;
public static implicit operator Optional<T>(T opt) => new(opt);
public T Value => _value!.Value;
public bool Specified => _value is not null;
public override string ToString() => _value is null ? "<NONE>" : _value.ToString()!;
readonly T? _value;
}
You could use that to implement your CountingDevice class like so:
public partial class CountingDevice
{
public int countingDeviceNo { get; set; }
public string countingDeviceName { get; set; }
public string obis { get; set; }
public Optional<int> integralPart { get; set; }
public Optional<int> fractionalPart { get; set; }
public Optional<double> value { get; set; }
public Optional<bool> offPeakFlag { get; set; }
// snipped for brevity
}
Usage is quite natural because of the implicit conversions:
public static void Main()
{
var dev = new CountingDevice
{
integralPart = 10, // Can initialise with the underlying type.
value = 123.456
};
Console.WriteLine(dev.fractionalPart.Specified); // False
Console.WriteLine(dev.integralPart.Specified); // True
Console.WriteLine(dev.value); // 123.456
Console.WriteLine(dev.value.ToString()); // 123.456
Console.WriteLine(dev.fractionalPart.ToString()); // "<NONE>"
dev.fractionalPart = 42; // Can set the value using int.
Console.WriteLine(dev.fractionalPart.Specified); // True
Console.WriteLine(dev.fractionalPart); // 42
var optCopy = dev.offPeakFlag;
Console.WriteLine(optCopy.Specified); // False
dev.offPeakFlag = true;
Console.WriteLine(dev.offPeakFlag.Specified); // True
Console.WriteLine(optCopy.Specified); // Still False - not affected by the original.
Console.WriteLine(optCopy); // Throws an exception because its not specified.
}
You might also want to use optional reference types, but to do that you will need to declare a generic with the class constraint:
public readonly struct OptionalRef<T> where T : class
{
public OptionalRef(T value)
{
_value = value;
}
public static implicit operator T(OptionalRef<T> opt) => opt.Value;
public static implicit operator OptionalRef<T>(T opt) => new(opt);
public T Value => _value ?? throw new InvalidOperationException("Accessing an unspecified value.");
public bool Specified => _value is not null;
public override string ToString() => _value is null ? "<NONE>" : _value.ToString()!;
readonly T? _value;
}
Personally, I think that's a bit overkill. I'd just use nullable value types, int?, double? etc, but it depends on the expected usage.
C# doesn't allow overloading the = operator (unlike eg C++). However, your suggestion C should work. It's a bit of a hassle, too, since you'll have to write a bunch of methods, but you could write an extension method such as
public static class Extensions
{
public static void UpdateIntegralPart(this CountingDevice dev, double value)
{
dev.integralPart = value;
dev.integralPartSpecified = true;
}
}
Then you can call
countingDevice.UpdateIntegralPart(1234);
I have a static class with constants. I am looking for options to create a method which takes a dictionary as an argument and enforcing the key to be one of the constants from the static class.Here is my static class with constants.
Here is what I am trying to do
And here is what I am trying to enforce
From the sound of it, an Enum would be more suited to what you're trying to do.
public enum MyConstants
{
FirstName,
LastName,
Title
}
public void CreateMe(Dictionary<MyConstants, string> propertyBag)
{
...
}
UPDATED
You could combine this with attributes to associate each enum with a specific string like so:
public enum PropertyNames
{
[Description("first_name")]
FirstName,
[Description("last_name")]
LastName,
[Description("title")]
Title
}
The value of each description attribute associated with each enum value could easily be grabbed via an extension method, like so:
public static class EnumExtensions
{
public static string GetDescription(this Enum value)
{
FieldInfo fieldInfo = value.GetType().GetField(value.ToString());
DescriptionAttribute[] attributes =
(DescriptionAttribute[])fieldInfo.GetCustomAttributes(
typeof(DescriptionAttribute),
false);
if (attributes != null &&
attributes.Length > 0)
return attributes[0].Description;
else
return value.ToString();
}
}
Then in your "CreateMe"-method you can get the description and value of each dictionary entry by doing something similar to this:
void CreateMe(Dictionary<PropertyNames, string> propertyBag)
{
foreach (var propertyPair in propertyBag)
{
string propertyName = propertyPair.Key.GetDescription();
string propertyValue = propertyPair.Value;
}
}
Even though this has been already answered, there is another approach, like so:
public class MyOwnEnum
{
public string Value { get; private set; }
private MyOwnEnum(string value)
{
Value = value;
}
public static readonly MyOwnEnum FirstName = new MyOwnEnum("Firstname");
public static readonly MyOwnEnum LastName = new MyOwnEnum("LastName");
}
It behaves same way like Enum and can be used in your code with same syntax. I cannot give credit to whoever came up with it, but I believe I came upon it when searching for Enums with multiple values.
With strings you can't enforce fact that keys come from limited set of vialues compile time.
Use enum or custom class (possibly with implicit conversion to string) instead.
Hi Is there a way to declare an enum or to customize the way of declaring an enum which returns an object in C#?
private enum testEnum
{
firstname =1
,lastname = 2
}
and if we want to return the names rather than 1 and 2 ?
like testEnum.firstname returns 1 .
I want to declare an enum to return objects like in Java . is it possible?
You can do this:
public class NameEnum
{
static NameEnum()
{
FirstName = new NameEnum("FirstName");
LastName = new NameEnum("LastName");
}
public static NameEnum FirstName { get; private set; }
public static NameEnum LastName { get; private set; }
private NameEnum(string name)
{
this.Name = name;
}
public string Name { get; private set; }
}
Is that close enough?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/system.enum.aspx
An enumeration is a set of named constants whose underlying type is any integral type except Char. If no underlying type is explicitly declared, Int32 is used. Enum is the base class for all enumerations in the .NET Framework.
You can use interfaces for this:
interface IColorEnum {};
class ColorEnum: IColorEnum
{
public static const Red = new ColorEnum();
public static const Green = new ColorEnum();
public static const Blue = new ColorEnum();
};
And use it like usual:
void foo(IColorEnum color)
{
if(color == ColorEnum.Red) {...}
}
Update+improve: you can even drop interface and just use class with couple of public static fields with type of this class and private constructor to prevent creating new instances of it:
class ColorEnum
{
private ColorEnum() {};
public static const Red = new ColorEnum();
public static const Green = new ColorEnum();
public static const Blue = new ColorEnum();
};
The docs state:
Every enumeration type has an underlying type, which can be any integral type except char.
Assuming you mean object to be complex/reference type. then the answer to your question is no. You could always create a class with named properties containing reference types.
I guess that you be a class exposing static fields that can then be of any type you want.
I think this is only possible in java.
It seems that you want to implement singleton the Joshua Bloch way.
I'm always confused which kind of enumeration I should use. A hashtable, an enum, a struct a dictionary, an array (how oldschool), static strings...
Instead of using strings in my code I want to use a beautiful enum like so:
public enum MyConfigs
{
Configuration1,
Configuration2
}
Problem is that I don't always want to convert my enum toString() as I'm not interested in the index representation of the enum.
What is the best way to represent a public enumeration of string based values?
In the end I would love to end up with using MyConfigs.Configuration1 where needed in my code.
I prefer defining "grouped" constants as static members of a dummy static class, like so:
public static class FieldNames
{
public const string BRANCH_CODE = "_frsBranchCode";
public const string BATCH_ID = "_frsBatchId";
public const string OFFICE_TYPE = "_frsOfficeType";
}
But of course they are not "enumerable" directly, so you can't foreach over them unless you provide a static array too:
public static string[] AllFieldNames
{
get
{
return new string[]
{
FieldNames.BRANCH_CODE,
FieldNames.BATCH_ID,
FieldNames.OFFICE_TYPE
};
}
}
public static class MyConfigs
{
public const string Configuration1 = "foo",
Configuration2 = "bar"
}
This is then pretty-much identical to how enums are implemented (ignoring the whole "it must be an integer" thing).
Type-safe enum pattern?
public class StringEnum
{
#region Enum Values
public static readonly StringEnum ValueOne = new StringEnum("Value One");
public static readonly StringEnum ValueTwo = new StringEnum("Value Two");
#endregion
#region Enum Functionality
public readonly string Value;
private StringEnum(string value)
{
Value = value;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return value;
}
#endregion
}
You can use this like:
private void Foo(StringEnum enumVal)
{
return "String value: " + enumVal;
}
If you never need to pass these values around in a type-safe manner to methods etc. then it is probably best to just stick with a constants file.
Say I have a type that implements a property with a string type:
public class Record
{
public string Value { get; set; }
}
Then I have an interface that defines a property with the same name:
public interface IIntValued
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}
I can use explicit interface as follows:
public class Record : IIntValued
{
public string Value { get; set; }
int IIntValued.Value
{
get{ return 0; } set{}
}
}
However, if I want to be able to reference the string "Value" in my explicit interface, can I do it? If so, how? I imagine it to be something like:
public class Record : IIntValued
{
public string Value { get; set; }
public int IIntValued.Value
{
get
{
string value = /*Magic here*/.Value;
return int.parse(value);
}
set{}
}
}
As you can see, I want the "string valued" "Value" property for an expression in the "int valued" "Value" property. If it were another explicitly implemented interface member, I could typecast to that Interface and then use, but how would it work for an implicit type member?
Note: The example is a bit contrived, but hopefully demonstrates the language question.
For an implicit type member, just Value or this.Value should be fine - because it won't resolve to IIntValued.Value by default.
Sure you can! The problem is that you were placing accessibility keywords where they are illegal. Explicitly-implemented members can not have an accessibility keyword. An implicitly-implemented would be written with out the IIntValue. prefix to the member name.
Here's a sample that works.
public interface IIntValued
{
int Value { get; set; }
}
public class Record : IIntValued
{
public string Value { get; set; }
int IIntValued.Value
{
get
{
string value = this.Value;
return int.Parse(value);
}
set { }
}
}
Yes, you can access both properties. It depends on the type of the variable used to access the property. Observe:
Record myInstanceAsRecord = myInstance;
IIntValued myInstanceAsIIntValued = myinstance;
string valueAsString = myInstanceAsRecord.Value;
int valueAsInt = myInstanceAsIIntValued.Value;
Ugh, after writing the summary, I realized that I knew the answer. :P
If I take this and typecast it to the class type, then the explict implementation will not be included:
string value = ((Record)this).Value; //is the implicit string.
Edit: After some further input (Thanks responders!) it was pointed out that there is no need to manually do something that the compiler is doing automatically. Thus:
string value = this.Value;
would have worked. This is, of course, because the this is not an interface variable, and so the implicit property would be the one selected by default.