We Keep Coding

Should I change to Extension Methods (on ListItemCollection)

(I hope this isn't regarded as "too much like a discussion", but we'll see.)
I have a few hours to refactor long-existing code. I notice I have quite a number of static methods on ListItemCollection:
public static ListItem ListItem_InsertIfNotPresent(ListItemCollection lic, ...)
public static ListItemCollection ListItems_Selected(ListItemCollection lic)
public static string[] ListItemValues(ListItemCollection lic)
public static void ListItems_SortByText(ListItemCollection lic)
....
So they look suitable to refactor. ListItemCollections are returned by many CLR functions, so I cannot derive/sub-class. I am toying with:
Implement as extension methods. Code currently does not have any extension methods. Not mad about having to add using ListItemCollectionExtensions to all my source files, nor risking future .NET CLRs possibly adding clashes. But the calling syntax is nice.
Add a ListItemCollectionHelper class to put these in. Code will have to go var licx = new ListItemCollectionHelper(dropDownList.Items); before any licx.SortByText();-type calls, which is a bit messy when I only need to call one method.
Leave as-is, with named statics as now!
I have looked at articles like What are the best practices for using Extension Methods in .Net? and others, but they don't really advise this case. Of particular interest is your comments on #1 versus #2.
I don't actually have to worry about "other users" of my code, but good practice never hurts. For right or for wrong, I do not want to use LINQ or lambda solutions.

In your example I would leave it as is unless you need the code somewhere else because it is working and refactoring just to refactor might lead to bugs. However, if I was starting from scratch I would make these extension methods. It makes the code easier to re-use and hopefully prevents someone from copying this code the next time this same pattern is needed.
I prefer Extension methods over the Helper class because it is generally easier to find the methods through Intellisense. In my experience any class that ends with the word Helper turns into a mess at some point. That becomes the place where code that does not fit anywhere goes. The Helper classes never start out bad but in a larger team you will soon find methods in there that have no business being there.

I would go ahead and make them extension methods.
It doesn't break anything (you can still use like regular methods in the Helper pattern, so your existing code will still function)
When you do refactor existing code or write new code, you can use the cleaner extension method syntax.

How to enforce the use of a method's return value in C#?

I have a piece of software written with fluent syntax. The method chain has a definitive "ending", before which nothing useful is actually done in the code (think NBuilder, or Linq-to-SQL's query generation not actually hitting the database until we iterate over our objects with, say, ToList()).
The problem I am having is there is confusion among other developers about proper usage of the code. They are neglecting to call the "ending" method (thus never actually "doing anything")!
I am interested in enforcing the usage of the return value of some of my methods so that we can never "end the chain" without calling that "Finalize()" or "Save()" method that actually does the work.
Consider the following code:
//The "factory" class the user will be dealing with
public class FluentClass
{
//The entry point for this software
public IntermediateClass<T> Init<T>()
{
return new IntermediateClass<T>();
}
}
//The class that actually does the work
public class IntermediateClass<T>
{
private List<T> _values;
//The user cannot call this constructor
internal IntermediateClass<T>()
{
_values = new List<T>();
}
//Once generated, they can call "setup" methods such as this
public IntermediateClass<T> With(T value)
{
var instance = new IntermediateClass<T>() { _values = _values };
instance._values.Add(value);
return instance;
}
//Picture "lazy loading" - you have to call this method to
//actually do anything worthwhile
public void Save()
{
var itemCount = _values.Count();
. . . //save to database, write a log, do some real work
}
}
As you can see, proper usage of this code would be something like:
new FluentClass().Init<int>().With(-1).With(300).With(42).Save();
The problem is that people are using it this way (thinking it achieves the same as the above):
new FluentClass().Init<int>().With(-1).With(300).With(42);
So pervasive is this problem that, with entirely good intentions, another developer once actually changed the name of the "Init" method to indicate that THAT method was doing the "real work" of the software.
Logic errors like these are very difficult to spot, and, of course, it compiles, because it is perfectly acceptable to call a method with a return value and just "pretend" it returns void. Visual Studio doesn't care if you do this; your software will still compile and run (although in some cases I believe it throws a warning). This is a great feature to have, of course. Imagine a simple "InsertToDatabase" method that returns the ID of the new row as an integer - it is easy to see that there are some cases where we need that ID, and some cases where we could do without it.
In the case of this piece of software, there is definitively never any reason to eschew that "Save" function at the end of the method chain. It is a very specialized utility, and the only gain comes from the final step.
I want somebody's software to fail at the compiler level if they call "With()" and not "Save()".
It seems like an impossible task by traditional means - but that's why I come to you guys. Is there an Attribute I can use to prevent a method from being "cast to void" or some such?
Note: The alternate way of achieving this goal that has already been suggested to me is writing a suite of unit tests to enforce this rule, and using something like http://www.testdriven.net to bind them to the compiler. This is an acceptable solution, but I am hoping for something more elegant.

I don't know of a way to enforce this at a compiler level. It's often requested for objects which implement IDisposable as well, but isn't really enforceable.
One potential option which can help, however, is to set up your class, in DEBUG only, to have a finalizer that logs/throws/etc. if Save() was never called. This can help you discover these runtime problems while debugging instead of relying on searching the code, etc.
However, make sure that, in release mode, this is not used, as it will incur a performance overhead since the addition of an unnecessary finalizer is very bad on GC performance.

You could require specific methods to use a callback like so:
new FluentClass().Init<int>(x =>
{
x.Save(y =>
{
y.With(-1),
y.With(300)
});
});
The with method returns some specific object, and the only way to get that object is by calling x.Save(), which itself has a callback that lets you set up your indeterminate number of with statements. So the init takes something like this:
public T Init<T>(Func<MyInitInputType, MySaveResultType> initSetup)

I can think of three a few solutions, not ideal.
AIUI what you want is a function which is called when the temporary variable goes out of scope (as in, when it becomes available for garbage collection, but will probably not be garbage collected for some time yet). (See: The difference between a destructor and a finalizer?) This hypothetical function would say "if you've constructed a query in this object but not called save, produce an error". C++/CLI calls this RAII, and in C++/CLI there is a concept of a "destructor" when the object isn't used any more, and a "finaliser" which is called when it's finally garbage collected. Very confusingly, C# has only a so-called destructor, but this is only called by the garbage collector (it would be valid for the framework to call it earlier, as if it were partially cleaning the object immediately, but AFAIK it doesn't do anything like that). So what you would like is a C++/CLI destructor. Unfortunately, AIUI this maps onto the concept of IDisposable, which exposes a dispose() method which can be called when a C++/CLI destructor would be called, or when the C# destructor is called -- but AIUI you still have to call "dispose" manually, which defeats the point?
Refactor the interface slightly to convey the concept more accurately. Call the init function something like "prepareQuery" or "AAA" or "initRememberToCallSaveOrThisWontDoAnything". (The last is an exaggeration, but it might be necessary to make the point).
This is more of a social problem than a technical problem. The interface should make it easy to do the right thing, but programmers do have to know how to use code! Get all the programmers together. Explain simply once-and-for-all this simple fact. If necessary have them all sign a piece of paper saying they understand, and if they wilfully continue to write code which doesn't do anythign they're worse than useless to the company and will be fired.
Fiddle with the way the operators are chained, eg. have each of the intermediateClass functions assemble an aggregate intermediateclass object containing all of the parameters (you mostly do it this was already (?)) but require an init-like function of the original class to take that as an argument, rather than have them chained after it, and then you can have save and the other functions return two different class types (with essentially the same contents), and have init only accept a class of the correct type.
The fact that it's still a problem suggests that either your coworkers need a helpful reminder, or they're rather sub-par, or the interface wasn't very clear (perhaps its perfectly good, but the author didn't realise it wouldn't be clear if you only used it in passing rather than getting to know it), or you yourself have misunderstood the situation. A technical solution would be good, but you should probably think about why the problem occurred and how to communicate more clearly, probably asking someone senior's input.

After great deliberation and trial and error, it turns out that throwing an exception from the Finalize() method was not going to work for me. Apparently, you simply can't do that; the exception gets eaten up, because garbage collection operates non-deterministically. I was unable to get the software to call Dispose() automatically from the destructor either. Jack V.'s comment explains this well; here was the link he posted, for redundancy/emphasis:
The difference between a destructor and a finalizer?
Changing the syntax to use a callback was a clever way to make the behavior foolproof, but the agreed-upon syntax was fixed, and I had to work with it. Our company is all about fluent method chains. I was also a fan of the "out parameter" solution to be honest, but again, the bottom line is the method signatures simply could not change.
Helpful information about my particular problem includes the fact that my software is only ever to be run as part of a suite of unit tests - so efficiency is not a problem.
What I ended up doing was use Mono.Cecil to Reflect upon the Calling Assembly (the code calling into my software). Note that System.Reflection was insufficient for my purposes, because it cannot pinpoint method references, but I still needed(?) to use it to get the "calling assembly" itself (Mono.Cecil remains underdocumented, so it's possible I just need to get more familiar with it in order to do away with System.Reflection altogether; that remains to be seen....)
I placed the Mono.Cecil code in the Init() method, and the structure now looks something like:
public IntermediateClass<T> Init<T>()
{
ValidateUsage(Assembly.GetCallingAssembly());
return new IntermediateClass<T>();
}
void ValidateUsage(Assembly assembly)
{
// 1) Use Mono.Cecil to inspect the codebase inside the assembly
var assemblyLocation = assembly.CodeBase.Replace("file:///", "");
var monoCecilAssembly = AssemblyFactory.GetAssembly(assemblyLocation);
// 2) Retrieve the list of Instructions in the calling method
var methods = monoCecilAssembly.Modules...Types...Methods...Instructions
// (It's a little more complicated than that...
// if anybody would like more specific information on how I got this,
// let me know... I just didn't want to clutter up this post)
// 3) Those instructions refer to OpCodes and Operands....
// Defining "invalid method" as a method that calls "Init" but not "Save"
var methodCallingInit = method.Body.Instructions.Any
(instruction => instruction.OpCode.Name.Equals("callvirt")
&& instruction.Operand is IMethodReference
&& instruction.Operand.ToString.Equals(INITMETHODSIGNATURE);
var methodNotCallingSave = !method.Body.Instructions.Any
(instruction => instruction.OpCode.Name.Equals("callvirt")
&& instruction.Operand is IMethodReference
&& instruction.Operand.ToString.Equals(SAVEMETHODSIGNATURE);
var methodInvalid = methodCallingInit && methodNotCallingSave;
// Note: this is partially pseudocode;
// It doesn't 100% faithfully represent either Mono.Cecil's syntax or my own
// There are actually a lot of annoying casts involved, omitted for sanity
// 4) Obviously, if the method is invalid, throw
if (methodInvalid)
{
throw new Exception(String.Format("Bad developer! BAD! {0}", method.Name));
}
}
Trust me, the actual code is even uglier looking than my pseudocode.... :-)
But Mono.Cecil just might be my new favorite toy.
I now have a method that refuses to be run its main body unless the calling code "promises" to also call a second method afterwards. It's like a strange kind of code contract. I'm actually thinking about making this generic and reusable. Would any of you have a use for such a thing? Say, if it were an attribute?

What if you made it so Init and With don't return objects of type FluentClass? Have them return, e.g., UninitializedFluentClass which wraps a FluentClass object. Then calling .Save(0 on the UnitializedFluentClass object calls it on the wrapped FluentClass object and returns it. If they don't call Save they don't get a FluentClass object.

In Debug mode beside implementing IDisposable you can setup a timer that will throw a exception after 1 second if the resultmethod has not been called.

Use an out parameter! All the outs must be used.
Edit: I am not sure of it will help, tho...
It would break the fluent syntax.

Static Methods vs Class Instances and return values in C#

I have various classes for handling form data and querying a database. I need some advice on reducing the amount of code I write from site to site.
The following code is for handling a form posted via ajax to the server. It simply instantiates a Form class, validates the data and processes any errors:
public static string submit(Dictionary<string, string> d){
Form f = new Form("myform");
if (!f.validate(d)){
return f.errors.toJSON();
}
//process form...
}
Is there a way to reduce this down to 1 line as follows:
if (!Form.validate("myform", d)){ return Form.errors.toJSON(); }

Let's break that down into two questions.
1) Can I write the existing logic all in one statement?
The local variable has to be declared in its own statement, but the initializer doesn't have to be there. It's prefectly legal to say:
Form f;
if (!(f=new Form("myform")).validate(d))return f.errors.toJSON();
Why you would want to is beyond me; doing so is ugly, hard to debug, hard to understand, and hard to maintain. But it's perfectly legal.
2) Can I make this instance method into a static method?
Probably not directly. Suppose you had two callers validating stuff on two different threads, both calling the static Form.Validate method, and both producing errors. Now you have a race. One of them is going to win and fill in Form.Errors. And now you have two threads reporting the same set of errors, but the errors are wrong for one of them.
The better way to make this into a static method is to make the whole thing into a static method that has the desired semantics, as in plinth's answer.
Errors errors = Validator.Validate(d);
if (errors != null) return errors.toJSON();
Now the code is very clear, and the implementation of Validate is straightforward. Create a form, call the validator, either return null or the errors.
I would suggest that you don't need advice on reducing the amount of code you write. Rather, get advice on how to make the code read more like the meaning it intends to represent. Sometimes that means writing slightly more code, but that code is clear and easy to understand.

I would move all common validation logic to a superclass.
I think the main problem of your code is not that is long, but that you're repeating that in many places, either if you manage to make it a one-liner, it would not be DRY.
Take a look at the Template Method pattern, it might help here (The abstract class with the validation would be the Template and your specific 'actions' would be the subclasses).

Of course you could write this:
public static string FormValidate(Dictionary<string, string> d)
{
Form f = new Form("myform");
if (!f.validate(d))
return f.errors.ToJSON();
return null;
}
then your submit can be:
public static string submit(Dictionary<string, string> d)
{
if ((string errs = FormValidate(d))!= null) { return errs; }
// process form
}
That cuts down your code and doesn't hurt readability much at all.

If you really, really wanted to, you could store the error text in a thread-local property.
Does C# have a "ThreadLocal" analog (for data members) to the "ThreadStatic" attribute?

Isn't there a point where encapsulation gets ridiculous?

For my software development programming class we were supposed to make a "Feed Manager" type program for RSS feeds. Here is how I handled the implementation of FeedItems.
Nice and simple:
struct FeedItem {
string title;
string description;
string url;
}
I got marked down for that, the "correct" example answer is as follows:
class FeedItem
{
public:
FeedItem(string title, string description, string url);
inline string getTitle() const { return this->title; }
inline string getDescription() const { return this->description; }
inline string getURL() const { return this->url; }
inline void setTitle(string title) { this->title = title; }
inline void setDescription(string description){ this->description = description; }
inline void setURL(string url) { this->url = url; }
private:
string title;
string description;
string url;
};
Now to me, this seems stupid. I honestly can't believe I got marked down, when this does the exact same thing that mine does with a lot more overhead.
It reminds me of how in C# people always do this:
public class Example
{
private int _myint;
public int MyInt
{
get
{
return this._myint;
}
set
{
this._myint = value;
}
}
}
I mean I GET why they do it, maybe later on they want to validate the data in the setter or increment it in the getter. But why don't you people just do THIS UNTIL that situation arises?
public class Example
{
public int MyInt;
}
Sorry this is kind of a rant and not really a question, but the redundancy is maddening to me. Why are getters and setters so loved, when they are unneeded?

It's an issue of "best practice" and style.
You don't ever want to expose your data members directly. You always want to be able to control how they are accessed. I agree, in this instance, it seems a bit ridiculous, but it is intended to teach you that style so you get used to it.
It helps to define a consistent interface for classes. You always know how to get to something --> calling its get method.
Then there's also the reusability issue. Say, down the road, you need to change what happens when somebody accesses a data member. You can do that without forcing clients to recompile code. You can simply change the method in the class and guarantee that the new logic is utilized.

Here's a nice long SO discussion on the subject: Why use getters and setters.
The question you want to ask yourself is "What's going to happen 3 months from now when you realize that FeedItem.url does need to be validated but it's already referenced directly from 287 other classes?"

The main reason to do this before its needed is for versioning.
Fields behave differently than properties, especially when using them as an lvalue (where it's often not allowed, especially in C#). Also, if you need to, later, add property get/set routines, you'll break your API - users of your class will need to rewrite their code to use the new version.
It's much safer to do this up front.
C# 3, btw, makes this easier:
public class Example
{
public int MyInt { get; set; }
}

I absolutely agree with you. But in life you should probably do The Right Thing: in school, it's to get good marks. In your workplace it's to fulfill specs. If you want to be stubborn, then that's fine, but do explain yourself -- cover your bases in comments to minimize the damage you might get.
In your particular example above I can see you might want to validate, say, the URL. Maybe you'd even want to sanitize the title and the description, but either way I think this is the sort of thing you can tell early on in the class design. State your intentions and your rationale in comments. If you don't need validation then you don't need a getter and setter, you're absolutely right.
Simplicity pays, it's a valuable feature. Never do anything religiously.

If something's a simple struct, then yes it's ridiculous because it's just DATA.
This is really just a throwback to the beginning of OOP where people still didn't get the idea of classes at all. There's no reason to have hundreds of get and set methods just in case you might change getId() to be an remote call to the hubble telescope some day.
You really want that functionality at the TOP level, at the bottom it's worthless. IE you would have a complex method that was sent a pure virtual class to work on, guaranteeing it can still work no matter what happens below. Just placing it randomly in every struct is a joke, and it should never be done for a POD.

Maybe both options are a bit wrong, because neither version of the class has any behaviour. It's hard to comment further without more context.
See http://www.pragprog.com/articles/tell-dont-ask
Now lets imagine that your FeedItem class has become wonderfully popular and is being used by projects all over the place. You decide you need (as other answers have suggested) validate the URL that has been provided.
Happy days, you have written a setter for the URL. You edit this, validate the URL and throw an exception if it is invalid. You release your new version of the class and everyone one using it is happy. (Let's ignored checked vs unchecked exceptions to keep this on-track).
Except, then you get a call from an angry developer. They were reading a list of feeditems from a file when their application starts up. And now, if someone makes a little mistake in the configuration file your new exception is thrown and the whole system doesn't start up, just because one frigging feed item was wrong!
You may have kept the method signature the same, but you have changed the semantics of the interface and so it breaks dependant code. Now, you can either take the high-ground and tell them to re-write their program right or you humbly add setURLAndValidate.

Keep in mind that coding "best practices" are often made obsolete by advances in programming languages.
For example, in C# the getter/setter concept has been baked into the language in the form of properties. C# 3.0 made this easier with the introduction of automatic properties, where the compiler automatically generates the getter/setter for you. C# 3.0 also introduced object initializers, which means that in most cases you no longer need to declare constructors which simply initialize properties.
So the canonical C# way to do what you're doing would look like this:
class FeedItem
{
public string Title { get; set; } // automatic properties
public string Description { get; set; }
public string Url { get; set; }
};
And the usage would look like this (using object initializer):
FeedItem fi = new FeedItem() { Title = "Some Title", Description = "Some Description", Url = "Some Url" };
The point is that you should try and learn what the best practice or canonical way of doing things are for the particular language you are using, and not simply copy old habits which no longer make sense.

As a C++ developer I make my members always private simply to be consistent. So I always know that I need to type p.x(), and not p.x.
Also, I usually avoid implementing setter methods. Instead of changing an object I create a new one:
p = Point(p.x(), p.y() + 1);
This preserves encapsulation as well.

There absolutely is a point where encapsulation becomes ridiculous.
The more abstraction that is introduced into code the greater your up-front education, learning-curve cost will be.
Everyone who knows C can debug a horribly written 1000 line function that uses just the basic language C standard library. Not everyone can debug the framework you've invented. Every introduced level encapsulation/abstraction must be weighed against the cost. That's not to say its not worth it, but as always you have to find the optimal balance for your situation.

One of the problems that the software industry faces is the problem of reusable code. Its a big problem. In the hardware world, hardware components are designed once, then the design is reused later when you buy the components and put them together to make new things.
In the software world every time we need a component we design it again and again. Its very wasteful.
Encapsulation was proposed as a technique for ensuring that modules that are created are reusable. That is, there is a clearly defined interface that abstracts the details of the module and make it easier to use that module later. The interface also prevents misuse of the object.
The simple classes that you build in class do not adequately illustrate the need for the well defined interface. Saying "But why don't you people just do THIS UNTIL that situation arises?" will not work in real life. What you are learning in you software engineering course is to engineer software that other programmers will be able to use. Consider that the creators of libraries such as provided by the .net framework and the Java API absolutely require this discipline. If they decided that encapsulation was too much trouble these environments would be almost impossible to work with.
Following these guidelines will result in high quality code in the future. Code that adds value to the field because more than just yourself will benefit from it.
One last point, encapsulation also makes it possible to adequately test a module and be resonably sure that it works. Without encapsulation, testing and verification of your code would be that much more difficult.

Getters/Setters are, of course, good practice but they are tedious to write and, even worse, to read.
How many times have we read a class with half a dozen member variables and accompanying getters/setters, each with the full hog #param/#return HTML encoded, famously useless comment like 'get the value of X', 'set the value of X', 'get the value of Y', 'set the value of Y', 'get the value of Z', 'set the value of Zzzzzzzzzzzzz. thump!

This is a very common question: "But why don't you people just do THIS UNTIL that situation arises?".
The reason is simple: usually it is much cheaper not to fix/retest/redeploy it later, but to do it right the first time.
Old estimates say that maintenance costs are 80%, and much of that maintenance is exactly what you are suggesting: doing the right thing only after someone had a problem. Doing it right the first time allows us to concentrate on more interesting things and to be more productive.
Sloppy coding is usually very unprofitable - your customers are unhappy because the product is unreliable and they are not productive when the are using it. Developers are not happy either - they spend 80% of time doing patches, which is boring. Eventually you can end up losing both customers and good developers.

I agree with you, but it's important to survive the system. While in school, pretend to agree. In other words, being marked down is detrimental to you and it is not worth it to be marked down for your principles, opinions, or values.
Also, while working on a team or at an employer, pretend to agree. Later, start your own business and do it your way. While you try the ways of others, be calmly open-minded toward them -- you may find that these experiences re-shape your views.
Encapsulation is theoretically useful in case the internal implementation ever changes. For example, if the per-object URL became a calculated result rather than a stored value, then the getUrl() encapsulation would continue to work. But I suspect you already have heard this side of it.

C#: Why can't we have inner methods / local functions?

Very often it happens that I have private methods which become very big and contain repeating tasks but these tasks are so specific that it doesn't make sense to make them available to any other code part.
So it would be really great to be able to create 'inner methods' in this case.
Is there any technical (or even philosophical?) limitation that prevents C# from giving us this? Or did I miss something?
Update from 2016: This is coming and it's called a 'local function'. See marked answer.

Well, we can have "anonymous methods" defined inside a function (I don't suggest using them to organize a large method):
void test() {
Action t = () => Console.WriteLine("hello world"); // C# 3.0+
// Action t = delegate { Console.WriteLine("hello world"); }; // C# 2.0+
t();
}

If something is long and complicated than usually its good practise to refactor it to a separate class (either normal or static - depending on context) - there you can have private methods which will be specific for this functionality only.

I know a lot of people dont like regions but this is a case where they could prove useful by grouping your specific methods into a region.

Could you give a more concrete example? After reading your post I have the following impression, which is of course only a guess, due to limited informations:
Private methods are not available outside your class, so they are hidden from any other code anyway.
If you want to hide private methods from other code in the same class, your class might be to big and might violate the single responsibility rule.
Have a look at anonymous delegates an lambda expressions. It's not exactly what you asked for, but they might solve most of your problems.
Achim

If your method becomes too big, consider putting it in a separate class, or to create private helper methods. Generally I create a new method whenever I would normally have written a comment.

The better solution is to refactor this method to separate class. Create instance of this class as private field in your initial class. Make the big method public and refactor big method into several private methods, so it will be much clear what it does.

Seems like we're going to get exactly what I wanted with Local Functions in C# 7 / Visual Studio 15:
https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/2930
private int SomeMethodExposedToObjectMembers(int input)
{
int InnerMethod(bool b)
{
// TODO: Change return based on parameter b
return 0;
}
var calculation = 0;
// TODO: Some calculations based on input, store result in calculation
if (calculation > 0) return InnerMethod(true);
return InnerMethod(false);
}
Too bad I had to wait more than 7 years for this :-)
See also other answers for earlier versions of C#.