We Keep Coding

static constructor not invoked

I'm trying to use the AutoMapper for model-viewmodel mapping and wanted to have the mapping configuration executed once in the static constructor of the type. The static constructor of a type is not invoked when Mapper.Map (AutoMapper) is invoked with that type.
My understanding is that the Mapper.Map would try to access the type, its members through reflection and on the first attempt of the usage the static constructor would be called. This is something basic but challenges my understanding. The code snippet is provided.
class SampleViewModel
{
static SampleViewModel()
{
Mapper.Initialize(cfg => cfg.CreateMap<Sample, SampleViewModel>().ReverseMap());
}
public SampleViewModel()
{
}
public int PropertyA { get; set; }
public int PropertyB { get; set; }
}
Sample s = new Sample { PropertyA = 10, PropertyB = 20 };
var obj = Mapper.Map<SampleViewModel>(s); // fails
Isn't the static constructor called (if provided) when the type and members are accessed through reflection for the first time?

You're not accessing any members of SampleViewModel - it's not enough to just reference the type itself.
Mapper.Map only accesses its own internal "dictionary" of mappings - before it could ever get to a point where it deals with a SampleViewModel, it fails. The static constructor never runs, so it cannot add "itself" into the Mapper.
Now, if this didn't involve reflection, you would be right that the static constructor would be called - simply because it would happen during the compilation of the method containing the access, e.g.:
var obj = Mapper.Map<SampleViewModel>(s);
Console.WriteLine(obj.SomeField);
In this case, since the method is referencing a field on SampleViewModel, the static constructor for SampleViewModel will be invoked during JIT compilation of the containing method, and as such, the Mapper.Map<SampleViewModel>(s) line will execute correctly, since the mapping is now present. Needless to say this is not the proper solution to your problem. It would just make the code absolutely horrible to maintain :)
DISCLAIMER: Even though this might fix the problem right now, it depends on a non-contractual behaviour in the current implementation of MS.NET on Windows. The contract specifies that the type initializer is invoked before any access to a member of the type, but that still means that a valid implementation of CIL might only call the type initializer after Mapper.Map, as long as it happens before obj.SomeField - and even then, it might be that obj.SomeField gets optimized away if the compiler can ensure it is safe to do so. The only real way to enforce the call of the type initializer is to call RuntimeHelpers.RunClassConstructor, but by that point, you could just as well add a static Init method or something.
The real problem is that you shouldn't really initialize stuff like this in a static constructor in the first place. Mappings should be set in some kind of deterministic initialization process, say, an explicitly invoked InitMappings method. Otherwise you're opening yourself to a huge can of Heisenbugs, not to mention subtle changes in the CLR breaking your whole application for no apparent reason.
Static constructors just aren't meant for "registration", just the initialization of the type itself - anything else is an abuse, and will cause you (or the .NET compatibility team) trouble.

Static constructors run at an implementation-defined time just before the first instance of that class is created, or before any static member of that type is accessed. See When is a static constructor called in C#?.
The mapper tries to find a mapping before doing its work of instantiating the class to map into, and thus can't find a mapping, because the class was never instantiated before that moment.
Just move your mapping initialization code into a AutoMapperBootstrap.cs file or something, and call that in your application initialization.

".. The static constructor of a type is not invoked when Mapper.Map (AutoMapper) is invoked with that type..."
I tested your scenario and observed that the static constructor is indeed being called before the first instance of the object is created.
C# Programming Guide: Static Constructors
I also went ahead and modified the sample code by adding a GetMapper function which returns an IMapper. This might seem like an overkill for day-to-day simple mapping, but if we need an object to give us its mapper, perhaps we can get it from a static method.
One can easily move the responsibility of creating the Mapper object to a factory or a DI container which, for the sake of simplicity, I did not include here.
Worth noting that in this example, the static fields are initialized before the static constructor which is called right after the static read-only fields are initialized.
Uses AutoMapper v12.0 and .Net Core 3.1.
public class SimpleObjectToMap
{
private static readonly MapperConfiguration _simpleObjMapperConfig = new MapperConfiguration(
config => config.CreateMap<SimpleObjectToMap, ObjectToBeMappedTo>());
private static readonly IMapper _mapper = new Mapper(_simpleObjMapperConfig);
private int _propertyA;
public int PropertyA
{
get
{
Console.WriteLine("ObjectToMap.PropertyA.Get");
return _propertyA;
}
set { _propertyA = value; }
}
static SimpleObjectToMap()
{
Console.WriteLine("*** ObjectToMap static ctor called ***");
}
public static IMapper GetMapper()
{
return _mapper;
}
}
public class ObjectToBeMappedTo
{
static ObjectToBeMappedTo()
{
Console.WriteLine("*** ObjectToBeMappedTo static ctor called ***");
}
private int _propertyA;
public int PropertyA
{
get { return _propertyA; }
set
{
Console.WriteLine("ObjectToBeMappedTo.PropertyA.Set");
_propertyA = value;
}
}
}
public class TestObjectMappingWithStaticCtor
{
public void TestWithStaticCtor()
{
SimpleObjectToMap objToMap = new SimpleObjectToMap { PropertyA = 27 };
var mappedObject = SimpleObjectToMap.GetMapper().Map<ObjectToBeMappedTo>(objToMap);
}
}

The call is ambiguous between the following methods or properties (one static and one non-static)

Why am I not allowed to have a static and non-static methods with the same signature?
Let's say I have a class like this
public class TestClass
{
public object thing { get; set; }
public TestClass()
{
}
public TestClass(object thing)
{
this.thing = thing;
}
public static TestClass ConvertTestClass(object thing)
{
return new TestClass(thing);
}
public TestClass ConvertTestClass(object thing)
{
this.thing = thing;
return this;
}
}
and I try to use it like this
public class SomeOtherClass
{
public SomeOtherClass()
{
TestClass tc = TestClass.ConvertTestClass(new object());
TestClass tc2 = new TestClass();
tc2.ConvertTestClass(new object());
}
}
I get the following errors on TestClass.ConvertTestClass(new object());
The call is ambiguous between the following methods or properties: 'TestClass.ConvertTestClass(object)' and 'TestClass.ConvertTestClass(object)'
and these errors on tc2.ConvertTestClass(new object());
The call is ambiguous between the following methods or properties: 'TestClass.ConvertTestClass(object)' and 'TestClass.ConvertTestClass(object)'
Member 'TestClass.ConvertTestClass(object)' cannot be accessed with an instance reference; qualify it with a type name instead
Can the compiler really not tell the difference between the static and non static versions of that method or am I missing something here?
I am not using ReSharper (which seemed to be the root of a similar problem in other questions).

Its giving you an error, so its a safe bet that the compiler can't, or won't, discern between the two methods.
Its probably a bad idea to do this kind of overload anyways, as it's unclear which method you are intending to invoke, but if that isn't enough, the C# 5 specification defines a method signature like this (Section 3.6):
The signature of a method consists of the name of the method, the
number of type parameters and the type and kind (value, reference, or
output) of each of its formal parameters, considered in the order left
to right. For these purposes, any type parameter of the method that
occurs in the type of a formal parameter is identified not by its
name, but by its ordinal position in the type argument list of the
method. The signature of a method specifically does not include the
return type, the params modifier that may be specified for the
right-most parameter, nor the optional type parameter constraints.
It doesn't explicitly mention static, but it also doesn't include it as part of the definition of a "signature". Thus, its fair to assume that by the spec, a method overload cannot differ only in the fact that it is static or instanced.

I'd write this as a comment however it's easier to make this point in a proper editor.
I think you're only thinking about the logic of calling methods on the class externally i.e. from another class. Within the class methods with the same signature only differing by static doesn't make any sense. e.g you have a class with two methods as follows
public class MyClass
{
public static void HellowWorld()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello World!");
}
public void HellowWorld()
{
Console.WriteLine("Howdy World!");
}
public void Greet()
{
HellowWorld();
}
}
When compiling you'll see as long as one of the methods is commented out it compiles without errors. You should be able to alternate the commented out method and compile the class succesfully. Indicating there's no way of differentiating which method should be called within the scope of the class.
You could argue that within the class you should be forced to use the same syntax to call a static method as you do externally e.g.
MyClass.HelloWorld();
However, this would defy scoping logic used throughout C#, why should you need to specify the class name within a class? I think such a change would also create ambiguity where the was none, and to do so now would of course break a lot of code out there.
I think the compiler logic as it is makes perfect sense.

Raising warnings based on class attributes

Here is some code:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyClass class1 = new MyClass();
MyOtherClass class2 = new MyOtherClass();
Helper.UseAttribute<MyClass>(class1);
//Raise a warning to tell the developer that they cannot use this class
//as there is no property with the specified attribute.
Helper.UseAttribute<MyOtherClass>(class2);
}
}
public class MyAttribute : System.Attribute { }
class MyClass
{
[MyAttribute]
public string SomethingAwesome { get; set; }
}
class MyOtherClass
{
public string SomethingElseWhichIsAlsoPrettyAwesome { get; set; }
}
static class Helper
{
public static void UseAttribute<T>(T sender)
{
//Do something with the property that has MyAttribute
//If there isn't a property with this attribute, then raise
//a warning.
}
}
In an ideal scenario, I want to restrict a developer from passing classes to a method which do not have a certain attribute.
I am aware that I can use an interface, or a base class of some description, however the question really is whether something like the example above is possible.

If you're happy to either use the VS 2015 preview or wait until VS 2015 is out, you can use Roslyn for this.
You'd write a DiagnosticAnalyzer class, probably registering a syntax node analyzer to specifically look for invocations of Helper.UseAttribute<T>. When you find such a use, you'd find the symbol for T and check whether there are any properties with the MyAttribute attribute applied to it, and raise a warning if not. This warning will be shown in Visual Studio itself, as well as applying on CI builds (assuming you register the analyzer assembly appropriately).
It takes a while to get started with the Roslyn diagnostic APIs, but once you're used to it, it's really powerful.
Of course, another option is to throw an exception at execution time, and rely on there being unit tests around all callers so that you'd be able to catch it when they fail :) You should probably do that as well as adding compile-time support via Roslyn.

Best you can do right now is to handle it on runtime (and throw an exception or something). On design-/compiletime I think there is no possibility yet.
public static void UseAttribute<T>(T sender)
{
var hasAttribute = typeof(T).GetProperties().Any(prop => Attribute.IsDefined(prop, typeof(MyAttribute)));
if (!hasAttribute)
throw new Exception("Does not contain attribute");
}

Method overriding or interception

In my project, I have many DLL assemblies referenced. One of those DLL's contains the bool method that I want to change. I do not have the original source for the DLL and using a Reflector to decompile a project seems impractical. All I want to do is intercept or override this method or method call so that I can change it's return value to match my own method outside of said DLL.
Any such way to do this? Thanks!
Edit:
Here is an example:
public virtual bool isOwner()
{
return false;
}
Essentially, I just want to change getOwner to return true;

If the class is public and the method is marked as virtual, then you can simply override it with this syntax:
public MyClass : TheClass
{
public override ReturnType MethodName(Arguments)
{
//class the base class implementation if needed
//base.MethodName(Arguments)
//do your own stuff and return whatever is needed
}
}
Hope this helps
EDIT: A word of caution though, this won't replace the calling code within the DLL. It will only work if you instantiate the derived class yourself and call it from your code.

Is there a general way to do what you want, built into .NET?
Yes, and no.
If you want every usage of class X' method Y to be replaced by some other code, then no, there is nothing built into .NET class system or compiler that will do this.
If you can inherit from class X, overriding method Y, and then ensure that all places where class X is used, your new class is used instead, then yes, that is the proper way to do this.
This is easily done:
public class YourFixedClass : TheProblematicClass
{
public override string YourProblematicMethod()
{
// probably call the problematic method through base.
// and fix the return value, or fix the parameters
// or don't call it at all, re-doing whatever it does
}
}
Or, if you can make a new class that implements all the same interfaces, wrapping (delegating) all the methods and properties of the original (problematic) class, then that might be doable, but this requires all actual usage of the class to go through the interfaces.
As this:
public class Wrapper : IInterface1, IInterface2
{
private readonly YourProblematicClass _C;
public Wrapper(YourProblematicClass c)
{
_C = c;
}
public string YourProblematicMetho()
{
// probably call the problematic method through _C.
// and fix the return value, or fix the parameters
// or don't call it at all, re-doing whatever it does
}
}
If, on the other hand, you don't have control of where all the code is that calls the class/method, then no, you can't do any of this.
So what else is there? Well, there is always the debugger interfaces. You can make a program that is somehow the debugger of itself, patching in the right code upon demand, but this is likely to be extraordinary difficult to get right.
In short, no, there is no way to do what you want. You need to find a different way to accomplish this.
Have you thought about changing the original assembly in the first place? I understand that you don't have the source code for it, but is that because:
You lost it
You didn't make it
In point 1, I would really work towards recreating the source code, either through a decompiler or similar, and get a new project going to fix that.
In point 2, have you thought about contacting the people that made it and asking them for help?

Uhm Ok you can do something like this:
public class MyNameClass : MyDllname.MyClassName
{
public bool isOwner()
{
return !base.isOwner();
}
}
Then you have override the method and you can use all the other methods in the DLL simply using an istance(if there aren't static) of the MyNameClass

You can use "new" modifier.
See example on http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/435f1dw2.aspx
Or this:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(new ClassA().IsEvenDayToday()); // Result: true
Console.WriteLine(new ClassB().IsEvenDayToday()); // Result: false
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
public class ClassA : ClassB
{
public new bool IsEvenDayToday()
{
return DateTime.Now.Day % 2 == 0;
}
}
public class ClassB
{
public bool IsEvenDayToday()
{
return DateTime.Now.Day % 2 != 0;
}
}

...is inaccessible due to its protection level c#/asp.net

I have an application with a separate class, that i'm instantiating in the code behind-file (in Page_Load). In the class there's some methods that I want to be able to call from the code behind-file, but by some reason it doesn't work (SecretNumber.MakeGuess(int) is inaccessible due to it's protection level). The class as well as the methods are public so what can be the reason?
// Default.asx.cs
...
protected void btnCheckNr_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (!Page.IsValid){
return;
}
else{
var guessedNr = int.Parse(inputBox.Text);
var result = SecretNumber.MakeGuess(guessedNr); <- inaccessible due to...
}
}
// SecretNumber.cs
public class SecretNumber {
enum Outcome {
Indefinite,
Low,
High,
Correct,
NoMoreGuesses,
PreviousGuess
};
// Other code goes here...
public Outcome MakeGuess(int guess) {
// Other code here
}
}

It is because your Outcome enumeration is private. Also in the code you have, MakeGuess needs to be marked as static to be used the way you have it written.

You're calling the method as though it is static, yet it is not a static method. How did your code even compile??
To clarify, that is not the cause of accessibility issue and others have posted the solution for that. But the aforementioned way you call the method is also a glaring problem (unless you just put a typo by not showing that is in fact static when posting your code).

Outcome is needed to be declared public and I can't tell if you've had the class initialized in which case it either would need to be or declared static.

You have to public Static Class SecretNumber instead of public Class SecretNumber