We Keep Coding

Solution for CA2227 or better approach?

I'm only using Code Analysis for cleaning, organizing and ensuring these changes are globally performed for all instances of a particular warning. I'm down to the final, and it's CA2227.
CA2227 Collection properties should be read only Change '' to be
read-only by removing the property setter.
Note this is for mapping of EDI documents. These classes are to represent a whole or part of an EDI document.
public class PO1Loop
{
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO1 PO1 { get; set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID1> PIDRepeat1 { get; set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID2> PIDRepeat2 { get; set; }
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO4 PO4 { get; set; }
/* Max Use: 8 */
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.ACK> ACKRepeat { get; set; }
}
You can see all of the Collection properties will give me this warning, and there are hundreds of them. When using the above class I instantiate it without any data. Then externally I add the data and set each individual variable through its public accessor. I do not instantiate this class with all the data prepared and passed using a constructor method (IMO for the size these can reach it can easily wreak havoc on the eyes). When complete and all properties are assigned the class as a whole is then used to generate that part of a document it represents.
My question is, for the usage described above, what would be a better approach for setting this up correctly? Do I keep the public accessors and suppress this warning entirely, or is there a entirely different solution that would work?

Here's what MSDN says about the error, and also how you can avoid it.
Here's my take on the issue.
Consider, the following class:
class BigDataClass
{
public List<string> Data { get; set; }
}
This class will throw that exact same issue. Why? Because Collections do not need a setter. Now, we can do anything with that object: assign Data to an arbitrary List<string>, add elements to Data, remove elements from Data, etc. If we remove the setter, we only lose the ability to directly assign to that property.
Consider the following code:
class BigDataClass
{
private List<string> data = new List<string>();
public List<string> Data { get { return data; } } // note, we removed the setter
}
var bigData = new BigDataClass();
bigData.Data.Add("Some String");
This code is perfectly valid and in fact the recommended way to do things. Why? Because the List<string> is a reference to a memory location, that contains the remainder of the data.
Now, the only thing you cannot now do with this, is directly set the Data property. I.e. the following is invalid:
var bigData = new BigDataClass();
bigData.Data = new List<string>();
This is not necessarily a bad thing. You'll notice that on many .NET types this model is used. It's the basics of immutability. You usually do not want direct access to the mutability of Collections, as this can cause some accidental behavior that has strange issues. This is why Microsoft recommends you omit setters.
Example:
var bigData = new BigDataClass();
bigData.Data.Add("Some String");
var l2 = new List<string>();
l2.Add("String 1");
l2.Add("String 2");
bigData.Data = l2;
Console.WriteLine(bigData.Data[0]);
We might be expecting Some String, but we'll get String 1. This also means that you cannot reliably attach events to the Collection in question, so you cannot reliably determine if new values are added or values are removed.
A writable collection property allows a user to replace the collection with a completely different collection.
Essentially, if you only ever need to run the constructor, or assignment, once, then omit the set modifier. You won't need it, direct assignment of collections is against best-practices.
Now, I'm not saying never use a setter on a Collection, sometimes you may need one, but in general you should not use them.
You can always use .AddRange, .Clone, etc. on the Collections, you only lose the ability of direct assignment.
Serialization
Lastly, what do we do if we wish to Serialize or Deserialize a class that contains our Collection without a set? Well, there is always more than one way to do it, the simplest (in my opinion) is to create a property that represents the serialized collection.
Take our BigDataClass for example. If we wished to Serialize, and then Deserialize this class with the following code, the Data property would have no elements.
JavaScriptSerializer jss = new JavaScriptSerializer();
BigDataClass bdc = new BigDataClass();
bdc.Data.Add("Test String");
string serd = jss.Serialize(bdc);
Console.WriteLine(serd);
BigDataClass bdc2 = jss.Deserialize<BigDataClass>(serd);
So, to fix this, we can simply modify our BigDataClass a bit to make it use a new string property for Serialization purposes.
public class BigDataClass
{
private List<string> data = new List<string>();
[ScriptIgnore]
public List<string> Data { get { return data; } } // note, we removed the setter
public string SerializedData { get { JavaScriptSerializer jss = new JavaScriptSerializer(); return jss.Serialize(data); } set { JavaScriptSerializer jss = new JavaScriptSerializer(); data = jss.Deserialize<List<string>>(value); } }
}
Another option is always the DataContractSerializer (which is really a better option, in general.) You can find information about it on this StackOverflow question.

With current VS2019 we can simply do this:
public List<string> Data { get; } = new List<string>();
This satisfies CA2227 and can be serialized/deserialized.
The deserialization works because List<> has an "Add" method, and the serializer knows how to handle a read-only collection property with an Add method (the property is read-only but not the elements) (I use Json.Net, other serializers may behave differently).
Edit:
As pointed out it should be "=" and not "=>" (compiler will prevent you using "=>"). If we used "public List Data => new List();" then it would create a new list every time the property was accessed which is not what we want either.
Edit:
Note that this will NOT work if the type of the property is an interface, such as IList
Edit:
I think the handling of interfaces is determined by the serializer used. The following works perfectly. I'm sure all common serializers know how to handle ICollection. And if you have some custom interface that does not implement ICollection then you should be able to configure the serializer to handle it, but in that case CA2227 probably won't be triggered making it irrelevant here. (As it is a read-only property you have to assign a concrete value within the class so it should always be serializing and de-serializing a non-null value)
public class CA2227TestClass
{
public IList Data { get; } = new List<string>();
}
[TestMethod]
public void CA2227_Serialization()
{
var test = new CA2227TestClass()
{
Data = { "One", "Two", "Three" }
};
var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(test);
Assert.AreEqual("{\"Data\":[\"One\",\"Two\",\"Three\"]}", json);
var jsonObject = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject(json, typeof(CA2227TestClass)) as CA2227TestClass;
Assert.IsNotNull(jsonObject);
Assert.AreEqual(3, jsonObject.Data.Count);
Assert.AreEqual("One", jsonObject.Data[0]);
Assert.AreEqual("Two", jsonObject.Data[1]);
Assert.AreEqual("Three", jsonObject.Data[2]);
Assert.AreEqual(typeof(List<string>), jsonObject.Data.GetType());
}

💡 Alternative Solution 💡
In my situation, making the property read-only was not viable because the whole list (as a reference) could change to a new list.
I was able to resolve this warning by changing the properties' setter scope to be internal.
public List<Batch> Batches
{
get { return _Batches; }
internal set { _Batches = value; OnPropertyChanged(nameof(Batches)); }
}
Note one could also use private set...
The hint's (achilleas heal) of this warning seems really pointed to libraries for the documentation says (Bolding mine):
An externally visible writable property is a type that implements
System.Collections.ICollection.
For me it was, "Ok, I won't make it viewable externally...." and internal was fine for the app.

Thanks to #Matthew, #CraigW and #EBrown for helping me understanding the solution for this warning.
public class PO1Loop
{
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO1 PO1 { get; set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID1> PIDRepeat1 { get; private set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID2> PIDRepeat2 { get; private set; }
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO4 PO4 { get; set; }
/* Max Use: 8 */
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.ACK> ACKRepeat { get; private set; }
public PO1Loop()
{
PIDRepeat1 = new Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID1>();
PIDRepeat2 = new Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID2>();
ACKRepeat = new Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.ACK>();
}
}
When wanting to assign data to the collection types use AddRange, Clear or any other variation of method for modifying a collection.

Only while binding DTO, you need to suppress warnings.
otherwise a custom ModelBinder is required custom ModelBinder to bind collections.
quoting the rule documentation:
When to suppress warnings
You can suppress the warning if the property is part of a Data Transfer Object (DTO) class.
Otherwise, do not suppress warnings from this rule.
https://learn.microsoft.com/pt-br/visualstudio/code-quality/ca2227?view=vs-2019

DTOs often require serialization and deserialization. Thus, they are required to be mutable.
Having to create an alternate backing property is a pain.
Simply change the property type from List<string> to IReadOnlyList<string> then this works as expected without CA2227.
The collection is set via the property but you can also cast to List<string> if you wish to append or delete items.
class Holder
{
public IReadOnlyList<string> Col { get; set; } = new List<string>();
}
var list = new List<string> { "One", "Two" };
var holder = new Holder() { Col = list } ;
var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(holder);
// output json {"Col":["One","Two"]}
var deserializedHolder = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Holder>(json);

I had to fix some of the CA2227 violations, so i had to add the "readonly" keyword to the collection field and then of course, had to remove the setter property. Some code that have used the setter, just created a new collection object which initially was empty. This code sure did not compile so i had to add a SetXxx() method in order to realize the missing setter's functionality. I did it like this:
public void SetXxx(List<string> list)
{
this.theList.Clear();
this.theList.AddRange(list);
}
The code of callers using the setter has been replaced with a call to the method SetXxx().
Instead of creating a complete new list, the existing list now will be cleared and filled with new items from another list, passed in as a parameter. The original list, due to the fact it is readonly and created only once, will always remain.
I believe this is also a good way to avoid that the garbagae collector has to delete old objects that got out of scope and second, to create new collection objects although there is already one.

As an addition to Der Kommissar's excellent answer.
Starting with .NET 5 (C# 9.0) there are init-only properties. These properties are only settable under specific circumstances, see here for reference.
The following example should not raise a warning CA2227, yet still allow for the collection being set during object initialization.
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace BookStore
{
public class BookModel
{
public ICollection<string> Chapters { get; init; }
}
}
Note that the current version of the .NET SDK still raises a warning when using the built-in analyzer (not the NuGet package). This is a known bug and should be fixed in the future.

To cover all the possible scenarios to resolve CA2227 error:
This covers the Entity relationship mapping when we use Entity Framework.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ParentClass obj = new ParentClass();
obj.ChildDetails.Clear();
obj.ChildDetails.AddRange();
obj.LstNames.Clear();
obj.LstNames.AddRange();
}
}
public class ChildClass
{ }
public class ParentClass
{
private readonly ICollection<ChildClass> _ChildClass;
public ParentClass()
{
_ChildClass = new HashSet<ChildClass>();
}
public virtual ICollection<ChildClass> ChildDetails => _ChildClass;
public IList<string> LstNames => new List<string>();
}

XMLDeserialize, "There was an error reflecting type" [duplicate]

Using C# .NET 2.0, I have a composite data class that does have the [Serializable] attribute on it. I am creating an XMLSerializer class and passing that into the constructor:
XmlSerializer serializer = new XmlSerializer(typeof(DataClass));
I am getting an exception saying:
There was an error reflecting type.
Inside the data class there is another composite object. Does this also need to have the [Serializable] attribute, or by having it on the top object, does it recursively apply it to all objects inside?

Look at the inner exception that you are getting. It will tell you which field/property it is having trouble serializing.
You can exclude fields/properties from xml serialization by decorating them with the [XmlIgnore] attribute.
XmlSerializer does not use the [Serializable] attribute, so I doubt that is the problem.

Remember that serialized classes must have default (i.e. parameterless) constructors. If you have no constructor at all, that's fine; but if you have a constructor with a parameter, you'll need to add the default one too.

I had a similar problem, and it turned out that the serializer could not distinguish between 2 classes I had with the same name (one was a subclass of the other). The inner exception looked like this:
'Types BaseNamespace.Class1' and 'BaseNamespace.SubNamespace.Class1' both use the XML type name, 'Class1', from namespace ''. Use XML attributes to specify a unique XML name and/or namespace for the type.
Where BaseNamespace.SubNamespace.Class1 is a subclass of BaseNamespace.Class1.
What I needed to do was add an attribute to one of the classes (I added to the base class):
[XmlType("BaseNamespace.Class1")]
Note: If you have more layers of classes you need to add an attribute to them as well.

Most common reasons by me:
- the object being serialized has no parameterless constructor
- the object contains Dictionary
- the object has some public Interface members

Also be aware that XmlSerializer cannot serialize abstract properties.. See my question here (which I have added the solution code to)..
XML Serialization and Inherited Types

All the objects in the serialization graph have to be serializable.
Since XMLSerializer is a blackbox, check these links if you want to debug further into the serialization process..
Changing where XmlSerializer Outputs Temporary Assemblies
HOW TO: Debug into a .NET XmlSerializer Generated Assembly

If you need to handle specific attributes (i.e. Dictionary, or any class), you can implement the IXmlSerialiable interface, which will allow you more freedom at the cost of more verbose coding.
public class NetService : IXmlSerializable
{
#region Data
public string Identifier = String.Empty;
public string Name = String.Empty;
public IPAddress Address = IPAddress.None;
public int Port = 7777;
#endregion
#region IXmlSerializable Implementation
public XmlSchema GetSchema() { return (null); }
public void ReadXml(XmlReader reader)
{
// Attributes
Identifier = reader[XML_IDENTIFIER];
if (Int32.TryParse(reader[XML_NETWORK_PORT], out Port) == false)
throw new XmlException("unable to parse the element " + typeof(NetService).Name + " (badly formatted parameter " + XML_NETWORK_PORT);
if (IPAddress.TryParse(reader[XML_NETWORK_ADDR], out Address) == false)
throw new XmlException("unable to parse the element " + typeof(NetService).Name + " (badly formatted parameter " + XML_NETWORK_ADDR);
}
public void WriteXml(XmlWriter writer)
{
// Attributes
writer.WriteAttributeString(XML_IDENTIFIER, Identifier);
writer.WriteAttributeString(XML_NETWORK_ADDR, Address.ToString());
writer.WriteAttributeString(XML_NETWORK_PORT, Port.ToString());
}
private const string XML_IDENTIFIER = "Id";
private const string XML_NETWORK_ADDR = "Address";
private const string XML_NETWORK_PORT = "Port";
#endregion
}
There is an interesting article, which show an elegant way to implements a sophisticated way to "extend" the XmlSerializer.
The article say:
IXmlSerializable is covered in the official documentation, but the documentation states it's not intended for public use and provides no information beyond that. This indicates that the development team wanted to reserve the right to modify, disable, or even completely remove this extensibility hook down the road. However, as long as you're willing to accept this uncertainty and deal with possible changes in the future, there's no reason whatsoever you can't take advantage of it.
Because this, I suggest to implement you're own IXmlSerializable classes, in order to avoid too much complicated implementations.
...it could be straightforward to implements our custom XmlSerializer class using reflection.

I just got the same error and discovered that a property of type IEnumerable<SomeClass> was the problem. It appears that IEnumerable cannot be serialized directly.
Instead, one could use List<SomeClass>.

I've discovered that the Dictionary class in .Net 2.0 is not serializable using XML, but serializes well when binary serialization is used.
I found a work around here.

I recently got this in a web reference partial class when adding a new property. The auto generated class was adding the following attributes.
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlElementAttribute(Order = XX)]
I needed to add a similar attribute with an order one higher than the last in the auto generated sequence and this fixed it for me.

I too thought that the Serializable attribute had to be on the object but unless I'm being a complete noob (I am in the middle of a late night coding session) the following works from the SnippetCompiler:
using System;
using System.IO;
using System.Xml;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Xml.Serialization;
public class Inner
{
private string _AnotherStringProperty;
public string AnotherStringProperty
{
get { return _AnotherStringProperty; }
set { _AnotherStringProperty = value; }
}
}
public class DataClass
{
private string _StringProperty;
public string StringProperty
{
get { return _StringProperty; }
set{ _StringProperty = value; }
}
private Inner _InnerObject;
public Inner InnerObject
{
get { return _InnerObject; }
set { _InnerObject = value; }
}
}
public class MyClass
{
public static void Main()
{
try
{
XmlSerializer serializer = new XmlSerializer(typeof(DataClass));
TextWriter writer = new StreamWriter(#"c:\tmp\dataClass.xml");
DataClass clazz = new DataClass();
Inner inner = new Inner();
inner.AnotherStringProperty = "Foo2";
clazz.InnerObject = inner;
clazz.StringProperty = "foo";
serializer.Serialize(writer, clazz);
}
finally
{
Console.Write("Press any key to continue...");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
I would imagine that the XmlSerializer is using reflection over the public properties.

Sometime, this type of error is because you dont have constructur of class without argument

I had a situation where the Order was the same for two elements in a row
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlElementAttribute(IsNullable = true, Order = 0, ElementName = "SeriousInjuryFlag")]
.... some code ...
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlElementAttribute(IsNullable = true, Order = 0, ElementName = "AccidentFlag")]
When I changed the code to increment the order by one for each new Property in the class, the error went away.

I was getting the same error when I created a property having a datatype - Type. On this, I was getting an error - There was an error reflecting type. I kept checking the 'InnerException' of every exception from the debug dock and got the specific field name (which was Type) in my case. The solution is as follows:
[XmlIgnore]
public Type Type { get; set; }

Also note that you cannot serialize user interface controls and that any object you want to pass onto the clipboard must be serializable otherwise it cannot be passed across to other processes.

I have been using the NetDataSerialiser class to serialise
my domain classes. NetDataContractSerializer Class.
The domain classes are shared between client and server.

I had the same issue and in my case the object had a ReadOnlyCollection. A collection must implement Add method to be serializable.

I have a slightly different solution to all described here so far, so for any future civilisation here's mine!
I had declared a datatype of "time" as the original type was a TimeSpan and subsequently changed to a String:
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlElementAttribute(DataType="time", Order=3)]
however the actual type was a string
public string TimeProperty {
get {
return this.timePropertyField;
}
set {
this.timePropertyField = value;
this.RaisePropertyChanged("TimeProperty");
}
}
by removing the DateType property the Xml can be serialized
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlElementAttribute(Order=3)]
public string TimeProperty {
get {
return this.timePropertyField;
}
set {
this.timePropertyField = value;
this.RaisePropertyChanged("TimeProperty");
}
}

[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlElementAttribute("strFieldName", Form = System.Xml.Schema.XmlSchemaForm.Unqualified)]
Or
[XmlIgnore]
string [] strFielsName {get;set;}

CA1019: Define accessor for attribute argument. I don't understand the reason

Today, I was cleaning up some of my code with FXCop and it complained about a Attribute class I had with this violation.
CA1019: Define accessor for attribute argument.
On this page, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182136.aspx there is more information, but I still do not get the reason for this as it seems to me more verbose and less relevant.
It gives two codes samples.
using System;
namespace DesignLibrary
{
// Violates rule: DefineAccessorsForAttributeArguments.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.All)]
public sealed class BadCustomAttribute :Attribute
{
string data;
// Missing the property that corresponds to
// the someStringData parameter.
public BadCustomAttribute(string someStringData)
{
data = someStringData;
}
}
// Satisfies rule: Attributes should have accessors for all arguments.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.All)]
public sealed class GoodCustomAttribute :Attribute
{
string data;
public GoodCustomAttribute(string someStringData)
{
data = someStringData;
}
//The constructor parameter and property
//name are the same except for case.
public string SomeStringData
{
get
{
return data;
}
}
}
}
I don't understand why the SomeStringData property is required. Isn't the someStringData a parameter? Why does it need to have its own property if it is already stored in another property?
Actually, mine is a little different as it looks like this.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]
public sealed class ExampleAttribute : Attribute
{
public ExampleAttribute(string attributeValue)
{
this.Path = attributeValue;
}
public string Name
{
get;
set;
}
// Add to add this to stop the CA1019 moaning but I find it useless and stupid?
public string AttributeValue
{
get
{
return this.Name;
}
}
}
Rather than a private field, I have used a public autoproperty, I had to add the last part to make the warning stop but I don't see the point and it also adds another public field to this class, which is redundant, and seems less clean.
That said, I assume that this warning is raised for a reason so what good reason I am missing here?
Thanks in advance.

FxCop is complaining because your existing property doesn't match the parameter name.
Therefore, it doesn't realize that the parameter actually is exposed.
You should rename the property or parameter to match (except for case), or suppress the warning.

FxCop rule CA1019 is just enforcing the .Net Framework coding guidelines for Attributes.
Use named arguments (read/write properties) for optional parameters. Provide a read/write property with the same name as each named argument, but change the case to differentiate between them.
Documentation Link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2ab31zeh(v=vs.71).aspx

The reason behind the FxCop warning is that every piece of data you pass into the attribute's constructor should be made publicly available to access when the attribute instance is being retrieved by Reflection.
Let's say you have this:
[BadCustom("My String Data")]
public class DecoratedClass
{
}
How will you get "My String Data" back from that attribute instance when you read it using:
BadCustomAttribute attr = typeof(DecoratedClass)
.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(BadCustomAttribute), false)
.Single() as BadCustomAttribute;
Now you have the instance of your attribute, but no way to read the string passed into the constructor because you didn't at least declare a read-only property for it.

the idea is that you should write just:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]
public sealed class ExampleAttribute : Attribute
{
public ExampleAttribute(string attributeValue)
{
this.AttributeValue = attributeValue;
}
public string AttributeValue
{
get;
set;
}
}

This violation will also be thrown when the parameter name matches the property name, but the data types are different.

Why isn't my public property serialized by the XmlSerializer?

This is one i struggled with for ages so thought I'd document somewhere. (Apologies for asking and answering a question.)
(C# .net 2.0)
I had a class that was being serialized by XmlSerializer, I added a new public property however it wasn't being included in the output XML.
It's not mentioned in the docs anywhere I could find, but public properties must have a set as well as a get to be serialized! I guess this is because it assumes that if you're going to serialize then you'll want to deserialize from the same file, so only serializes properties that have both a set and a get.

As mentioned, most properties must have both a getter and setter; the main exception to this is lists - for example:
private readonly List<Foo> bar = new List<Foo>();
public List<Foo> Bar {get { return bar; } } // works fine
which will work fine; however, if XmlSerializer finds a setter - it demands that it is public; the following will not work:
public List<Foo> Bar {get; private set;} // FAIL
Other reasons it might not serialize:
it isn't public with get and set (or is readonly for a field)
it has a [DefaultValue] attribute, and is with that value
it has a public bool ShouldSerializeFoo() method that returned false
it has a public bool FooSpecified {get;set;} property or field that returned false
it is marked [XmlIgnore]
it is marked [Obsolete]
Any of these will cause it not to serialize

The point about getter+setter is made in the 3rd paragraph on the "Intro to Xml Serialization" page. It's actually in a call-out box. Can't miss it!
Intro-to-XML Serialization http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/2f04fea2db.png
(having a little too much fun with Freeimagehosting.net)

Also properties that return null are not serialized!

if you don't want to implement proper Setters (because maybe you are neither wanting to deserialize or change an objects value) you can just use dummy setters like this set { }, so that the XMLSerializer works, but nothing happens if you use the Setter...
i.E.
public string ID { get { return _item.ID.ToString(); } set { } }

And if your class inherits a list and also has its own members, only the elements of the list get serialized. The data present in your class members is not captured.
Took some time figuring out this!

One more thing to add about serialization of collections:
The XmlSerializer ignores collections of interfaces!
And by that I mean ignore. While you will get an exception for a line like:
public IFoo Foo { get; set; }
you will not get an exception for:
public ICollection<IFoo> LotsOfFoos { get { return this.fooBackingField; } }

You can implement the IXmlSerializer and do the serialization manually, and benefit from serializing properties, and vice versa, deserializing them using constructors / private field assignment.

XmlSerializer - There was an error reflecting type

Using C# .NET 2.0, I have a composite data class that does have the [Serializable] attribute on it. I am creating an XMLSerializer class and passing that into the constructor:
XmlSerializer serializer = new XmlSerializer(typeof(DataClass));
I am getting an exception saying:
There was an error reflecting type.
Inside the data class there is another composite object. Does this also need to have the [Serializable] attribute, or by having it on the top object, does it recursively apply it to all objects inside?

Look at the inner exception that you are getting. It will tell you which field/property it is having trouble serializing.
You can exclude fields/properties from xml serialization by decorating them with the [XmlIgnore] attribute.
XmlSerializer does not use the [Serializable] attribute, so I doubt that is the problem.

Remember that serialized classes must have default (i.e. parameterless) constructors. If you have no constructor at all, that's fine; but if you have a constructor with a parameter, you'll need to add the default one too.

I had a similar problem, and it turned out that the serializer could not distinguish between 2 classes I had with the same name (one was a subclass of the other). The inner exception looked like this:
'Types BaseNamespace.Class1' and 'BaseNamespace.SubNamespace.Class1' both use the XML type name, 'Class1', from namespace ''. Use XML attributes to specify a unique XML name and/or namespace for the type.
Where BaseNamespace.SubNamespace.Class1 is a subclass of BaseNamespace.Class1.
What I needed to do was add an attribute to one of the classes (I added to the base class):
[XmlType("BaseNamespace.Class1")]
Note: If you have more layers of classes you need to add an attribute to them as well.

Most common reasons by me:
- the object being serialized has no parameterless constructor
- the object contains Dictionary
- the object has some public Interface members

Also be aware that XmlSerializer cannot serialize abstract properties.. See my question here (which I have added the solution code to)..
XML Serialization and Inherited Types

All the objects in the serialization graph have to be serializable.
Since XMLSerializer is a blackbox, check these links if you want to debug further into the serialization process..
Changing where XmlSerializer Outputs Temporary Assemblies
HOW TO: Debug into a .NET XmlSerializer Generated Assembly

If you need to handle specific attributes (i.e. Dictionary, or any class), you can implement the IXmlSerialiable interface, which will allow you more freedom at the cost of more verbose coding.
public class NetService : IXmlSerializable
{
#region Data
public string Identifier = String.Empty;
public string Name = String.Empty;
public IPAddress Address = IPAddress.None;
public int Port = 7777;
#endregion
#region IXmlSerializable Implementation
public XmlSchema GetSchema() { return (null); }
public void ReadXml(XmlReader reader)
{
// Attributes
Identifier = reader[XML_IDENTIFIER];
if (Int32.TryParse(reader[XML_NETWORK_PORT], out Port) == false)
throw new XmlException("unable to parse the element " + typeof(NetService).Name + " (badly formatted parameter " + XML_NETWORK_PORT);
if (IPAddress.TryParse(reader[XML_NETWORK_ADDR], out Address) == false)
throw new XmlException("unable to parse the element " + typeof(NetService).Name + " (badly formatted parameter " + XML_NETWORK_ADDR);
}
public void WriteXml(XmlWriter writer)
{
// Attributes
writer.WriteAttributeString(XML_IDENTIFIER, Identifier);
writer.WriteAttributeString(XML_NETWORK_ADDR, Address.ToString());
writer.WriteAttributeString(XML_NETWORK_PORT, Port.ToString());
}
private const string XML_IDENTIFIER = "Id";
private const string XML_NETWORK_ADDR = "Address";
private const string XML_NETWORK_PORT = "Port";
#endregion
}
There is an interesting article, which show an elegant way to implements a sophisticated way to "extend" the XmlSerializer.
The article say:
IXmlSerializable is covered in the official documentation, but the documentation states it's not intended for public use and provides no information beyond that. This indicates that the development team wanted to reserve the right to modify, disable, or even completely remove this extensibility hook down the road. However, as long as you're willing to accept this uncertainty and deal with possible changes in the future, there's no reason whatsoever you can't take advantage of it.
Because this, I suggest to implement you're own IXmlSerializable classes, in order to avoid too much complicated implementations.
...it could be straightforward to implements our custom XmlSerializer class using reflection.

I just got the same error and discovered that a property of type IEnumerable<SomeClass> was the problem. It appears that IEnumerable cannot be serialized directly.
Instead, one could use List<SomeClass>.

I've discovered that the Dictionary class in .Net 2.0 is not serializable using XML, but serializes well when binary serialization is used.
I found a work around here.

I recently got this in a web reference partial class when adding a new property. The auto generated class was adding the following attributes.
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlElementAttribute(Order = XX)]
I needed to add a similar attribute with an order one higher than the last in the auto generated sequence and this fixed it for me.

I too thought that the Serializable attribute had to be on the object but unless I'm being a complete noob (I am in the middle of a late night coding session) the following works from the SnippetCompiler:
using System;
using System.IO;
using System.Xml;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Xml.Serialization;
public class Inner
{
private string _AnotherStringProperty;
public string AnotherStringProperty
{
get { return _AnotherStringProperty; }
set { _AnotherStringProperty = value; }
}
}
public class DataClass
{
private string _StringProperty;
public string StringProperty
{
get { return _StringProperty; }
set{ _StringProperty = value; }
}
private Inner _InnerObject;
public Inner InnerObject
{
get { return _InnerObject; }
set { _InnerObject = value; }
}
}
public class MyClass
{
public static void Main()
{
try
{
XmlSerializer serializer = new XmlSerializer(typeof(DataClass));
TextWriter writer = new StreamWriter(#"c:\tmp\dataClass.xml");
DataClass clazz = new DataClass();
Inner inner = new Inner();
inner.AnotherStringProperty = "Foo2";
clazz.InnerObject = inner;
clazz.StringProperty = "foo";
serializer.Serialize(writer, clazz);
}
finally
{
Console.Write("Press any key to continue...");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
I would imagine that the XmlSerializer is using reflection over the public properties.

Sometime, this type of error is because you dont have constructur of class without argument

I had a situation where the Order was the same for two elements in a row
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlElementAttribute(IsNullable = true, Order = 0, ElementName = "SeriousInjuryFlag")]
.... some code ...
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlElementAttribute(IsNullable = true, Order = 0, ElementName = "AccidentFlag")]
When I changed the code to increment the order by one for each new Property in the class, the error went away.

I was getting the same error when I created a property having a datatype - Type. On this, I was getting an error - There was an error reflecting type. I kept checking the 'InnerException' of every exception from the debug dock and got the specific field name (which was Type) in my case. The solution is as follows:
[XmlIgnore]
public Type Type { get; set; }

Also note that you cannot serialize user interface controls and that any object you want to pass onto the clipboard must be serializable otherwise it cannot be passed across to other processes.

I have been using the NetDataSerialiser class to serialise
my domain classes. NetDataContractSerializer Class.
The domain classes are shared between client and server.

I had the same issue and in my case the object had a ReadOnlyCollection. A collection must implement Add method to be serializable.

I have a slightly different solution to all described here so far, so for any future civilisation here's mine!
I had declared a datatype of "time" as the original type was a TimeSpan and subsequently changed to a String:
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlElementAttribute(DataType="time", Order=3)]
however the actual type was a string
public string TimeProperty {
get {
return this.timePropertyField;
}
set {
this.timePropertyField = value;
this.RaisePropertyChanged("TimeProperty");
}
}
by removing the DateType property the Xml can be serialized
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlElementAttribute(Order=3)]
public string TimeProperty {
get {
return this.timePropertyField;
}
set {
this.timePropertyField = value;
this.RaisePropertyChanged("TimeProperty");
}
}

[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlElementAttribute("strFieldName", Form = System.Xml.Schema.XmlSchemaForm.Unqualified)]
Or
[XmlIgnore]
string [] strFielsName {get;set;}