We Keep Coding

how to call Inner Class in C#

i am trying to set inner class value from outer class using event handler
here the line for passing the value , PaymentMode is Event
public event PaymentModeEven PaymentMode;
PaymentMode(this,new PaymentModeEvenArgs() { paymentSuccess = true });
Inner Class
public class PaymentModeEvenArgs: EventArgs
{
private bool PaymentSuccess;
public bool paymentSuccess
{
get { return paymentSuccess; }
set
{
paymentSuccess = value;
}
}
}
Program get stuck and stopped

You have a stack overflow exception. Consider your property:
public bool paymentSuccess
{
get { return paymentSuccess; }
set
{
paymentSuccess = value;
}
}
When you get or set paymentSuccess, what does it do internally? It gets or sets paymentSuccess. Which, internally, gets or sets paymentSuccess. Which, internally... You get the idea.
It looks like you meant to swap the casing between the field and the property:
private bool paymentSuccess;
public bool PaymentSuccess
{
get { return paymentSuccess; }
set
{
paymentSuccess = value;
}
}
Or, even better, just use an auto-implemented property so you only have to make one named member:
public bool PaymentSuccess { get; set; }

Can I use constructor logic with object initializer syntax?

i.e.
MyClass myClass = new MyClass() { Value = 5 };
I have a bunch of constructor calls like the one above, but now I've realized I need to add logic to the constructor, which was a massive oversight. Currently I have no constructor, so just a blank implicit default constructor.
The below code should explain my problem.
Edit: I'm not actually doing validation, that's just a simple example of constructor logic
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(new Test(1) + " should be true");
Console.WriteLine(new Test(0) + " should be false");
Test test = new Test(0) { Value = 1 }; // It allows this syntax, oddly, but the value that's used is the one passed as a parameter
Console.WriteLine("I wish " + test + " was true");
// This is what I have currently, but I'd like to add logic like that which exists in the parameterized constructor
//Test test = new Test() { Value = 1 } // Would ideally function just like Test(1), otherwise I have to go and change every call
// OUTPUT
// True should be true
// False should be false
// I wish False was true
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
class Test
{
public bool? IsGood { get; }
public int Value { get; set; }
// This doesn't currently exist in my class, but I'd like to add it
public Test(int value)
{
if (value == 1)
IsGood = true;
else
IsGood = false;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return IsGood.ToString();
}
}

Don't write code like this in the first place.
I'd write your code like this:
class Test
{
public static bool IsValid(int value)
{
return whatever; // test for validity here
}
public int Value { get; private set; } // Don't let anyone change it.
public Test(int value) {
if (!IsValid(value)) throw new InvalidArgumentException("value");
this.Value = value;
}
}
There, now Value is always valid; the user can know ahead of time whether it is valid or not; an attempt to set an invalid value produces an exception. This assumes that Value cannot change.
If Value can change then write it like this:
class Test
{
public static bool IsValid(int value)
{
return whatever; // test for validity here
}
private int value;
public int Value { get { return value; }
set
{
if (!IsValid(value)) throw new InvalidArgumentException("value");
this.value = value;
}
}
public Test(int value) {
this.Value = value;
}
}
Now the value is again always legal.
If it is legal for value to be invalid, then:
class Test
{
public bool IsValid
{
get
{
return whatever; // test for validity here
} // read-only property
}
public int Value { get; set; }
public Test(int value) {
this.Value = value;
}
}
Now the value can be any integer and whether it is valid or not can be tested dynamically.

Can I set members outside of a constructor while still using logic in the constructor?
Meaning, what, exactly?
Using the object initializer syntax, a constructor still runs. You may even choose which one to use, through the normal constructor overload syntax (which you seem to show, but you say it's not in your class?). The code in your constructor looks at the parameter value that is passed to it, not the property Value (which it doesn't even set). But if you meant for the two to work together, then sure…you can set the property in the constructor and set IsGood in the Value property setter.
If you're going to do it that way, then I would not bother with the logic in the constructor at all. Just set the Value property and let its setter do the rest of the work:
class Test
{
public bool? IsGood { get; private set; }
private int _value;
public int Value
{
get { return _value; }
set
{
_value = value;
IsGood = _value == 1;
}
}
public Test(int value)
{
Value = value;
}
}
I should point out that the semantics of the above is slightly different from what you seem to have started with. That is, the Value property is not read-only, and so can be set at any time. So, similarly, the IsGood property can change at any time. You previously had declared it as read-only and it was settable only in the constructor.
It's not clear from your question whether that's a problem or not. If you want IsGood to be strictly read-only (i.e. without even a private setter), then it won't be possible to do literally what you're asking for, because in the object initializer syntax, it relies on setting member properties after the constructor has already returned.
For the moment, I'll assume it's not a problem to add the private setter to the IsGood property.
Note that since IsGood apparently depends solely on the value of Value, you could even implement the above like this:
class Test
{
public bool? IsGood => _value != null ? _value == 1 : (bool?)null;
private int? _value;
public int Value
{
get { return _value ?? 0; }
set { _value = value; }
}
public Test(int value)
{
Value = value;
}
}
That is, don't even bother storing a value for IsGood. Just return the appropriate value based on the current state of the Value property (null if it's never been set, true if it's currently set to 1, and false otherwise).

Singleton class crash when set an attribut with no exception [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
What is the { get; set; } syntax in C#?
(20 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I have an strange comportement with my singleton class.
public class HttpCommunicator{
public const int TYPEJSON = 1;
private static HttpCommunicator;
private bool TypeIsInit = false;
public static HttpCommunicator Instance {
get{
if( instance == null ){
instance = new HttpCommunication();
}
return instance;
}
}
private HttpCommunicator(){}
public int RequestType {get {return RequestType;} set{ this.RequestType = value; TypeIsInit = true;}
}
And later in another class i call this
HttpComminicator.Instance.RequestType = HttpCommunicator.TYPEJSON;
My app get stuck/freeze and my debugger don't show me any error. But if I change the get;set; method for this attribut to:
public int GetRequestType(){
return RequestType;
}
public void SetRequestType(int value){
RequestType = value;
TypeIsInit = true;
}
everything works like a charm.
Anybody can explain me why I get this?

Check out your property:
public int RequestType
{
get { return RequestType; }
set { this.RequestType = value; TypeIsInit = true; }
}
You have a bunch of problems here.
What happens when you get that property?
RequestType.get is going to execute, which in turn is going to return RequestType;. To return RequestType you must read RequestType, which will trigger RequestType.get and the loop will go on and on and on and on.
My point is that you're trying to return a property by returning said property, which will probably end up causing a StackOverflowException.
The same can be said about your set accessor.
To fix this, have private fields behind the scenes:
private int _requestType;
public int RequestType
{
get { return _requestType; }
set { _requestType = value; TypeIsInit = true; }
}

Ensure Variable Initialization C#

Consider this code:
public string Variable1 { get; set;}
public int Variable2 { get; set;}
public void Function()
{
// Has been Variable1 Initialized?
}
Inside the function, I want to know if a value has been sent to Variable1 & Variable2, prior to the function call,
even if the DEFAULT values have been sent, that's ok (null for string & 0 for int)

Consider using a simple wrapper like this:
public struct AssignableProperty<T>
{
private T _value;
public T Value
{
get { return _value; }
set
{
WasAssigned = true;
_value = value;
}
}
public bool WasAssigned { get; private set; }
public static implicit operator AssignableProperty<T>(T data)
{
return new AssignableProperty<T>() { Value = data };
}
public static bool operator ==(AssignableProperty<T> initial, T data)
{
return initial.Value.Equals(data);
}
public static bool operator !=(AssignableProperty<T> initial, T data)
{
return !initial.Value.Equals(data);
}
public override string ToString()
{
return Value.ToString();
}
}
Then your class'll look like this:
public class Test
{
public AssignableProperty<string> Variable1 { get; set; }
public AssignableProperty<int> Variable2 { get; set; }
public void Function()
{
if(Variable1.WasAssigned&&Variable2.WasAssigned)
//do stuff
}
}
You can go further and add throw Exception or contract to getter, so if somebody'll try to access uninitialized value it'll throw an exception or show you warning

Some basics about default value in C#:
When an instance of a class (or struct) is created, all fields are initialized to their respective default value.
For reference types, it will be null. For value types, it will be equivalent to 0. This is easily explains as the memory management ensures that new allocated memory is initialized to 0x0 bytes.
Auto-properties hide the generated field, but there is one. So the same rules apply.
Now to answer your question, the best way to make sure that values are initialized is to make a constructor with one parameter for each field/property and to hide the default constructor with no parameters:
public Yourtype(String param1, Int32 param2)
{
this.Variable1 = param1;
this.Variable2 = param2;
}
private Yourtype() { }
Other alternatives is described in #Sean and #Alex answers if only a subset of properties/fields needs to be initialized/checked. But this hides some overhead (one bool for each property/field and some indirection).

For the reference types you'll need to add a flag:
string m_Variable1;
bool m_IsVariable1Set;
public string Variable1
{
get{return m_Variable1;}
set{m_IsVariable1Set = true; m_Variable1 = value;}
}
For the value types you can use a nullable value
int? m_Variable2;
int Variable2
{
get{return m_Variable2.GetValueOrDefault();}
set{m_Variable2 = value;}
}
Which you can then check to see if it's been set by using m_Variable2.HasValue.

Well you can simply do a check on both variables to see if they have any value assigned to them in your function
public void Function()
{
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(Variable1) && Variable2 ==0 )
{
// Variables are not assigned
}
}

C# getter and setter shorthand

If my understanding of the internal workings of this line is correct:
public int MyInt { get; set; }
Then it behind the scenes does this:
private int _MyInt { get; set; }
Public int MyInt {
get{return _MyInt;}
set{_MyInt = value;}
}
What I really need is:
private bool IsDirty { get; set; }
private int _MyInt { get; set; }
Public int MyInt {
get{return _MyInt;}
set{_MyInt = value; IsDirty = true;}
}
But I would like to write it something like:
private bool IsDirty { get; set; }
public int MyInt { get; set{this = value; IsDirty = true;} }
Which does not work. The thing is some of the objects I need to do the IsDirty on have dozens of properties and I'm hoping there is a way to use the auto getter/setter but still set IsDirty when the field is modified.
Is this possible or do I just have to resign myself to tripling the amount of code in my classes?

You'll need to handle this yourself:
private bool IsDirty { get; set; }
private int _myInt; // Doesn't need to be a property
Public int MyInt {
get{return _myInt;}
set{_myInt = value; IsDirty = true;}
}
There is no syntax available which adds custom logic to a setter while still using the automatic property mechanism. You'll need to write this with your own backing field.
This is a common issue - for example, when implementing INotifyPropertyChanged.

Create an IsDirty decorator (design pattern) to wrap some your properties requiring the isDirty flag functionality.
public class IsDirtyDecorator<T>
{
public bool IsDirty { get; private set; }
private T _myValue;
public T Value
{
get { return _myValue; }
set { _myValue = value; IsDirty = true; }
}
}
public class MyClass
{
private IsDirtyDecorator<int> MyInt = new IsDirtyDecorator<int>();
private IsDirtyDecorator<string> MyString = new IsDirtyDecorator<string>();
public MyClass()
{
MyInt.Value = 123;
MyString.Value = "Hello";
Console.WriteLine(MyInt.Value);
Console.WriteLine(MyInt.IsDirty);
Console.WriteLine(MyString.Value);
Console.WriteLine(MyString.IsDirty);
}
}

You can make it simple or complex. It depends on how much work you want to invest. You can use aspect oriented programming to add the aspect via an IL weaver into the IL code with e.g. PostSharp.
Or you can create a simple class that does handle the state for your property. It is so simple that the former approach only pays off if you have really many properties to handle this way.
using System;
class Dirty<T>
{
T _Value;
bool _IsDirty;
public T Value
{
get { return _Value; }
set
{
_IsDirty = true;
_Value = value;
}
}
public bool IsDirty
{
get { return _IsDirty; }
}
public Dirty(T initValue)
{
_Value = initValue;
}
}
class Program
{
static Dirty<int> _Integer;
static int Integer
{
get { return _Integer.Value; }
set { _Integer.Value = value; }
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
_Integer = new Dirty<int>(10);
Console.WriteLine("Dirty: {0}, value: {1}", _Integer.IsDirty, Integer);
Integer = 15;
Console.WriteLine("Dirty: {0}, value: {1}", _Integer.IsDirty, Integer);
}
}
Another possibility is to use a proxy class which is generated at runtime which does add the aspect for you. With .NET 4 there is a class that does handle this aspect already for you. It is called ExpandObject which does notify you via an event when a property changes. The nice things is that ExpandoObject allows you to define at runtime any amount of properties and you get notifications about every change of a property. Databinding with WPF is very easy with this type.
dynamic _DynInteger = new ExpandoObject();
_DynInteger.Integer = 10;
((INotifyPropertyChanged)_DynInteger).PropertyChanged += (o, e) =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Property {0} changed", e.PropertyName);
};
Console.WriteLine("value: {0}", _DynInteger.Integer );
_DynInteger.Integer = 20;
Console.WriteLine("value: {0}", _DynInteger.Integer);
Yours,
Alois Kraus

I'm going to add on to Simon Hughes' answer. I propose the same thing, but add a way to allow the decorator class to update a global IsDirty flag automatically. You may find it to be less complex to do it the old-fashioned way, but it depends on how many properties you're exposing and how many classes will require the same functionality.
public class IsDirtyDecorator<T>
{
private T _myValue;
private Action<bool> _changedAction;
public IsDirtyDecorator<T>(Action<bool> changedAction = null)
{
_changedAction = changedAction;
}
public bool IsDirty { get; private set; }
public T Value
{
get { return _myValue; }
set
{
_myValue = value;
IsDirty = true;
if(_changedAction != null)
_changedAction(IsDirty);
}
}
}
Now you can have your decorator class automatically update some other IsDirty property in another class:
class MyObject
{
private IsDirtyDecorator<int> _myInt = new IsDirtyDecorator<int>(onValueChanged);
private IsDirtyDecorator<int> _myOtherInt = new IsDirtyDecorator<int>(onValueChanged);
public bool IsDirty { get; private set; }
public int MyInt
{
get { return _myInt.Value; }
set { _myInt.Value = value; }
}
public int MyOtherInt
{
get { return _myOtherInt.Value; }
set { _myOtherInt.Value = value; }
}
private void onValueChanged(bool dirty)
{
IsDirty = true;
}
}

I have created a custom Property<T> class to do common operations like that. I haven't used it thoroughly yet though, but it could be used in this scenario.
Code can be found here: http://pastebin.com/RWTWNNCU
You could use it as follows:
readonly Property<int> _myInt = new Property<int>();
public int MyInt
{
get { return _myInt.GetValue(); }
set { _myInt.SetValue( value, SetterCallbackOption.OnNewValue, SetDirty ); }
}
private void SetDirty( int oldValue, int newValue )
{
IsDirty = true;
}
The Property class handles only calling the passed delegate when a new value is passed thanks to the SetterCallbackOption parameter. This is default so it can be dropped.
UPDATE:
This won't work apparently when you need to support multiple types (besides int), because the delegate won't match then. You could ofcourse always adjust the code to suit your needs.