We Keep Coding

What's the easiest way to create a managed visualiser in C#?

I have a background in C++ and recently I started working in C#.
I have written following pieces of code (in Visual Studio):
var list_Loads = database.GetData<Load>().ToList();
var test_list = list_Loads.Where(o => (o.Name.Substring(0, 3) == "123")).ToList();
When I run the program and I move my mouse over both lists, first I get the count, which is very useful, but when I ask for the entries, this is what I get:
0 : namespace.Load
1 : namespace.Load
2 : namespace.Load
...
Not very useful, as you can imagine :-)
So my question: how can I show the Name attributes of those objects?
I thought: no problem. I have a background in native visualisers, so it should be rather easy to turn this into useful information, but then it comes:
In order to alter the way that those objects are represented, there is the first proposal to add a [DebuggerDisplay] "tag" to the definition of that class in source code.
However, as those classes are part of a framework I'm just referring to, I don't have access to the source code and hence I can't modify this.
Then I found another solution, which comes down to: "Write an entire C# project, debug, test and install it and it might work" (see documentation on "Custom visualisers of data" on the Microsoft website).
I almost choked in my coffee: writing an entire project, just for altering the view of an object??? (While, in C++, you just create a simple .natvis file, mention the classname and some configuration, launch .nvload and that's it.
Does anybody know a simple way to alter the appearance of C# object, without needing to pass through the whole burden of creating an entire C# project?
By the way, when I try to load a natvis file in Visual Studio immediate window, this is what I get:
.nvload "C:\Temp_Folder\test.natvis"
error CS1525: Invalid expression term '.'
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks in advance

OP (my emphasis):
In order to alter the way that those objects are represented, there is the first proposal to add a [DebuggerDisplay] "tag" to the definition of that class in source code.
However, as those classes are part of a framework I'm just referring to, I don't have access to the source code and hence I can't modify this.
Does anybody know a simple way to alter the appearance of C# object, without needing to pass through the whole burden of creating an entire C# project?
If you just want to specify [DebuggerDisplay] on a type, you don't have to have access to the source code. You can make use of [assembly:DebuggerDisplay()] and control how a type appears in the debugger. The only downside is that [assembly:DebuggerDisplay()] naturally only affects the current assembly whose code your mouse is hovering over. If you wish to use the customised display in other assemblies that you own, then you must repeat the [assembly:DebuggerDisplay()] definition.
Here's an easy before-and-after example with DateTime. I picked DateTime because we generally don't have access to the source code and it has some interesting properties:
var items = new List<DateTime>
{
DateTime.Now.AddDays(-2),
DateTime.Now.AddDays(-1),
DateTime.Now
};
...which on my machine defaults to:
Maybe I'm fussy and I just want to see:
Day of the week and
Day of the year
...I can do that via:
using System.Diagnostics;
[assembly: DebuggerDisplay("{DayOfWeek} {DayOfYear}", Target = typeof(DateTime))]
...which results in:
Example:
namespace DebuggerDisplayTests
{
public class DebuggerDisplayTests
{
public DebuggerDisplayTests()
{
var items = new List<DateTime>
{
DateTime.Now.AddDays(-2),
DateTime.Now.AddDays(-1),
DateTime.Now
};
}
}
.
.
.
}
Overrides
[assembly:DebuggerDisplay()] can also be used as a means to override pre-existing [DebuggerDisplay] on a 3-rd party type. Don't like what style they have chosen? Is the type showing far too much information? Change it with [assembly:DebuggerDisplay()].

Common Message/Error/Status to used across jquery or C#

There are times when we use same error or success message/checking of some status both in jquery & c#.
For consistency, we can define all message/status flag in as static class and use it wherever needed in c#.
Just an example:
C#
public class MyConstant
{
public static string Admin = "AdminRole";
public static string Approver= "ApproverRole";
}
if(userRole==MyConstant.Admin || userRole==MyConstant.Approver)
{
//more work
}
jquery:
if(userRole=="AdminRole" || userRole=="ApproverRole")
{
//more work
}
In stead hard coding msg/status in jquery, I would prefer approach similar to C#. Would be better to have common place to pull for client/service side.
How can I achieve similar in jquery? Better to say, How can I share common msgs/status flags between jquery & C#. I can think of following options:
Use Database. Cons: hitting DB every time may not be good idea.
Define some classes/property for msgs/status flags separately in jquery. Cons: duplicate; have to ensure all of them in sync.
maybe CMS but not necessarily, will be used in every application
Is there any better approach to share common Message/Error/Status to used across jquery or C#?
Thoughts?

One possible solution is T4 (text templates).
Just imagine a T4 which iterates each enumeration value (why classes of constants? use enumerations!) and creates an object literal like this in JavaScript:
var Roles = { "AdminRole": 1, "ApproverRole": 2 };
If you've never heard about T4, it's the text templating engine behind Visual Studio templates. For example, Entity Framework uses it to generate model classes.
Once you've created the text template, you can sync C# enumeration to JavaScript object literal from Visual Studio when you build your project or running the template manually (right-click on T4 and choose "Run custom tool").
Learn more about T4

I would consider enums for status codes, but you can stay with your strings (no problem). To better address JavaScript part use solution presented here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/2383215/3170952, that is:
my.namespace.Roles = {
ADMIN: "Admin",
APPROVER: "Approver"
}
Then you have one place where you define literals in JS. Better yet, you can weave C# literals into your JS (if you define it in one of ASP.NET MVC views or have other mechanism of incorporating C# into JS files). Then you have one place of definition statically checked during compilation time.

Dynamic localization of messages

I have made a simple localization of messages. All messages are stored in the static class Lng
public static partial class Lng
{
public static readonly string AppName = "My application";
public static class Category1
{
public static readonly string ConfirmDelete = "Are you sure want to delete?";
}
}
In code usage is as simple as referencing fields
MessageBox.Show(Lng.Category1.ConfirmDelete, ...
Then there is a manager, which does following:
language selection
load corresponding translation
updating fields via reflection
export currently selected language on application exit for an update (in case if default language is selected - to create first translation for any other language)
It's irrelevant of how language files looks likes, but here is a reflection part
TranslateLng("Lng.", typeof(Lng));
...
private static void TranslateLng(string parent, Type type)
{
foreach (Type nested in type.GetNestedTypes())
{
string child = string.Format("{0}{1}.", parent, nested.Name);
TranslateLng(child, nested);
foreach (var field in nested.GetFields())
{
string key = child + field.Name;
DefaultAdd(key, (string)field.GetValue(null)); // store value in default language dictionary (if not created yet)
field.SetValue(null, GetValue(key)); // get value for currently selected language
}
}
This system has one problem: all messages are defined in one class, which required manual management (deleting and updating messages when updating code which uses them).
And I was thinking to change manager to register strings dynamically and simplify usage to something like
MessageBox.Show(Lng.Text("Are you sure want to delete?"), ...
So that text is defined right where it used, duplicated text can be handled by manager and so on.
There are however 2 problems:
I will need a complete list of all messages at the end of application run to export complete list of messages (for currently selected language). What if some of Lng.Text() are never called at that run? Is there a way to register them as they are used in code (compile time?)? So that all calls will be registered somehow, even if peace of code is never used.
How to generate key. I could use CallerMemberName, but right key are more useful, as they are telling exact purpose. To example, Lng.Configuration.Appearance.CaptionText. I could call Lng.Text(key, message), but then I have to manage keys, ensure in their uniqueness, which doesn't appeals me.

I recently worked on a project with internationaliztion and we used Resources in con junction with the Sisulizer program with great success. Having the resources solves your key problem as you manually enter the key when you extract the resources. You also get great support from Resharper which makes the whole process a breeze.
Sisulizer is then used to extract resources as well as strings hard-coded in our Win Forms and WPF classes. It can export a CSV which you can give your translators and it also supports pseudo translation, which makes testing such apps very easy as well.

Dynamic form with no real OOP or objects?

I am tacking a large refactor of a project, and I had asked this question to confirm/understand the direction I should go in and I think I got the answer that I wanted, which is not to throw away years worth of code. So, now begins the challenge of refactoring the code. I've been reading Martine Fowler and Martin Feathers' books, and they have a lot of insight, but I am looking for advice on the ultimate goal of where I want the application to be.
So to reiterate the application a little bit, its a dynamic forms system, with lots of validation logic and data logic between the fields. The main record that gets inserted is the set of form fields that is on the page. Another part of it is 'Actions' that you can do for a person. These 'Actions' can differ client by client, and there are hundreds of 'Actions'. There is also talk that we can somehow make an engine that can eventually take on other similar areas, where a 'person' can be something else (such as student, or employee). So I want to build something very de-coupled. We have one codebase, but different DBs for different clients. The set of form fields on the page are dynamic, but the DB is not - it is translated into the specific DB table via stored procs. So, the generic set of fields are sent to the stored proc and the stored proc then decides what to do with the fields (figure out which table it needs to go to). These tables in fact are pretty static, meaning that they are not really dynamic, and there is a certain structure to it.
What I'm struggling specifically is how to setup a good way to do the dynamic form control page. It seems majority of the logic will be in code on the UI/aspx.cs page, because its loading controls onto the webpage. Is there some way I can do this, so it is done in a streamlined fashion, so the aspx.cs page isn't 5000 lines long? I have a 'FORM' object, and one of the properties is its' 'FIELDS'. So this object is loaded up in the business layer and the Data layer, but now on the fron end, it has to loop through the FIELDS and output the controls onto the page. Also, someway to be able to control the placement would be useful, too - not sure how do get that into this model....
Also, from another point of view - how can I 'really' get this into an object-oriented-structure? Because technically, they can create forms of anything. And those form fields can represent any object. So, for example, today they can create a set of form fields, that represent a 'person' - tomorrow they can create a set of form fields that represent a 'furniture'. How can I possibly translate this to to a person or a furniture object (or should I even be trying to?). And I don't really have controls over the form fields, because they can create whatever....
Any thought process would be really helpful - thanks!

How can I possibly translate this to to a person or a furniture object
(or should I even be trying to?)
If I understand you correctly, you probably shouldn't try to convert these fields to specific objects since the nature of your application is so dynamic. If the stored procedures are capable of figuring out which combination of fields belongs to which tables, then great.
If you can change the DB schema, I would suggest coming up with something much more dynamic. Rather than have a single table for each type of dynamic object, I would create the following schema:
Object {
ID
Name
... (clientID, etc.) ...
}
Property {
ID
ObjectID
Name
DBType (int, string, object-id, etc.)
FormType ( textbox, checkbox, etc.)
[FormValidationRegex] <== optional, could be used by field controls
Value
}
If you can't change the database schema, you can still apply the following to the old system using the stored procedures and fixed tables:
Then when you read in a specific object from the database, you can loop through each of the properties and get the form type and simple add the appropriate generic form type to the page:
foreach(Property p in Object.Properties)
{
switch(p.FormType)
{
case FormType.CheckBox:
PageForm.AddField(new CheckboxFormField(p.Name, p.Value));
break;
case FormType.Email:
PageForm.AddField(new EmailFormField(p.Name, p.Value));
break;
case FormType.etc:
...
break;
}
}
Of course, I threw in a PageForm object, as well as CheckboxFormField and EmailFormField objects. The PageForm object could simply be a placeholder, and the CheckboxFormField and EmailFormField could be UserControls or ServerControls.
I would not recommend trying to control placement. Just list off each field one by one vertically. This is becoming more and more popular anyway, even with static forms who's layout can be controlled completely. Most signup forms, for example, follow this convention.
I hope that helps. If I understood your question wrong, or if you'd like further explanations, let me know.

Not sure I understand the question. But there's two toolboxes suitable for writing generic code. It's generics, and it's reflection - typically in combination.
I don't think I really understand what you're trying to do, but a method using relfection to identify all the properties of an object might look like this:
using System.Reflection;
(...)
public void VisitProperties(object subject)
{
Type subjectType = subject.GetType();
foreach (PropertyInfo info in subjectType.GetProperties()
{
object value = info.GetValue(subject, null);
Console.WriteLine("The name of the property is " + info.Name);
Console.WriteLine("The value is " + value.ToString());
}
}
You can also check out an entry on my blog where I discuss using attributes on objects in conjunction with reflection. It's actually discussing how this can be utilized to write generic UI. Not exactly what you want, but at least the same principles could be used.
http://codepatrol.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/129/
This means that you could create your own custom attributes, or use those that already exists within the .NET framework already, to describe your types. Attributes to specify rules for validation, field label, even field placement could be used.
public class Person
{
[FieldLabel("First name")]
[ValidationRules(Rules.NotEmpty | Rules.OnlyCharacters)]
[FormColumn(1)]
[FormRow(1)]
public string FirstName{get;set;}
[FieldLabel("Last name")]
[ValidationRules(Rules.NotEmpty | Rules.OnlyCharacters)]
[FormColumn(2)]
[FormRow(1)]
public string LastName{get;set;}
}
Then you'd use the method described in my blog to identify these attributes and take the apropriate action - e.g. placing them in the proper row, giving the correct label, and so forth. I won't propose how to solve these things, but at least reflection is a great and simple tool to get descriptive information about an unknown type.

I found xml invaluable for this same situation. You can build an object graph in your code to represent the form easily enough. This object graph can again be loaded/saved from a db easily.
You can turn your object graph into xml & use xslt to generate the html for display. You now also have the benefit of customising this transform for differnetn clients/versions/etc. I also store the xml in the database for performance & to give me a publish function.
You need some specific code to deal with the incoming data, as you're going to be accessing the raw request post. You need to validate the incoming data against what you think you was shown. That stops people spoofing/meddling with your forms.
I hope that all makes sense.

Centralizing Messagebox handling for application

I'm wondering how others deal with trying to centralize MessageBox function calling. Instead of having long text embedded all over the place in code, in the past (non .net language), I would put system and application base "messagebox" type of messages into a database file which would be "burned" into the executable, much like a resource file in .Net. When a prompting condition would arise, I would just do call something like
MBAnswer = MyApplication.CallMsgBox( IDUserCantDoThat )
then check the MBAnswer upon return, such as a yes/no/cancel or whatever.
In the database table, I would have things like what the messagebox title would be, the buttons that would be shown, the actual message, a special flag that automatically tacked on a subsequent standard comment like "Please contact help desk if this happens.". The function would call the messagebox with all applicable settings and just return back the answer. The big benefits of this was, one location to have all the "context" of messages, and via constants, easier to read what message was going to be presented to the user.
Does anyone have a similar system in .Net to do a similar approach, or is this just a bad idea in the .Net environment.

We used to handle centralized messages with Modules (VB). We had one module with all messages and we call that in our code. This was done so that we change the message in one place (due to business needs) and it gets reflected everywhere. And it was also easy to handle change in one file instead of multiple files to change the message. Also we opened up that file to Business Analysts (VSS) so that they can change it. I don't think it is a bad idea if it involves modules or static class but it might be a overkill to fetch it from DB.
HTH

You could use resource files to export all text into there (kinda localization feature as well). Resharper 5.0 really helps in that highlighting text that can be moved to resource.
Usually it looks like this:
Before: MessageBox.Show(error.ToString(), "Error with extraction");
Suggestion: Localizable string "Error with extraction"
Right click Move to Resource
Choose resource file and name (MainForm_ExtractArchive_Error_with_extraction), also check checkbox Find identical items in class ...
Call it like this MessageBox.Show(error.ToString(), Resources.MainForm_ExtractArchive_Error_with_extraction);
Best of all it makes it easy to translate stuff to other languages as well as keeping text for MessageBox in separate Resource. Of course Resharper does it all for you so no need to type that much :-)

I suppose you could use a HashTable to do something similar like this, this can be found in:
using System.Collections;
To keep it globally accessable i was thinking a couple of functions in a class holding the hashtable to get/set a certain one.
lets see now.
public class MessageBoxStore
{
private HashTable stock;
public string Get(string msg)
{
if (stock.ContainsKey(msg))
return stock[msg];
else
return string.Empty;
}
public string Set(string msg, string msgcontent)
{
stock[msg] = msgcontent;
}
}
or something like that, you could keep multiple different information in the hashtable and subsequently compose the messagebox in the function too.. instead of just returning the string for the messagebox contents...
but to use this it would be quite simple.
call a function like this on program load.
public LoadErrorMessages()
{
storeClass = new MessageBoxStore();
storeClass.Set("UserCantDoThat", "Invalid action. Please confirm your action and try again");
}
for example, and then.
MessageBox.Show(storeClass.Get("UserCantDoThat"));
i put this in a new class instead of using the HashTable get/set methods direct because this leaves room for customization so the messagebox could be created in the get, and more than 1 piece of information could be stored in the set to handle messagebox title, buttontype, content, etc etc.