We Keep Coding

Is it possible to instantiate an object and pass it object initializer variables with Activator.CreateInstance? [duplicate]

I'm not sure of the terminology for this kind of code, but I want to know if it's possible to instantiate variables after the parentheses, but whilst using reflection.
I have a map which gets loaded from an XML file. This is a collection of (int X, int Y, string S) where the X,Y is the position of some terrain, and S is a string representing the type of the terrain. I have a dictionary to pass between the strings and the relevant types; for example one key-value pair might be "Tree", typeof(Tree).
When using reflection, although I know it's possible to instantiate with parameters, the only way I'm comfortable is just by using Activator.CreateInstance(Type t), i.e. with an empty constructor.
When I had the maps hard coded, I would originally instantiate like this (within some i,j for loop):
case: "Tree"
world.Add( new Tree(i,j) );
Whilst starting to think about reflection and my save file, I changed this to:
world.Add( new Tree() { X = i, Y = j }
However, I realised that this won't work with reflection, so I am having to do the following (Tree inherits from Terrain, and the dictionary just converts the XML save data string to a type):
Type type = dictionary[dataItem.typeAsString];
Terrain t = (Terrain)Activator.CreateInstance(type);
t.X = i;
t.Y = j;
world.Add(t);
I would prefer to do this using something like
Type type = dictionary[dataItem.typeAsString];
world.Add((Terrain)Activator.CreateInstance(type) { X = i, Y = j }
Is there any shortcut like this? I guess if not I could edit world.Add to take an X and Y and cast to Terrain in there to access those variables, but I am still curious as to a) what this {var1 = X, var2 = Y} programming is called, and b) whether something similar exists when using reflection.

This syntax is called Object Initializer syntax and is just syntactic sugar for setting the properties.
The code var result = new MyType { X = x } will be compiled to this:
MyType __tmp = new MyType();
__tmp.X = x;
MyType result = __tmp;
You will have to do that yourself using PropertyInfo.SetValue if you know the instantiated type only at runtime or use the normal property setters if the type is known at compile time.

The answer is no, because the object initialization syntax you mention (introduced with LINQ in 3.0) is an illusion of the compiler. As in, when you type this
var foo = new Foo { Bar = "baz" };
the compiler actually converts it into CLS-compliant IL which equates to
var foo = new Foo();
foo.Bar = "baz";
Phil Haack has a great blog post which not only covers the details of this rewriting done by the compiler, but also some side effects it can cause when dealing with types that implement IDisposable
As all of this is nothing but a feint by the compiler, there is no equivalent using reflection (i.e., Activator.CreateInstance(Type t)). Others will give you workarounds, but in the end there really is no direct equivalent.
Probably the closest generic hack you could manage would be to create a method that accepted an object, then used reflection in order to identify the properties of that object and their respective values in order to perform object initialization for you. It might be used something like this
var foo = Supercollider.Initialize<Foo>(new { Bar = "baz" });
and the code would be something like (this is off the top of my head)
public sealed class Supercollider
{
public static T Initialize<T>(object propertySource)
{
// you can provide overloads for types that don't have a default ctor
var result = Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T));
foreach(var prop in ReflectionHelper.GetProperties(typeof(T)))
ReflectionHelper.SetPropertyValue(
result, // the target
prop, // the PropertyInfo
propertySource); // where we get the value
}
}
You'd have to get each property from the anonymous object, find a property in your target type with the same exact name and type, then get the value from that property in the anonymous object and set the value of your target's property to this value. Its not incredibly hard, but its absolutely prone to runtime exceptions and issues where the compiler chooses a different type for the anonymous type's property, requiring you be more specific (e.g., new { Bar = (string)null }), which screws with the elegance of the thing.

(T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T), param1, param2, ...);
As described HERE.

public sealed class ReflectionUtils
{
public static T ObjectInitializer<T>(Action<T> initialize)
{
var result = Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
initialize(result);
return result;
}
}
public class MyModel
{
public string Name{get;set;}
}
And after that just make the call :
var myModel = ReflectionUtils.ObjectInitializer<MyModel>(m =>
{
m.Name = "Asdf"
});
The advantage is that in this way you will have type safety and use reflection as minimum required, because we all know that reflection is an expensive operation that should be avoided as much as possible.

You could create a constructor which takes those arguments, then use
Activator.CreateInstance(type, i, j)
But you won't be able to use the object initialization syntax. Which is just sugar candy for setting the properties.

generate predictable unique string based on a generic objects content

Story
I'm trying to write a generic method which combines property names, types and content value to generate a unique string for the value held by the object passed.
The idea is to generate a unique SHA3-512 Hash based on the generated string sequence which can be used to compare objects on generic bases by looking at their content.
Example
Let's say we have a class like this ...
class MyClass {
private Int32 Id = 5;
public String Name = "some string";
protected DateTime CreateDate = DateTime.Parse("2017-08-21 15:00:07");
}
... and the mentioned method to generate the unique string
static String GetContentString<T>(T obj) where T : class {
...
}
In theory this should work somewhat like this:
var myObj = new MyClass();
var uniqueContentString = GetContentString(myObj);
Console.WriteLine(uniqueContentString);
>>> Id:Int32:5$Name:String:some string$CreateDate:DateTime:2017-08-21 15:00:07
Problem
I'm having difficulties building the GetContentString Method. This is what I have already:
Object obj = ... // given object
Type type = obj.GetType();
IList<PropertyInfo> propertyInfos = type.GetProperties().Where(x => x.CanRead).ToList(); // Marker #2
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
foreach (PropertyInfo pi in propertyInfos)
{
sb.Append(pi.Name);
sb.Append(":");
sb.Append(pi.PropertyType.Name);
sb.Append(":");
sb.Append(pi.GetValue(obj) ?? "[ISNULL]"); // Marker #1
sb.Append(":");
}
return sb.ToString();
I tried running the method for a few different types of values like "some string" or 1234 (Int32) and ran into a few issues.
Given a string, the method call throws an exception of type System.Reflection.TargetParameterCountException and the message Parameter count mismatch at #1. I found out that an optional index can be passed to an overloaded version of pi.GetValue(..) which then returns one of the single letters. But how do you know when to stop? If you call an index which doesn't exist it throwns an exception of the type System.Reflection.TargetInvocationException. How do you get the value of a string object using reflection?
Given an integer value, the method call doesn't find any properties at #2. Which brings up the question of how to get the value of an integer object using reflection?
And also some general questions; do you guys think this is a good approach to get a unique string? Is reflection the way to go here? Is it even possible to write a generic solution to this problem?

Without looking at reflection, how about JSON serialization with something that .net framework is able to ?
Reflection isn't something extremely fast and you'll run into issues at the first unhandled exception.
Then, you should do that recursivly if your objects can contains complex properties, wich is not a problem with json serialization !

Why can't I access properties of an anonymous type returned from a function via the dynamic keyword?

I have a function that returns an anonymous type like so (simplified for illustrative purposes)...
public object GetPropertyInfo()
{
return new {
PropertyName = "Foo",
Value = "Laa"
};
}
When I do this...
dynamic pi = GetPropertyInfo();
Console.WriteLine(pi);
It outputs this (the same as if I did '?pi' in the immediate window)...
{ PropertyName = "A", Value = 44 }
PropertyName: "A"
Value: 44
But if I try doing this...
string propertyName = pi.PropertyName;
...it compiles but throws a runtime exception saying
Exception thrown: 'Microsoft.CSharp.RuntimeBinder.RuntimeBinderException' in System.Core.dll
Additional information: 'object' does not contain a definition for 'PropertyName'
What gives? What am I missing here?

The problem is that anonymous types are internal, which means that you can't access their properties with dynamic property accessors from projects other than the one they were created in. The dynamic binding treats them as the closest public inherited type it knows about--object.
To fix this, you can declare a public type to represent the values you're expecting to find in your anonymous type. This is probably a good idea anyway, since you're clearly expecting to consume the returned properties in other parts of your code. Using a declared type also enables you to maintain type-safety, avoiding the need for dynamic entirely.
If you absolutely must use dynamics here, the next best option is probably to change your AssemblyInfo.cs file to make internal properties accessible to the project you're trying to access them from:
[assembly:InternalsVisibleTo("MyOtherProject")]

Edit
According to your edit. Apparently you are not required dynamic at all as there are no dynamic properties. Just create a concrete type with your predefined properties. It's better to avoid dynamic when possible anyway.
Old Answer
You need to use an ExpandoObject. Reference here.
In fact, GetPropertyInfo() should return an ExpandoObject.
dynamic foo = this.GetPropertyInfo();
string i = foo.MyPropertyName;
private ExpandoObject GetPropertyInfo()
{
dynamic obj = new ExpandoObject();
obj.PropertyName = "MyPropertyName";
obj.PropertyType = "MyPropertyType";
return obj;
}
The ExpandoObject class enables you to add and delete members of its
instances at run time and also to set and get values of these members.
This class supports dynamic binding, which enables you to use standard
syntax like sampleObject.sampleMember instead of more complex syntax
like sampleObject.GetAttribute("sampleMember").

Also, you can use System.Reflection
object D = GetPropertyInfo();
Type t = D.GetType(); // get object's type
PropertyInfo p = t.GetProperty("PropertyName"); // look up for the property:
object P = p.GetValue(D, null); // get the value
Fiddle demo

Property / field initializers in code generation

I'm generating code in a visual studio extension using CodeDom and plain code strings. My extension reads a current classes declared fields and properties using reflection and generates contructors, initializers, implements certain interfaces, etc.
The generator class is simple:
public class CodeGenerator < T >
{
public string GetCode ()
{
string code = "";
T type = typeof(T);
List < PropertyInfo > properties = t.GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyInfo property in properties)
code += "this." + property.Name + " = default(" + property.PropertyType.Name + ")";
}
}
I'm stuck at field and property initializers in two ways.
Firstly, although default(AnyNonGenericValueOrReferenceType) seems to work in most cases, I'm uncomfortable with using it in generated code.
Secondly, it does not work for generic types since I can't find a way to get the underlying type of the generic type. So if a property is List < int >, property.PropertyType.Name returns List`1. There are two problems here. First, I need to get the proper name for the generic type without using string manipulation. Second, I need to access the underlying type. The full property type name returns something like:
System.Collections.Generic.List`1[[System.Int32, mscorlib, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089]]

Before I try to answer, I feel compelled to point out that what you're doing seems redundant. Assuming that you are putting this code into a constructor, generating something like:
public class Foo
{
private int a;
private bool b;
private SomeType c;
public Foo()
{
this.a = default(int);
this.b = default(bool);
this.c = default(SomeType);
}
}
is unnecessary. That already happens automatically when a class is constructed. (In fact, some quick testing shows that these assignments aren't even optimized away if they're done explicitly in the constructor, though I suppose the JITter could take care of that.)
Second, the default keyword was designed in large part to do exactly what you're doing: to provide a way to assign the "default" value to a variable whose type is unknown at compile time. It was introduced for use by generic code, I assume, but auto-generated code is certainly correct in using it as well.
Keep in mind that the default value of a reference type is null, so
this.list = default(List<int>);
does not construct a new List<int>, it just sets this.list to null. What I suspect you want to do, instead, is to use the Type.IsValueType property to leave value types at their default values, and initialize reference types using new.
Lastly, I think what you're looking for here is the IsGenericType property of the Type class and the corresponding GetGenericArguments() method:
foreach (PropertyInfo property in properties)
{
if (property.Type.IsGenericType)
{
var subtypes = property.Type.GetGenericArguments();
// construct full type name from type and subtypes.
}
else
{
code += "this." + property.Name + " = default(" + property.PropertyType.Name + ")";
}
}
EDIT:
As far as constructing something useful for a reference type, a common technique I've seen used by generated code is to require a parameterless constructor for any class that you expect to use. It's easy enough to see if a class has a parameterless constructor, by calling Type.GetConstructor(), passing in an empty Type[] (e.g. Type.EmptyTypes), and see if it returns a ConstructorInfo or null. Once that has been established, simply replacing default(typename) with new typename() should achieve what you need.
More generally you can supply any array of types to that method to see if there's a matching constructor, or call GetConstructors() to get them all. Things to look out for here are the IsPublic, IsStatic, and IsGenericMethod fields of the ConstructorInfo, to find one you can actually call from wherever this code is being generated.
The problem you are trying to solve, though, is going to become arbitrarily complex unless you can place some constraints on it. One option would be to find an arbitrary constructor and build a call that looks like this:
var line = "this." + fieldName + " = new(";
foreach ( var param in constructor.GetParameters() )
{
line += "default(" + param.ParameterType.Name + "),";
}
line = line.TrimEnd(',') + ");"
(Note this is for illustrative purposes only, I'd probably use CodeDOM here, or at least a StringBuilder :)
But of course, now you have the problem of determining the appropriate type name for each parameter, which themselves could be generics. And the reference type parameters would all be initialized to null. And there's no way of knowing which of the arbitrarily many constructors you can pick from actually produces a usable object (some of them may do bad things, like assume you're going to set properties or call methods immediately after you construct an instance.)
How you go about solving those issues is not a technical one: you can recursively apply this same logic to each parameter as far down as you're willing to go. It's a matter of deciding, for your use case, how complex you need to be and what kind of limits you're willing to place on the users.

If you are sure you want to use strings, you will have to write your own method to format those type names. Something like:
static string FormatType(Type t)
{
string result = t.Name;
if (t.IsGenericType)
{
result = string.Format("{0}<{1}>",
result.Split('`')[0],
string.Join(",", t.GetGenericArguments().Select(FormatType)));
}
return result;
}
This code assumes you have all necessary usings in your file.
But I think it's much better to actually use CodeDOM's object model. This way, you don't have to worry about usings, formatting types or typos:
var statement =
new CodeAssignStatement(
new CodePropertyReferenceExpression(new CodeThisReferenceExpression(), property.Name),
new CodeDefaultValueExpression(new CodeTypeReference(property.PropertyType)));
And if you really don't want to use default(T), you can find out whether the type is a reference or value type. If it's a reference type, use null. If it's value type, the default constructor has to exist, and so you can call that.

How to generate an instance of an unknown type at runtime?

i've got the following in C#:
string typename = "System.Int32";
string value = "4";
theses two strings should be taken to generate an object of the specified type with the specified value...
result should be:
object o = CreateUnknownType(typename, value);
...
Int32 test = (Int32)o;

Is this what are you are thinking?
object result = Convert.ChangeType("4", Type.GetType("System.Int32"));

As stated, this is too broad and can not be solved generally.
Here are some options:
Type type = Type.GetType(typename);
object o = Activator.CreateInstance(type);
This will create an instance of the type that typename is describing. It calls the parameterless constructor of that type. (Downside: Not all objects have a parameterless constructor. Further, this does set the state of the object using value.)
Type type = Type.GetType(typename);
object o = Activator.CreateInstance(type, new[] { value });
This will create an instance of the type that typename is describing. It calls a constructor of that type that accepts one parameter of type string. (Downside: Not all objects have such a constructor. For example, Int32 does not have such a constructor so you will experience a runtime exception.)
Type type = Type.GetType(typename);
object o = Convert.ChangeType(value, type);
This will attempt to convert the string value to an instance of the required type. This can lead to InvalidCastExceptions though. For example, Convert.ChangeType("4", typeof(FileStream)) will obviously fail, as it should.
In fact, this last example (create an instance of type FileStream with its initial state determined by the string "4") shows how absurd the general problem is. There are some constructions/conversions that just can not be done.
You might want to rethink the problem you are trying to solve to avoid this morass.

Creating an instance of a type you know by name (and which should have a default constructor):
string typeName = "System.Int32";
Type type = Type.GetType(type);
object o = Activator.CreateInstance(type);
Parsing a value from a string will obviously only work for a limited set of types. You could
use Convert.ChangeType as suggested
by PhilipW
or maybe create a
Dictionary<Type,Func<string,object>>
which maps known types to known parse
functions
or use reflection to invoke the
Parse(string) method on the type,
assuming there is one:
string valueText = "4";
MethodInfo parseMethod = type.GetMethod("Parse");
object value = parseMethod.Invoke(null, new object[] { valueText });
or maybe you can use the
infrastructure provided by the .NET
component model. You can fetch the
type converter of a component and use
it like this:
TypeConverter converter = TypeDescriptor.GetConverter(type);
object value = converter.ConvertFromString(valueText);

Your logic seems a little flawed here. Obviously, if you're directly casting the object at a later time to the actual type it is, then you must know the type to begin with.
If there's something else that is missing from this question please elaborate and maybe there is a more appropriate answer than simply, "This doesn't make much sense."

Perhaps you have a set of different types, all of which implement a known interface?
For example if you have several different user controls and want to load one of them into a container, each one might implement IMyWobblyControl (a known interface) yet you might not know until runtime which of them to load, possibly from reading strings from some form of configuration file.
In that case, you'll need to use reflection to load the actual type from something like the full assembly name, then cast it into your known type to use it.
Of course, you need to make sure that your code handles invalid cast, assembly not found and any of the other exceptions that are likely to come along through something as wobbly as this...

This seems like a job for Int32.Parse(string). But to agree with the others it seems this is "unique" and one should probably think gloves.

Here's a specific example of the problem involving Azure SQL Federations...which splits data into separate db's according to a key range.
The key range types are:
SQL / .Net SQL type / CLR .Net
INT / SqlInt32 / Int32, Nullable
BIGINT / SqlInt64 / Int64, Nullable
UNIQUEIDENTIFIER / SqlGuid /Guid, Nullable
VARBINARY(n), max n 900 / SqlBytes, SqlBinary /Byte[]
Ideally, a C# function param could take either .Net SQL type or CLR .Net type but settling on just one category of type is fine.
Would an "object" type param be the way to go? And, is there a feasible way to identify the type and convert it accordingly?
The concept is something like:
public void fn(object obj, string fedName, string distName, bool filteringOn)
{
...figure out what type obj is to ensure it is one of the acceptable types...
string key = obj.toString();
return string.Format("USE FEDERATION {0} ({1}='{2}') WITH RESET, FILTERING = {3}", fedName, distName, key, (filteringOn ? "ON" : "OFF"));
}
Though the param value is cast to string, it will be recast/checked on the sql server side so validating it on the app side is desired.

After using:
Type type = Type.GetType(typename);
Try this extension method:
public static class ReflectionExtensions
{
public static T CreateInstance<T>(this Type source, params object[] objects)
where T : class
{
var cons = source.GetConstructor(objects.Select(x => x.GetType()).ToArray());
return cons == null ? null : (T)cons.Invoke(objects);
}
}
Hope this helps.