Scenario:
i have a web form from where i m taking input for Item class now i want to assign values to feature that have return type of list how can i do that.
item value = new item(),
value.feature = serialtextbox.text; //error
foreach ( var item in value) //error
{
item.SerialNo= serialtextbox.text;
}
Item and Item feature classes
Class Item
{
list<Itemfeature> features;
}
class ItemFeature
{
public int SerialNo
{
get { return serialno; }
set { serialno = value; }
}
public int Weight
{
get { return weight; }
set { weight = value; }
}
}
Plz help me out
Note: No language is specified, but it looks like C#. I'm assuming C# in this answer.
It's not really clear what you're trying to do here, but I'll give it a shot. First of all, you're going to want to post the actual code you're using. This code won't even compile, it's loaded with syntax errors.
Let's take a look at your objects first:
class Item
{
List<ItemFeature> features;
}
class ItemFeature
{
public int SerialNo
{
get { return serialno; }
set { serialno = value; }
}
public int Weight
{
get { return weight; }
set { weight = value; }
}
}
You have a custom class, ItemFeature, which consists of a serial number (integer) and a weight (integer). You then have another custom class, Item, which consists of a list of ItemFeatures.
Now it looks like you're trying to add a new ItemFeature to the Item and then loop through all of them and set them again?. Something like this, perhaps?:
Item value = new Item();
value.features.Add(new ItemFeature { SerialNo = int.Parse(serialtextbox.Text) } );
foreach (var item in value.features)
{
item.SerialNo = int.Parse(serialtextbox.Text);
}
(Note that this code is probably as free-hand as your code, so I haven't tested it or anything.)
What I've changed here is:
Setting the SerialNo property, rather than trying to set the ItemFeature directly to a value. You need to dig into the object's property to set a value on that property, not just set it to the entire object.
Converting the input (a string) into the property's type (an int).
Looping through the list, not the Item object itself. The Item object contains a list as a property, but the object itself isn't a list. You can loop through the property, not through the parent object.
A few things to ask/note:
What exactly are you trying to do? You have a list of objects, but you're only setting one and then looping through that one to set it again. Why?
You may want to consider more apt class/property names. Things like "Item" can be a bit unclear.
Your Item class has a public variable, features. This is generally frowned upon. It's better to use a property. That way if you ever have to add logic behind it you won't break compatibility outside of the object itself. The ItemFeature class has properties like this, which is good. They can be additionally shortened by using automatic properties if you'd like, just to keep things clean and simple.
Note that my code isn't doing any input checking on the serialtextbox.Text value. It should be. I presented it in a simpler form as an introductory approach to something that will work under ideal conditions. But something like the following would be better:
var serialValue = 0;
if (!int.TryParse(serialtextbox.Text, out serialValue))
{
// Here you would probably present an error to the user stating that the form field failed validation.
// Maybe even throw an exception? Depends on how you handle errors.
// Mainly, exit the logic flow.
return;
}
var value = new Item();
value.features.Add(new ItemFeature { SerialNo = serialValue } );
Edit: I just noticed that my call to .Add() will actually fail. You'll want to initialize the list before trying to use it. Consider changing the Item class to something like this:
class Item
{
public List<ItemFeature> features { get; set; }
public Item()
{
features = new List<ItemFeature>();
}
}
Two things changed here:
I converted the public member to a property, as previously mentioned.
I added a constructor which initializes the list so that it can be used. Otherwise, being a reference type, it would default to null. So any call to .Add() or any other method on the list would throw a NullReferenceException because there's no object on which to call the method(s).
Related
In prior versions of C#, if you wanted to prevent a null reference exception, you needed to build your setters defensively:
public Guid ItemId { get; set; } //foreign key, required
private Item _item;
public virtual Item Item {
get {
return _item;
}
set {
if(value == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(value));
_item = value;
ItemId = value.ItemId;
}
}
With more modern implementations, this can be condensed a certain amount using the null-coalescing operator and expression bodies:
private Item _item;
public virtual Item Item {
get => _item;
set => _item = value ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(value));
}
However, I am curious if this could not be condensed entirely down into a variation of the standard reference:
public virtual Item Item { get; set; }
Such that you do not have to define a private item.
Suggestions? Or is the second code block as efficient/simple as I can get?
I am looking for a solution within the current C# framework, not something I have to spend money on. Right now my use case proposition does not support a paid product
Disclaimer: Those are potential 'alternative' ways of filtering out invalid assignments into properties. This might not provide a straight answer to the question, but rather give ideas how to go on about doing it more generically without defining private properties and defining getters and setters explicitly.
Depending on what Item actually is, you could perhaps create a non-nullable type of Item by creating it as a struct.
Non nullable types are called structs. They are nothing new, they are value types which allow to store properties of type int, string, bool etc.
As on MSDN:
A struct type is a value type that is typically used to encapsulate
small groups of related variables, such as the coordinates of a
rectangle or the characteristics of an item in an inventory.
The following example shows a simple struct declaration:
public struct Book
{
public decimal price{ get; set;}
public string title;
public string author;
}
Reference
Edit (Struct should be sufficient if the object is supposed to be non-nullable type, however if we're talking properties of the class then read below.) :
Another way would be using OnPropertyChanged event which is part of the INotifyPropertyChanged interface.
While the event does not explicitly give you the value that has been changed to, you can grab it as it does provide you the property name. So you could run your validation post assignment and throw then, I suppose however it might not be the best option.
void item_PropertyChanged(object sender, PropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
var propertyValue = sender.GetType().GetProperty(e.PropertyName).GetValue(sender);
}
Another solution would be using DataAnnotations and add Required attributes on your properties. If I'm not mistaken they will not throw straight away, until you call your own validate function to validate the class, I guess, combined with the above method this would work pretty well and would be pretty generic. Once written you wouldn't have to write your getters and setters explicitly but rather attach just one event to your class and validate it once a property changes.
Here's a small example:
Your Item model for example...
public class Item
{
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
You would then implement a generic function which would validate all properties.
public bool TryValidate(object #object, out ICollection < ValidationResult > results) {
var context = new ValidationContext(#object, serviceProvider: null, items: null);
results = new List <ValidationResult> ();
return Validator.TryValidateObject(
#object, context, results,
validateAllProperties: true
);
}
Inside that function you would of course throw an exception if validation failed, your results array would contain properties that it failed on an default messages if I'm not mistaken. I believe this is a bit complex, but if you're looking for reducing the number of properties and setter implementations, this could be a step forward. I'm not sure on the overhead etc. Personally, I think on a larger scale, this would be super useful to validate models which are created on the fly from db data or any external source.
Validator Reference | Data Annotations Reference | ValidationResults Reference | PropertyChanged MSDN Sample
I have a profile form that has a lot of user selections and I am sort of stumped on a good approach to validate what the user enters, when passing validation mapping those values to object properties.
For example I have a dictionary
public static Dictionary<string, string> objProfileSelections = new Dictionary<string, string>();
public static string MySelections(string key)
{
objProfileSelections.Add("1", "No Answer");
objProfileSelections.Add("3", "Less Than $25,000");
objProfileSelections.Add("5", "$35,000 to $50,000");
objProfileSelections.Add("7", "$50,000 to $75,000");
objProfileSelections.Add("9", "$75,000 to $100,000");
objProfileSelections.Add("11", "$100,000 to $150,000");
objProfileSelections.Add("13", "$150,000+");
objProfileSelections.Add("2", "No Answer");
objProfileSelections.Add("4", "Less Than $25,000");
objProfileSelections.Add("6", "$35,000 to $50,000");
objProfileSelections.Add("8", "$50,000 to $75,000");
objProfileSelections.Add("10", "$75,000 to $100,000");
objProfileSelections.Add("12", "$100,000 to $150,000");
objProfileSelections.Add("14", "$150,000+");
string item;
objProfileSelections.TryGetValue(key, out item);
return item;
}
Id like to pass in a list of key strings from the user and pass those items to populate an object. The issue is I don't know how to code it so it know which property to go to, I looked at reflection, but I couldn't find any examples that have a set dictionary of values that map to property names.
To make a bit more clear, when a user makes a selection it passes as a parameter in the dictionary, and the dictionary outputs the items. From key 1 comes value No Answer. If the user selected all the check boxes it would be value - (1,3,5,7,9,11,13). I need to extract those values when there is a matching key to a matching property. For example if the user clicks 1,5 but leaves the rest unchecked, how do I know which selections the user made? How do I get the program to know which property to populate based on the results?
*edit
some properties I would like it mapped to
public string MyAnnualIncome{ get; set; }
public List<string> InterestAnnualIncome{ get; set; }
So the first property would be taking one value, and the second property would be taking multiple values.
When a key matches a value comes out the dictionary, I would need the odd values going to MyAnnualIncome and the even values going to InterestAnnualIncome.
so no one is confused odd and even keys are set up for a purpose, odd numbers belonging to a certain group of properties and the even ones belonging to another based on the html selections (even being my selections, odd being what I am interested in)
*Update
Is there a way I can possibly use the keys like 1,3,5 and pass that into a list using the except extension method. Then take the results and use a method to convert the values from enumerated data types to strings?
Hopefully I understood your question.
I would add a small helper class (this is a solution which doesn't use reflection, but uses delegates instead):
public class PropertyModifier
{
private string text;
private Func<string> modifier;
public PropertyModifier(Func<string> modifier)
{
this.modifier = modifier;
}
public PropertyModifier With(string text)
{
PropertyModifier newModifier = new PropertyModifier(modifier);
newModifier.text = text;
return newModifier;
}
public void Modify()
{
modifier(Text);
}
}
Then I would rewrite your code and have the dictionary map to this class instead to string:
public static Dictionary<string, PropertyModifier> objProfileSelections = new Dictionary<string, PropertyModifier>();
public static MyUserProfile Profile; //Assuming this is the object you want to modify
public static string MySelections(string key)
{
PropertyModifier myIncome = new PropertyModifier(text => Profile.MyAnnualIncome = text);
PropertyModifier interestIncome = new PropertyModifier(text => Profile.InterestAnnualIncome.Add(text));
objProfileSelections.Add("1", myIncome.With("No Answer"));
objProfileSelections.Add("3", myIncome.With("Less Than $25,000"));
...
objProfileSelections.Add("2", interestIncome.With("No Answer"));
objProfileSelections.Add("4", interestIncome.With("Less Than $25,000"));
...
}
Then, when processing the user's selection, get the mapped PropertyModifier from the dictionary and call its Modify method.
I tried in this code to illustrate how you can modify the properties of the different classes that may compose a profile. Modifications are done by reflection only, i.e. just providing the class name, the property name that will vary in each class and the string value to be assigned to the property.
Not sure that it fits your expectations :(
Profile profile = new Profile() ;
profile.SetPropertyValue("hair","color","brown") ;
internal class Profile()
{
private Hair hair_ = new Hair();
private Job job_ = new Job ();
internal Hair hair { get { return hair_ ; } }
internal Job job { get { return job_ ; } }
private void SetPropertyValue(string profileItemName, string ItemPropertyName, string value)
{ // it is assumed that the different items (hair or job) of the Profile are accessible
// with a a property
// first find the Item object, i.e. hair or job
object itemObj = this.GetType().GetProperty(profileItemName).GetValue(this,null);
// assign to Item property the input value, e.g. hair.color=Brown
itemObj.GetType().GetProperty(ItemPropertyName).SetValue(itemObj, value, null);
}
}
internal class Hair()
{
private string color_ ;
private string style_ ;
internal string color { get { return color_ ; } set {color_ = value ; } }
internal string style { get { return style_ ; } set {style_ = value ; } }
}
I have to following in vb.net and am having a rough time converting to c#. The fieldlist is a class that has several properties however only 2 are relevant for the below procedure. The code to call the procedure looks like myClass.Fields("Test") = 123456. The converters all drop the fieldname from the property. If I add it back then I get The name 'value' does not exist in the current context.
VB.net - works fine in VB
Public WriteOnly Property Fields(ByVal fieldName As String) As Object
Set(ByVal value As Object)
If mvarFieldData Is Nothing Then mvarFieldData = New FieldList
If mvarFieldData(fieldName) Is Nothing Then
mvarFieldData.Add(fieldName, value)
Else
mvarFieldData(fieldName).FieldValue = value
End If
End Set
End Property
c# - I'm doing something wrong here.
public object Fields(string fieldName)
{
set {
if (mvarFieldData == null)
{mvarFieldData = new FieldList();}
if (mvarFieldData[fieldName] == null)
{
mvarFieldData.Add(fieldName, value);
} else {
mvarFieldData[fieldName].FieldValue = value;
}
}
}
c# Converters(telerik) provide the below
public object Fields {
set {
if (mvarFieldData == null)
mvarFieldData = new FieldList();
if (mvarFieldData(fieldName) == null) {
mvarFieldData.Add(fieldName, value);
} else {
mvarFieldData(fieldName).FieldValue = value;
}
}
}
What is the scope of mVarFieldData, and what is it's exact type? It seems like it is a Collection of some sort.
The c# code above is not compilable as you are trying to mix a method syntax with a property syntax.
property:
public object Fields{ get; set{mvarFieldData = value;} }
Method:
public object Fields(string fieldname, object val){ mvarFieldData[fieldname] = val;}
By the looks of the decision making going on in the VB.Net property, I would think a public method may suit the situation better. I normally just use property's when a very minimum amount of validation is needed when setting a encapsulated type member.
Hope this helps.
You actually have a couple problems here.
Problem 1: Properties don't take arguments.
C# properties can't be passed an argument/parameter the way you're passing fieldname. There are a couple different ways you could solve this:
You can make an index property (used with myObject[fieldName] = blah rather than myObject.Fields[fieldName] = blah). Use the syntax public object this[string fieldName] to declare the property.
Since your property doesn't have a getter, you can just turn it into a single method with signature public void SetField(string fieldName, object value), called like so: myObject.SetField(fieldName, value).
You can expose mvarFieldData through a getter property: public Dictionary<?, ?> Fields { get { return mvarFieldData; } } which will let users access the dictionary (I assume that's what it is, based on usage) directly.
Problem 2: The key may not exist.
I'm not sure about dictionaries (or whatever similar structure mvarFieldData is) in VB.NET, but in C# there's a difference between a key whose value is null and a key that's not present in the structure.
var dict = new Dictionary<int, string>();
dict.Add(1, null);
if (dict[1] == null)
Console.WriteLine("This line will be displayed.");
if (dict[2] == null)
Console.WriteLine("The line above this one will throw an exception.");
In addition to your present code, you need a check for mvarFieldData.ContainsKey(fieldName) before you start checking the value associated with fieldName.
I currently have a ComboBox in my Windows Forms Application. In order to specify which values the ComboBox will contain, I set DataSource property of the ComboBox to some array so that ComboBox contains values from that array. I could also use Items.Add() to add new values to ComboBox. However, I want to make sure that ComboBox can be populated with objects of some specific type. So, if I have a class called X, then I want to make it so that only an array of type X can be used as a data source for the ComboBox. Right now, ComboBox accepts objects of type System.Object. How can I achieve it? Is there a property of ComboBox that I need to set to be equal to my data type's name? Or is there an event that will check whether an object added to my ComboBox is of the needed type and will throw an exception if not?
I was thinking of creating a new class as a subtype of ComboBox, and overriding the Add method of Items property so that Add checks whether its argument is of the needed type (not sure if and how I can do it). Even if I do that, there are still other ways to add new values into ComboBox (AddRange, CopyTo, etc.), so I think there should be a more elegant solution to this problem.
If you want to control the type of item that the ComboBox can contain, you could try creating a new class derived form ComboBox, but you'd run into the problem that it still has the ComboBox.ObjectCollection Items property which would still accept any type! And (unfortunately for your idea of overriding) the Add method isn't virtual.
The only practical solution that I could think of would be to abstract the ComboBox somehow. If this isn't shared code, I would recommend just creating a method that you would use to add items to the ComboBox. Something like:
// NOTE: All items that are added to comboBox1 need to be of type `SomeType`.
private void AddItemToComboBox(SomeType item)
{
comboBox1.Items.Add(item);
}
Any attempt to add a non-SomeType object to the ComboBox would be met with a compiler error. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to prevent someone from still adding a non-SomeType item to ComboBox.Items directly.
Again, if this isn't shared code, it shouldn't really be an issue.
You can hide Items property by your
own Items property of custom type which taking as parameter original ItemsCollection
Example class for testing
public class Order
{
public Int32 ID { get; set; }
public string Reference { get; set; }
public Order() { }
public Order(Int32 inID, string inReference)
{
this.ID = inID;
this.Reference = (inReference == null) ? string.Empty : inReference;
}
//Very important
//Because ComboBox using .ToString method for showing Items in the list
public override string ToString()
{
return this.Reference;
}
}
With next class I tried wrap ComboBox's items collection in own type.
Where adding items must be concrete type
Here you can add other methods/properties you need (Remove)
public class ComboBoxList<TCustomType>
{
private System.Windows.Forms.ComboBox.ObjectCollection _baseList;
public ComboBoxList(System.Windows.Forms.ComboBox.ObjectCollection baseItems)
{
_baseList = baseItems;
}
public TCustomType this[Int32 index]
{
get { return (TCustomType)_baseList[index]; }
set { _baseList[index] = value; }
}
public void Add(TCustomType item)
{
_baseList.Add(item);
}
public Int32 Count { get { return _baseList.Count; } }
}
Here custom combobox class derived from ComboBox
Added: generic type
public class ComboBoxCustomType<TCustomType> : System.Windows.Forms.ComboBox
{
//Hide base.Items property by our wrapping class
public new ComboBoxList<TCustomType> Items;
public ComboBoxCustomType() : base()
{
this.Items = new ComboBoxList<TCustomType>(base.Items);
}
public new TCustomType SelectedItem
{
get { return (TCustomType)base.SelectedItem; }
}
}
Next code used in the Form
private ComboBoxCustomType<Order> _cmbCustom;
//this method used in constructor of the Form
private void ComboBoxCustomType_Initialize()
{
_cmbCustom = new ComboBoxCustomType<Order>();
_cmbCustom.Location = new Point(100, 20);
_cmbCustom.Visible = true;
_cmbCustom.DropDownStyle = ComboBoxStyle.DropDownList;
_cmbCustom.Items.Add(new Order(0, " - nothing - "));
_cmbCustom.Items.Add(new Order(1, "One"));
_cmbCustom.Items.Add(new Order(2, "Three"));
_cmbCustom.Items.Add(new Order(3, "Four"));
_cmbCustom.SelectedIndex = 0;
this.Controls.Add(_cmbCustom);
}
Instead of overriding ComboBox (which wont work as stated in itsme86's answer) you could override usercontrol, add a combobox to this, and then only expose the elements that you wish to work with. Something similar to
public partial class MyComboBox<T> : UserControl where T: class
{
public MyComboBox()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
public void Add(T item)
{
comboBox1.Items.Add(item);
}
public IEnumerable<T> Items
{
get { return comboBox1.Items.Cast<T>(); }
}
}
Please note however that some pieces of automated software rely on access the the underlying controls however so this may cause some issues.
This approach never changes the Items of the combobox so they will still store as objects but when you access them, you are casting them to the correct type and only allowing them to be added of that type. You can create a new combobox via
var myCB = new MyComboBox<ItemClass>();
In my CustomView class, TaskText and ProjectText are comboboxes. See the following property written for getting value from TaskText. My TaskText combobox contains list of Tasks. When I select specific task at runtime, it should store id of that Task which I've done in setters. But I don't understand, how do I get that id?
Later, I'll convert that id to integer and passed to method.
See the below code, which I've tried-
public Harvest_Task taskClass
{
get
{
return new Harvest_Task { _id = Int32.Parse(TaskText.Text) }; // Here _id doesn't take the value.
}
set
{
if (value != null)
{
TaskText.Text = (value._id).ToString();
}
}
}
Usually you create a getter/setter to a specific property of a class and not the whole class itself...
Plus the way you're trying to do things, i recomment trying a Singleton class.