I'd like to intercept and inject custom code when calling 3rd party code in C#. I am using an external library (AutoIt) for GUI automation. The AutoIt dll is provided without source code.
All actions done with this framework are performed from a single class (AutoItClass) providing access to all the methods. I'd like to be able to inject custom code when calling methods on this class, is this possible? For example:
Log some information from within the called method.
Perform any other action from within the method (wait for X seconds).
This would be possible very simply by inheriting from this class and overriding all its methods (which is a must since this is a COM object), but this is not the preferred way. Any comments will be helpful!
I wouldn't use inheritance - you can use composition here. Create your own class which has the same methods - or in fact only the ones you're interested in - and delegate through that. That way you can be sure you won't "miss" any methods accidentally, because anything you don't implement won't be callable through the rest of your codebase... so long as you make sure the rest of your code doesn't refer to the original library class, of course.
You can investigate PostSharp, which is a commercial product that can inject IL into compiled assemblies to perform aspect oriented programming. You can define different kind of behaviour that should happen before and after a method gets executed, for example, which seems to be what you want. This way, as PostSharp handles this in a post-compilation step, you don't need to create any inherited classes from the classes that you want to intercept.
Otherwise if you want a more "pure" solution I would follow Jon's advice about creating a new class that wraps the functionality of the one that you want to intercept. (see Decorator pattern) .
Related
I was wondering how to go about writing a custom attribute which can access both the input and output parameters of a function.
Below is an example of what I wish to achieve
[CustomAttribute("Creating Foo")]
public Foo CreateFoo(Foo newFoo)
{
//do logic
return newlyCreatedFoo;
}
From this, the CustomAttribute will create an entry in a DB with the "Creating Foo" tag, which is easy enough to do, but I want to be able to access both newFoo and newlyCreatedFoo as well. Is this possible?
Custom attributes can't do that in general: their purpose is to add metadata to a method to view during reflection.
That being said, there are some cases where attributes are leveraged to do that. For example, ASP.Net MVC uses custom attributes that implement IAuthorizationFilter to provide security for some web pages. This works because ASP is using reflection to launch the methods in the first place. Once it gets the method it checks to see if any attributes are IAuthorizationFilters, and does some extra work when they are. See this link for some more info.
Another way to think about this is to consider aspect-oriented programming. I think AOP frameworks for c# tend to make compile time decorations to methods based on attributes that implement a certain interface, but I have not used one.
My favorite way to deal with this is the good old Proxy pattern. Create a logging proxy.
I am afraid that this is not possible with custom attributes.
This could be achieved with post compilation processing. Tools like PostSharp would allow you to achieve this functionality.
Perhaps you should rephrase your question to "How can I intercept calls to specific methods and log the arguments"?
A custom attribute is just a decoration on a method. It does not intercept or in any way affect the execution of a method. It doesn't even know what member it is attached to.
If you want to intercept the calls you can use a dependency injection framework, or any other AOP framework for .NET to do just that. Some of them actually use attributes to mark their targets, but that isn't a requirement.
PostSharp is just one AOP framework for .NET.
Another option, is to use an IoC/Dependency Injection library like MEF to wrap your class in a proxy object that will intercept all calls and only log the values of the methods decorated with a special attribute.
I have an .net assembly at C#. I have both: binary and source which has no logger, for example.
All I need is to insert property which will be initialised specific logger. Then I need to introduce logger invoker in all methods. The first way - is manually write property and their invokes. And the second way - is to write another class\method (I suppose in the same assembly) which will do it automatically.
Is it possible? Any suggestions?
I think it is possible, cause it was one of the questions at the interview. But there is no proof that this is possible, and they wanted to hear "no, do this manually".
This is what we call in architectural terms a 'cross cutting concern'. Logging is something that straddles many aspects of an application.
There are features to take care of it in the Microsoft Enterprise Library. The part you want is the Policy Injection library. You can then specify, in the config, methods to match (based on method name/structure) and a function to be called. In this way you can include logging as a proper cross-cutting concern of your app, rather than something which must be manually coded into every method.
It is not possible to alter the execution of a method without altering the source code and recompiling. You could write a wrapper class that would expose all classes and methods which would first call your logger and then the methods, but that's not what they asked.
So the answer to their question is 1. is possible, 2. isn't possible, and if you would have to add logging support, you would need to add it to each method manually.
I'm primarily an Objective-C/Cocoa developer, but I'm trying to implement the Observer pattern in C#.NET, specifically mimicking the NSKeyValueObserving protocols and methodology.
I've gotten as far as mimicking NSKVO with manual support, as described in Apple's KVO Programming Guide (see http://tinyurl.com/nugolr). Since I'm writing the setValue:forKey: methods myself, I can implement auto KVO notification through there.
However, I'd like to somehow implement auto KVO on all properties by dynamically overriding them at runtime. For example, replacing Button.Title.set with:
set {
this.willChangeValueForKey("title");
title = value;
this.didChangeValueForKey("title");
}
So, this is my question:
How do I dynamically override a method or property at runtime in C#? I've gotten as far as getting and invoking methods and properties by name using Reflection.MethodInfo. Alternatively, can I observe the runtime and find out when a method is about to be/has been called?
Dynamic metaprogramming and aspect oriented programming are not yet strongly supported in C#. What you can do, is look at a free tool called PostSharp - it allows supports weaving aspects into your code around properties and method calls quite easily.
You can implement the INotifyPropertyChanged interface (without postsharp) and it can be used in certain contexts to notify observers that a value of a property has changed. However, it still requires that each property actually broadcast the change notification - which generally requires it to be specifically coded to support that. Injecting change notification to existing code (without actually changing the source) is not an easy thing to do in straight-up C#. PostSharp (other other AOP/dynamic proxy libraries) make this sort of thing dramatically easier.
I'm not sure if you need to go down this road or not. But if you want to implement overrides of a method (i.e. generating new code for the method?) then it is possible with Emit. I would explore any other suggestions first before diving into those deep waters.
You're looking for INotifyPropertyChanged. You can dynamically implement that using PostSharp, Castle DynamicProxy or probably any other proxying library.
This does not solves the problem of having to add the tracking code dynamically, but can be interesting to read: Trackable Properties with Weak Events
With this stuff you are able to track changes to specific properties and it makes easier to implement INotifyPropertyChanged (i.e. track changes to all properties).
After doing extensive research on this subject, it appears that I can't do exactly what I'd like to do with .NET in its current state.
PostSharp's method is done at compile time, meaning I can't dynamically insert my own implementations to methods.
Reflection.Emit allows me to do this dynamically, but it generates a new instance of the created subclass - I need to do this so it works with the original instance.
INotifyPropertyChanging and INotifyPropertyChanged would be perfect if any of the existing .NET classes actually used them.
... so, at the moment I'm a bit stuck. I've put a more detailed piece on what I'm doing and how I'm trying to achieve in a post on my blog. Here's hoping .NET 4.0's dynamic dispatch will help!
I'm working with a 3rd party c# class that has lots of great methods and properties - but as time has gone by I need to extend that class with methods and properties of my own. If it was my code I would just use that class as my base class and add my own properties and method on top - but this class has an internal constructor. (In my opinion it was short sited to make the constructor internal in the first place - why limit the ability to subclass?)
The only thing I could think of was to create method / properties on my class that simply called into theirs - but it's acres of code and, well, it just doesn't "feel" right.
Is there any way to use this class a base class?
You ask: "Why limit the ability to subclass?"
Because designing for inheritance is tricky, particularly if you're designing for other developers to inherit from your class. As Josh Bloch says in Effective Java, you should design for inheritance or prohibit it. In my view, unless you have a good reason to design for inheritance, you shouldn't do so speculatively.
Does the class implement an interface which you could also implement (possibly by proxying most calls back to an instance of the original)? There's often no really elegant answer here - and the best solution will depend on the exact situation, including what you're trying to add to the class.
If you're not adding any more state - just convenience methods, effectively - then extension methods may work well for you. But they don't change what data an object is capable of storing, so if you need to add your own specialised data, that won't work.
Sounds like a perfect application for extension methods:
MSDN extension method docs
"Extension methods enable you to "add" methods to existing types without creating a new derived type, recompiling, or otherwise modifying the original type. Extension methods are a special kind of static method, but they are called as if they were instance methods on the extended type. For client code written in C# and Visual Basic, there is no apparent difference between calling an extension method and the methods that are actually defined in a type."
If the class has an internal constructor, and there are no public constructors, then that suggests that the designers did not intend for it to be subclassed. In that case, you can use encapsulation, or you can use extension methods.
Only if your class lives in the same assembly as the class you want to inherit from. An internal constructor limits the concrete implementations of the abstract class to the assembly defining the class. A class containing an internal constructor cannot be instantiated outside of the assembly.
Resharper has a nice feature to create delegating members.
Here is a sample of what you can do with it. It takes a couple of seconds.
I will not discuss whether you can build your own Facade around that 3rd party class. Previous authors are right, the library could be designed in the way that will not allow this. Suppose they have some coupled classes that have singletons that should be initialized in specific order or something like this - there may be a lot of design mistakes (or features) that 3rd party developers never care about, because they do not suppose that you will use their library in that way.
But OK, lets suppose that building a facade is not an impossible task, and you have in fact only one problem - there are too many methods you have to write wrappers around, and it is not good to do this manually.
I see 3 solutions to address exactly that problem
1) I suppose that new "dynamic" types of .NET 4.0 will allow you to workaround that problem without having to write "acres of code"
You should incapsulate an instance of 3rd party class into your class as a privare member with dynamic keyword
Your class should be derived from Dynamic or implement IDynamicObject interface. You will have to implement GetMember/SetMember functions that will forward all calls to the encapsulated instance of 3rd party class
Well, c# 4.0 is a future, Let's see on other solutions:
2) Do not write code manually if you have significant number of public methods (say more then 100). I would write a little console app that uses reflection and finds all public members and then automatically generates code to call encapsulated instance. For example
public type MethodName(params)
{
this.anInstanceOf3rdPartyClass.MethodName(params);
}
3) You can do the same as 2, but with the help of existing reflection tools, for example RedGate .NET Reflector. It will help you to list all classes and methods signatures. Then, paste all this in Word and a simple VB macro will let you generate the same code as you could do in 2.
Remark: As soon as you are not copying the code, but only copying method signatures, that are publicly available, I don't think you will violate the license agreement, but anyway it worth to re-check
I am developing a set of classes that implement a common interface. A consumer of my library shall expect each of these classes to implement a certain set of static functions. Is there anyway that I can decorate these class so that the compiler will catch the case where one of the functions is not implemented.
I know it will eventually be caught when building the consuming code. And I also know how to get around this problem using a kind of factory class.
Just curious to know if there is any syntax/attributes out there for requiring static functions on a class.
Ed Removed the word 'interface' to avoid confusion.
No, there is no language support for this in C#. There are two workarounds that I can think of immediately:
use reflection at runtime; crossed fingers and hope...
use a singleton / default-instance / similar to implement an interface that declares the methods
(update)
Actually, as long as you have unit-testing, the first option isn't actually as bad as you might think if (like me) you come from a strict "static typing" background. The fact is; it works fine in dynamic languages. And indeed, this is exactly how my generic operators code works - it hopes you have the static operators. At runtime, if you don't, it will laugh at you in a suitably mocking tone... but it can't check at compile-time.
No. Basically it sounds like you're after a sort of "static polymorphism". That doesn't exist in C#, although I've suggested a sort of "static interface" notion which could be useful in terms of generics.
One thing you could do is write a simple unit test to verify that all of the types in a particular assembly obey your rules. If other developers will also be implementing the interface, you could put that test code into some common place so that everyone implementing the interface can easily test their own assemblies.
This is a great question and one that I've encountered in my projects.
Some people hold that interfaces and abstract classes exist for polymorphism only, not for forcing types to implement certain methods. Personally, I consider polymorphism a primary use case, and forced implementation a secondary. I do use the forced implementation technique fairly often. Typically, it appears in framework code implementing a template pattern. The base/template class encapsulates some complex idea, and subclasses provide numerous variations by implementing the abstract methods. One pragmatic benefit is that the abstract methods provide guidance to other developers implementing the subclasses. Visual Studio even has the ability to stub the methods out for you. This is especially helpful when a maintenance developer needs to add a new subclass months or years later.
The downside is that there is no specific support for some of these template scenarios in C#. Static methods are one. Another one is constructors; ideally, ISerializable should force the developer to implement the protected serialization constructor.
The easiest approach probably is (as suggested earlier) to use an automated test to check that the static method is implemented on the desired types. Another viable idea already mentioned is to implement a static analysis rule.
A third option is to use an Aspect-Oriented Programming framework such as PostSharp. PostSharp supports compile-time validation of aspects. You can write .NET code that reflects over the assembly at compile time, generating arbitrary warnings and errors. Usually, you do this to validate that an aspect usage is appropriate, but I don't see why you couldn't use it for validating template rules as well.
Unfortunately, no, there's nothing like this built into the language.
While there is no language support for this, you could use a static analysis tool to enforce it. For example, you could write a custom rule for FxCop that detects an attribute or interface implementation on a class and then checks for the existence of certain static methods.
The singleton pattern does not help in all cases. My example is from an actual project of mine. It is not contrived.
I have a class (let's call it "Widget") that inherits from a class in a third-party ORM. If I instantiate a Widget object (therefore creating a row in the db) just to make sure my static methods are declared, I'm making a bigger mess than the one I'm trying to clean up.
If I create this extra object in the data store, I've got to hide it from users, calculations, etc.
I use interfaces in C# to make sure that I implement common features in a set of classes.
Some of the methods that implement these features require instance data to run. I code these methods as instance methods, and use a C# interface to make sure they exist in the class.
Some of these methods do not require instance data, so they are static methods. If I could declare interfaces with static methods, the compiler could check whether or not these methods exist in the class that says it implements the interface.
No, there would be no point in this feature. Interfaces are basically a scaled down form of multiple inheritance. They tell the compiler how to set up the virtual function table so that non-static virtual methods can be called properly in descendant classes. Static methods can't be virtual, hence, there's no point in using interfaces for them.
The approach that gets you closer to what you need is a singleton, as Marc Gravell suggested.
Interfaces, among other things, let you provide some level of abstraction to your classes so you can use a given API regardless of the type that implements it. However, since you DO need to know the type of a static class in order to use it, why would you want to enforce that class to implement a set of functions?
Maybe you could use a custom attribute like [ImplementsXXXInterface] and provide some run time checking to ensure that classes with this attribute actually implement the interface you need?
If you're just after getting those compiler errors, consider this setup:
Define the methods in an interface.
Declare the methods with abstract.
Implement the public static methods, and have the abstract method overrides simply call the static methods.
It's a little bit of extra code, but you'll know when someone isn't implementing a required method.