We Keep Coding

Access a hidden property from static method

Given the following
class BaseClass
{
public int Property {get; protected set;}
}
class DerivedClass : BaseClass
{
public new int Property {get; set;} //Hides BaseClass.Property
public static DerivedClass Build()
{
var result = new DerivedClass
{
Property = 17;
//base.Property = 17; // this doesn't compile
}
//((BaseClass)result).Property = 17; // this doesn't compile
}
}
Is there any way to set BaseClass.Property from a static method inside the DerivedClass.
Reflection or Unsafe code is not what I want! I want a non hacky way of setting something which we do legally have access to, but I just can't work out how to set.

Here is how to access an overridden property from a static method of the class:
Add to the class a new property that accesses the base property:
private double BaseProperty { get => base.MyProperty; set => base.MyProperty = value; }
Use that new property from your static:
var result = new DerivedClass
{
BaseProperty = 17;
}
Here is a situation where the above technique is the cleanest solution I have found.
Consider XAML that refers to a BindableProperty, in a class library.
(In my case, the class library is Xamarin Forms.)
Without changing the property name, I want to decouple the base property (used by code compiled into the library) from the XAML-visible property (in my subclass).
The specific use is making text auto-fit, which X-Forms doesn't yet support.
The detail that is relevant here, is that I have the following BindableProperty declaration:
public new static readonly BindableProperty FontSizeProperty =
BindableProperty.Create("FontSize", typeof(double), typeof(AutofitLabel), -1.0,
propertyChanged: (BindableObject bindable, object oldValue, object newValue) => {
((AutofitLabel)bindable).BaseFontSize = (double)newValue;
});
which uses this private property:
private double BaseFontSize { get => base.FontSize; set => base.FontSize = value; }
What this accomplishes, is to initially set base.FontSize - which will be used by layout logic inside library's Label or other text-containing view - to the value set in XAML. Elsewhere in my subclass, I have logic that lowers base.FontSize as needed, once the available width/height are known.
This approach makes it possible to use the library without altering its source code, yet make it appear, to clients of my subclass, that auto-fitting is built-in.
It wouldn't be valid to change FontSize that is visible to client code - that represents the requested size. However, that is the approach taken by Charles Petzold in XF Book Ch. 5 "EmpiricalFontSizePage". Also, Petzold has the page itself deal with the auto-sizing - which is not convenient.
The challenge is the need to tell the library what actual FontSize to use.
Ergo this solution.
All other approaches I've found online require complex custom renderers, replicating logic already existing in XF library.

Is there any way to set BaseClass.Property from a static method inside the DerivedClass.
Yes, rethink your design. It is flawed. Hiding a property and then wanting to set the exact same value on the base and derived class? There seems something really wrong.
You don't necessarily need to hide the property, you could override it, but then it wouldn't make too much sense. It seems the only objective you have is to have different access modifiers on your base class and derived class. This goes against OOP rules, and should be avoided.

If you can introduce another intermediate class, then you can obviously do this. But as others have said, it doesn't just have a code smell, it's positively poisonous.
class BaseClass
{
public int Property { get; protected set; }
}
class InterClass : BaseClass
{
protected void DoFunnyStuff(int value)
{
this.Property = value;
}
}
class DerivedClass : InterClass
{
public new int Property { get; set; } //Hides BaseClass.Property
public static DerivedClass Build()
{
DerivedClass result = new DerivedClass
{
Property = 17
//base.Property = 17; // this doesn't compile
};
result.DoFunnyStuff(17);
return result;
//((BaseClass)result).Property = 17; // this doesn't compile
}
}
So DerivedClass does inherit from BaseClass still, but not directly. You can apply various tricks to try to minimize how much other code is exposed to the existence of InterClass.

It seems you want to modify the APIs behaviour in such a way that something which was mutable before should not be mutable any more. So why not defining a new property, which is really immutable and make the existing one Obsolete instead o trying to hide the original property but not hiding it?
class LegacyClass
{
[Obsolete("Use NewMember instead")]
public string ExistingMember { get; set; } // should actually be immutable
public string NewMember { get { ... } }
}
This way you don´t break existing code.

Yes it's possible through reflection: Property hiding and reflection (C#)
No it's not possible in other ways, if you hide a property by design it's because you don't want give access to that from DerivedClass
Reflection allows you to access for particular purpose, it's not an hacky way the use of reflection.
It's an hacky way to access to a property that you have hidden by design.
If you want access in a legal way to a property you should not hide it.

How to return class instance from static class?

I want use a static class that must contains global variables, so I can access to all application controls simply from a variable.
Actually I've this implementation:
public static class Globals
{
public static HeadToHead Head2Head
{
get { return Resources.Controls.HeadToHead; }
}
}
in the case above, I want return the instance of HeadToHead control, the control look like this:
public partial class HeadToHead : UserControl
{
public static int HomeId = 0;
}
my goal is to access to the static variables of this control, like: Globals.Head2Head.HomeId
but I get this error on this line: get { return Resources.Controls.HeadToHead; }
HeadToHead is a type which is not valid in the given context

You're returning what looks like a type from a property that seems to be declaring an instance of that type. If you truly want to return that type, there's syntax for that (I don't remember any more, I think in c# it's classname.type). If you want to return an instance, then you need to get that instance from somewhere.
As an aside, static instances of UI controls are a bad idea, and a code smell.

You have to instantiate an instance of the type and return that. As you want a single global instance you could use the static constructor.
public static class Globals {
static Globals(){
Head2Head = new Resources.Controls.HeadToHead();
}
public static HeadToHead Head2Head { get; private set; }
}
There are few situations in which you would actually want to do this but common static settings that do not change in the life of the application might be one of them. As HeadToHead inherits from UserControl that does not really seem to be the case, an instance of a UserControl should ideally never be static.

class variable gets reset when calling methods in multiple forms

Updated to reflect to my own source
I'm in process of building my first winform application in c# and I'm trying to figure out the best practice for structuring my classes to work smoothly when I use them in my forms.
I have a couple of examples which I will try to explain the best way i can.
When working with get/set variables in a class, the best practice should be something like this:
JobMove.cs
public class JobMove
{
private List<string> jobNames { get; set; }
public string Scanner;
public JobMove()
{
this.Scanner = Properties.Settings.Default.Scanner;
}
public void ListSelected(ListBox lbx)
{
foreach (string jName in this.jobNames)
{
lbx.Items.Add(jName);
}
}
public static List<string> GetCheckedJobs(ListView lw)
{
int countChecked = lw.CheckedItems.Count;
int itemCount = 0;
List<string> jList = new List<string>();
foreach (ListViewItem item in lw.CheckedItems)
{
JobInfo jobInfo = Job.Find(Convert.ToInt32(lw.Items[item.Index].SubItems[1].Text));
jList.Add(jobInfo.Name);
itemCount++;
}
return jList;
}
}
My problem is when I combine this with my forms and I call this, then I would try to do something like this:
MyForm1.cs
public partial class MyForm1 : Form
{
private void btnMoveJobs_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Properties.Settings.Default.Scanner = cbxScanners.SelectedItem.ToString();
JobMove moveJobs = new JobMove();
frmMoveJobs FrmMoveJobs = new frmMoveJobs();
FrmMoveJobs.ShowDialog();
}
}
MyForm2.cs
public partial class frmMoveJobs : Form
{
public frmMoveJobs()
{
InitializeComponent();
JobMove moveJobs = new JobMove();
lblFrom.Text = moveJobs.Scanner;
moveJobs.ListSelected(lbxJobsToMove);
cbxMjScanners.DataSource = System.Enum.GetValues(typeof(Scanners));
}
}
But when I call MyClass in MyForm2 and I want to call the DoSomethingElse method, then myString will be reset to a null value. And that makes sense to me, but how do I work around this?
I tried to figure out what to use here to get easier around these flaws in my code, but my knowledge is far too weak to just implement an easy solution.
I know I could just store this variable in Settings.settings as an example, but to me that just seems like a real overload for such a simple task.
I might just need a point in the right direction to right on what to do in this situation.

If you do a MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); then indeed - the values are independent and unrelated. If you want to share the MyClass instance then pass the MyClass instance between the forms. Perhaps:
using(var form2 = new Form2()) {
form2.SensibleName = existingMyClassInstance;
form2.ShowDialog();
}
(note the using above btw; when using ShowDialog() it is your job to make sure the form is disposed; it only gets disposed automatically if using Show())

Firstly, they're properties, not variables (the variables are the underlying data source).
Secondly, the whole point of get/set accessors is so you can get and set the value without needing helper methods.
Thirdly, and as to your problem, you're creating a new instance of the class in each form (hinted at by the new keyword) and the value of the property will be whatever it is initialised as on construction of the instance (or not.) i.e. the values of properties are not shared between different instances of the same type.
Think of the mold for a key: I can get multiple instances of the key cut from a "blueprint", but any damage that one suffers won't be reflected by the rest - they're unique in that sense.
If you want the forms to both access the same instance of that type, then you will need to stash the instance somewhere in your code which is accessible to both.

A few options:
Pass in an instance of MyClass in the form2's constructor.
Make MyClass a static property of either Form1 or Form2 and access it via that on the other form.
Make MyClass static (not recommended).

If you want to use the instance of MyClass created in MyForm1 inside of MyForm2, you need to provide it to MyForm2.
Something like this would work:
public partial class MyForm2 : Form
{
public MyForm2(MyClass given)
{
InitializeComponent();
given.DoSomethingElse();
}
}

Easy Solution:
private static string myString { get; set; }
Why: because you initialize the class again when initializing Form2 and it will create a new class. With the "static" keyword you create a property which is the same in all instances of this class.
BUT: please read some books before continuing, this would be the solution to this problem, but the source of many others. Try to understand C# and Forms first, than (or alongside with reading/learning) start coding!

this is because each of your form has a new object of "MyClass".
To achieve what you want to do use a static property... this won't be initialized and gives back the same value for each object of MyClass
it looks like this
public class MyClass {
public static string myString { get; set; }
public void ChangeMyString(string newString)
{
myString = newString;
}
public void DoSomethingElse()
{
MessageBox.Show(myString);
}
}

C# object initialization options

Doesn't object initialization outside of a constructor break encapsulation ?
Given:
class MyClass
{
public string _aString;
}
Shouldn't the _aString member be private and instantiated via a call to the constructor (constructor omitted here):
MyClass test = new MyClass("test");
Instead of the alternate method of object initialization:
MyClass test = new MyClass { _aString = "Test" };

"Doesn't object initialization outside of a constructor break encapsulation ?"
Well, no. As you rightly pointed out you can only initialize properties that are already accessible in your current scope. (public, internal etc)
This kind of Intialization is really just some syntactic sugar around construction of a class and assigning values to properties, It is very useful for Anonymous classes and Linq select clauses.

It is usually considered bad practice to expose public fields... it may be acceptable in some cases, for instance if the field is marked as readonly (which means it must be set in the constructor). Instead, you should make this field private and expose it through a property, which may or may not be readonly, depending on its purpose :
class MyClass
{
private string _aString;
public string AString
{
get { return _aString; }
// uncomment to make the property writable
//set { _aString = value; }
}
}

If you consider Properties as getters and setters, I don't believe it will break encapsulation. But you should notice that you didn't use a Property, you have used an instance variable. In fact, I don't believe it will work like your example. Check this one:
class MyClass {
private string aString;
public string AString {
get { return aString; }
set {aString = value; }
}
}
MyClass test = new MyClass {
AString = "test"
};
In this case, you are accessing the private field through it's accessor. It's just like using a parameterless constructor and setting the value later.

It depends on the purpose of the variable. If the programmer should only be able to set the variable at initialization, but then not have access to it after that, then I would go with the private variable. If you want the class user to be able to set / read the variable at any time, then make it public.

When you have
public string _aString;
it really does not matter when you initialize this value since this is already exposed. So, when we want to talk about initialization we should move this string into property. Than talkin about encapsutlation makes sense.
So, imagine we have some string. There are mosly two approaches to initializatnion. One is to do it inside constructor, second is lazy initialization (initialize when some request this data).

yes, initialize via the constructor, and add properties to allow (or not) access to the data.
class MyClass {
private string _aString;
string MyProperty {
get { return this._aString; }
// you can make this private or protected
set { this._aString = value; }
}
}

If you're asking if the new object initialization shorthand breaks encapsulation, then the answer is no. You can only set publicly scoped members with the new method.
MyClass test = new MyClass { _aString = "Test" };
is the same as
MyClass test = new MyClass();
test._aString = "Test";

To show an object public in a C# class does not break "encapsulation" from a point of view of "Object-oriented programming".
From a point of view of a "good practise" it not a good thing, use Properties because it allows to external code to use this class if you change the behaviour of updating this value (checking, ...).

How can one type access a private setter of another type's property?

All I need is a way to make a property of one class only 'settable' from one other class (a sort of manager class).
Is this even possible in c#?
My colleague 'reliably' informs me that I have a design flaw, but I feel I should at least ask the community before I concede defeat!

No, it's not really possible to do this in any clean way in C#. You probably have a design flaw ;-)

You can use the internal modifier, which lets all types in the same assembly access the data (or nominated assemblies if using [InternalsVisibleTo] - but no: there is no friend equivalent in C#.
For example:
public string Foo {get; internal set;}

You have a design flaw. Also, don't be paranoid about data hiding. Here's 3.5's way to do it:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Managed m = new Managed();
Console.WriteLine(m.PrivateSetter);
m.Mgr.SetProperty("lol");
Console.WriteLine(m.PrivateSetter);
Console.Read();
}
}
public class Managed
{
private Manager _mgr;
public Manager Mgr
{
get { return _mgr ?? (_mgr = new Manager(s => PrivateSetter = s)); }
}
public string PrivateSetter { get; private set; }
public Managed()
{
PrivateSetter = "Unset";
}
}
public class Manager
{
private Action<string> _setPrivateProperty;
public Manager(Action<string> setter)
{
_setPrivateProperty = setter;
}
public void SetProperty(string value)
{
_setPrivateProperty(value);
}
}
Here's how we'd do it in pre-lambda days:
public class Managed
{
private Manager _mgr;
public Manager Mgr
{
get { return _mgr ?? (_mgr = new Manager(this)); }
}
public string PrivateSetter { get; private set; }
public Managed()
{
PrivateSetter = "Unset";
}
public class Manager
{
public void SetProperty(string value)
{
m.PrivateSetter = value;
}
private Managed m;
public Manager(Managed man)
{
m = man;
}
}
}

The best way to do it would be:
/// <summary>
/// Gets or sets foo
/// <b>Setter should only be invoked by SomeClass</b>
/// </summary>
public Object Foo
{
get { return foo; }
set { foo = value; }
}
When you have some complex access or inheritance restriction, and enforcing it demands too much complexity in the code, sometimes the best way to do it is just properly commenting it.
Note however that you cannot rely on this if this restriction has some security implications, as you are depending on the goodwill of the developer that will use this code.

You cannot do that on that way, but you can access a property's setter method from a derived class, so you can use inheritance for the purpose. All you have to do is to place protected access modifier. If you try to do so, your colleague is right :). You can try doing it like this:
public string Name
{
get{ return _name; }
protected set { _name = value; }
}
keep in mind that the set method of the property is only accessible from the derived class.

Or you could have these two classes in an assembly alone and have the setter as internal. I would vote up for the design flaw though, unless the previous answer by milot (inheriting and protected) makes sense.

You could do:
public void setMyProperty(int value, Object caller)
{
if(caller is MyManagerClass)
{
MyProperty = value;
}
}
This would mean that you could use a 'this' pointer from the calling class. I would question the logic of what you're attempting to achieve, but without knowing the scenario I can't advise any futher. What I will say is this: if it is possible to refactor your code to make it clearer, then it is often worthwhile doing so.
But this is pretty messy and certinly NOT fool-proof ... you have been warned!
Alternativly...
You could pass a delegate from the Class with the Property (Class A) to the Manager Class (Class B). The delegate can refer to a private function within A to allow B to call that delegate as any normal function. This precludes that A knows about B and potentially that A is created before B. Again... messy and not fool-proof!

You can achieve to this by making a Public property in your "settable class" that will inherit from the real class that will have a protected property... this way only the inherit class can SET and not class that doesn't inherit. But the drawback is that you will require to have an inherit class...

Reflection, though I would agree that having to do this just to get around an access modifier is probably an indication of a bad design.
public class Widget
{
private int count;
public int Count
{
get { return this.count; }
private set { this.count = value; }
}
}
public static class WidgetManager
{
public static void CatastrophicErrorResetWidgetCount( Widget widget )
{
Type type = widget.GetType();
PropertyInfo info = type.GetProperty("Count",BindingFlags.Instance|BindingFlags.NonPublic);
info.SetValue(widget,0,null);
}
}

The reason this is a design flaw is because it seems muddled between the scope of the two objects.
The properties of a class should be accessible in the context of that class, at least internally.
It sounds like the settable property on your item class is really a property of the manager class.
You could do something similar to what you want by closely coupling the two classes:
public class MyItem {
internal MyItemManager manager { get;set; }
public string Property1 {
get { return manager.GetPropertyForItem( this ); }
}
}
Unfortunately this isn't great design either.

What your looking for is what C++ calls a Friend class but neither c# or vb has this functionality. There is a lot of debate as to the merit of such functionality since it almost encourages very strong coupling between classes. The only way you could implement this in c# would be with reflection.

If your goal is to have a class Foo let some property (e.g. Bar, of type Biz) to be changed by some other object, without exposing it publicly, a simple way to do that is to have an instance of Foo which is supposed to be changeable by some other object to pass that other object an Action<Biz> which points to a private method that changes Bar to the passed-in value. The other object may use that delegate to change the Bar value of the object that supplied it.
If one wishes to have give all instances of some type Woozle the ability to set the Bar value of any instance of Foo, rather than exposing such abilities on a per-instance basis, one may require that Woozle have a public static method Woozle.InstallFooBarSetter which takes a parameter of type Action<Foo, Biz> and one of type Object. Foo should then have a static method WoozleRequestBarSetter which takes an Object, and passes it to Woozle.InstallFooBarSetter along with an Action<Foo,Biz>. The class initializer for Woozle should generate a new Object, and pass it to Foo.RequestBarSetter; that will pass the object to Woozle.InstallFooBarSetter along with a delegate. Woozle can then confirm that the passed-in object is the one that it generated, and--if so--install the appropriate delegate. Doing things this way will ensure that nobody but Woozle can get the delegate (since the delegate is only passed to Woozle.InstallFooBarSetter), and Woozle can be sure its delegate comes from Foo (since nobody else would have access to the object that Woozle created, and Woozle.InstallFooBarSetter won't do anything without it).

if it is a design flaw depends on what you want to do. You could use the StackTrace class from System.Diagnostics to get the Type of the class setting your property and then compare to the type you want to allow setting yor property..but maybe there are better ways for performing something like this (e.g. boxing)