We Keep Coding

How to notify all guard methods when global changes

Often in my applications built with Caliburn Micro I have a need to store some global data; this could be app specific config, authentication properties, etc. I generally put them in a class called "Session" and inject that via constructor injection so that every view model has a reference to a single instance of Session.
I found a case where I wanted a guard method on two different view models to be linked to a Session variable; the issue is guard methods are generally notified of changes in the setter of the changed variable. Since it's a global, it doesn't know what depends on it. (It occurs to me that this pattern of variables being aware of what guard is hooked into them is bad, but when it's all in the same ViewModel it doesn't matter much.)
I could throw an event, but that's messy and a lot of work for something that should be simple.
I could try to identify every spot where it may have been updated and manually notify, but that's error prone.
public class MyViewModel: Screen{
public MyViewModel(SessionInfo session){
Session = session;
}
public CanTakeAction { get { return !string.isNullOrWhitespace(Session.SomeProperty); } }
}
public class SessionInfo {
public SessionInfo(){}
public string SomeProperty { get; set; }
// this is where I would normally notify a guard method, but this is not going to work
NotifyOfPropertyChange(() => CanTakeAction); // except it doesn't know about CanTakeAction
}

One possible solution would be to introduce a base ViewModel, which has the guard methods (virtual). For Example,
public class ViewModelBase:Screen
{
private SessionInfo _sessionInfo;
public ViewModelBase(SessionInfo sessionInfo)
{
_sessionInfo = sessionInfo;
}
public void NotifyGuardMethods()
{
NotifyOfPropertyChange(nameof(CanTakeAction));
}
public virtual bool CanTakeAction { get; set; } = false;
}
For all the ViewModels that needs to be notified by the change in Session, you could now derieve from the ViewModelBase.
public class ShellViewModel:ViewModelBase
{
public override bool CanTakeAction { get=>//its own logic; set=>//its own logic; };
}
You could now introduce Events to the ViewModelBase, which could use the NotifyGuardMethods defined in the base class to notify all other view models. This ensures the messsy Events part would be restricted to one class alone (base view model).

How to make MVVM property changed when my settings also changed?

I have a ViewModel like this
Public class AboutPageViewModel
{
public AboutPageViewModel()
{
AppName = Settings.MyAppName;
}
private string _appName;
public string AppName
{
get{return _appName;}
set{_appName = value; RaisePropertyChanged("AppName");}
}
}
Now in a static class
public static class Settings
{
public static string MyAppName{get;set;} = "LOL"
}
How do I notify the ViewModel everytime MyAppName is changed, and update it to the Binded UI?
Thanks!

As you define it in your question, Settings isn't a static class (ah, I see in comments that was a typo, and it's static in your code). It should not be static. PropertyChanged notifications on a static class are theoretically possible but it's not worth your time to mess with, and there's no need to bother.
Have Settings implement INotifyPropertyChanged, just like your viewmodel. When MyAppName changes, Settings should raise PropertyChanged, just as AboutPageViewModel does when its own AppName property changes.
Now give Settings a static property called Instance:
public static Settings Instance { get; private set; }
static Settings()
{
Instance = new Settings();
}
And handle its PropertyChanged event in AboutPageViewModel:
public AboutPageViewModel()
{
AppName = Settings.Instance.MyAppName;
Settings.Instance.PropertyChanged += (s,e) =>
{
// If you're in C#6:
//if (e.PropertyName == nameof(Settings.MyAppName))
if (e.PropertyName == "MyAppName")
{
AppName = Settings.Instance.MyAppName;
}
}
}
Option Number Two
Arguably a better option; I've done it this way more than once.
In comments, #MikeEason makes the very good point that this could also be done with a custom *Changed event such as MyAppNameChanged, which has two advantages: It lets you go back to a static class, and it lets you skip the check on the property name, which is extra code and also a "magic string". Working with INotifyPropertyChanged we get a little bit numb to the danger of magic strings, but they are in fact bad. If you're in C#6, you can and absolutely should use the nameof() operator, but not all of us are in C#6 just yet. My main responsibility at work is an application that we're hoping to migrate to C#6 this summer.
public static event EventHandler<String> MyAppNameChanged;
private static String _myAppName = "";
public static String MyAppName {
get { return _myAppName; }
set {
if (_myAppName != value)
{
_myAppName = value;
// C#6 again. Note (thanks OP!) you can't pass this for sender
// in a static property.
MyAppNameChanged?.Invoke(null, value);
}
}
}
The drawback of this is that, well, this class is called Settings, not Setting. Maybe it's got a dozen properties changing here and there. That gets to be a real thicket of distinct property-changed events ("so what?" you may ask -- and you may have a point). My tendency is to stick with PropertyChanged if there's a whole sheaf of them, and to add an event if the class has only one or two important properties that somebody needs to keep an eye on. Either way is annoying in my view; try both and you'll eventually settle on a preference.

You don't need to store value in ViewModel if you already have it somewhere (I assume what you are not going to change it in ViewModel itself):
public class AboutPageViewModel : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public string AppName => Settings.MyAppName;
}
And as for View to know when this property is changed you need 2 things: 1) there should be a way to inform ViewModel when value is changed 2) rise PropertyChanged(nameof(AppName)) (notice INotifyPropertyChanged).
Several possibilities to make it:
Settings should rise event when MyAppName value is changed, ViewModel subscribe to it and rises PropertyChanged;
Store initial value, check periodically if value is changed;
Use another type which implement INotifyPropertyChanged, bind to that type property instead, this will update view automatically if that type rises PropertyChanged.

You have to implement INotifyPropertyChanged interface on Settings class!
then use the same piece of code like this:
private string _myAppName;
public string MyAppName
{
get{return _myAppName;}
set{_appName = value; RaisePropertyChanged("MyAppName");}
}

Workaround for generic event handler in Windows Forms

Quite some time ago, I noticed that the Windows Forms editor of Visual Studio does not support events which contain generic type parameters. For example, an event like
public event EventHandler<ListEventArgs<int>> MyStrangeEvent { add { ... } remove { ... } }
where
public class ListEventArgs<T> : EventArgs { List<T> args; }
does not even show up in the event list in the property manager of Visual Studio. Now, this is a somewhat artificial example that could easily be modified to work in Visual Studio by rewriting the classes and their events. However, I am currently working on a project where I cannot change some classes for compatibility reasons. The only thing I can do is to change the events of my user control. The events of this control currently look like this:
public event EventHandler<Plane<GDISurface>.DrawingErrorEventArgs> DrawingError { add { _Plane.DrawingError += value; } remove { _Plane.DrawingError -= value; } }
Note that the underlying Plane class (represented by the _Plane instance which is a protected field) cannot be changed. Its DrawingError event and its EventArgs type are declared in the Plane class like this:
public class Plane<T> where T : ISurface
{
...
public event EventHandler<DrawingErrorEventArgs> DrawingError = null;
...
public class DrawingErrorEventArgs : EventArgs { ... /* Uses T */ ... }
}
Of course, the Windows Forms editor of Visual Studio does not show any of the events of my user control. I have been looking for a number of workarounds to get them shown again, but have not been able to find a workaround that actually works. Here are some things that I tried:
Created a MyPlane class which inherits from Plane and used that instead: public event EventHandler<MyPlane.DrawingErrorEventArgs> DrawingError .... For reasons unknown to me, the events still don't show up in the editor. Perhaps this is due to the parameters of the event, some of which still are generic. Find a minimal working example below.
Created a helper class which defines implicit conversion operators between EventHandler<Plane<GDISurface>.DrawingErrorEventArgs> and EventHandler<GDIPlane.DrawingErrorEventArgs> where GDIPlane is just a dummy class which inherits from Plane<GDISurface>. This does work to some extent, but duplicates event calls since the conversion creates new event handlers which are passed down to _Plane which cannot be removed/unregistered properly.
Tried to inherit from EventHandler<Plane<GDISurface>.DrawingErrorEventArgs>, which obviously does not work since EventHandler<T> is sealed.
Are there any other ways to make my events visible again in the Windows Forms editor?
Best regards
Andreas
EDIT: Minimal working example for 1:
public interface ISurface { }
public class GDISurface : ISurface { }
public class Plane<T> where T : ISurface
{
public event EventHandler<DrawingErrorEventArgs> DrawingError = null;
public class DrawingErrorEventArgs : EventArgs { T stuff; }
}
public class TestControl : UserControl
{
public class GDIPlane : Plane<GDISurface> { }
GDIPlane _Plane = null;
public event EventHandler<GDIPlane.DrawingErrorEventArgs> DrawingError { add { _Plane.DrawingError += value; } remove { _Plane.DrawingError -= value; } }
}
DrawingError does not show up in the list of events in the property manager when clicking on a TestControl instance.
EDIT2: This is the original problem (without any workarounds) where the DrawingError event does of TestControl does not show up either:
public interface ISurface { }
public class GDISurface : ISurface { }
public class Plane<T> where T : ISurface
{
public event EventHandler<DrawingErrorEventArgs> DrawingError = null;
public class DrawingErrorEventArgs : EventArgs { T stuff; }
}
public class TestControl : UserControl
{
Plane<GDISurface> _Plane = null;
public event EventHandler<Plane<GDISurface>.DrawingErrorEventArgs> DrawingError { add { _Plane.DrawingError += value; } remove { _Plane.DrawingError -= value; } }
}

This is behavior specific to Visual Studio, and the cause is rooted in the fact that EventHandler<> does not specify covariance on its 'TEventArgs' (it would impose seemingly silly restrictions) and the tools do not perform enough introspection of your code to suss out an appropriate type (even though you've left a trail of type data in constructing the control.) Thus, it seems as though VS does not support generic event properties. You may consider filing a feature request on Microsoft Connect, I wouldn't suggest filing it as a bug as they may label it "by design" and close it.
As a general rule, if you need generic type parameters on your events and you need design time support for them (which are different implementation concerns), you're looking at wrapping them in a presentation-specific facade (e.g. "extra layer of code to facilitate design-time needs".)
Personally, I would reduce the generic typing you have in play now, it seems a bit excessive and if you don't understand covariance/contravariance in generic types it might put you in a tight spot at some point, such as now.
However, to work around your problem:
Consider using a custom event args class which could transport data in a non-generic property, and also use a non-generic EventHandler event/property. Understanding the 'type' of the event is then shifted away from generic type parameters and made the responsibility of your non-generic event args instead. If the 'class' of the event args is insufficient, you can add a property to convey the event type (or data type) so that receiving code can properly interpret it (assuming, of course, that it does not already know by some other means.):
public class DataEventArgs : EventArgs
{
//public string EventTypeOrPurpose { get; set; }
public object Data { get; set; }
}
This is most often only used to ferry data through an event chain, and it is usually implemented as follows:
public class DataEventArgs<T> : EventArgs
{
public T Data { get; set; }
}
Unfortunately, this also has a covariance problem, to resolve it you would actually want something more like this:
public interface IDataArgs<out T>
{
T Data { get; }
}
public class DataEventArgs<T> : EventArgs, IDataArgs<T>
{
public DataEventArgs<T>(T data)
{
_data = data;
}
private T _data;
public T Data { get { return _data; } }
}
Even so, these generic versions still don't work around Visual Studio's limitations, this is merely more proper alternative forms of what you already have shown us.
UPDATE: As requested, here is what a "purpose built facade" might look like in the most basic sense. Note that the usercontrol functions as a facade layer in this case as the eventhandler it exposes delegates to the underlying object model. There is no direct access to underlying object model from the user control (from consumer/designer perspective.)
Please note the reference tracking for event handlers is not necessary unless you dispose of these user controls throughout the lifetime of the app (it is only done to ensure proper delegate removal based on the delegate provided, which is wrapped in a closure/delegate, as you see below.)
Also worth noting I did not test-run this code beyond verifying that the designer shows DrawingError in the property grid when dropped onto a form.
namespace SampleCase3
{
public interface ISurface { }
public class GDISurface : ISurface { }
public class Plane<T> where T : ISurface
{
public event EventHandler<DrawingErrorEventArgs> DrawingError;
public class DrawingErrorEventArgs : EventArgs { T stuff; }
}
public class TestControl : UserControl
{
private Plane<GDISurface> _Plane = new Plane<GDISurface>(); // requires initialization for my own testing
public TestControl()
{
}
// i am adding this map *only* so that the removal of an event handler can be done properly
private Dictionary<EventHandler, EventHandler<Plane<GDISurface>.DrawingErrorEventArgs>> _cleanupMap = new Dictionary<EventHandler, EventHandler<Plane<GDISurface>.DrawingErrorEventArgs>>();
public event EventHandler DrawingError
{
add
{
var nonGenericHandler = value;
var genericHandler = (EventHandler<Plane<GDISurface>.DrawingErrorEventArgs>)delegate(object sender, Plane<GDISurface>.DrawingErrorEventArgs e)
{
nonGenericHandler(sender, e);
};
_Plane.DrawingError += genericHandler;
_cleanupMap[nonGenericHandler] = genericHandler;
}
remove
{
var nonGenericHandler = value;
var genericHandler = default(EventHandler<Plane<GDISurface>.DrawingErrorEventArgs>);
if (_cleanupMap.TryGetValue(nonGenericHandler, out genericHandler))
{
_Plane.DrawingError -= genericHandler;
_cleanupMap.Remove(nonGenericHandler);
}
}
}
}
}
To complement the above, here is what a non-generic event handler would now look like:
private void testControl1_DrawingError(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var genericDrawingErrorEventArgs = e as Plane<GDISurface>.DrawingErrorEventArgs;
if (genericDrawingErrorEventArgs != null)
{
// TODO:
}
}
Note that the consumer here has to have knowledge of the type for e to perform conversion. The use of the as operator will bypass ancestry checks under the assumption that the conversion should succeed.
Something like this is as close as you're going to get. Yes it is ugly by most of our standards, but if you absolutely 'need' design-time support on top of these components and you cannot change Plane<T> (which would be more appropriate) then this, or something close to this, is the only viable workaround.
HTH

Using IObservable<T> to keep track of current state

Suppose I have an object that observes an IObservable so that it's always aware of the current state of some external source. Internally my object has a method that uses that external value as part of the operation:
public class MyObject
{
public MyObject(IObservable<T> externalSource) { ... }
public void DoSomething()
{
DoSomethingWith(CurrentT);
}
}
What's the idomatic 'reactive' way of using IObservable for 'tracking current state' instead of 'responding to stream of events'.
Idea #1 is to just monitor the observable and write down values as they come in.
public class MyObject
{
private T CurrentT;
public MyObject(IObservable<T> externalSource)
{
externalSource.Subscribe((t) => { CurrentT = t; });
}
public void DoSomething()
{
DoSomethingWith(CurrentT);
}
}
And that's fine, but keeping track of the state in a class member seems very un-reactive-y.
Idea #2 is to use a BehaviorSubject
public class MyObject
{
private readonly BehaviorSubject<T> bs;
public MyObject(BehvaiorSubject<T> externalSource)
{
this.bs = externalSource
}
public void DoSomething()
{
DoSomethingWith(bs.Value);
}
}
But using subjects directly seems to be frowned upon. But at least in this case I have the ability to use a readonly field to store the behaviorsubject.
The BehaviorSubject (or ReplaySubject) does seem like it was made for this purpose, but is there some other better way here? And if I should use the subject, would it make more sense to take the subject as an injected parameter, or take the original observable and build the subject locally in the constructor?
(by the way I'm aware about the need to deal with the 1st value if the source observable hasn't fired yet. Don't get hung up on that, that's not what I'm asking about)

I'd go with a generic solution utilizing the ReactiveUI library. RUI has a standard way of mapping IObservable<T> to an INotifyPropertyChanged stateful property.
public class ObservableToINPCObject<T> : ReactiveObject, IDisposable
{
ObservableAsPropertyHelper<T> _ValueHelper;
public T Value {
get { return _ValueHelper.Value; }
}
public ObservableToINPCObject(IObservable<T> source, T initial = default(T))
{
_ValueHelper = source.ToProperty(this, p=>p.Value, initial);
}
public Dispose(){
_ValueHelper.Dispose();
}
}
ValueHelper is contains both the current state of the observable and automatically triggers the correct INPC notification when the state changes. That's quite a bit of boiler plate handled for you.
and an extension method
public static class ObservableToINPCObject {
public static ObservableToINPCObject<T> ToINPC<T>
( this IObservable<T> source, T init = default(T) )
{
return new ObservableToINPCObject(source, init);
}
}
now given an
IObservable<int> observable;
you can do
var obj = observable.ToINPC(10);
and to get the latest value
Console.WriteLine(obj.Value);
also given that Value is an INPC supporting property you can use it in databinding. I use ToProperty all the time for exposing my observables as properties for WPF databinding.

To be Rx-ish I'd suggest avoiding the second option and go with your first, but modified in one of two ways.
Either (1) make your class disposable so that you can cleanly close off the subscription to the observables or (2) make a method that lets you clean up individual observables.
(1)
public class MyObject : IDisposable
{
private T CurrentT;
private IDisposable Subscription;
public MyObject(IObservable<T> externalSource)
{
Subscription = externalSource
.Subscribe((t) => { CurrentT = t; });
}
public void Dispose()
{
Subscription.Dispose();
}
public void DoSomething()
{
DoSomethingWith(CurrentT);
}
}
(2)
public class MyObject
{
private T CurrentT;
public IDisposable Observe(IObservable<T> externalSource)
{
return externalSource
.Subscribe((t) => { CurrentT = t; });
}
public void DoSomething()
{
DoSomethingWith(CurrentT);
}
}
Both allow proper clean-up and both don't use a subject.

Pass Action instead of hooking PropertyChanged?

In my current project I've faced the following situation:
VM1 is used to be shown on a screen.
VM1 has a public property of VM2.
VM1 has a public property of VM3.
VM3 has a propertry that depends on VM2.
VM1 has no disposing mechanism.
At the beginning I thought about hooking to VM2.PropertyChanged event to check for the property I want and change the VM3 affected property accordingly, as:
public class VM1 : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public property VM2 VM2 { get; private set; }
public property VM3 VM3 { get; private set; }
public VM1()
{
this.VM2 = new VM2();
this.VM3 = new VM3();
this.VM2.PropertyChanged += this.VM2_PropertyChanged;
}
private void VM2_PropertyChanged(object sender, PropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
// if e.PropertyName equals bla then VM3.SomeProperty = lol.
}
}
This means that, since I can not unhook the event in this class, I have a memory leak.
So I end up passing an Action to VM2 so that it will be called when its important property changes the value, as:
public class VM2 : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public Action WhenP1Changes { get; set; }
private bool _p1;
public bool P1
{
get
{
return _p1;
}
set
{
_p1 = value;
this.WhenP1Changes();
this.PropertyChanged(this, new PropertChangedEventArgs("P1");
}
}
}
public class VM1 : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public VM2 VM2 { get; private set; }
public VM3 VM3 { get; private set; }
public VM1()
{
this.VM2 = new VM2();
this.VM3 = new VM3();
this.VM2.WhenP1Changes = () => VM3.SomeProperty = "lol";
}
}
Do I have a memory leak here?
PD: It would be great if you can also answer to:
- Is this even a good practice?
Thanks

Do I have a memory leak here?
The lambda assigned to VM2.WhenP1Changes captures this VM1 instance (needed to access the VM3 property), so as long as the view model VM2 is alive, it will keep VM1 alive. Whether this ends up being a leak depends on the lifecycle of those view models, but the implications are effectively the same as your first example using events.

In short, I would prefer to use a delegate to notify between view models. If you have a parent view model which has access to the various child view models (it seems that you do), then you can use one or more delegates like events to notify each other when updates are required.
Rather than typing out the whole scenario again, I'd prefer to point you towards my answer to the Passing parameters between viewmodels question, which provides a full description and code examples of this technique.
There is also a further addition that may interest you that can be found in my answer to the If necessary, how to call functions in MainViewViewModel from other ViewModels question. Please let me know if you have any questions.