We Keep Coding

Trying to convert an C# anonymous type to a strong type

I'm trying to convert some anonymous type back to its original strong type class.
I have some legacy code (which I cannot touch) which create an anonymous class:
public class Cat : FooId
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
var result = new
{
Id = Mapper.Map<TFooId>(someCat)
};
NOTE: I've tried to make this fake class and interface similar to my code.
This then gives me:
result.GetType().ToString() : <>f__AnonymousType1``1[MyProject.Cat]
From here, I'm not sure how to convert this back to a MyProject.Cat instance?
I've tried (and fails):
(MyProject.Cat)result
(dynamic)result
but both fail. The dynamic doesn't throw an error ... but I can't access any properties in it.

C# is a statically typed language, and those two types are not in any way related to one another. Unless you're able to modify the code which defines those types, the way you'd convert from one to the other would be to create a new instance of the target type and populate it from the source object.
For example:
var resultCat = new Cat { Id = result.Id };
Edit: From comments it looks like it may be possible that the Id property on the result object may be an instance of Cat or some other object? You're going to need to do some debugging to find out what your types are.
But the overall concept doesn't really change. If you have an instance of Cat in your results then you can use that instance. If you don't then in order to create one you'd need to create a new instance and populate it with the data you have. Even if two types are intuitively or semantically similar, they are different types.

It's true what David said with regard to the fact that C# is a statically-typed language and that the new instance should be populated from the source the way he suggested.
However, there are work-arounds (though less performant) for that, such as reflection.
Consider you have a console app where you have defined ObjectExtensions as follows:
public static class ObjectExtensions
{
public static TOut Map<TOut>(this object #in)
where TOut : new()
{
TOut #out = new TOut();
if (#in?.GetType() is Type tin)
{
Type tout = typeof(TOut);
foreach ((PropertyInfo pout, PropertyInfo pin) in tout.GetProperties().Join(tin.GetProperties(), pi => pi.Name, pi => pi.Name, (pout, pin) => (pout, pin)))
{
pout.SetValue(#out, pin.GetValue(#in));
}
}
return #out;
}
}
And Class1 as follows:
public class Class1
{
public string A { get; set; } = "A";
public string B { get; set; } = "B";
public string C { get; set; } = "C";
public override string ToString()
{
return $"{{A={A}, B={B}, C={C}}}";
}
}
You will be able to map your anonymous type back to its original strongly-typed class like this:
Console.WriteLine(new { A = "Anonymous A", B = "Anonymous B", C = "Anonymous C" }.Map<Class1>());
Therefore the bloc above should show the following output:
{A=Anonymous A, B=Anonymous B, C=Anonymous C}
In this case, of course, I have assumed that Class1 (Cat in your example) must have a public parameterless constructor. That may not always be the case. There are more sophisticated scenarios of course that might involve other techniques for creating the object such as cloning or dependency injection. Just saying that the idea of yours is possible.

Is there a pattern to conversion between classes

I have a class, from a native library, I want to convert to my own type, and I need to do that in several places. I created, then, a static method, so I don't need to repeat the instantiation of the class in so many places, but somehow it doesn't seem right.
If there is a need to create a conversion from 8 different types, I would have 8 different methods of conversion all inside the Record.
Is this the best way to do it, or is there any known pattern that covers this subject?
class Record
{
public String Id { get; set; }
public String FirstName { get; set; }
public String LastName { get; set; }
public String FingerPrints { get; set; }
//
// This is a simplification of the method and in fact, I created several of
// them, and the class doesn't look clean anymore.
//
public static Record CreateFromMaciRecord(MaciRecord maci)
{
return new Record
{
Id = maci.GetRecordId(),
FirstName = Encoding.UTF8.GetString(maci.GetUserDataField("first_name")),
LastName = Encoding.UTF8.GetString(maci.GetUserDataField("name"))
};
}
}

If you don't want a constructor or a static factory method, you could introduce extension methods. EG
static class Conversions
{
public static Record ToRecord(this MaciRecord maci) => new Record
{
Id = maci.GetRecordId(),
FirstName = Encoding.UTF8.GetString(maci.GetUserDataField("first_name")),
LastName = Encoding.UTF8.GetString(maci.GetUserDataField("name"))
};
}
Which you would call like
var maciRecord = ...;
var record = maciRecord.ToRecord();

You can always provide an implicit conversion in the Record and simply do:
Record record = someMaciRecord;
Add this to the Record.
public static implicit operator Record(MaciRecord maci)
{
return new Record
{
Id = maci.GetRecordId(),
FirstName = Encoding.UTF8.GetString(maci.GetUserDataField("first_name")),
LastName = Encoding.UTF8.GetString(maci.GetUserDataField("name"))
};
}

If your Record is converting an interface of MaciRecord so as to work with rest of the application then I would recommend Class or Object Adapter GOF design pattern. If Record is adding new functionality to MaciRecord, then its an opportunity for Decorator GOF design pattern. Necessarily we are asking for Wrapper over MaciRecord. Point to be noted here is that both these design patterns are also known as Wrapper.

Method to handle objects with properties in common, but different object types

I have a large collection of automatically generated objects. Although they are all of different, non-related classes, all of the objects share some basic properties (name, id, etc.). I do not control the generation of these objects, so unfortunately I cannot take the ideal approach of implementing an interface. I would like to create a method in which I pass an arbitrary one of these objects and do something using these common properties.
The general idea would be something like:
someObj a = new someObj();
a.name = "sara";
diffObj b = new diffObj();
b.name = "joe";
string phrase = string.Format("I am with {0} and {1}",
getName(a), getName(b));
private string getName(object anyObjWithName)
{
return anyObjWithName.name;
}
though naturally this does not work.
I thought a generic method might hold the answer, but the only way I can see to call it with the current type is using genericMethod.Invoke , which still carries the same issue of not being able to resolve the properties of the passed object in the method. This is unlike Calling generic method with a type argument known only at execution time or How to call generic method with a given Type object? where only the type, or properties of the type, are used in the method, as opposed to properties of the object.
I am aware that this would be (very) prone to error, but I can guarantee that all objects encountered will have the common properties being manipulated.

I can guarantee that all objects encountered will have the common properties being manipulated
If that's the case, you can use dynamic:
private string getName(dynamic anyObjWithName)
{
return anyObjWithName.name;
}
Be aware that using any object that does not have a name property will not fail until run-time.
If you want to add a little bit of safety you can catch the RuntimeBinderException that gets thrown if the property does not exist:
private string getName(dynamic anyObjWithName)
{
try {
return anyObjWithName.name;
}
catch(RuntimeBinderException) {
return "{unknown}";
}
}

If you're unhappy with the performance using dynamic as mentioned by D Stanley, you could always try FastMember.
All you need to know to start using it is pretty much shown in the first 2 code examples.

You are creating a Rube Goldberg device there. You should just have all your data objects classes implement a single interface, then you can work on that. Much simpler and less error prone than fiddling with reflection.
The very fact that a lot of objects have common properties but don't share the same ancestry, on in the very least a common interface, shows that something is wrong with your design. Do rethink it.

Multiple ways to accomplish this, simplest probably is to create Interface and declare common methods there, have your object implement it, then change "getName" method take interface object
private string getName(IMyInterface anyObjWithName)
{
return anyObjWithName.name;
}

The correct way to do this is with an interface, if you own the types that you're working with
public interface IEntity
{
int ID { get; set; }
string Name { get; set; }
}
public class TypeOne : IEntity
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set }
public string BespokePropertyOne { get; set;}
}
public class TypeTwo : IEntity
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public float BespokePropertyTwo { get; set; }
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<IEntity> entities = new List<IEntity>();
entities.Add(new TypeOne() { ID = 1, Name = "Bob", BespokePropertyOne = "blablabla" });
entities.Add(new TypeTwo() { ID = 2, Name = "Alice", BespokePropertyTwo = 5.4f });
foreach (IEntity entity in entities)
{
Console.WriteLine("ID: {0} Name: {1}", entity.ID, entity.Name);
}
}

This answer was written before the edit to the question stating that interfaces weren't possible in this case. Perhaps it can help someone else reading this question.
Interface:
interface Iname
{
string Name { get; set; }
}
Use interface:
class A : Iname
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
class B : Iname
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
The method:
string GetName(Iname o)
{
return o.Name;
}
Use:
A a = new A { Name = "First" };
B b = new B { Name = "Last" };
Text = GetName(a) + " " + GetName(b);

List which accept only few types

Does there exist in any System namespace in C# a container, which can accept only some types?
For example I want to create my list in which I'll have only objects with type Class1 and int:
//accept only type Class1 and int;
MYLIST lst = new MYLIST(typeof(Class1), typeof(int));
lst.Add( 23 ); // OK
lst.Add( new Class1() ); // OK
lst.Add( "text" ); // wrong, not accepted type
Is something like that in .NET or I have to write it on my own? Thanks.

The C# type system does not allow you to express something like "either Class1 or int". Having said that, you can use overloads to get half of the way there:
class MyClass
{
private List<object> _items = new List<object>();
public void Add(int value) { _items.Add(value); }
public void Add(Class1 value) { _items.Add(value); }
...
}
The real tricky question is how you get things out, rather than how you put things in. There are several possibilities: get everything out as object (by implementing IEnumerable<object>), and maybe special methods like GetInt(int index) and GetClass1(int index).

The answer is NO, there is NO such list in C# and for VERY GOOD reason.
You could make a wrapper, but i'd advise against it.
public class CustomListWrapper< T, F>
{
private readonly List<object> internalList;
public CustomListWrapper()
{
this.internalList = new List<object>();
}
public void Add(object item)
{
if(!(item is T || item is F))
throw new Exception();
this.Add(item);
}
}
PS: before the downvote, for how to get the object out...well this is why this is a fairly bad idea, but you'd have to do an "is" on the type you get out to be able to cast it to the proper type.
Again, not exactly sure why you would EVER need to do this.

No. You will have to create your own. You can implement ICollection or IEnumerable or IList or whatever. You have lots of flexibility here. But bottom line, the answer is no, no such collection exists that allows you to limit the types in the collection to certain types automatically.

You cannot achieve this in a direct way. The item type of a List<T> must be a base type common to all the types you want to add to the list.
You could have a List<object> or a wrapper around a List<object> of cause. However, you would have to check at runtime if the items added to it are of the correct types and you would have to cast the items that you retrieve from the list to the correct type.
If you want to store different types in the same list, a good option would be to create an interface that all of these types must implement
public interface ICommonInterface
{
int Number { get; }
string Text { get; }
}
public Class1 : ICommonInterface
{
public int Number { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
public string AnAdditionalProperty { get; set; }
}
public NumberWrapper : ICommonInterface
{
public NumberWrapper (int number)
{
this.Number = number;
this.Text = number.ToString();
}
public int Number { get; private set; }
public string Text { get; private set; }
}
public TextWrapper : ICommonInterface
{
public TextWrapper (string text)
{
this.Text = text;
int i;
Int32.TryParse(text, out i);
this.Number = i;
}
public int Number { get; private set; }
public string Text { get; private set; }
}
Then you can declare your list as
List<ICommonInterface> lst = new List<ICommonInterface>();
lst.Add(new Class1());
lst.Add(new NumberWrapper(77));
lst.Add(new TextWrapper("hello"));
Console.WriteLine(lst[0].Text);

why not just wrap a List<>, and make two add methods, one that accepts int, another that accepts Class1

Architecturally speaking, how should I replace an extremely large switch statement with something more manageable?

EDIT 1: Forgot to add the nested property curve ball.
UPDATE: I have chosen #mtazva's answer as that was the preferred solution for my specific case. In retrospect, I asked a general question with a very specific example and I believe that ended up confusing everyone (or maybe just me) as to what the question was exactly. I do believe the general question has been answered as well (see the Strategy pattern answers and links). Thanks everyone!
Large switch statements obviously smell and I have seen some links on how you could do this with a dictionary that maps to functions. But I'm wondering if there is a better (or smarter way) to do this? In a way, this is a question I've always sort of had rolling around in the back of my head but never really had a good solution to.
This question stemmed from another question I asked earlier: How to select all the values of an object's property on a list of typed objects in .Net with C#
Here is an example class I'm working with (from an external source):
public class NestedGameInfoObject
{
public string NestedName { get; set; }
public int NestedIntValue { get; set; }
public decimal NestedDecimalValue { get; set; }
}
public class GameInfo
{
public int UserId { get; set; }
public int MatchesWon { get; set; }
public long BulletsFired { get; set; }
public string LastLevelVisited { get; set; }
public NestedGameInfoObject SuperCoolNestedGameInfo { get; set; }
// thousands more of these
}
Unfortunately, this is coming from an external source... imagine a HUGE data dump from Grand Theft Auto or something.
And I want to get just a small cross section of a list of these objects. Imagine we want to be able to compare you with a bunch of your friends' game info objects. An individual result for one user would look like this:
public class MyResult
{
public int UserId { get; set; } // user id from above object
public string ResultValue { get; set; } // one of the value fields from above with .ToString() executed on it
}
And an example of what I want to replace with something more manageable (believe me, I DON'T want to be maintaining this monster switch statement):
const int MATCHES_WON = 1;
const int BULLETS_FIRED = 2;
const int NESTED_INT = 3;
public static List<MyResult> GetMyResult(GameInfo[] gameInfos, int input)
{
var output = new List<MyResult>();
switch(input)
{
case MATCHES_WON:
output = gameInfos.Select(x => new MyResult()
{
UserId = x.UserId,
ResultValue = x.MatchesWon.ToString()
}).ToList<MyResult>();
break;
case BULLETS_FIRED:
output = gameInfos.Select(x => new MyResult()
{
UserId = x.UserId,
ResultValue = x.BulletsFired.ToString()
}).ToList<MyResult>();
break;
case NESTED_INT:
output = gameInfos.Select(x => new MyResult()
{
UserId = x.UserId,
ResultValue = x.SuperCoolNestedGameInfo.NestedIntValue.ToString()
}).ToList<MyResult>();
break;
// ad nauseum
}
return output;
}
So the question is are there any reasonable ways to manage this beast? What I'd really like is a dynamic way to get this info in case that initial object changes (more game info properties are added, for instance). Is there a better way to architect this so it's less clumsy?

I think your first sentence eluded to what is probably the most reasonable solution: some form of dictionary mapping values to methods.
For example, you could define a static Dictionary<int, func<GameInfo, string>>, where each value such as MATCHES_WON would be added with a corresponding lambda that extracts the appropriate value (assuming your constants, etc are defined as shown in your example):
private static Dictionary<int, Func<GameInfo, string>> valueExtractors =
new Dictionary<int, Func<GameInfo, string>>() {
{MATCHES_WON, gi => gi.MatchesWon.ToString()},
{BULLETS_FIRED, gi => gi.BulletsFired.ToString()},
//.... etc for all value extractions
};
You can then use this dictionary to extract the value in your sample method:
public static List<MyResult> GetMyResult(GameInfo[] gameInfos, int input)
{
return gameInfo.Select(gi => new MyResult()
{
UserId = gi.UserId,
ResultValue = valueExtractors[input](gi)
}).ToList<MyResult>();
}
Outside of this option, you could potentially have some sort of file/database/stored lookup with the number and the property name, then use reflection to extract the value, but that would obviously not perform as well.

I think this code is getting out of hand a bit. You're effectively using constants to index properties - and this is creating fragile code that you're looking to use some technique - such as - reflection, dictionaries, etc - to control the increased complexity.
Effectively the approach that you're using now will end up with code like this:
var results = GetMyResult(gameInfos, BULLETS_FIRED);
The alternative is to define an extension method that lets you do this:
var results = gameInfos.ToMyResults(gi => gi.BulletsFired);
This is strongly-typed, it doesn't require constants, switch statements, reflection, or anything arcane.
Just write these extension methods and you're done:
public static class GameInfoEx
{
public static IEnumerable<MyResult> ToMyResults(
this IEnumerable<GameInfo> gameInfos,
Func<GameInfo, object> selector)
{
return gameInfos.Select(gi => gi.ToMyResult(selector));
}
public static MyResult ToMyResult(
this GameInfo gameInfo,
Func<GameInfo, object> selector)
{
return new MyResult()
{
UserId = gameInfo.UserId,
ResultValue = selector(gameInfo).ToString()
};
}
}
Does that work for you?

You can use reflection for theses purposes. You can implement custom attributes, mark your properties, etc. Also, it is dynamic way to get info about your class if it changes.

If you want to manage switch code I would point you at Design Patterns book (GoF) and suggest possibly looking at patterns like Strategy and possibly Factory (thats when we talk about general case use, your case isn't very suited for Factory) and implementing them.
While switch statement still has to be left somewhere after refactoring to pattern is complete (for example, in a place where you select strategy by id), code will be much more maintanable and clear.
That said about general switch maintenance, if they become beast like, I am not sure its best solution given how similar your case statements look.
I am 100% sure you can create some method (possibly an extension method) that will be accepting desired property accessor lambda, that should be used when results are generated.

If you want your code to be more generic, I agree with the suggestion of a dictionary or some kind of lookup pattern.
You could store functions in the dictionary, but they seemly all perform the same operation - getting the value from a property. This is ripe for reflection.
I'd store all your properties in a dictionary with an enum (prefer an enum to a const) as the key, and a PropertyInfo - or, less preferred, a string which describes the name of the property - as the value. You then call the GetValue() method on the PropertyInfo object to retrieve the value from the object / class.
Here's an example where I'm mapping enum values to their 'same named' properties in a class, and then using reflection to retrieve the values out of a class.
public enum Properties
{
A,
B
}
public class Test
{
public string A { get; set; }
public int B { get; set; }
}
static void Main()
{
var test = new Test() { A = "A value", B = 100 };
var lookup = new Dictionary<Properties, System.Reflection.PropertyInfo>();
var properties = typeof(Test).GetProperties().ToList();
foreach (var property in properties)
{
Properties propertyKey;
if (Enum.TryParse(property.Name, out propertyKey))
{
lookup.Add(propertyKey, property);
}
}
Console.WriteLine("A is " + lookup[Properties.A].GetValue(test, null));
Console.WriteLine("B is " + lookup[Properties.B].GetValue(test, null));
}
You can map your const values to the names of the properties, PropertyInfo objects which relate to those properties, functions which will retrieve the property values... whatever you think suits your needs.
Of course you will need some mapping - somewhere along the way you will be depending on your input value (the const) mapping to a specific property. The method by which you can get this data might determine the best mapping structure and pattern for you.

I think the way to go is indeed some kind of mapping from one value (int) to something that is somehow a function that knows how to extract a value.
If you really want to keep it extensible, so that you can easily add some without touching the code, and possibly accessing more complex properties (ie. nested properties, do some basic computation), you may want to keep that in a separate source.
I think one way to do this is to rely on the Scripting Services, for instance evaluating a simple IronPython expression to extract a value...
For instance in a file you could store something like :
<GameStats>
<GameStat name="MatchesWon" id="1">
<Expression>
currentGameInfo.BulletsFired.ToString()
</Expression>
</GameStat>
<GameStat name="FancyStat" id="2">
<Expression>
currentGameInfo.SuperCoolNestedGameInfo.NestedIntValue.ToString()
</Expression>
</GameStat>
</GameStats>
and then, depending on the requested stat, you always end up retrieving the general GameInfos. You can them have some kind of foreach loop with :
foreach( var gameInfo in gameInfos){
var currentGameInfo = gameInfo
//evaluate the expression for this currentGameInfo
return yield resultOfEvaluation
}
See http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ironpython/dlr_hosting.shtml for examples on how to embed IronPython Scripting in a .NET application.
NOTE: when working with this kind of stuff, there are several things you must really be careful about:
this potentially allows someone to inject code in your application ...
you should measure the performance impact of Dynamic evaluation in here

I don't have a solution to your switch problem off the top of my head, but you could certainly reduce the code by using a class that can automatically map all the fields you need. Check out http://automapper.org/.

I would not have written the GetMyResult method in the first place. All it is doing is transforming GameInfo sequence into MyResult sequence. Doing it with Linq would be easier and more expressive.
Instead of calling
var myResultSequence = GetMyResult(gameInfo, MatchesWon);
I would simply call
var myResultSequence = gameInfo.Select(x => new MyResult() {
UserId = x.UserId,
ResultValue = x.MatchesWon.ToString()
});
To make it more succinct you can pass the UserId and ResultValue in constructor
var myResultSequence =
gameInfo.Select(x => new MyResult(x.UserId, x.MatchesWon.ToString()));
Refactor only if you see the selects getting duplicated too much.

This is one possible way without using reflection:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public class GameInfo
{
public int UserId { get; set; }
public int MatchesWon { get; set; }
public long BulletsFired { get; set; }
public string LastLevelVisited { get; set; }
// thousands more of these
}
public class MyResult
{
public int UserId { get; set; } // user id from above object
public string ResultValue { get; set; } // one of the value fields from above with .ToString() executed on it
}
public enum DataType
{
MatchesWon = 1,
BulletsFired = 2,
// add more as needed
}
class Program
{
private static Dictionary<DataType, Func<GameInfo, object>> getDataFuncs
= new Dictionary<DataType, Func<GameInfo, object>>
{
{ DataType.MatchesWon, info => info.MatchesWon },
{ DataType.BulletsFired, info => info.BulletsFired },
// add more as needed
};
public static IEnumerable<MyResult> GetMyResult(GameInfo[] gameInfos, DataType input)
{
var getDataFunc = getDataFuncs[input];
return gameInfos.Select(info => new MyResult()
{
UserId = info.UserId,
ResultValue = getDataFunc(info).ToString()
});
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var testData = new GameInfo[] {
new GameInfo { UserId="a", BulletsFired = 99, MatchesWon = 2 },
new GameInfo { UserId="b", BulletsFired = 0, MatchesWon = 0 },
};
// you can now easily select whatever data you need, in a type-safe manner
var dataToGet = DataType.MatchesWon;
var results = GetMyResult(testData, dataToGet);
}
}
}

Purely on the question of large switch statements, it is notable that there are 2 variants of the Cyclomatic Complexity metric in common use. The "original" counts each case statement as a branch and so it increments the complexity metric by 1 - which results in a very high value caused by many switches. The "variant" counts the switch statement as a single branch - this is effectively considering it as a sequence of non-branching statements, which is more in keeping with the "understandability" goal of controlling complexity.