I'm trying to get the name of a method on a type using a lambda expression. I'm using Windows Identity Foundation and need to define access policies with the type name with namespace as a resource and the method name as the action. Here is an example.
This is the type I would be getting the type name and method name from:
namespace My.OrderEntry {
public class Order {
public void AddItem(string itemNumber, int quantity) {}
}
}
This is how I would like to define the access policy through a DSL:
ForResource<Order>().Performing(o => o.AddItem).AllowUsersHaving(new Claim());
From that statement, I would like to get "My.OrderEntry.Order" as the resource and "AddItem" as the action. Getting the type name with namespace is no problem, but I don't think I can use a lambda for a method like I'm trying to do.
public static IPermissionExp Performing<T>(
this IActionExp<T> exp,
Func<T, delegate???> action) {} //this is where I don't know what to define
Is this sort of thing even possible to do? Is there another way to do this sort of thing without using magic strings?
There are two ways to do this:
1: You could make overloads that take the various Func and Action delegates(eg Expression<Func<T, Func<TParam1,TParam2, TReturn>>. Note that your callers would need to specify the generic parameters explicitly, either in the method call or by creating the delegate. This would be used like this:
ForResource<Order>().Performing(o => new Action<string>(o.AddItem)).AllowUsersHaving(new Claim());
2: You could take an Expression<Action> that contains a method call, and parse out the MethodInfo being called from the expression tree. This would be used like this:
ForResource<Order>().Performing(o => { o.AddItem(null); }).AllowUsersHaving(new Claim());
It looks like this is what you are looking for if you want the name of the action delegate method passed in to the Performing function.
public static IPermissionExp Performing<T>(
this IActionExp<T> exp,
Expression<Action<T, string, int>> action)
{
var expression = action.Body as MethodCallExpression;
string actionMethodName = string.Empty;
if (expression != null)
{
actionMethodName = expression.Method.Name;
}
// use actionMethodName ("AddItem" in the case below) here
}
This would allow you to call the method like this...
ForResource<Order>().Performing((o, a, b) => o.AddItem(a, b)).AllowUsersHaving(new Claim());
I recently did a thing at work where you defined the a method using a lambda, which the internal object then took the name of. You could use strings as well, or pass in a MethodInfo but the first one isn't really type safe (and typos are a big risk), and the latter is not very elegant.
Basically I had a method like this (this is not the exact method, it is a bit more advanced):
public void SetRequest(Request req, Expression<Func<Service, Func<long, IEnumerable<Stuff>>> methodSelector);
The key here is the "Expression" thing, this lets you "select" a method like this:
SetRequest(req, service => service.SomeMethodTakingLongReturningStuffs);
Method selector is made into a expression tree which you can then fetch different bits of data from. I don't recall exactly what the resulting tree looks like, it also depends on how your lambdas look.
You could pass it in as a Action instead, which doesn't force any return type. It is still a little messy though, because you have to pass some arguments to the method in order for it to compile.
Related
I am trying to get the MethodInfo from a method TableExists<T> so I can call it with a type.
The method is declared inside OrmLiteSchemaApi class. There are 2 overloads:
public static bool TableExists<T>(this IDbConnection dbConn)
{
// code omitted
}
public static bool TableExists(this IDbConnection dbConn, string tableName, string schema = null)
{
// code omitted
}
I am trying to get the MethodInfo like this:
var tableMethod = typeof(OrmLiteSchemaApi).GetMethod("TableExists");
But it generates exception:
System.Reflection.AmbiguousMatchException: 'Ambiguous match found.'
I could only find an old question related to this that suggested to pass an empty object array as parameter but this doesn't seem to work for .net core.
I guess I need to specify the specific overload but I am not sure exactly how.
How do I get the MethodInfo?
You can use GetMethods (plural!) to get an array of all matching methods, and then look for the one which has IsGenericMethod:
var tm = typeof(OrmLiteSchemaApi)
.GetMethods()
.Where(x => x.Name == "TableExists")
.FirstOrDefault(x => x.IsGenericMethod);
I recommend this over using parameter specifiers, since it'll give you an object you can step through at debug time if there are ever any problems.
Passing an empty object array would only work if you're looking for a function with no parameters. Instead, you need to use a different overload of GetMethod that specifies the types of parameters as a type array. That way you can tell it which reference to get by specifying which types of parameters it should look for.
Let's say I have a method, which prints the names and values of some properties of an object:
public void PrintProperties(object o, params string[] propertyNames)
{
foreach (var propertyName in propertyNames)
{
// get the property info,
// then get the property's value,
// print property-name and -value
}
}
// method can be used like this
PrintProperties(user, "FirstName", "LastName", "Email");
Now instead of having to pass a list of strings to the method, I'd like to change that method so that the properties can be specified using lambda expressions (not sure if that's the correct term).
E.g. I'd like to be able to call my method (somehow) like this:
PrintProperties(user, u->u.FirstName, u->u.LastName, u->u.Email);
The goal is, to give the user of the method intellisense support, to prevent typing errors.
(Similar to the ASP.NET MVC helper methods, like TextBoxFor(u=>u.Name)).
How do I have to define my method, and how can I then get the PropertyInfos inside the method?
Use a declaration like this:
void PrintProperties<T>(T obj,
params Expression<Func<T, object>>[] propertySelectors)
{
...
}
Callable like:
PrintProperties(user, u => u.FirstName, u => u.LastName, u => u.Email);
As for getting property-names out from each lambda, see Retrieving Property name from lambda expression. Do note that you have may have to go a little bit deeper than what is provided in that answer in case the property is a value-type like int (in this case, the compiler will generate a unary Convert expression over the member-access that you want, in order to box the struct).
Reflection allows you to access fields, properties, events, etc.
public void PrintProperties(object o, params string[] propertyNames)
{
foreach (var propertyName in propertyNames)
{
// Dont have VS now, but it's something like that
Console.WriteLine(o.GetType().GetProperty(propertyName).GetValue(o, null));
}
}
I don't have VS now, so it might not even compile, but along these names you can get along with auto-completion...
string thing = "etc";
thing = thing.GetName();
//now thing == "thing"
Is this even possible?
public static string GetName(this object obj)
{
return ... POOF! //should == "thing"
}
I agree #Reed's answer. However, if you REALLY want to achieve this functionality, you could make this work:
string thing = "etc";
thing = new{thing}.GetName();
The GetName extension method would simply use reflection to grab the name of the first property from the anonymous object.
The only other way would be to use a Lambda Expression, but the code would definitely be much more complicated.
No. At the point you're using it, the "name" would be "obj" - This could be retrieved (with debugging symbols in place) via MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().GetParameters()[0].Name.
However, you can't retrieve the variable name from the calling method.
If you need the original variable name inside an extension method, I think it's best to do this:
thing.DoSomething(nameof(thing));
public static string DoSomething(this object obj, string name) {
// name == "thing"
}
New in C# 6 is nameof() which would replace the extension method entirely.
if (x == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(x));
WriteLine(nameof(person.Address.ZipCode)); // prints "ZipCode”
Somewhat related is the CallerMemberAttribute which will get the name of the method where the function was called. A useful comparison of the two methods, with examples relating to PropertyChanged events, also talks about the IL code generated (TL;DR: they're the same).
I'm working on a method that needs to repeat a small operation at different spots, but the code to be repeated should be private to the method. The obvious solution is a nested function. Whatever I try however, the C# compiler barfs at me.
Something roughly equal to this Perl snippet:
my $method = sub {
$helper_func = sub { code to encapsulate };
# more code
&$helper( called whenever needed );
# more code
}
is what I am talking about, and what I'm trying to accomplish in C#.
No other method in the class should be able to access the helper function in this context. The most logical means of writing this construct in C#, as it appears to me would be something like this:
var helper = (/* parameter names */) => { /* code to encapsulate */ };
And actually make the compiler earn its keep.
Since such an assignment is forbidden, as is the equivalent using the older delegate(){} syntax in place of the lambda, and so is declaring a delegate type within a method—what csc actually allows me to write however, is this:
private delegate /* return type */ Helper(/* parameters */);
private /* return type */ method(/* parameters */) {
Helper helper = (/* parameter names */) => {
/* code to encapsulate */
};
// more code
helper( /* called whenever needed */ );
// more code
}
Which is all fine and dandy for not copy and pasting a chunk of code around and editing the parameters by hand but it leaks a private delegate type to the rest of the class rather than keeping it private to the method. Which defeats the purpose in the first place. Using goto statements and local variables for parameters would provide better encapsulation of "helper" in this context without sacrificing code reuse. If I wanted to simulate function calls by passing parameters through registers, I think would rather use an assembler. I haven't found an acceptable way of refactoring the code to avoid the problem altogether either.
So, is it even possible to force this Common Object Oriented Language to obey?
You actually can do this in C#.
Func<T1, T2, ..., TReturn> myFunc = (a, b, ...) =>
{
//code that return type TReturn
};
If you need an anonymous method of return type void use Action instead of Func:
Action<T1, T2, ...> myAction = (a, b, ...) =>
{
//code that doesn't return anything
};
If you are in C# 3.5 or higher you can take advantage of the lambdas and convenience delegate declarations Func<> and Action<>. So for instance
void DoSomething()
{
Func<int,int> addOne = (ii) => ii +1;
var two = addOne(1);
}
The reason you can't do
var addOne = (ii) => ii +1;
is because of Homoiconicity, the lambda can be interpreted as two different constructs, a delegate and an expression tree. Thus the need to be explicit in declaration.
If you explicitly type it, it will work, i.e.
Action<paramType1, paramType2> helperAction = (/* parameter names */) => { /* code to encapsulate */ };
Func<paramType1, paramType2, returnType> helperFunction = (/* parameter names */) => { /* code to encapsulate */ };
The reason var doesn't work is that a lambda expression can evaluate to multiple types (I believe either a delegate or expression tree, but don't quote me on that) and the compiler in this situation is unable to infer which was meant.
I recommend looking at the Action<T> and Func<TResult> delegates and their overloads. You can do something like this
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SomeMethod();
}
private static void SomeMethod()
{
Action<int> action = (num) => Console.WriteLine(num);
Enumerable.Range(1,10).ToList().ForEach(action);
Console.ReadKey();
}
Here SomeMethod is private and has a local Action<int> delgate that takes an int and does something to it.
I think the issue that you came across is that you can't use implicit typing (i.e. use var) when assigning a lambda expression to a variable.
You can't use the var keyword with lambdas or delegates because they both require additional context information (delegates require a return type, and lambdas require a return type and parameter types). For instance, the (params) => { code } syntax requires to be able to infer the parameter types and return types to work: you do this by explicitly giving it a type.
The generic System.Action delegate type (returns void) could do a good job at what you're trying:
Action<ArgumentType1, ArgumentType2, ...> myDelegate = (params) => { code };
Otherwise, there's also the System.Func, which has a return type, that must be passed as the last generic argument.
It depends on what your definition of hiding is.
The func/action solution (like the one Scott suggests)
void DoSomething()
{
Func<int,int> addOne = (ii) => ii +1;
var two = addOne(1);
}
Feals like hidding the method definition when writing regular C# code BUT is when looking at the IL equivalent of
//This is pseudo code but comes close at the important parts
public class Class1
{
//The actual type is different from this
private static Func<int, int> myMethod = AnonymousFunction;
public void f()
{
myMethod(0);
}
private static int AnonymousFunction(int i)
{
return 1;
}
}
So if you really want to get to the method from outside of the one "hidding" it you can do this with reflection The actual name generated for the field storing the delegate is illegal in C# bul valid in CLR context but that's the only thing that stand in the way of using the delegate as a regular delegate stored in a field (that is if you figue out the name :) )
It's quite simple actually. As the Method seems to have another responsibility than your current Class (why else would you hide this method) move your method into it's own Class and the part you want to have private into a private method in the new class.
I have a function that wraps a call to one of my socket types. If there is an error, I want to be able to print a warning and retry. In the warning, I want to have the method name. However, it was declared as a lambda. Is this even possible?
How I call the function (assume in function called myMain):
SafeSocketCommand(() => this.mySocket.ReadCurrentBuffer());
Basic wrapping function:
protected TResult SafeSocketCommand<TResult>(Func<TResult> socketCommand)
{
TResult retValue = default(TResult);
try
{
retValue = socketCommand();
}
catch (PacketLost)
{
ReportToLogs("Timeout on command '" + socketCommand.Method.Name);
}
return retValue;
}
But socketCommand.Method.Name gives me the calling method (from the Stack Trace?) '< myMain >b__3' and I want the actual function being invoked by socketCommand (mySocket.ReadCurrentBuffer). Is it possible to get this information anywhere, or is it lost due to declaring in a lambda?
EDIT:
I should have mentioned that I use this particular calling convention so that I can use socket based commands of various signatures.
int i = SafeSocketCommand(() => this.mySocket.FunctionReturnsInt())
bool b = SafeSocketCommand(() => this.mySocket.FunctionReturnsBool(string s))
object o = SafeSocketCommand(() => this.mySocket.Complicated(string s, int i, bool b))
It also handles no return type signatures by overloading:
protected void SafeSocketCommand(Action socketCommand)
{
SafeSocketCommand(() => { socketCommand(); return 0; });
}
If you modify your SafeSocketCommand to accept an Expression<Func<TResult>> then you'll get access to an expression tree that represents the body of the lambda, from which you can access the ReadCurrentBuffer call directly.
However, if you do this, you're no longer dealing with a regular anonymous method; to actually call it you'll need to compile the expression tree to code. You may also need to be flexible as to what your code expects to appear inside the lambda's body.
No, because lambda's don't have names; they're anonymous functions. You could get the method name from the last stackframe, though:
new StackFrame(1).GetMethod().Name;
Func<TResult> is just a delegate. Rather than use a lambda, create a method that matches the signature of Func<TResult> and call that. That way, you'll have whatever name you want.
SafeSocketCommand(MyNewMethod);
...
public TResult MyNewMethod()
{
return this.mySocket.ReadCurrentBuffer();
}
In this case, you can simply this call instead. It'll be faster and smaller generated code too.
SafeSocketCommand(mySocket.ReadCurrentBuffer);
In general, the StackTrace of the Exception object contains the full information you are looking for, much more accurately than printing the method name, or you can use the TargetSite property for the name of the method that threw the exception.