I am creating a network chat client in C# as a side project. In addition to simple text messages, I also have slash-prefixed commands that can be entered into the input TextBox. I used a modular approach by creating an enum that contains all the various commands, and then decorating those commands with attributes.
The attributes specify what slash-prefixed command can be entered to trigger the command, as well as any aliases to the primary command identifier and the command's usage.
Example:
public enum CommandType : byte
{
[PrimaryIdentifier("file"),
AdditionalIdentifier("f"),
CommandUsage("[<recipient>] [<filelocation>]")]
FileTransferInitiation,
[PrimaryIdentifier("accept"),
AdditionalIdentifier("a")]
AcceptFileTransfer,
// ...
}
My problem arises when I try to allow multiple aliases to the primary command. I have attempted this two ways: by allowing duplicates of the AdditionalIdentifier attribute, or by making the constructor argument in AdditionalIdentifier a params string[].
With the former, I implemented it by decorating the attribute class with AttributeUsage and setting AllowMultiple to true. While this does indeed achieve what I'm looking for, I'm feeling like it could get really noisy really fast to have several lines of aliases, in addition to the other attributes.
The latter also works, however, it generates the compiler warning CS3016, and says that that approach is not CLS-compliant. Obviously, this doesn't necessarily stop me from still using it, but I've learned to always treat warnings as errors.
My actual question is should I ignore my objections with duplicates and just go ahead and use them, or is there some other solution that could be used?
Thank you.
You could also use "params string[] aliases" in the constructor to allow a variable argument list:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method)]
class TestAttribute : Attribute
{
public TestAttribute(params string[] aliases)
{
allowedAliases = aliases;
}
public string[] allowedAliases { get; set; }
}
This would allow you to do:
[Test("test1", "test2", "test3")]
static void Main(string[] args)
Personally I would go with the AllowMultiple approach: I don't think the "noise" is going to be that much of a problem unless you really have truckloads of identifiers for each command. But if you don't like that and want to stay CLS-compliant, one other solution would be to provide overloaded constructors for AdditionalIdentifierAttribute:
public AdditionalIdentifierAttribute(string id) { ... }
public AdditionalIdentifierAttribute(string id1, string id2) { ... }
public AdditionalIdentifierAttribute(string id1, string id2, string id3) { ... }
The downside is that this does limit you to a predetermined number of identifiers.
That said, CLS compliance is really only a major consideration if you are building a library that others are likely to use (and specifically from other languages). If this type or the library is internal to your application, then it's reasonable to ignore CLS compliance warnings.
EDIT: Thinking further about this, you have quite a lot of attributes on those enums. You might want to consider creating an abstract Command class instead, and exposing the identifiers, usage, etc. as properties of that class; then derive concrete types of Command which return the appropriate values from those properties. This potentially also allows you to move the handling logic into those Command objects rather than switching on the enum value.
Why not have a single attribute with multiple properties? Have the property for the alias take a comma-separated list. This is the approach they take in MVC for things like the AuthorizeAttribute for Roles. Internally, the property parses the string into an array for ease of use in the attribute class, but it allows you an easy way to set up your configuration.
public class IdentifierAttribute
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Usage { get; set; }
private string[] aliasArray;
private string aliases;
public string Aliases
{
get { return this.aliases; }
set
{
this.aliases = value;
this.aliasArray = value.Split(',').Trim();
}
}
}
Then use it like:
public enum CommandType : byte
{
[Identifer( Name = "file", Aliases = "f", Usage = "..." )]
FileTransferType,
...
}
Yet another approach would be to have the attribute take an array of strings as a constructor parameter - that way, you get the compiler to parse the array for you (at the expense of a little more goop when applying the attribute) thus:
[Identifiers(new string[] {"Bill", "Ben", "Ted"})]
A quick 'n dirty example of implementing & using such a technique looks like this:
using System;
using System.Collections.ObjectModel;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SomeClass.TellMeAboutYourself();
}
}
public class Identifiers : Attribute
{
private string[] names;
public Identifiers(string[] someNames)
{
names = someNames;
}
public ReadOnlyCollection<string> Names { get { return new ReadOnlyCollection<string>(names); } }
}
[Identifiers(new string[] {"Bill", "Ben", "Ted"})]
static class SomeClass
{
public static void TellMeAboutYourself()
{
Identifiers theAttribute = (Identifiers)Attribute.GetCustomAttribute(typeof(SomeClass), typeof(Identifiers));
foreach (var s in theAttribute.Names)
{
Console.WriteLine(s);
}
}
}
}
Related
This is probably an incredibly dumb question but: I have a function that takes in a string, and I want to make sure that the string is a constant from a specific class. Essentially the effect I'm looking for is what enums do:
enum MyEnum {...}
void doStuff(MyEnum constValue) {...}
Except with strings:
static class MyFakeStringEnum {
public const string Value1 = "value1";
public const string Value2 = "value2";
}
// Ideally:
void doStuff(MyFakeStringEnum constValue) {...}
// Reality:
void doStuff(string constValue) {...}
I know this can technically be achieved by doing some thing like
public static class MyFakeStringEnum {
public struct StringEnumValue {
public string Value { get; private set; }
public StringEnumValue(string v) { Value = v; }
}
public static readonly StringEnumValue Value1 = new StringEnumValue("value1");
public static readonly StringEnumValue Value2 = new StringEnumValue("value2");
}
void doStuff(MyFakeStringEnum.StringEnumValue constValue) {...}
But it feels kind of overkill to make an object for just storing one single value.
Is this something doable without the extra code layer and overhead?
Edit: While a enum can indeed be used for a string, I'd like to avoid it for several reasons:
The string values may not always be a 1:1 translation from the enum. If I have a space in there, different capitalization, a different character set/language, etc. I'd have to transform the enum in every function where I want to use it. It might not be a lot of overhead or a performance hit in any way, but it still should be avoided--especially when it means that I'm always mutating something that should be constant.
Even if I use a separate string array map to solve the above function, I would still have to access the translations instead of just being able to use the enum directly. A map would also mean having two sources for the same data.
I'm interested in this concept for different data types, ex. floats, ulongs, etc. that cannot be easily represented by enum names or stored as an enum value.
As for string -> enum, the point of using an enum in the first place for me is that I can rely on intellisense to give me a constant that exists; I don't want to wait until compile time or runtime to find out. Passing in an actual string would be duck typing and that's something I definitely don't want to do in a strongly typed language.
I would suggest you create an enum and parse the string value into an enum member.
You can use the Enum.Parse method to do that. It throws ArgumentException if the provided value is not a valid member.
using System;
class Program
{
enum MyEnum
{
FirstValue,
SecondValue,
ThirdValue,
FourthValue
}
public static void doStuff(string constValue)
{
var parsedValue = Enum.Parse(typeof(MyEnum), constValue);
Console.WriteLine($"Type: { parsedValue.GetType() }, value: { parsedValue }");
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
doStuff("FirstValue"); // Runs
doStuff("FirstValuesss"); // Throws ArgumentException
}
}
I have a class called Package, in this class I have around 10 attributes, let's call them 1,2,3,4.. etc to 10. The types of these attributes are strings, ints and some DateTimes. When making a new object of Package sometimes I just need attribute 1, sometimes I need 5, 6 and 9, and sometimes I need 3 and 10 etc.
So just two examples: new Package("bla", "bla bla",100) or new Package(2983)
I've read:
An interface looks like a class, but has no implementation. The only
thing it contains are declarations of events, indexers, methods and/or
properties. The reason interfaces only provide declarations is because
they are inherited by classes and structs, which must provide an
implementation for each interface member declared.
Since there are no other methods in the class and just a constructor and attributes, is it better to use like 20 constructors or should I make an interface for this situation?
EDIT:
I should've probably mentioned that I also have some enums to 'kind of' determine what kind of Package it is.
An interface doesn't help you in any way here.
If you want to force that specific variables are filled in together, like 1, 2 and 3 should always be filled together but in another case just 4 is enough, you could use separate constructors, or static methods with helpful names that create the objects (like CreateFromId, CreateFromNameAndAge).
If you don't care at all, you can simply make a parameterless constructor (or a constructor with optional fields) and set the fields required with object initializers:
var x = new Class() { Field1 = 1, Field2 = "2" };
Maybe this is a sign you are doing too much in a single object, but without actual information about your class design, we can't tell that much.
Inheritance seems to be a decent solution here too, if the packages have distinct uses (like ProductPackage, PersonPackage, etc.). The shared properties reside in the base class, and all specific properties can reside in the deriving classes.
Constructors provide guidelines as to how can an object be created. Assuming that by using an interface you mean specify the properties which need to exist, you are not giving any guidelines as to how properties need to be initialized.
Having multiple constructors should be better since you are providing means in which users can instantiate your objects. This will allow you to initialize your other parameters accordingly.
You could still use an interface if you require to stipulate what fields need to exist.
Besides above points, consider using Builder pattern - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Builder_pattern
Here is the example:
class Package
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public string Prop1 { get; set; }
public string Prop2 { get; set; }
public static PackageBuilder Create()
{
return new PackageBuilder(new Package());
}
}
class PackageBuilder
{
private readonly Package _package;
public PackageBuilder(Package package)
{
_package = package;
}
public PackageBuilder WithName(string name)
{
_package.Name = name;
return this;
}
public PackageBuilder WithDescription(string description)
{
_package.Description = description;
return this;
}
public PackageBuilder Prop1(string prop)
{
_package.Prop1 = prop;
return this;
}
public PackageBuilder Prop2(string prop)
{
_package.Prop2 = prop;
return this;
}
public static implicit operator Package(PackageBuilder pb)
{
return pb._package;
}
}
class Client
{
Package BuildPackage()
{
var package =
Package.Create().WithName("My Package").WithDescription("Description").Prop1("foo").Prop2("bar");
return package;
}
}
I have data from multiple organisations (police, fire, office) that need output in different formats.
To achieve this, I defined the following (this is a little simplified):
Transaction class -
"Success" indicator - Boolean.
"Type of department"- String or Enum.
A class which can be of any type - Police, Fire or Office (My question is on this as you will see).
A GenerateOutput() method - to handle generation of file formats.
Police class
Age - String
VehicleNumber - Integer
Supervisor - String
Fire class
Name - String
FireEngineNumber - Integer
County - Enum
WorkTimings - Enum
Office Class
Age - String
DeskNumber - Integer
Department - String
PayScale - Enum
IsManagement - Bool
As you can see, the Police, Fire and Office classes dont share anything in common and are primarily intended as data carrying entities. I intend to use a Factory to return an appropriate generic (not a C# generic) Transaction object with the data (Transaction object with Police, Fire or Office data within it) and then pass the returned object to a Strategy pattern which determines the file format (CSV, Excel, or XML; specified in a configuration file) each one needs.
My problem is in the definition of the Transaction object.
What type does the class in "3." of the Transaction class need to be? The data for each org differs, there are no common members, I am unable to define a common class for all.
Is the overall design appropriate? What other designs should I consider?
Based on Peter's comments below:
I think using generics might work, I ran into a problem though. I would like to use a factory to return the object requested, using GetTransactionObject, as below. What should be the return type of GetTransactionObject to accomodate this.
class TransactionFactory
{
Dictionary<string, Type> typeClassLookup;
public TransactionFactory()
{
typeClassLookup = new Dictionary<string, Type>();
typeClassLookup.Add("Police", typeof(PoliceData));
typeClassLookup.Add("Fire", typeof(FireData));
}
Transaction<????> GetTransactionObject(string org)
{
if( typeClassLookup.TryGetValue(org, out typeValue))
{
switch (typeValue.ToString())
{
case "policeData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<PoliceData>() { Data = new PoliceData(), params = null};
case "FireData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<FireData>() {Data = new FireData(), params = null};
}
}
return transactionObject;
If the types really have nothing in common, then you need no explicit base class. System.Object suffices, just as with many other generic types (i.e. any generic type lacking a constraint).
In other words, you could declare as:
class Transaction<T>
{
public bool Success { get; private set; }
public T Entity { get; private set; }
public Transaction(bool success, T entity)
{
Success = success;
Entity = entity;
}
public void GenerateOutput() { /* something goes here */ }
}
Personally, I would avoid adding a "department type" member. After all, that's implicit from the type parameter T. But you could add that easily to the above if you want.
If and when you find that the types do have something in common, such that your Transaction<T> type needs to do more than simply hold onto an instance of one of those types (which is about all it can do without a constraint), then you will be able to put that commonality into an interface or base class (depending on the specific need), and specify that in a constraint for the Transaction<T> class.
Note that it's not clear what you mean for the GenerateOutput() to do, or how it should work. But assuming that you want output that is specific for each Entity value, it seems to me that that is your "something in common". I.e., it's not the Transaction<T> class at all that needs to implement that method, but rather each entity type. In that case, you have something like this:
interface IDepartmentEntity
{
void GenerateOutput();
}
class Office : IDepartmentEntity
{
public void GenerateOutput() { /* department-specific logic here */ }
}
// etc.
Then you can declare:
class Transaction<T> where T : IDepartmentEntity
{
public bool Success { get; private set; }
public T Entity { get; private set; }
public Transaction(bool success, T entity)
{
Success = success;
Entity = entity;
}
public void GenerateOutput() { Entity.GenerateOutput(); }
}
EDIT:
Per Prasant's follow-up edit, with a request for advice on the GetTransactionObject()…
The right way to do this depends on the caller and the context, a detail not provided in the question. IMHO, the best scenario is where the caller is aware of the type. This allows the full power of generics to be used.
For example:
class TransactionFactory
{
public Transaction<T> GetTransactionObject<T>()
where T : IDepartmentEntity, new()
{
return new Transaction<T>()
{
Data = new T(),
params = null
}
}
}
Then you call like this:
Transaction<FireData> transaction = factory.GetTransactionObject<FireData>();
The caller, of course already knowing the type it is creating, then can fill in the appropriate properties of the transaction.Data object.
If that approach is not possible, then you will need for Transaction<T> itself to have a base class, or implement an interface. Note that in my original example, the IDepartmentEntity interface has only one method, and it's the same as the GenerateOutput() method in the Transaction class.
So maybe, that interface is really about generating output instead of being a data entity. Call it, instead of IDepartmentEntity, something like IOutputGenerator.
In that case, you might have something like this:
class Transaction<T> : IOutputGenerator
{
// all as before
}
class TransactionFactory
{
public IOutputGenerator GetTransactionObject(string org)
{
if( typeClassLookup.TryGetValue(org, out typeValue))
{
switch (typeValue.ToString())
{
case "policeData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<PoliceData>() { Data = new PoliceData(), params = null};
case "FireData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<FireData>() {Data = new FireData(), params = null};
}
}
return transactionObject;
}
}
This is an inferior solution, as it means the caller can only directly access the IOutputGenerator functionality. Anything else requires doing some type-checking and special-case code, something that really ought to be avoided whenever possible.
Note: if the Transaction type has other members which, like the GenerateOutput() method, are independent of the contained type T here, and which would be useful to callers who don't know T, then a possible variation of the above is to not reuse the interface used for the department-specific data types, but instead declare a base class for Transaction<T>, named of course Transaction, containing all those members not related to T. Then the return value can be Transaction.
What type does the class in "3." of the Transaction class need to be?
To decouple your department classes from the various export types, I recommend you make the department classes implement a common interface. Something like this:
public interface Exportable {
// return a list of attribute names, values, and types to export
IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> GetAttributes();
}
For example:
public class Police : Exportable {
public IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> GetAttributes() {
// return list size 3 - attribute info for Age, VehicleNumber, Supervisor
}
}
Is the overall design appropriate? What other designs should I consider?
The Transaction class design doesn't seem well suited for this problem.
Consider an Export class with a method for each export type, each method which receives the attributes returned from the Exportable interface method. Basic outline:
public static class Export {
public static boolean CSV(IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> attributes) {
// export attributes to CSV, return whether succeeded
}
public static boolean Excel(IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> attributes) {
// export attributes to Excel, return whether succeeded
}
// same thing for XML
}
I have the following type of code sample across one of my projects...
[Obfuscation(Exclude = true)]
[UsedImplicitly]
public DelegateCommand<object> OpenXCommand { get; private set; }
I am finding the attributes are adding a lot of "noise" to the code - I also see it in a way violating the DRY principle since I may have several properties like this in one class, all with the same attribute decoration.
Q: Is there some way I can set up an attribute that will represent a combination of sub attributes?
Ideally I would like something that looks like this..
[MyStandardCommandAttribute]
public DelegateCommand<object> OpenXCommand { get; private set; }
I have not implemented my own attributes before so I am unsure if this is possible. Any suggestions?
No. Your one attribute cannot "be" Obfuscation and UsedImplicitly at the same time (there's no multiple inheritance in C#).
Code looking for e.g. UsedImplicitlyAttribute has no way of knowing that MyStandardCommandAttribute is supposed to represent UsedImplicitlyAttribute (unless you control all of the code using all of these attributes).
Unfortunately, there's no way to do this in C#.
But, if you control the places that read these attributes (with reflection), you can do it by convention.
For example, you can have a marker interface that will "annotate" your attribute with the attributes it proxies (sounds like a meta-attribute):
public interface AttributeProxy<T>
where T : Attribute {}
public class MyStandardCommandAttribute :
Attribute,
AttributeProxy<ObfuscationAttribute>,
AttributeProxy<UsedImplicitlyAttribute> {}
(Of course, you also have to match the right AttributeUsages. And you can't set properties on the proxied attributes like this.)
Now, you could go a step further and use an IL manipulation library, like Mono.Cecil, to actually transfer the attributes appropriately in a post-compilation step. In this case, it would work even if it weren't you reflecting on these attributes.
Update: still in the reflect-your-own-attributes scenario, you can use the below code to get to proxied attributes, even setting properties values:
public interface IAttributeProxy {
Attribute[] GetProxiedAttributes();
}
public class MyStandardCommandAttribute : Attribute, IAttributeProxy {
public Attribute[] GetProxiedAttributes() {
return new Attribute[] {
new ObfuscationAttribute { Exclude = true },
new UsedImplicitlyAttribute()
};
}
}
Use this extension method on your reflection code:
public static object[] GetCustomAttributesWithProxied(this MemberInfo self, bool inherit) {
var attributes = self.GetCustomAttributes(inherit);
return attributes.SelectMany(ExpandProxies).ToArray();
}
private static object[] ExpandProxies(object attribute) {
if (attribute is IAttributeProxy) {
return ((IAttributeProxy)attribute).GetProxiedAttributes().
SelectMany(ExpandProxies).ToArray(); // don't create an endless loop with proxies!
}
else {
return new object[] { attribute };
}
}
I've never really questioned this before until now. I've got an input model with a number of fields, I wanted to present the string names of the properties through the input model so that my Grid can use them:
public class SomeGridRow
{
public string Code { get;set; }
public string Description { get;set; }
public const string Code = "Code";
}
Obviously, this gives the error:
The type 'SomeGridRow' already
contains a definition for 'Code'
Why can the CLR not cope with two properties of the same name which are, in my eyes, separate?
string code = gridRow.Code; // Actual member from instantiated class
string codeField = SomeGridRow.Code; // Static/Const
I'm now just using a child class called Fields within my inputs now, so I can use SomeGridRow.Fields.Code. It's a bit messy, but it works.
Because you can also access static (or, non-instance in this case) properties in the same way (inside the same class), and it would be a bit confusing, for example:
public class SomeGridRow
{
public string Code { get;set; }
public const string Code = "Code";
public void MyMethod() {
var thing = Code; //what would this reference?
}
}
Because both this:
public class SomeGridRow
{
public string Code { get;set; }
public void MyMethod() {
var thing = Code; //what would this reference?
}
}
And this:
public class SomeGridRow
{
public const string Code = "Code";
public void MyMethod() {
var thing = Code; //what would this reference?
}
}
are valid ways to access properties, static or not. It doesn't answer the "why can't I?" question, but more of the why it's not allowed...it would be far too ambiguous IMO.
It probably could, but the designers of C# wanted to avoid ambiguities that can come from such use (abuse?) of language features.
Such code would end up being confusing and ambiguous to users (did I want the instance or the static method call?, Which one is right?).
In addition to the points already made about ambiguity, i would say that the naming needs to be relooked in such a case.
If two variables / fields having the exact same name in the same context i.e class but different values to me sounds more like a naming issue.
If they are exactly same, you dont need 2 fields.
If they are slightly different, you should have more accurate names.
In some other languages with a similar syntax, one can access a static member through an instance. So you could access both string.Empty and "abc".Empty.
C# doesn't allow this (though it does sort of from inside the class or a derived class, in that you can omit the class name for a static member and can omit this for an instance member), primarily to avoid confusion (I find it more handy than confusion tbh, but that's just me, I like switch fall-through too so what do I know).
Having introduced a stricter rule to allow for less ambiguity, it would be counterproductive to allow a new looser rule on the back of it that allowed for more. Think how many "why must I use this with property X but not property Y?" questions SO would have if it was allowed (we'd have to force this with property X to be clear we meant the instance member).