I want to preserve a property between postbacks in an ASP.Net application. Currently doing this:
public int MyIndex
{
get
{
return (int)Session[ToString() + "MyIndex"];
}
}
but would prefer something like:
public int MyIndex
{
get
{
return (int)Session[ToString() + #code_that_returns_property_name#];
}
}
Setter omitted, but it just pushes value into Session using the same string.
Is there some way to use reflection, or a different better solution?
public static int Dummy {
get {
var propertyName = MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name.Substring(4);
Console.WriteLine(propertyName);
return 0;
}
}
Using CallerMemberName is a lot faster and it can be copied and pasted easily for additional properties.
private static object GetSessionValue([CallerMemberName]string propertyName = "")
{
return Session[propertyName];
}
private static void SetSessionValue(object value, [CallerMemberName]string propertyName = "")
{
Session[propertyName] = value;
}
public int MyIndex
{
get { return (int)GetSessionValue(); }
set { SetSessionValue(value); }
}
No, there isn't a simple way to do what you want to do. I think you are much better off with the code you have already written.
Edit: This answer has received quite a few downvotes and I do understand why. While it is possible to do what the OP wants to do perhaps we should all stop and think whether or not it is advisable to do so. To paraphrase the immortal words of Dr. Ian Malcom, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
You can use MethodInfo.GetCurrentMethod().Name to return the name of the current method:
public int MyIndex
{
get
{
return (int)Session[ToString() + MethodInfo.GetCurrentMethod().Name];
}
}
Since properties are implemented as methods under the hood, that will return a name like "get_MyIndex". If you don't want the "get_" part, you can substring out a few characters:
public int MyIndex
{
get
{
return (int)Session[ToString() + MethodInfo.GetCurrentMethod().Name.Substring(4)];
}
}
You can use an expression tree to get the member name. It's a bit of a hock but it works. Here is the code.
private string GetPropertyName<TValue>(Expression<Func<BindingSourceType, TValue>> propertySelector)
{
var memberExpression = propertySelector.Body as MemberExpression;
if (memberExpression != null)
{
return memberExpression.Member.Name;
}
else
{
return string.empty;
}
}
With that code you can do the following
return (int)Session[ToString() + GetPropertyName(MyIndex)];
Code ruthlessly stolen from Romain's answer on the following thread
Get class property name
You should rather use the ViewState property of your control:
public int MyIndex {
get {
object index = ViewState["MyIndex"];
return (null == index) ? -1 : (int)index;
}
set {
ViewState["MyIndex"] = value;
}
}
While Brian Rice answered the optimized version, I needed it for another usage. Without optimization for a session/dictionary code would look like this:
private static string GetPropertyName([CallerMemberName] string propertyName = "")
{
return propertyName;
}
And usage:
public int MyIndex
{
get
{
return (int)Session[ToString() + GetPropertyName()];
}
//or one liner
get=>(int)Session[ToString() + GetPropertyName()];
}
Related
I was looking for a similar way to create an alias for something else like its possible in C using preprocessor (this question is a bit similar, couldn't find anything useful there).
This is the problem: I've got a method that receives an array, but each position of the array has a specific meaning, like they where different parameters with specific names. What I want to do is to make my code easier to read (and write) by using those specific names, but, on the other hand, I don't want to create another method call (like in example 1) nor assign the array positions to new variables (example 2), because the performance is critical.
Example 1:
void OriginalMethodSignature(Type[] values)
{
SimplifiedMethod(values[0], values[1], ... values[n]);
}
void SimplifiedMethod(Type specificName1, Type specificName2, ... Type specificNameN)
{
// simple implementation using specific names instead of values[n]
}
Example 2:
void OriginalMethodSignature(Type[] values)
{
Type specificName1 = values[0];
Type specificName2 = values[1];
...
Type specificNameN = values[n];
// simple implementation using specific names instead of values[n]
}
I cannot change the method signature because its used in a dellegate, the Type is fixed.
The next example is a bit better, but still not optimum:
void OriginalMethodSignature(Type[] values)
{
// implementation using values[specificName1] ... values [specificNameN]
}
const int specificName1 = 0;
const int specificName2 = 1;
...
const int specificNameN = n-1;
Is there any way to create an snippet for this purpose? If yes, how would it be?
There isn't any built in way to do what you wan't, because you shouldn't really be doing it at all. You should be using an object with properties instead of an array.
Anyway, you can make an object that encapsulates the array, so that the properties use the array as storage:
public class NamedObject {
private Type[] _values;
public NamedObject(Type[] values) {
_values = values;
}
public SpecificName1 { get { return _values[0]; } set { _values[0] = value; } }
public SpecificName2 { get { return _values[1]; } set { _values[1] = value; } }
public SpecificName3 { get { return _values[2]; } set { _values[2] = value; } }
public SpecificName4 { get { return _values[3]; } set { _values[3] = value; } }
public SpecificName5 { get { return _values[4]; } set { _values[4] = value; } }
public SpecificName6 { get { return _values[5]; } set { _values[5] = value; } }
}
Now you can use the object to access the array:
void OriginalMethodSignature(Type[] values) {
NamedObject obj = new NamedObject(values);
// get a value
Type x = obj.SpecificName4;
// set a value
obj.SpecificName2 = x;
}
Create a dedicated class or struct, and parse the array into it.
public class MyClassOfStuff
{
Type SpecificName1 {get;set;}
Type SpecificName2 {get;set;}
public static MyClassOfStuff Parse(Type[] value)
{
Type specificName1 = values[0];
Type specificName2 = values[1];
...
Type specificNameN = values[n];
}
}
void OriginalMethodSignature(Type[] values)
{
var mystuff = MyClassOfStuff.Parse(values);
}
Return the value only when it is available. if I use a condition to check the null condition it is throwing a exception. "saying not all code paths return a value"
internal PinMessage()
{
obj.PinsAvailable.ObserveOn(SynchronizationContext.Current).Subscribe(HandlePinsAvailable);
}
private void HandlePinsAvailable(byte[] pinBytes)
{
pinmesssage = Encoding.ASCII.GetString(pinBytes);
}
internal string GetPinMessage(string AccoutNumber)
{
string pinstring = string.Empty;
obj.SendPinRequest(AccoutNumber);
pinstring = pinmesssage;
return pinstring;
}
private string _pinMessage;
public string pinmesssage
{
get//Not all Code paths return a value
{
if (_pinMessage != null)
return _pinMessage;
}
set { _pinMessage = value; }
}
You are getting this compile error because you don't return anything in the case where _pinMesSafe is null. You need to return something from your Access or in the case when that is true, or throw an exception.
private string _pinMessafe;
public string pinmesssage
{
get {
if (_pinMessafe != null)
return _pinMessafe;
}
set { _pinMessafe = value; }
}
You have to return something when it's being called, you can't just put a method call on hold.
What you could do is force a check yourself:
private string _pinMessafe;
public string pinmesssage
{
get {
return _pinMessafe ?? GetMessage()
}
set { _pinMessafe = value; }
}
In this scenario, GetMessage() would have to take care of returning the message. It's hard to give a more detailed answer with the information you've provided.
You should edit your code to make it more readable (this includes the english spelling errors) and add info if needed.
This is not the "best" practice, but will work and let your consumer wait until the producer has written the variable.
private string _pinMessafe;
object locker = new object();
public string pinmesssage
{
get
{
string x = null;
while(x == null) {
lock(locker) { x = _pinMessafe ; }
Thread.Sleep(1);
}
return x;
}
set { lock(locker) { _pinMessafe = value; } }
}
I am trying to find all the zones that contain 2 or more zone members where the search term is a string value. Here is the code I have. In the FindCommmonZones method when I try to cast the result of an Intersect to an ObservableCollection I get a run-time on an invalid cast. The question is, is there a better way to do this? The string array that is the paramter for FindCommonZones() can be any count of strings. StackOverflow had some other similar posts but none really answered my question - it looked like they all pertained more to SQL.
Some code:
public class Zone
{
public List<ZoneMember> MembersList = new List<ZoneMember>();
private string _ZoneName;
public string zoneName{ get{return _ZoneName;} set{_ZoneName=value;} }
public Zone ContainsMember(string member)
{
var contained = this.MembersList.FirstOrDefault(m => m.MemberWWPN.
Contains(member) || m.MemberAlias.Contains(member));
if (contained != null) { return this; }
else { return null; }
}
}
public class ZoneMember
// a zone member is a member of a zone
// zones have ports, WWPNs, aliases or all 3
{
private string _Alias = string.Empty;
public string MemberAlias {get{return _Alias;} set{_Alias = value; } }
private FCPort _Port = null;
public FCPort MemberPort { get { return _Port; } set { _Port = value; } }
private string _WWPN = string.Empty;
public string MemberWWPN { get { return _WWPN; } set { _WWPN = value; } }
private bool _IsLoggedIn;
public bool IsLoggedIn { get { return _IsLoggedIn; } set { _IsLoggedIn = value; } }
private string _FCID;
public string FCID {get{return _FCID;} set{ _FCID=value; } }
}
private ObservableCollection<ZoneResult> FindCommonZones(string[] searchterms)
{
ObservableCollection<ZoneResult> tempcollection =
new ObservableCollection<ZoneResult>();
//find the zones for the first search term
tempcollection = this.FindZones(searchterms[0]);
//now search for the rest of the search terms and compare
//them to existing result
for (int i = 1; i < searchterms.Count(); i++ )
{
// this line gives an exception trying to cast
tempcollection = (ObservableCollection<ZoneResult>)tempcollection.
Intersect(this.FindZones(searchterms[i]));
}
return tempcollection;
}
private ObservableCollection<ZoneResult> FindZones(string searchterm)
// we need to track the vsan where the zone member is found
// so use a foreach to keep track
{
ObservableCollection<ZoneResult> zonecollection = new ObservableCollection<ZoneResult>();
foreach (KeyValuePair<int, Dictionary<int, CiscoVSAN>> fabricpair in this.FabricDictionary)
{
foreach (KeyValuePair<int, CiscoVSAN> vsanpair in fabricpair.Value)
{
var selection = vsanpair.Value.ActiveZoneset.
ZoneList.Select(z => z.ContainsMember(searchterm)).
Where(m => m != null).OrderBy(z => z.zoneName);
if (selection.Count() > 0)
{
foreach (Zone zone in selection)
{
foreach (ZoneMember zm in zone.MembersList)
{
ZoneResult zr = new ZoneResult(zone.zoneName,
zm.MemberWWPN, zm.MemberAlias, vsanpair.Key.ToString());
zonecollection.Add(zr);
}
}
}
}
}
return zonecollection;
}
Intersect is actually Enumerable.Intersect and is returning an IEnumerable<ZoneResult>. This is not castable to an ObservableCollection because it isn't one - it is the enumeration of the intersecting elements in both collections.
You can, however create a new ObservableCollection from the enumeration:
tempcollection = new ObservableCollection<ZoneResult>(tempcollection
.Intersect(this.FindZones(searchterms[i]));
Depending on how many elements you have, how ZoneResult.Equals is implemented, and how many search terms you expect, this implementation may or may not be feasable (FindZones does seem a little overly-complicated with O(n^4) at first glance). If it seems to be a resource hog or bottleneck, it's time to optimize; otherwise I would just leave it alone if it works.
One suggested optimization could be the following (incorporating #Keith's suggestion to change ContainsMember to a bool) - although it is untested, I probably have my SelectManys wrong, and it really largely amounts to the same thing, you hopefully get the idea:
private ObservableCollection<ZoneResult> FindCommonZones(string[] searchterms)
{
var query = this.FabricDictionary.SelectMany(fabricpair =>
fabricpair.Value.SelectMany(vsanpair =>
vsanpair.Value.ActiveZoneSet.ZoneList
.Where(z=>searchterms.Any(term=>z.ContainsMember(term)))
.SelectMany(zone =>
zone.MembersList.Select(zm=>new ZoneResult(zone.zoneName, zm.MemberWWPN, zm.MemberAlias, vsanpair.Key.ToString()))
)
)
.Distinct()
.OrderBy(zr=>zr.zoneName);
return new ObservableCollection<ZoneResult>(query);
}
I would like to get property name when I'm in it via reflection. Is it possible?
I have code like this:
public CarType Car
{
get { return (Wheel) this["Wheel"];}
set { this["Wheel"] = value; }
}
And because I need more properties like this I would like to do something like this:
public CarType Car
{
get { return (Wheel) this[GetThisPropertyName()];}
set { this[GetThisPropertyName()] = value; }
}
Since properties are really just methods you can do this and clean up the get_ returned:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Program p = new Program();
var x = p.Something;
Console.ReadLine();
}
public string Something
{
get
{
return MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name;
}
}
}
If you profile the performance you should find MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod() is miles faster than StackFrame. In .NET 1.1 you will also have issues with StackFrame in release mode (from memory I think I found it was 3x faster).
That said I'm sure the performance issue won't cause too much of a problem- though an interesting discussion on StackFrame slowness can be found here.
I guess another option if you were concerned about performance would be to create a Visual Studio Intellisense Code Snippet that creates the property for you and also creates a string that corresponds to the property name.
Slightly confusing example you presented, unless I just don't get it.
From C# 6.0 you can use the nameof operator.
public CarType MyProperty
{
get { return (CarType)this[nameof(MyProperty)]};
set { this[nameof(MyProperty)] = value]};
}
If you have a method that handles your getter/setter anyway, you can use the C# 4.5 CallerMemberName attribute, in this case you don't even need to repeat the name.
public CarType MyProperty
{
get { return Get<CarType>(); }
set { Set(value); }
}
public T Get<T>([CallerMemberName]string name = null)
{
return (T)this[name];
}
public void Set<T>(T value, [CallerMemberName]string name = null)
{
this[name] = value;
}
I'd like to know more about the context in which you need it since it seems to me that you should already know what property you are working with in the property accessor. If you must, though, you could probably use MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name and remove anything after get_/set_.
Update:
Based on your changes, I would say that you should use inheritance rather than reflection. I don't know what data is in your dictionary, but it seems to me that you really want to have different Car classes, say Sedan, Roadster, Buggy, StationWagon, not keep the type in a local variable. Then you would have implementations of methods that do the proper thing for that type of Car. Instead of finding out what kind of car you have, then doing something, you then simply call the appropriate method and the Car object does the right thing based on what type it is.
public interface ICar
{
void Drive( decimal velocity, Orientation orientation );
void Shift( int gear );
...
}
public abstract class Car : ICar
{
public virtual void Drive( decimal velocity, Orientation orientation )
{
...some default implementation...
}
public abstract void Shift( int gear );
...
}
public class AutomaticTransmission : Car
{
public override void Shift( int gear )
{
...some specific implementation...
}
}
public class ManualTransmission : Car
{
public override void Shift( int gear )
{
...some specific implementation...
}
}
Use MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod() instead!
Reflection is used to do work with types that can't be done at compile time. Getting the name of the property accessor you're in can be decided at compile time so you probably shouldn't use reflection for it.
You get use the accessor method's name from the call stack using System.Diagnostics.StackTrace though.
string GetPropertyName()
{
StackTrace callStackTrace = new StackTrace();
StackFrame propertyFrame = callStackTrace.GetFrame(1); // 1: below GetPropertyName frame
string properyAccessorName = propertyFrame.GetMethod().Name;
return properyAccessorName.Replace("get_","").Replace("set_","");
}
FWIW I implemented a system like this:
[CrmAttribute("firstname")]
public string FirstName
{
get { return GetPropValue<string>(MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name); }
set { SetPropValue(MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name, value); }
}
// this is in a base class, skipped that bit for clairty
public T GetPropValue<T>(string propName)
{
propName = propName.Replace("get_", "").Replace("set_", "");
string attributeName = GetCrmAttributeName(propName);
return GetAttributeValue<T>(attributeName);
}
public void SetPropValue(string propName, object value)
{
propName = propName.Replace("get_", "").Replace("set_", "");
string attributeName = GetCrmAttributeName(propName);
SetAttributeValue(attributeName, value);
}
private static Dictionary<string, string> PropToAttributeMap = new Dictionary<string, string>();
private string GetCrmAttributeName(string propertyName)
{
// keyName for our propertyName to (static) CrmAttributeName cache
string keyName = this.GetType().Name + propertyName;
// have we already done this mapping?
if (!PropToAttributeMap.ContainsKey(keyName))
{
Type t = this.GetType();
PropertyInfo info = t.GetProperty(propertyName);
if (info == null)
{
throw new Exception("Cannot find a propety called " + propertyName);
}
object[] attrs = info.GetCustomAttributes(false);
foreach (object o in attrs)
{
CrmAttributeAttribute attr = o as CrmAttributeAttribute ;
if (attr != null)
{
// found it. Save the mapping for next time.
PropToAttributeMap[keyName] = attr.AttributeName;
return attr.AttributeName;
}
}
throw new Exception("Missing MemberOf attribute for " + info.Name + "." + propertyName + ". Could not auto-access value");
}
// return the existing mapping
string result = PropToAttributeMap[keyName];
return result;
}
There's also a custom attribute class called CrmAttributeAttribute.
I'd strongly recommend against using GetStackFrame() as part of your solution, my original version of the solution was originally the much neater:
return GetPropValue<string>();
But it was 600x slower than the version above.
Solution # 1
var a = nameof(SampleMethod); //a == SampleMethod
var b = nameof(SampleVariable); //b == SampleVariable
var c = nameof(SampleProperty); //c == SampleProperty
Solution # 2
MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name; // Name of method in which you call the code
MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name.Replace("set_", "").Replace("get_", ""); // current Property
Solution # 3
from StackTrace:
public static class Props
{
public static string CurrPropName =>
(new StackTrace()).GetFrame(1).GetMethod().Name.Replace("set_", "").Replace("get_", "");
public static string CurrMethodName =>
(new StackTrace()).GetFrame(1).GetMethod().Name;
}
you just need to call Props.CurrPropName or Props.CurrMethodName
Solution # 4
Solution for .NET 4.5+:
public static class Props
{
public static string GetCallerName([System.Runtime.CompilerServices.CallerMemberName] String propertyName = "")
{
return propertyName;
}
}
usage: Props.GetCallerName();
Yes, it is!
string test = "test string";
Type type = test.GetType();
PropertyInfo[] propInfos = type.GetProperties();
for (int i = 0; i < propInfos.Length; i++)
{
PropertyInfo pi = (PropertyInfo)propInfos.GetValue(i);
string propName = pi.Name;
}
Try using System.Diagnostics.StackTrace to reflect on the call stack. The property should be somewhere in the call stack (probably at the top if you're calling it directly from the property's code).
How do I find and replace a property using Linq in this specific scenario below:
public interface IPropertyBag { }
public class PropertyBag : IPropertyBag
{
public Property[] Properties { get; set; }
public Property this[string name]
{
get { return Properties.Where((e) => e.Name == name).Single(); }
//TODO: Just copying values... Find out how to find the index and replace the value
set { Properties.Where((e) => e.Name == name).Single().Value = value.Value; }
}
}
Thanks for helping out in advance.
Do not use LINQ because it will not improve the code because LINQ is designed to query collection and not to modify them. I suggest the following.
// Just realized that Array.IndexOf() is a static method unlike
// List.IndexOf() that is an instance method.
Int32 index = Array.IndexOf(this.Properties, name);
if (index != -1)
{
this.Properties[index] = value;
}
else
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
}
Why are Array.Sort() and Array.IndexOf() methods static?
Further I suggest not to use an array. Consider using IDictionary<String, Property>. This simplifies the code to the following.
this.Properties[name] = value;
Note that neither solution is thread safe.
An ad hoc LINQ solution - you see, you should not use it because the whole array will be replaced with a new one.
this.Properties = Enumerable.Union(
this.Properties.Where(p => p.Name != name),
Enumerable.Repeat(value, 1)).
ToArray();
[note: this answer was due to a misunderstanding of the question - see the comments on this answer. Apparently, I'm a little dense :(]
Is your 'Property' a class or a struct?
This test passes for me:
public class Property
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Value { get; set; }
}
public interface IPropertyBag { }
public class PropertyBag : IPropertyBag
{
public Property[] Properties { get; set; }
public Property this[string name]
{
get { return Properties.Where((e) => e.Name == name).Single(); }
set { Properties.Where((e) => e.Name == name).Single().Value = value.Value; }
}
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var pb = new PropertyBag() { Properties = new Property[] { new Property { Name = "X", Value = "Y" } } };
Assert.AreEqual("Y", pb["X"].Value);
pb["X"] = new Property { Name = "X", Value = "Z" };
Assert.AreEqual("Z", pb["X"].Value);
}
I have to wonder why the getter returns a 'Property' instead of whatever datatype .Value, but I'm still curious why you're seeing a different result than what I am.