I'm sending xml to another program, which expects boolean flags as "yes" or "no", rather than "true" or "false".
I have a class defined like:
[XmlRoot()]
public class Foo {
public bool Bar { get; set; }
}
When I serialize it, my output looks like this:
<Foo><Bar>true</Bar></Foo>
But I would like it to be this:
<Foo><Bar>yes</Bar></Foo>
Can I do this at the time of serialization? I would prefer not to have to resort to this:
[XmlRoot()]
public class Foo {
[XmlIgnore()]
public bool Bar { get; set; }
[XmlElement("Bar")]
public string BarXml { get { return (Bar) ? "yes" : "no"; } }
}
Note that I also want to be able to deserialize this data back again.
Ok, I've been looking into this some more. Here's what I've come up with:
// use this instead of a bool, and it will serialize to "yes" or "no"
// minimal example, not very robust
public struct YesNo : IXmlSerializable {
// we're just wrapping a bool
private bool Value;
// allow implicit casts to/from bool
public static implicit operator bool(YesNo yn) {
return yn.Value;
}
public static implicit operator YesNo(bool b) {
return new YesNo() {Value = b};
}
// implement IXmlSerializable
public XmlSchema GetSchema() { return null; }
public void ReadXml(XmlReader reader) {
Value = (reader.ReadElementContentAsString() == "yes");
}
public void WriteXml(XmlWriter writer) {
writer.WriteString((Value) ? "yes" : "no");
}
}
Then I change my Foo class to this:
[XmlRoot()]
public class Foo {
public YesNo Bar { get; set; }
}
Note that because YesNo is implicitly castable to bool (and vice versa), you can still do this:
Foo foo = new Foo() { Bar = true; };
if ( foo.Bar ) {
// ... etc
In other words, you can treat it like a bool.
And w00t! It serializes to this:
<Foo><Bar>yes</Bar></Foo>
It also deserializes correctly.
There is probably some way to get my XmlSerializer to automatically cast any bools it encounters to YesNos as it goes - but I haven't found it yet. Anyone?
Very simple. Use a surrogate property. Apply XmlIgnore on the actual property. The surrogate is a string, and must use the XmlElement attribute that takes a element-name override. Specify the name of the actual property in the override. The surrogate property serializes differently based on the value of the actual property. You must also provide a setter for the Surrogate, and the setter should set the actual property appropriately, for whatever value it serialized. In other words it needs to go both ways.
Snip:
public class SomeType
{
[XmlElement]
public int IntValue;
[XmlIgnore]
public bool Value;
[XmlElement("Value")]
public string Value_Surrogate {
get { return (Value)? "Yes, definitely!":"Absolutely NOT!"; }
set { Value= (value=="Yes, definitely!"); }
}
}
click here for full compilable source example.
Making a bool value serialize as "yes" or "no" changes the data type from being a boolean at all. Instead, can you add a separate property which evaluates a boolean and returns "yes" or "no" as appropriate for it's data type? Maybe you could even force "yes" or "no" by making the return type be an enum which only specifies those values.
public YesOrNo DoYouLoveIt
{
get { return boolToEvaluate ? YesOrNo.Yes : YesOrNo.No; }
}
That might be overkill, but might answer your need. The only reason I bring up an enum for such a simple value is you'd be restricting the values vs. allowing any string.
I use the property method, but instead of checking to see if the string is equal to yes or no, I prefer to check if the string starts with (case insensitive) "YT1". This allows the file to contain true, True, t, T, y, Y, yes, Yes, 1, etc. all which will evaluate to true. While I can specify that false is false, False, f, F, n, N, no, No, 0, etc., anything that doesn't match the true still evaluates to false.
Your property example is probably the simplest way you could do it. If it helps, I believe you don't need to make it a public property, since the attribute implements ISerializable on the class behind your back. To enable deserialization, you should be able to just implement set { Bar = value == "yes"; }
#Blorgbeard:
If you have more then one of these YesNo classes in an object class,
make sure to read the entire element.
public void ReadXml(XmlReader reader)
{
string element = reader.ReadOuterXml();
int startIndex = element.IndexOf('>') + 1;
int length = element.LastIndexOf('<') - startIndex;
string text = (element.Substring(startIndex, length).ToLowerInvariant();
Value = (text == "yes");
}
Otherwise this might cause problems.
The ReadXml method must reconstitute your object using the information that was written by the WriteXml method.
When this method is called, the reader is positioned at the start of the element that wraps the information for your type. That is, just
before the start tag that indicates the beginning of a serialized
object. When this method returns, it must have read the entire element
from beginning to end, including all of its contents. Unlike the
WriteXml method, the framework does not handle the wrapper element
automatically. Your implementation must do so. Failing to observe
these positioning rules may cause code to generate unexpected runtime
exceptions or corrupt data.
What you're needing to do sounds more like a display issue. If your application allows, you will be better off keeping the data type as a boolean and displaying Yes/No in your user interface.
Related
I'm trying to deserialize a piece of XML offered by some API. However this API is dumb, for example, a bool is not true, but True. And having an element
[XmlElement("Foo")]
public bool Foo { get;set; }
and then the matching XML:
<...><Foo>True</Foo></...>
does NOT work, because True is not a valid representation of bool (the API is written in Python, which is, I think, more forgiving).
Is there any way to put some attribute on my property Foo to say to the system: when you encounter this element, put it through this converter class?
Edit:
The XML is large, and most of them are stupid, not directly convertible objects, like 234KB, which I need to parse to the exact value.
Do I need to write a wrapper property for each of them?
You could use a backing property:
public class MyModel
{
[XmlIgnore]
public bool Foo
{
get
{
return string.Equals(FooXml, "true", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
}
set
{
FooXml = value.ToString();
}
}
[XmlElement("Foo")]
public string FooXml { get; set; }
}
I have class named "config" that have private string variable named "param".
I need to get from "config" class "param" variable sometimes as int type sometimes as bool type or string.
As I understand I need create 3 properties in config class,each property have to convert type, as follow:
The first property converts string to int, the second converts string to bool, the third property gets me the string value.
The class should look something like this:
class Config
{
private string param;
public int ParamAsInt
{
get
{
return int.Parse(param);
}
}
public bool ParamAsBool
{
get
{
return bool.Parse(param);
}
}
public string ParamAsString
{
get
{
return param;
}
}
}
But I don't know how can those properties be used in accordance to the variable type that I want to get out of class.
This code won't compile - int and such are reserved keywords and cannot be used as identifiers. You can either try naming your properties something like Int32Value, StringValue, etc., or try this:
public static implicit operator bool (Config config)
{
return bool.Parse(config.param);
}
public static implicit operator int (Config config)
{
return int.Parse(config.param);
}
This will allow for much cleaner code:
Config c = GetConfig("foo");
var isFeatureEnabled = false || c;
var spacing = 23 + GetConfig("bar");
You forgot to give your properties names. How would you expect to reference them? Something like this:
class Config
{
private string param;
public int ParamAsInt
{
get
{
return int.Parse(param);
}
}
public bool ParamAsBool
{
get
{
return bool.Parse(param);
}
}
public string ParamAsString
{
get
{
return param;
}
}
}
Note that I also fixed the casing in your calls to .Parse(). C# is case-sensitive. I also replaced the call to bool.TryParse() with bool.Parse(). The former (when used correctly, which this wasn't because it was missing a parameter) will only tell you if it is a bool, it won't tell you what value the bool actually has. (For example, bool.TryParse('false' out someBool) will return true.)
Of course, this code is a bit dangerous. You'll want to start with some more defensive programming to check those values. Basically, look up TryParse() and how to use it correctly. Something like this, for example:
public int ParamAsInt
{
get
{
var tmp = default(int);
if (int.TryParse(param, out tmp))
return tmp;
else
// do something else? throw a specific exception?
}
}
Additionally, what is the purpose of this code? It seems like a very rushed and poor design. For any given value of param (how is that even being set, by the way?) this just sort of randomly tries to expose typed properties for it. If you guess the correct one, you're still left with others that will throw exceptions. Surely there's a much cleaner way to accomplish what you're trying to do. So what are you trying to do?
I want to serialize a nullable bool simply by converting it to a string
public static string SerializeNullableBoolean(bool? b)
{
if (b == null)
{
return "null or -1 or .."; // What to return here?
}
else
{
return b.ToString();
}
}
What is the most appropriate string to serialize the null-value as?
Since bool.ToString() returns "True" or "False", I would go with "Null". I would also rewrite this as:
return b.HasValue ? b.ToString() : "Null";
Edit: I take that back. bool?.ToString() returns empty string, so I would decide based on what's more convenient. If a person needs to read the output then "Null" is a better choice; if it only needs to be used in code then empty string is fine. If you go with empty string it is as simple as:
return b.ToString();
Why not:
b.ToString()
If b is null, then it returns an empty string. Since that's what the framework returns, I would use it to be consistent. This is also what XmlSerializer uses for nullable scalars.
If you're returning True/False for real bool values, you should return Null for symmetry's sake in case b is null.
Be consistent.
b.ToString()
returns the strings 'true' or 'false'. Thus if you return -1 it will be less consistent if you actually read the serialized files. The deserialization code will also become more "ugly" and less readable.
I would choose to serialize it to either the string 'unset' (or something along those lines) or the string 'null'. Unless you have really strict space requirements or really huge datasets to serialize the extra characters shouldn't really matter.
I would choose an empty string to represent the null-value.
If you are using the built in XmlSerializer you can also do the following to serialize the value (and prevent a lot of ugly custom serialization code):
[Serializable]
public class Foo
{
[XmlIgnore]
public bool? Bar { get; set; }
[XmlAttribute("Bar")]
[EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)]
public string xmlBar
{
get { return Bar.ToString(); }
set
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(value)) Bar = null;
else Bar = bool.Parse(value);
}
}
}
Personally I wouldn't use any of the above but simply use ShouldSerialize interface.
For example,
[XmlElement("SomeBoolean ", Namespace = "SomeNamespace")]
public bool? SomeBoolean { get; set; }
public bool ShouldSerializeSomeBoolean() { return SomeBoolean.HasValue; }
So I've got a whole bunch of options, every different page/tab can have their own local options. We'll have maybe 10-15 pages tabs open tops. I need to implement a way to show the global defaults, weather the all the tabs have consistent values. I'm working on the model/viewmodel portion of a WPF app.
I'd love to find a way that is more elegant since I'm having to cut and past roughly the same code 20+ times and just change property names. Maybe this is the problem Dynamics solve, but right now this feels both wrong and painful.
Here is an example of my current solution:
public class Foo
{
private bool fooVar1;
private bool fooVar2;
//lots of these
private decimal fooVar23;
public Foo()
{
}
public bool FooVar1
{
get;
set;
}
//you get the picture...
}
public class FooMonitor
{
private Foo defaultFoo;
private List<Foo> allFoos;
public FooMonitor(Foo DefaultFoo)
{
defaultFoo = DefaultFoo;
}
public void AddFoo(Foo newFoo)
{
allFoos.Add(newFoo);
}
public void AddFoo(Foo oldFoo)
{
allFoos.Remove(oldFoo);
}
public bool IsFooVar1Consistent
{
get
{
Foo[] tempFoos = allFoos.ToArray();
foreach (Foo tempFoo in tempFoos)
{
if (tempFoo.FooVar1 != defaultFoo.FooVar1) return false;
}
return true;
}
}
}
Or am I approaching this problem entirely incorrectly.
As I'm writing this question (After about 2000 lines of code) I'm thinking of how I read that WPF itself implements Dictionary look ups that crawl up to the parent to see if a Property is present and what the value should be.
Well, for a start you are defining both backing fields which will never be used and automatic properties. This is enough for a simple bool property:
public bool FooVar1 { get; set; }
No need for the private field. This greatly reduces the number of lines in your example.
I'd love to find a way that is more
elegant since I'm having to cut and
past roughly the same code 20+ times
and just change property names.
Code generators exist for exactly this purpose. But if you don't want to go that route, you can shorten your code to this:
return allFoos.All(foo => foo.FooVar1 == defaultFoo.FooVar1);
I'm not quite sure what the question is, but if you're looking for some way to unify the IsFoorVarXConsistent code, you could do it using reflection or by passing in an expression:
public bool IsConsistent(Func<Foo, bool> property)
{
foreach (Foo tempFoo in allFoos)
{
if (property(tempFoo) != property(defaultFoo))
return false;
}
return true;
}
Called like this:
bool is1Consistent = IsConsistent(f => f.FooVar1);
As shown this will only work for boolean properties. To extend it to other types, we can make it generic in the property type. However, in this case we cannot use != to test for inequality because not all types define a != operator. Instead we can use the .Equals method and the ! operator:
public bool IsConsistent<T>(Func<Foo, T> property)
where T : struct
{
foreach (Foo tempFoo in allFoos)
{
if (!property(tempFoo).Equals(property(defaultFoo)))
return false;
}
return true;
}
The where T : struct clause restricts this to value types like int, bool and decimal. In particular it will not work on strings. Removing the where constraint allows it to work on strings and other reference types, but creates the possibility of property(tempFoo) being null, which would cause a NullReferenceException when we called .Equals on it. So if you remove the value types constraint then you will need to add error handling for this scenario.
I have some extension methods which could be used like this:
MyType myObject;
string displayName = myObject.GetDisplayName(x => x.Property);
The problem here is that it needs an instance, even if the extension method only needs the type MyType. So if there is no instance, it needs to be called like this:
string displayName = BlahBlahUtility.GetDisplayName((MyTpe x) => x.Property);
Which is not so nice anymore.
Is there a way to write better syntax for such cases?
What I actually want to do is this (pseudo language):
string displayName = MyType.Property.GetDisplayName()
Which of course does not work with C#.
But what about something like this:
string displayName = ((MyType x) => x.Property).GetDisplayName();
This is also not possible (after a lambda, a dot is not accepted).
Any ideas?
Edit:
My "favorite syntax" MyType.Property.GetDisplayName() seems to be misleading. I don't talk about static properties here. I know that this syntax won't be possible. I just tried to show in pseudo language, what information is necessary. This would be ideal, every additional stuff is just syntactical overhead. Any working syntax that is close to this would be great.
I don't want to write a certain extension method. I want an easy, readable and compile time safe syntax, using any language feature.
Have a look at the Express and Reflect classes in the Lokad Shared Libraries. Think they may help out with what you are trying to do. Read more here:
Strongly Typed Reflection in Lokad Shared
How to Find Out Variable or Parameter Name in C#?
From your comment: "I want an easy and compile time safe syntax to get information about members".
This is a very frequently requested feature and has been discussed in the C# team's meetings for about a decade, but has never been prioritised high enough to be included.
This blog post explains why:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/05/21/in-foof-we-trust-a-dialogue.aspx
So for now, you're just going to be fighting against a missing feature. Maybe you could post more information about your broader problem and see if people can suggest different approaches.
Update
Without more info about your problem this is just guesswork. But if you have a property that represents a value but also carries additional "meta" information, you could always represent that as a new type and use an "injection" step to set everything up.
Here's a suggested abstract interface to such a "meta property":
public interface IMetaProperty<TValue>
{
TValue Value { get; set; }
string DisplayName { get; }
event Action<TValue, TValue> ValueChanged;
}
The value of the property is just another sub-property, with its type defined by the user.
I've put in the display name, and also as a bonus you've got an event that fires when the value changes (so you get "observability" for free).
To have properties like this in a class, you'd declare it like this:
public class SomeClass
{
public IMetaProperty<string> FirstName { get; private set; }
public IMetaProperty<string> LastName { get; private set; }
public IMetaProperty<int> Age { get; private set; }
public SomeClass() { MetaProperty.Inject(this); }
}
Note how the setters on the properties are private. This stops anyone from accidentally setting the property itself instead of setting the Value sub-property.
So this means the class has to set up those properties so they aren't just null. It does this by calling a magic Inject method, which can work on any class:
public static class MetaProperty
{
// Make it convenient for us to fill in the meta information
private interface IMetaPropertyInit
{
string DisplayName { get; set; }
}
// Implementation of a meta-property
private class MetaPropertyImpl<TValue> : IMetaProperty<TValue>,
IMetaPropertyInit
{
private TValue _value;
public TValue Value
{
get { return _value; }
set
{
var old = _value;
_value = value;
ValueChanged(old, _value);
}
}
public string DisplayName { get; set; }
public event Action<TValue, TValue> ValueChanged = delegate { };
}
public static void Inject(object target)
{
// for each meta property...
foreach (var property in target.GetType().GetProperties()
.Where(p => p.PropertyType.IsGenericType &&
p.PropertyType.GetGenericTypeDefinition()
== typeof(IMetaProperty<>)))
{
// construct an implementation with the correct type
var impl = (IMetaPropertyInit)
typeof (MetaPropertyImpl<>).MakeGenericType(
property.PropertyType.GetGenericArguments()
).GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes).Invoke(null);
// initialize any meta info (could examine attributes...)
impl.DisplayName = property.Name;
// set the value
property.SetValue(target, impl, null);
}
}
}
It just uses reflection to find all the IMetaProperty slots hiding in the object, and fills them in with an implementation.
So now a user of SomeClass could say:
var sc = new SomeClass
{
FirstName = { Value = "Homer" },
LastName = { Value = "Simpson" },
Age = { Value = 38 },
};
Console.WriteLine(sc.FirstName.DisplayName + " = " + sc.FirstName.Value);
sc.Age.ValueChanged += (from, to) =>
Console.WriteLine("Age changed from " + from + " to " + to);
sc.Age.Value = 39;
// sc.Age = null; compiler would stop this
If you're already using an IOC container you may be able to achieve some of this without going directly to reflection.
It looks like you're trying to create a static extension method?
DateTime yesterday = DateTime.Yesterday(); // Static extension.
Instead of
DateTime yesterday = DateTime.Now.Yesterday(); // Extension on DateTime instance.
If this is what you're trying to pull off, I do not believe it is possible in the current version of C#.
It sounds like you are integrating layers a little too tightly. Normally in this type of situation I would let the presentation layer decide the implementation of GetDisplayName() instead of making it an extension of the property itself. You could create an interface called MyTypeDisplayer or whatever you fancy, and let there be multiple implementations of it not limiting you to a single display implementation.
The issue here is that one cannot get a reference to non-static methods via instance MyType.[Member]. These can only be seen through a reference to an instance of the type. You also cannot build an extension method on-top of a type declaration, only on an instance of a type - that is the extension method itself has to be defined using an instance of a type (this T x).
One can however define the expression like this to get a reference to static members:
((MyType x) => MyType.Property)
One could do something similar to string displayName = ((MyType x) => x.Property).GetDisplayName();
The first issue is guaranteeing that the compiler treats your (x=> x.Property) as an Expression rather than an action/func etc...
To do this one might need to do this:
string displayName = ((Expression<Func<PropertyType>>)((MyType x) => x.Property).GetDisplayName();
The extension method would then have to be defined like this:
public static string GetDisplayName<T>(this Expression<Func<T>> expression)
You might also have to define an extension method on top of Expression<Action>> and Expression<Action<T>> if your members are also methods.
You can do a dot after an Expression - this is where the Compile method would reside.
Appended:
I think the static call to the extension method in cases that one doesn't have an instance of the type one needs to do "reflection" on to determine a Members name would be the cleanest syntax still - this way you could still use the extension method when using an instance of a type and fall back to the static call definition => MyExtensionClass.GetDisplayName(TypeOfX x => TypeOfX.StaticMember OR x.Property/Member) when one doesn't have an instance
If you interface your properties, you could make the extension on the interface instead:
namespace Linq1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyType o = new MyType();
o.Property.GetDisplayName();
}
}
public class MyType
{
public IDisplayableProperty Property { get; set; }
}
public interface IDisplayableProperty
{
string GetText();
}
public class MyProperty1 : IDisplayableProperty
{
public string GetText() { return "MyProperty2"; }
}
public class MyProperty2 : IDisplayableProperty
{
public string GetText() { return "MyProperty2"; }
}
public static class Extensions
{
public static string GetDisplayName(this IDisplayableProperty o)
{
return o.GetText();
}
}
}