I have a background in C++ and recently I started working in C#.
I have written following pieces of code (in Visual Studio):
var list_Loads = database.GetData<Load>().ToList();
var test_list = list_Loads.Where(o => (o.Name.Substring(0, 3) == "123")).ToList();
When I run the program and I move my mouse over both lists, first I get the count, which is very useful, but when I ask for the entries, this is what I get:
0 : namespace.Load
1 : namespace.Load
2 : namespace.Load
...
Not very useful, as you can imagine :-)
So my question: how can I show the Name attributes of those objects?
I thought: no problem. I have a background in native visualisers, so it should be rather easy to turn this into useful information, but then it comes:
In order to alter the way that those objects are represented, there is the first proposal to add a [DebuggerDisplay] "tag" to the definition of that class in source code.
However, as those classes are part of a framework I'm just referring to, I don't have access to the source code and hence I can't modify this.
Then I found another solution, which comes down to: "Write an entire C# project, debug, test and install it and it might work" (see documentation on "Custom visualisers of data" on the Microsoft website).
I almost choked in my coffee: writing an entire project, just for altering the view of an object??? (While, in C++, you just create a simple .natvis file, mention the classname and some configuration, launch .nvload and that's it.
Does anybody know a simple way to alter the appearance of C# object, without needing to pass through the whole burden of creating an entire C# project?
By the way, when I try to load a natvis file in Visual Studio immediate window, this is what I get:
.nvload "C:\Temp_Folder\test.natvis"
error CS1525: Invalid expression term '.'
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks in advance
OP (my emphasis):
In order to alter the way that those objects are represented, there is the first proposal to add a [DebuggerDisplay] "tag" to the definition of that class in source code.
However, as those classes are part of a framework I'm just referring to, I don't have access to the source code and hence I can't modify this.
Does anybody know a simple way to alter the appearance of C# object, without needing to pass through the whole burden of creating an entire C# project?
If you just want to specify [DebuggerDisplay] on a type, you don't have to have access to the source code. You can make use of [assembly:DebuggerDisplay()] and control how a type appears in the debugger. The only downside is that [assembly:DebuggerDisplay()] naturally only affects the current assembly whose code your mouse is hovering over. If you wish to use the customised display in other assemblies that you own, then you must repeat the [assembly:DebuggerDisplay()] definition.
Here's an easy before-and-after example with DateTime. I picked DateTime because we generally don't have access to the source code and it has some interesting properties:
var items = new List<DateTime>
{
DateTime.Now.AddDays(-2),
DateTime.Now.AddDays(-1),
DateTime.Now
};
...which on my machine defaults to:
Maybe I'm fussy and I just want to see:
Day of the week and
Day of the year
...I can do that via:
using System.Diagnostics;
[assembly: DebuggerDisplay("{DayOfWeek} {DayOfYear}", Target = typeof(DateTime))]
...which results in:
Example:
namespace DebuggerDisplayTests
{
public class DebuggerDisplayTests
{
public DebuggerDisplayTests()
{
var items = new List<DateTime>
{
DateTime.Now.AddDays(-2),
DateTime.Now.AddDays(-1),
DateTime.Now
};
}
}
.
.
.
}
Overrides
[assembly:DebuggerDisplay()] can also be used as a means to override pre-existing [DebuggerDisplay] on a 3-rd party type. Don't like what style they have chosen? Is the type showing far too much information? Change it with [assembly:DebuggerDisplay()].
I am new to SharePoint developement and have a few startup problems which I hope you will help me with.
I am trying to make a custom field type and I am using WPS builder to create the project. Right now I have the following files which are all compiling just fine :)
SuperLookup3.cs
SuperLookup3Control.cs
SuperLookup3FieldEditor.cs
SuperLookup3FieldEditor.ascx (controltemplate)
fldtypes_SuperLookup3.xml (XML)
I have tried look at this example but I just can't get it to work.
My questions
How is the relationsships between the files?
I can see an override of UpdateFieldValueInItem() which is setting the value to the selected item of a dropdown list. But this method is never called (when debugging). How can this be?
Some general advice would be to post this question to the SharePoint Stack Exchange site (if this answer is unsatisfactory), since there are a lot more SharePoint developers there.
From what I understand of that example, it seems to be quite a complex Custom Field Type to start with (given that it has multiple values). There's a good straightforward and pretty well explained tutorial on MSDN that you might want to try out: Walkthrough: Creating a Custom Field Type
Here's a brief explanation of your files (and the classes they contain):
This is the main class of your field, which derives from the SharePoint field base class (SPField). Your naming seems to indicate you're creating a lookup derivative; if so, you may wish to derived from SPFieldLookup.
This is the class the creates the form control displayed on a list item's New, Edit, and Display forms (but not the List View). It's a go-between for the forms and the item's value for this field.
&
This is the section displayed on the Add/Edit Column page. I would expect 3. to have the ending '.ascx.cs' instead of '.cs', since it is the code-behind for 4.; which may be the cause of your problem. This control sets up your field; associating the class in 1. to the list.
This is the field declaration. It says to SharePoint "Hey, I've created my own field; go look here to find it.", and directs SharePoint to the class in 1., which makes the field available on the Add Column page.
Greetings all,
I am calling Type.GetProperties(), but after running Dotfuscator, it is returning zero items, when it returned more than zero before.
public class Test
{
public int Number { get; set; }
public void ShowInfo()
{
Type type = this.GetType();
PropertyInfo[] props = type.GetProperties();
Console.WriteLine("type [" + type.Name + "] props count: " + props.Length);
}
}
If I exclude the "Number" property from renaming within Dotfuscator, then it works, but otherwise it doesn't. However, it is not possible for me to do this for all properties in my project, as it would lead to possible bugs.
Are there any workarounds for this method? Or even other "free" obfuscation applications I could use?
I have already tried looking on their website to submit a bug, but I am only using the community edition so there doesn't seem to be as much support for it.
Dotfuscator automatically strips properties (which are just metadata anyway - the real work is done by the get/set pair of methods that are automatically created) during renaming. It also renames the underlying get/set methods as well. Depending on what you are trying to do, you'll need to exclude either the property metadata itself, or the get/set methods (or possibly both) from renaming.
If you need to keep the property metadata intact (for example, to simply list the properties in a Type), you can instruct Dotfuscator to exclude properties from renaming by checking them in the tree view on the Renaming Exclusions tab or using a custom regex property rule. This will only exclude the property metadata - the get/set methods will still be renamed.
If you need to keep the get/set methods (because, for example, you are trying to get or set a property's value by reflection), you can instruct Dotfuscator to exclude those methods from renaming by expanding the property in the tree view and checking the get/set methods underneath, or by using a custom regex method rule.
As the process of obfuscation is not limited to renaming your class members, you can't be sure of that. That's the problem with obfuscation: You basically can't make any assumptions about your class anymore regarding the result of reflection. The only way I can think of is to not use reflection but expressions.
Have a look at this question and its answer to know, what I mean with "expressions": How to raise PropertyChanged event without using string name
Currently, I've created a class with ~30 properties to be set. This is done to build up a URL request later on(ie, "http://www.domain.com/test.htm?var1=a&var2=b...&var30=dd").
The issue I'm facing is the property names don't necessarily match the query variable names(this is intended to be different). For example, I may have a variable titled "BillAddress", whereas the query variable will need to be "as_billaddress".
I have no control over the query variable naming scheme as these are set at an external source.
One possible solution I've used is creating a custom attribute and decorating the properties with their respective query counterparts:
[CustomQueryAttribute("as_billaddress")]
string BillAddress{get;set;}
To retrieve the attribute though, requires a little reflection and due to the larger number of properties, I was curious if there is a neater way to accomplish this functionality. Not so much as setting/retrieving custom attributes without reflection, but being able to tie an alternate string variable to any property.
I've also pondered about setting each variable up as a sort of KeyValuePair, with each key representing the query counterpart, but I didn't get too far in that thought.
To summarize/clarify my above backstory, what would you do to associate a string with a property(not the value of the property)?
As always, any comments are greatly appreciated.
I would probably stick with a custom attribute, but the other potential option would be to do something like hold a static Dictionary that had string and property info (or property name), so you could get/set the property directly via this.
Something like:
static Dictionary<string, PropertyInfo> propertyMap = new Dictionary<string, PropertyInfo>();
static MyClass()
{
Type myClass = typeof(MyClass);
// For each property you want to support:
propertyMap.Add("as_billaddress", MyClass.GetProperty("BillAddress"));
// ...
}
You could then just do a dictionary lookup instead of using reflection in each call... This could also be setup fairly easy using configuration, so you could reconfigure the mappings at runtime.
A custom attribute seems like the best option to me - the framework seems to do this a lot as well (specifically with serialization).
If you look at popular ORM mappers then nearly all either use custom attributes or some kind of XML mapping file. The advantage of the latter is that you can modify the mapping without recompiling your application - the downside is that it hurts performance. However, I'd say your choice seems perfectly reasonable.
Quick question: When do you decide to use properties (in C#) and when do you decide to use methods?
We are busy having this debate and have found some areas where it is debatable whether we should use a property or a method. One example is this:
public void SetLabel(string text)
{
Label.Text = text;
}
In the example, Label is a control on a ASPX page. Is there a principle that can govern the decision (in this case) whether to make this a method or a property.
I'll accept the answer that is most general and comprehensive, but that also touches on the example that I have given.
From the Choosing Between Properties and Methods section of Design Guidelines for Developing Class Libraries:
In general, methods represent actions and properties represent data. Properties are meant to be used like fields, meaning that properties should not be computationally complex or produce side effects. When it does not violate the following guidelines, consider using a property, rather than a method, because less experienced developers find properties easier to use.
Yes, if all you're doing is getting and setting, use a property.
If you're doing something complex that may affect several data members, a method is more appropriate. Or if your getter takes parameters or your setter takes more than a value parameter.
In the middle is a grey area where the line can be a little blurred. There is no hard and fast rule and different people will sometimes disagree whether something should be a property or a method. The important thing is just to be (relatively) consistent with how you do it (or how your team does it).
They are largely interchangeable but a property signals to the user that the implementation is relatively "simple". Oh and the syntax is a little cleaner.
Generally speaking, my philosophy is that if you start writing a method name that begins with get or set and takes zero or one parameter (respectively) then it's a prime candidate for a property.
Searching through MSDN, I found a reference on Properties vs Methods that provides some great guidelines for creating methods:
The operation is a conversion, such as Object.ToString.
The operation is expensive enough that you want to communicate to the
user that they should consider caching
the result.
Obtaining a property value using the get accessor would have an observable
side effect.
Calling the member twice in succession produces different results.
The order of execution is important. Note that a type's properties should
be able to be set and retrieved in any
order.
The member is static but returns a value that can be changed.
The member returns an array. Properties that return arrays can be
very misleading. Usually it is
necessary to return a copy of the
internal array so that the user cannot
change internal state. This, coupled
with the fact that a user can easily
assume it is an indexed property,
leads to inefficient code.
If you're setting an actual property of your object then you use a property.
If you're performing a task / functionality then you use a method.
In your example, it is a definite property being set.
If however, your functionality was to AppendToLabel then you would use a method.
Properties are a way to inject or retrieve data from an object. They create an abstraction over variables or data within a class. They are analogous to getters and setters in Java.
Methods encapsulate an operation.
In general I use properties to expose single bits of data, or small calculations on a class, like sales tax. Which is derived from the number of items and their cost in a shopping cart.
I use methods when I create an operation, like retrieving data from the database. Any operation that has moving parts, is a candidate for a method.
In your code example I would wrap it in a property if I need to access it outside it's containing class:
public Label Title
{
get{ return titleLabel;}
set{ titleLabel = value;}
}
Setting the text:
Title.Text = "Properties vs Methods";
If I was only setting the Text property of the Label this is how I would do it:
public string Title
{
get{ return titleLabel.Text;}
set{ titleLabel.Text = value;}
}
Setting the text:
Title = "Properties vs Methods";
Symantically properties are attributes of your objects.
Methods are behaviors of your object.
Label is an attribute and it makes more sense to make it a property.
In terms of Object Oriented Programming you should have a clear understanding of what is part of behavior and what is merely an attribute.
Car { Color, Model, Brand }
A car has Color, Model and Brand attributes therefore it does not make sense to have a method SetColor or SetModel because symantically we do not ask Car to set its own color.
So if you map the property/method case to the real life object or look at it from symantic view point, your confusion will really go away.
You need only look at the very name... "Property". What does it mean? The dictionary defines it in many ways, but in this case "an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing" fits best.
Think about the purpose of the action. Are you, in fact, altering or retrieving "an essential or distinctive attribute"? In your example, you are using a function to set a property of a textbox. That seems kind of silly, does it not?
Properties really are functions. They all compile down to getXXX() and setXXX(). It just hides them in syntactic sugar, but it's sugar that provides a semantic meaning to the process.
Think about properties like attributes. A car has many attributes. Color, MPG, Model, etc.. Not all properties are setable, some are calculatable.
Meanwhile, a Method is an action. GetColor should be a property. GetFile() should be a function. Another rule of thumb is, if it doesn't change the state of the object, then it should be a function. For example, CalculatePiToNthDigit(n) should be a function, because it's not actually changing the state of the Math object it's attached to.
This is maybe rambling a bit, but it really boils down to deciding what your objects are, and what they represent. If you can't figure out if it should be a property or function, maybe it doesn't matter which.
Properties should only be simple set and get one liners. Anything more and it should really be moved to a method. Complex code should always be in methods.
I only use properties for variable access, i.e. getting and setting individual variables, or getting and setting data in controls. As soon as any kind of data manipulation is needed/performed, I use methods.
As a matter of design Properties represent Data or Attributes of class object, While methods are actions or behaviors of class object.
In .Net, world there are other implications of using Properties:
Properties are used in Databinding, while get_ / set_ methods are not.
XML serialization user properties as natural mechanism of serilization.
Properties are accessed by PropertyGrid control and intern ICustomTypeDescriptor, which can be used effectively if you are writing a custom library.
Properties are controlled by Attributes, one can use it wisely to design Aspect Oriented softwares.
Misconceptions (IMHO) about Properties' usage:
Used to expose small calculations: ControlDesigner.SelectionRules's get block runs into 72 lines!!
Used to expose internal Data structures: Even if a property does not map to an internal data member, one can use it as property, if its an attribute of your class. Viceversa, even if its an attribute of your class properties are not advisable, to return array like data members (instead methods are used to return deep copy of members.)
In the example here it could have been written, with more business meaning as:
public String Title
{
set { Label.Text = text; }
}
Also big plus for Properties is that value of property can be seen in Visual Studio during debugging.
I prefer to use properties for add/set methods with 1 parameter. If parameters are more, use methods.
Properties are really nice because they are accessible in the visual designer of visual studio, provided they have access.
They use be used were you are merely setting and getting and perhaps some validation that does not access a significant amount of code. Be careful because creating complex objects during validation is not simple.
Anything else methods are the preferred way.
It's not just about semantics. Using properties inappropriate start having weirdness occur in the visual studio visual designer.
For instance I was getting a configuration value within a property of a class. The configuration class actually opens a file and runs an sql query to get the value of that configuration. This caused problems in my application where the configuration file would get opened and locked by visual studio itself rather than my application because was not only reading but writing the configuration value (via the setter method). To fix this I just had to change it to a method.
Here is a good set of guidelines for when to use properties vs methods from Bill Wagner
Use a Property when all these are true:
The getters should be simple and thus unlikely to throw exceptions. Note that this implies no network (or database) access. Either might fail, and therefore would throw an exception.
They should not have dependencies on each other. Note that this would include setting one property and having it affect another. (For example, setting the FirstName property would affect a read-only FullName property that composed the first name + last name properties implies such a dependency )
They should be settable in any order
The getter does not have an observable side effect Note this guideline doesn't preclude some forms of lazy evaluation in a property.
The method must always return immediately. (Note that this precludes a property that makes a database access call, web service call, or other similar operation).
Use a method if the member returns an array.
Repeated calls to the getter (without intervening code) should return the same value.
Repeated calls to the setter (with the same value) should yield no difference from a single call.
The get should not return a reference to internal data structures (See item 23). A method could return a deep copy, and could avoid this issue.
*Taken from my answer to a duplicate question.
This is simple.
1: use property when you want your data should be validated before storing in field. So in this way property provides encapsulation for your fields. Because if you leave your fields public end user may assign any value which may or may not be valid as per your business requirement like age should be greater than 18. So before value is store corresponding field we need to check its validity. In this way properties represent data.
2: Use method when you want perform some action like you are supplying some data as parameter and your method is doing some processing on the basis of supplied values and returning processed value as output. Or you want to change value of some field by this calculation. "In this way method represents action".
I come from java an i used get.. set.. method for a while.
When i write code, i don't ask to my self: "accessing this data is simple or require a heavy process?" because things can change (today retrive this property is simple, tomonrow can require some or heavy process).
Today i have a method SetAge(int age) tomonrow i will have also method SetAge(date birthdate) that calculate the age using the birthdate.
I was very disappointed that the compiler transform property in get and set but don't consider my Get... and Set.. methods as the same.