I have to work on a application when sends XML back. Because the root is always the "Reply", but the property's differ, deserializing can't be based on 1 object type.
I've now written code which loads the Xml first in a new XmlDocument, reads a Name attribute and based on the attribute, I try to deserialize it. Are there
better ways?
Example xml I can expect:
<Reply Name="GetModulesList" Result="yes"><ModuleName="xxxxxx.exe" Path="\Debug\xxxxxxx.exe" Order="1"/></Reply>
<Reply Name="OpenRecipe" Result="yes"/>
How whould you solve this?
XmlDocument doc = new XmlDocument();
doc.LoadXml(trimmedPart);
if (doc.DocumentElement?.Attributes != null)
{
XmlAttribute name = doc.DocumentElement.Attributes.Cast<XmlAttribute>().SingleOrDefault(a => String.Compare(a.Name, "name", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) == 0);
replyName = name?.Value;
}
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(replyName))
{
XmlSerializer serializer = new XmlSerializer(GetSerializerObjectType(replyName));
using (StringReader reader = new StringReader(trimmedPart))
{
object obj = serializer.Deserialize(reader);
if (obj != null) returnList.Add(obj);
}
}
I recently dealt with a similar scenario. Here's a very rough outline, adapted from what I was working with to your case as specifically as I can.
My assumption is that you're going to do different things with different types. If it's an OpenRecipe you're going to do one thing, if it's GetModuleList you're going to do something else.
The biggest difference is that each "handler" I worked with for different types might handle completely different types of data - XML, JSON, even Excel, so the handlers received content in the form of a byte array and were responsible for deserializing it. (It wasn't my idea to write an in-house version of Biztalk.)
In this case, if it's always XML, you can
Determine the type of the inner XML from the Name attribute
Deserialize the inner XML to that type
Pass it off to a strongly-typed class
This class is concerned with deserializing the Reply (except for the unknown inner content) and passing it to something that will handle that inner content in a more strongly typed way:
public class XmlReplyRouter
{
private readonly IReplyTypeMapper _replyTypeMapper;
private readonly IHandlerFactory _handlerFactory;
private readonly XmlSerializer _serializer = new XmlSerializer(typeof(Reply));
public XmlReplyRouter(
IReplyTypeMapper replyTypeMapper,
IHandlerFactory handlerFactory)
{
_replyTypeMapper = replyTypeMapper;
_handlerFactory = handlerFactory;
}
public void RouteReply(string replyXml)
{
using (var reader = new StringReader(replyXml))
{
var reply = (Reply)_serializer.Deserialize(reader);
var replyType = _replyTypeMapper.GetReplyType(reply.Name);
var handler = _handlerFactory.GetHandler(replyType);
handler.HandleReply(reply);
}
}
}
public class Reply
{
[XmlAttribute]
public string Name { get; set; }
[XmlAttribute]
public string Result { get; set; }
[XmlAnyElement]
public XmlNode InnerXml { get; set; }
public string XmlContent => InnerXml?.OuterXml;
}
That's where all the ugliness goes.
The XmlAnyElement attribute allows us to deserialize without knowing what to make of that inner content. Once we know what type to use we can separately deserialize that.
The implementations of IReplyTypeMapper and IHandlerFactory could be anything. In my case I couldn't use a DI container so it contained a Dictionary<string, IReplyHandler> and selected the correct one based on the name. (The terminology I worked with was different, but same concept.)
The first determines the type (from the "name" attribute) and the second returns a handler for that type.
public interface IReplyTypeMapper
{
Type GetReplyType(string replyName);
}
public interface IHandlerFactory
{
IReplyHandler GetHandler(Type contentType);
}
Finally, here's the interface and a base class for the reply handlers.
As you can see, the base class doesn't really do anything. It just bridges the gap between object and generic types so that we can write strongly-typed handlers.
public interface IReplyHandler
{
void HandleReply(object content);
}
public abstract class BaseHandler<T> : IReplyHandler
{
private readonly XmlSerializer _serializer = new XmlSerializer(typeof(T));
public void HandleReply(object content)
{
HandleReplyContent((T)content);
}
protected abstract void HandleReplyContent(T content);
}
As you can see it's very similar to what you're doing. The objective, though, is that once I've gotten this minimal amount of initial code out of the way, everything else is a strongly-typed class like this:
public class SomeSpecificReplyHandler : BaseHandler<SomeSpecificReply>
{
// Maybe these have dependencies of their own. That's easiest if
// everything gets resolved from an IoC container.
protected override void HandleReplyContent(SomeSpecificReply content)
{
// do whatever
}
}
I don't know if this might be overkill for your needs. My intent was to start from an entry point where my data could be just about anything and quickly get out of there to a place where all of my code was strongly-typed and easy to test. All of these classes are testable (I wrote a few while typing this up) the individual handlers would also be easy to test.
This post contains some other details about implementing the factories without an IoC container. In my case I couldn't work with an IoC container, so I had to "manually" compose all of my classes. The inner implementation of the factory was just a dictionary. That way if I had the option of switching to an IoC container later I could replace the whole thing with DI registrations.
I'm only using Code Analysis for cleaning, organizing and ensuring these changes are globally performed for all instances of a particular warning. I'm down to the final, and it's CA2227.
CA2227 Collection properties should be read only Change '' to be
read-only by removing the property setter.
Note this is for mapping of EDI documents. These classes are to represent a whole or part of an EDI document.
public class PO1Loop
{
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO1 PO1 { get; set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID1> PIDRepeat1 { get; set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID2> PIDRepeat2 { get; set; }
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO4 PO4 { get; set; }
/* Max Use: 8 */
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.ACK> ACKRepeat { get; set; }
}
You can see all of the Collection properties will give me this warning, and there are hundreds of them. When using the above class I instantiate it without any data. Then externally I add the data and set each individual variable through its public accessor. I do not instantiate this class with all the data prepared and passed using a constructor method (IMO for the size these can reach it can easily wreak havoc on the eyes). When complete and all properties are assigned the class as a whole is then used to generate that part of a document it represents.
My question is, for the usage described above, what would be a better approach for setting this up correctly? Do I keep the public accessors and suppress this warning entirely, or is there a entirely different solution that would work?
Here's what MSDN says about the error, and also how you can avoid it.
Here's my take on the issue.
Consider, the following class:
class BigDataClass
{
public List<string> Data { get; set; }
}
This class will throw that exact same issue. Why? Because Collections do not need a setter. Now, we can do anything with that object: assign Data to an arbitrary List<string>, add elements to Data, remove elements from Data, etc. If we remove the setter, we only lose the ability to directly assign to that property.
Consider the following code:
class BigDataClass
{
private List<string> data = new List<string>();
public List<string> Data { get { return data; } } // note, we removed the setter
}
var bigData = new BigDataClass();
bigData.Data.Add("Some String");
This code is perfectly valid and in fact the recommended way to do things. Why? Because the List<string> is a reference to a memory location, that contains the remainder of the data.
Now, the only thing you cannot now do with this, is directly set the Data property. I.e. the following is invalid:
var bigData = new BigDataClass();
bigData.Data = new List<string>();
This is not necessarily a bad thing. You'll notice that on many .NET types this model is used. It's the basics of immutability. You usually do not want direct access to the mutability of Collections, as this can cause some accidental behavior that has strange issues. This is why Microsoft recommends you omit setters.
Example:
var bigData = new BigDataClass();
bigData.Data.Add("Some String");
var l2 = new List<string>();
l2.Add("String 1");
l2.Add("String 2");
bigData.Data = l2;
Console.WriteLine(bigData.Data[0]);
We might be expecting Some String, but we'll get String 1. This also means that you cannot reliably attach events to the Collection in question, so you cannot reliably determine if new values are added or values are removed.
A writable collection property allows a user to replace the collection with a completely different collection.
Essentially, if you only ever need to run the constructor, or assignment, once, then omit the set modifier. You won't need it, direct assignment of collections is against best-practices.
Now, I'm not saying never use a setter on a Collection, sometimes you may need one, but in general you should not use them.
You can always use .AddRange, .Clone, etc. on the Collections, you only lose the ability of direct assignment.
Serialization
Lastly, what do we do if we wish to Serialize or Deserialize a class that contains our Collection without a set? Well, there is always more than one way to do it, the simplest (in my opinion) is to create a property that represents the serialized collection.
Take our BigDataClass for example. If we wished to Serialize, and then Deserialize this class with the following code, the Data property would have no elements.
JavaScriptSerializer jss = new JavaScriptSerializer();
BigDataClass bdc = new BigDataClass();
bdc.Data.Add("Test String");
string serd = jss.Serialize(bdc);
Console.WriteLine(serd);
BigDataClass bdc2 = jss.Deserialize<BigDataClass>(serd);
So, to fix this, we can simply modify our BigDataClass a bit to make it use a new string property for Serialization purposes.
public class BigDataClass
{
private List<string> data = new List<string>();
[ScriptIgnore]
public List<string> Data { get { return data; } } // note, we removed the setter
public string SerializedData { get { JavaScriptSerializer jss = new JavaScriptSerializer(); return jss.Serialize(data); } set { JavaScriptSerializer jss = new JavaScriptSerializer(); data = jss.Deserialize<List<string>>(value); } }
}
Another option is always the DataContractSerializer (which is really a better option, in general.) You can find information about it on this StackOverflow question.
With current VS2019 we can simply do this:
public List<string> Data { get; } = new List<string>();
This satisfies CA2227 and can be serialized/deserialized.
The deserialization works because List<> has an "Add" method, and the serializer knows how to handle a read-only collection property with an Add method (the property is read-only but not the elements) (I use Json.Net, other serializers may behave differently).
Edit:
As pointed out it should be "=" and not "=>" (compiler will prevent you using "=>"). If we used "public List Data => new List();" then it would create a new list every time the property was accessed which is not what we want either.
Edit:
Note that this will NOT work if the type of the property is an interface, such as IList
Edit:
I think the handling of interfaces is determined by the serializer used. The following works perfectly. I'm sure all common serializers know how to handle ICollection. And if you have some custom interface that does not implement ICollection then you should be able to configure the serializer to handle it, but in that case CA2227 probably won't be triggered making it irrelevant here. (As it is a read-only property you have to assign a concrete value within the class so it should always be serializing and de-serializing a non-null value)
public class CA2227TestClass
{
public IList Data { get; } = new List<string>();
}
[TestMethod]
public void CA2227_Serialization()
{
var test = new CA2227TestClass()
{
Data = { "One", "Two", "Three" }
};
var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(test);
Assert.AreEqual("{\"Data\":[\"One\",\"Two\",\"Three\"]}", json);
var jsonObject = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject(json, typeof(CA2227TestClass)) as CA2227TestClass;
Assert.IsNotNull(jsonObject);
Assert.AreEqual(3, jsonObject.Data.Count);
Assert.AreEqual("One", jsonObject.Data[0]);
Assert.AreEqual("Two", jsonObject.Data[1]);
Assert.AreEqual("Three", jsonObject.Data[2]);
Assert.AreEqual(typeof(List<string>), jsonObject.Data.GetType());
}
💡 Alternative Solution 💡
In my situation, making the property read-only was not viable because the whole list (as a reference) could change to a new list.
I was able to resolve this warning by changing the properties' setter scope to be internal.
public List<Batch> Batches
{
get { return _Batches; }
internal set { _Batches = value; OnPropertyChanged(nameof(Batches)); }
}
Note one could also use private set...
The hint's (achilleas heal) of this warning seems really pointed to libraries for the documentation says (Bolding mine):
An externally visible writable property is a type that implements
System.Collections.ICollection.
For me it was, "Ok, I won't make it viewable externally...." and internal was fine for the app.
Thanks to #Matthew, #CraigW and #EBrown for helping me understanding the solution for this warning.
public class PO1Loop
{
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO1 PO1 { get; set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID1> PIDRepeat1 { get; private set; }
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID2> PIDRepeat2 { get; private set; }
public SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PO4 PO4 { get; set; }
/* Max Use: 8 */
public Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.ACK> ACKRepeat { get; private set; }
public PO1Loop()
{
PIDRepeat1 = new Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID1>();
PIDRepeat2 = new Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.PID2>();
ACKRepeat = new Collection<SegmentTypes.PO1LoopSegmentTypes.ACK>();
}
}
When wanting to assign data to the collection types use AddRange, Clear or any other variation of method for modifying a collection.
Only while binding DTO, you need to suppress warnings.
otherwise a custom ModelBinder is required custom ModelBinder to bind collections.
quoting the rule documentation:
When to suppress warnings
You can suppress the warning if the property is part of a Data Transfer Object (DTO) class.
Otherwise, do not suppress warnings from this rule.
https://learn.microsoft.com/pt-br/visualstudio/code-quality/ca2227?view=vs-2019
DTOs often require serialization and deserialization. Thus, they are required to be mutable.
Having to create an alternate backing property is a pain.
Simply change the property type from List<string> to IReadOnlyList<string> then this works as expected without CA2227.
The collection is set via the property but you can also cast to List<string> if you wish to append or delete items.
class Holder
{
public IReadOnlyList<string> Col { get; set; } = new List<string>();
}
var list = new List<string> { "One", "Two" };
var holder = new Holder() { Col = list } ;
var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(holder);
// output json {"Col":["One","Two"]}
var deserializedHolder = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Holder>(json);
I had to fix some of the CA2227 violations, so i had to add the "readonly" keyword to the collection field and then of course, had to remove the setter property. Some code that have used the setter, just created a new collection object which initially was empty. This code sure did not compile so i had to add a SetXxx() method in order to realize the missing setter's functionality. I did it like this:
public void SetXxx(List<string> list)
{
this.theList.Clear();
this.theList.AddRange(list);
}
The code of callers using the setter has been replaced with a call to the method SetXxx().
Instead of creating a complete new list, the existing list now will be cleared and filled with new items from another list, passed in as a parameter. The original list, due to the fact it is readonly and created only once, will always remain.
I believe this is also a good way to avoid that the garbagae collector has to delete old objects that got out of scope and second, to create new collection objects although there is already one.
As an addition to Der Kommissar's excellent answer.
Starting with .NET 5 (C# 9.0) there are init-only properties. These properties are only settable under specific circumstances, see here for reference.
The following example should not raise a warning CA2227, yet still allow for the collection being set during object initialization.
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace BookStore
{
public class BookModel
{
public ICollection<string> Chapters { get; init; }
}
}
Note that the current version of the .NET SDK still raises a warning when using the built-in analyzer (not the NuGet package). This is a known bug and should be fixed in the future.
To cover all the possible scenarios to resolve CA2227 error:
This covers the Entity relationship mapping when we use Entity Framework.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ParentClass obj = new ParentClass();
obj.ChildDetails.Clear();
obj.ChildDetails.AddRange();
obj.LstNames.Clear();
obj.LstNames.AddRange();
}
}
public class ChildClass
{ }
public class ParentClass
{
private readonly ICollection<ChildClass> _ChildClass;
public ParentClass()
{
_ChildClass = new HashSet<ChildClass>();
}
public virtual ICollection<ChildClass> ChildDetails => _ChildClass;
public IList<string> LstNames => new List<string>();
}
I need to execute functionality whereby if the user is going to close the window (or perform some other action) without saving their changes, they are going to be informed with a message box.
In order to be able to do this, I need to be able to know whether changes have been made to the object in question since the window was opened.
I'm thinking a way to do this is to create a copy of the object when the window loads and keep it as _original and then before the window closes I can compare it against the object that may or may not have been changed.
What is the best way to copy the object into _original, without both of them simply having a reference to the same place in memory?
Also, what is the best way to compare the two objects after, to see if the object is different than _original?
You could serialize the object using BinaryFormatter and then deserialize it back:
public static string Serialize<T>(T instance)
{
var formatter = new BinaryFormatter();
using (var stream = new MemoryStream())
{
formatter.Serialize(stream, instance);
return Convert.ToBase64String(stream.ToArray());
}
}
public static T Deserialize<T>(string serialized)
{
var formatter = new BinaryFormatter();
using (var stream = new MemoryStream(Convert.FromBase64String(serialized)))
{
return (T)formatter.Deserialize(stream);
}
}
You could implement your object in a way where it maintains a modified state e.g.
public class StatefulObject
{
private string _propertyOne;
public StatefulObject()
{
this.Modified = false;
}
public string PropertyOne
{
get { return this._propertyOne; }
set
{
if (this._propertyOne != value)
{
this._propertyOne = value;
this.Modified = true;
}
}
}
public bool Modified { get; private set; }
}
This would need some extra work like determining when your just initializing the object (unless you restrict it to the constructor only), however, you get the idea.
Implement ICloneable its a simple way to do a shallow copy (assuming your object isnt too complicated)
Then you can use IComparable or IEquatable depending on how you want to check they are different or just that they are different.
If you want a better answer then you need to be a bit more specific.
I think that comparing objects is not the best solution. I'd suggest to observe the window itself. NotifyPropertyChanged will be the best if you use properties in your window logic.
http://www.dreamincode.net/forums/topic/208833-using-the-inotifypropertychanged-functionality/
It may be overkill but I would implement the icloneable and icomparable. As for creating the copies if the object is simple memberwiseclone is always an option. If the object is a nested udt you would have to continue the idom down to simple types, but I have found for unit testing this to be helpfully any way.
I'm playing with my favorite thing, xml (have the decency to kill me please) and the ultimate goal is save it in-house and use the data in a different manner (this is an export from another system). I've got goo that works, but meh, I think it can be a lot better.
public Position(XElement element)
{
Id = element.GetElementByName("id");
Title = element.GetElementByName("title");
}
I'm thinking of making it more automated (hacky) by adding data annotations for the xml element it represents. Something like this for instance.
[XmlElement("id")]
public string Id { get; set; }
[XmlElement("title")]
public string Title { get; set; }
then writing some reflection/mapper code but both ways feels ... dirty. Should I care? Is there a better way? Maybe deserialize is the right approach? I just have a feeling there's a mo' bettah way to do this.
You can use the XmlSerializer class and markup your class properties with attributes to control the serialization and deserialization of the objects.
Here's a simple method you can use to deserialize your XDocument into your object:
public static T DeserializeXml<T>(XDocument document)
{
using (var reader = document.CreateReader())
{
var serializer = new XmlSerializer(typeof (T));
return (T) serializer.Deserialize(reader);
}
}
and a simple serializer method:
public static String ToXml<T>(T instance)
{
using (var output = new StringWriter(new StringBuilder()))
{
var serializer = new XmlSerializer(typeof(T));
serializer.Serialize(output, instance);
return output.ToString();
}
}
The mechanism that you are suggesting already exists in the form of the XmlSerializer class and a set of custom attributes that you can use to control the serialisation process.
In fact the .Net framework comes with a tool xsd.exe which will generate these class files for you from a schema definition (.xsd) file.
Also, just to make things really easy, Visual Studio even has the ability to generate you an .xsd schema for an xml snippet (its hidden away in the Xml menu somewhere).
public class Parser
{
Downloader download = new Downloader();
HtmlDocument Page;
public Parser(string MovieTitle)
{
Page = download.FindMovie(MovieTitle);
}
public Parser(string ActorName)
{
Page = download.FindActor(ActorName);
}
}
I want to create a constructor that will allow other developers who use this library to easily create a Parser object with the relevant HtmlDocument already loaded as soon as it's done creating it.
The problem lies in that a constructor cannot exist twice with the same type of parameters. Sure I can tell the logical difference between the two parameters, but the computer can't.
How to handle this?
Use a couple static methods instead:
public class Parser
{
Downloader download = new Downloader();
HtmlDocument Page;
private Parser() { } // prevent instantiation from the outside
public static Parser FromMovieTitle(string MovieTitle)
{
var newParser = new Parser();
newParser.Page = newParser.download.FindMovie(MovieTitle);
return newParser;
}
public static Parser FromActorName(string ActorName)
{
var newParser = new Parser();
newParser.Page = newParser.download.FindActor(ActorName);
return newParser;
}
}
In this particular case, I would probably use the static methods (I rarely have public constructors myself), but another possibility is to have shim classes, and this technique is also a way you can overload static methods with unique parameter signatures instead of giving them unique (and potentially unwieldy) names:
public class Parser
{
Downloader download = new Downloader();
HtmlDocument Page;
public Parser(MovieTitle MovieTitle)
{
Page = download.FindMovie(MovieTitle);
}
public Parser(ActorName ActorName)
{
Page = download.FindActor(ActorName);
}
}
Then your usage is new Parser(new MovieTitle(str)) or new Parser(new ActorName(str))
This is a preferable paradigm if you are considering constructing objects from IDs. If you have ints or Guids for your object IDs, there is a possibility of a constructor needing to take two different "types" of Guids. The alternative, of constructing from full objects, is far safer and eliminates a lot of silly mistakes when you pass an int. It just makes sense to not expose internal implementation features as much as possible between objects.