I want to use Microsoft MVVM Toolkit [ObservableProperty] attribute, it works fine, but in one case I need to use changed method:
[ObservableProperty]
private string? name;
partial void OnNameChanging(string? value)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Name is about to change to {value}");
}
partial void OnNameChanged(string? value)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Name has changed to {value}");
}
But I can't because VS2022 (v17.4.4) always is adding private modifier on this method when file is saving, which cause error:
Note
The generated methods are partial methods with no implementation, meaning that if you choose to implement them, you cannot specify an explicit accessibility for them. That is, implementations of these methods should also be declared as just partial methods, and they will always implicitly have private accessibility. Trying to add an explicit accessibility (eg. adding public or private) will result in an error, as that is not allowed in C#.
Adding any modifier (private, internal, public) causing the same error. also removing partial causing error as well.
How to force VS2022 to not add private modifier to methods on file save? Or how to remove this error?
Related
I'm trying to pass an object (a reference to the currently logged on user, basically) between two forms. At the moment, I have something along these lines in the login form:
private ACTInterface oActInterface;
public void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
oActInterface = new ACTInterface(#"\\actserver\Database\Premier.pad",this.textUser.Text,this.textPass.Text);
if (oActInterface.checkLoggedIn())
{
//user has authed against ACT, so we can carry on
clients oClientForm = new clients(oActInterface);
this.Hide();
oClientForm.Show();
}
else...
on the next form (clients), I have:
public partial class clients : Form
{
private ACTInterface oActInt {get; set;}
public clients(ACTInterface _oActInt)
...which results in me getting:
Error 1 Inconsistent accessibility:
parameter type 'support.ACTInterface' is less accessible than method
'support.clients.clients(support.ACTInterface)'
c:\work\net\backup\support\support\clients.cs 20 16 support
I don't really understand what the problem is - both fields are private, and accessed by the relevant public method from the form. Googling doesn't really help, as it just points towards one element being public and the other private, which isn't the case here.
Anybody help?
Constructor of public class clients is public but it has a parameter of type ACTInterface that is private (it is nested in a class?). You can't do that. You need to make ACTInterface at least as accessible as clients.
Make the class public.
class NewClass
{
}
is the same as:
internal class NewClass
{
}
so the class has to be public
If sounds like the type ACTInterface is not public, but is using the default accessibility of either internal (if it is top-level) or private (if it is nested in another type).
Giving the type the public modifier would fix it.
Another approach is to make both the type and the method internal, if that is your intent.
The issue is not the accessibility of the field (oActInterface), but rather of the type ACTInterface itself.
What is the accessibility of the type support.ACTInterface. The error suggests it is not public.
You cannot expose a public method signature where some of the parameter types of the signature are not public. It wouldn't be possible to call the method from outside since the caller couldn't construct the parameters required.
If you make support.ACTInterface public that will remove this error. Alternatively reduce the accessibility of the form method if possible.
parameter type 'support.ACTInterface' is less accessible than method
'support.clients.clients(support.ACTInterface)'
The error says 'support.ACTInterface' is less accessible because you have made the interface as private, at least make it internal or make it public.
The problem doesn't seem to be with the variable but rather with the declaration of ACTInterface. Is ACTInterface declared as internal by any chance?
When I received this error, I had a "helper" class that I did not declare as public that caused this issue inside of the class that used the "helper" class. Making the "helper" class public solved this error, as in:
public ServiceClass
{
public ServiceClass(HelperClass _helper)
{ }
}
public class HelperClass {} // Note the public HelperClass that solved my issue.
This may help someone else who encounters this.
You can get Parameter (class that have less accessibility) as object then convert it to your class by as keyword.
In my case I hadone class in a file and I was passing a instance of that class to the constructor of my form in another file.
The problem was had declared the class without the public modifier : class MyClass {}
I could have solved it by changing it to public class MyClass {}
If this error occurs when you want to use a classvariable in a new form, you should put the class definition in the
Formname.Designer.cs
instead of the Formname.cs file.
After updating my entity framework model, I found this error infecting several files in my solution. I simply right clicked on my .edmx file and my TT file and click "Run Custom Tool" and that had me right again after a restart of Visual Studio 2012.
All the answers that say make the type ActInterface as public are right. I am only putting this post to explicitly mention why that's an issue
If a parameter to your public class constructor is private or internal qualified class, it means you wont be able to create an object of that parameter class from outside of the assembly and when you cannot instantiate the parameter object, how can you call this constructor to instantiate an object of this class ?
Try making your constructor private like this:
private Foo newClass = new Foo();
Today I updated to Xamarin.iOS 8.6.0.51. Now I get the following warning:
Warning CS0114: AnApp.AppDelegate.Self' hides inherited member
MonoTouch.Foundation.NSObject.Self'. To make the current member
override that implementation, add the override keyword. Otherwise add
the new keyword (CS0114)
In my AppDelegate.cs I have defined the following property/field:
public static AppDelegate Self { get; private set; }
Than I set it in this way to get a reference to the app delegate (like proposed in this thread):
AppDelegate.Self = this;
This worked before the update. I use this to instantiate some view controllers from the storyboard and some other things (network activity indicator, ...). What do I have to change to get this working? Don't I need this anymore or should I rename Self?
It means the base class of AppDelegate have the member named Self too, compiler warns you that you may be unknowingly hiding the base class member.
If you know what you're doing then you can safely suppress the warning using new keyword.
public static new AppDelegate Self { get; private set; }
That makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, without the new keyword also your App will work the same. It just tells the c# compiler that I'm intentionally using the same name for the member and I'm interested in hiding the base class member.
I tried to make a class as private and got this Error "Elements defined in a namespace cannot be explicitly declared as private, protected, or protected internal"
I got its meaning but I want to ask why this is not allowed? Are all access modifires not applicable on Class? Why I can't make a class private, protected or protected internal?
Because private means that the member is only visible in the containing class. Since a top-level class has no class containing it it cannot be private (or protected).
(Internal or public are valid modifiers though).
What would you want private to mean on a top-level class?
Of course all modifiers apply to nested classes, i.e. a class defined within another class.
You can use only public or internal in the Namespace level
As Abatonime said, you can only use public or internal in the Namespace level.
private, protected, or protected internal can only be used in the Class level.
This works
namespace X
{
class A
{
// class code here
private class B // this class is an inner class
{
// class code here
}
}
}
This won't
namespace X
{
class A
{
// class code here
}
private class B // this is a class inside a namespace
{
// class code here
}
}
Because it doesn't make sense. There's no way you can access protected or private classes defined at namespace level, only as nested classes.
Only nested classes could be declared as private.
Not nested classes can be only public or internal (implicit without modifiers)
I had this same problem because I was creating a custom DLL and only wanted certain classes to be visible to an application using the DLL. So I just remove the modifier completely for classes I wanted to be private (within specific namespaces). The classes remained accessible to other classes within the same namespace in the DLL but did not show up in Intellisense in the calling application. No need for nested classes. The only explanation I can think of is the error message says cannot "explicitly" declare private...it doesn't say anything about implicitly.
namespace SmartCardAuthentication
{
class SmartCardIdentity : IIdentity
{
private string _firstName;
private string _lastName;
private string _middleInitial;
....
}
}
In example code above, class "SmartCardIdentity" is available to other class within same namespace, but not available to calling application when this class is rolled into a DLL. I have not tested it anyother way (i.e. visibility from a class in a different namespace within the DLL.).
The default accessibility of top-level types is internal.
The default accessibility of class and struct members is private.
The only possible accessibility of interface and enum members is public.
So a class is by default private, and if you want to access that, you have to put public before that.
Only Public and Internal are applicable when defining class. If no access modifier is defined before the class default is internal.
refer to MSDN - [https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8fd16xs0(v=vs.90).aspx]
In real world we are focus on visible object
Once object is visible then we talk about scope of the object
example in real world
If you walking on street, you see houses in a colony
colony has houses.
If colony is protected no one can't able to see houses
It is consider that no colony no houses is present
In Programming
If we make class as private/ protected at top-level
no one known about it
is it present in assembly ?
please correct me, if i am out of the scope
I'm trying to pass an object (a reference to the currently logged on user, basically) between two forms. At the moment, I have something along these lines in the login form:
private ACTInterface oActInterface;
public void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
oActInterface = new ACTInterface(#"\\actserver\Database\Premier.pad",this.textUser.Text,this.textPass.Text);
if (oActInterface.checkLoggedIn())
{
//user has authed against ACT, so we can carry on
clients oClientForm = new clients(oActInterface);
this.Hide();
oClientForm.Show();
}
else...
on the next form (clients), I have:
public partial class clients : Form
{
private ACTInterface oActInt {get; set;}
public clients(ACTInterface _oActInt)
...which results in me getting:
Error 1 Inconsistent accessibility:
parameter type 'support.ACTInterface' is less accessible than method
'support.clients.clients(support.ACTInterface)'
c:\work\net\backup\support\support\clients.cs 20 16 support
I don't really understand what the problem is - both fields are private, and accessed by the relevant public method from the form. Googling doesn't really help, as it just points towards one element being public and the other private, which isn't the case here.
Anybody help?
Constructor of public class clients is public but it has a parameter of type ACTInterface that is private (it is nested in a class?). You can't do that. You need to make ACTInterface at least as accessible as clients.
Make the class public.
class NewClass
{
}
is the same as:
internal class NewClass
{
}
so the class has to be public
If sounds like the type ACTInterface is not public, but is using the default accessibility of either internal (if it is top-level) or private (if it is nested in another type).
Giving the type the public modifier would fix it.
Another approach is to make both the type and the method internal, if that is your intent.
The issue is not the accessibility of the field (oActInterface), but rather of the type ACTInterface itself.
What is the accessibility of the type support.ACTInterface. The error suggests it is not public.
You cannot expose a public method signature where some of the parameter types of the signature are not public. It wouldn't be possible to call the method from outside since the caller couldn't construct the parameters required.
If you make support.ACTInterface public that will remove this error. Alternatively reduce the accessibility of the form method if possible.
parameter type 'support.ACTInterface' is less accessible than method
'support.clients.clients(support.ACTInterface)'
The error says 'support.ACTInterface' is less accessible because you have made the interface as private, at least make it internal or make it public.
The problem doesn't seem to be with the variable but rather with the declaration of ACTInterface. Is ACTInterface declared as internal by any chance?
When I received this error, I had a "helper" class that I did not declare as public that caused this issue inside of the class that used the "helper" class. Making the "helper" class public solved this error, as in:
public ServiceClass
{
public ServiceClass(HelperClass _helper)
{ }
}
public class HelperClass {} // Note the public HelperClass that solved my issue.
This may help someone else who encounters this.
You can get Parameter (class that have less accessibility) as object then convert it to your class by as keyword.
In my case I hadone class in a file and I was passing a instance of that class to the constructor of my form in another file.
The problem was had declared the class without the public modifier : class MyClass {}
I could have solved it by changing it to public class MyClass {}
If this error occurs when you want to use a classvariable in a new form, you should put the class definition in the
Formname.Designer.cs
instead of the Formname.cs file.
After updating my entity framework model, I found this error infecting several files in my solution. I simply right clicked on my .edmx file and my TT file and click "Run Custom Tool" and that had me right again after a restart of Visual Studio 2012.
All the answers that say make the type ActInterface as public are right. I am only putting this post to explicitly mention why that's an issue
If a parameter to your public class constructor is private or internal qualified class, it means you wont be able to create an object of that parameter class from outside of the assembly and when you cannot instantiate the parameter object, how can you call this constructor to instantiate an object of this class ?
Try making your constructor private like this:
private Foo newClass = new Foo();
I am not sure why the enum there must be public in order to be used with the delegate. I assumed when on namespace level, the whole app can access it, as it is in the scope.
namespace Test
{
enum Days
{
Monday,Tuesday
}
class TestingClass
{
public delegate void DelTest(Days d) /// ERROR, type enum is less accessible
}
}
Your delegate type is actually declared within an internal class, so it's effectively internal too (in some senses, anyway). That's why your example as shown will compile (after adding the semi-colon). To make it break, you'd have to make TestingClass public too. So options:
Leave it as shown
Make the delegate explicitly internal, if you want TestingClass to be public
Make the enum explicitly public, if you want everything to be public
Just to explain why your current code would be broken if TestClass were public: the delegate would be public, and therefore visible outside the current assembly. That means all its parameters and the return type have to be visible too.
Don't forget that the default access level for a member in C# is always "the most restrictive access level that could be explicitly specified for that member" - so for a top-level type (including an enum), the default accessibility is internal.
The accessibility of your enum must match the delegate. Think about how you're going to call it.
new TestingClass.DelTest(Days.Monday).Invoke();
To be able to do this from a different assembly, the Days enum must be public. If you don't want it to be public, change the accessibility of the delegate to match that of the enum, e.g. set both to be internal.
I assumed when on namespace level, the whole app can access it
No, the whole assembly can access it. The default access level is internal.
Edit: When I change your code to use a public class:
enum Days { ... }
public class TestingClass { void M(Days d) {} }
I do get a compile error
Inconsistent accessibility: parameter type 'Test
.Days' is less accessible than ...
And that is what #firefox explains: a parameter-type in a public method must also be public, to avoid inconsistencies. Currently your Days type is less accessible (internal).
This piece of code compiles fine for me too, with the addition of the semi colon.
The error of "parameter type is less accessible than the delegate" would only occur if the class accessibility is raised, as currently they are defined with the same accessibility level, internal.
e.g.
namespace Test
{
enum Days
{
Monday, Tuesday
}
public class TestingClass
{
public delegate void DelTest(Days d); // This will produce an error...
}
}