Develop Reference

Can I call a static method that lives on a base class with a reference the the class implementing that base class (in C#)?

I'm having a hard time phrasing the question which is also making it hard for me to search for answers.
Here's a contrived scenario that mimics what I'd like to do:
void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine(TestClassA.MyPropertyName());
Console.WriteLine(TestClassB.MyPropertyName());
var speaker = new TestSpeaker();
speaker.Speak<TestClassA>();
speaker.Speak<TestClassB>();
}
public class TestSpeaker {
public void Speak<T>() where T : BaseClass<T> {
Console.WriteLine(/* I want to call T.MyPropertyName() here */);
}
}
public class TestClassA : BaseClass<TestClassA> {
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class TestClassB : BaseClass<TestClassB> {
public string OtherPropertyName { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BaseClass<T> {
public static string MyPropertyName(){
return typeof(T).GetProperties().Single().Name;
}
}
The Console right now would read:
Name
OtherPropertyName
I'd like to replace my commented out code so that it would read:
Name
OtherPropertyName
Name
OtherPropertyName

if you change your Writeline to
Console.WriteLine(BaseClass<T>.MyPropertyName());
you will get what you want

Why use a static function in a base class to retrieve information about a derived class? In any case, you could implement a member function to wrap the static call:
public static string MyStaticFunction() => return "whatever";
public string MyMemberFunction() => MyStaticFunction();
But in your scenario, perhaps you should simply declare an abstract property (or function) meant to return the value you're looking for and override it in derived classes:
Base:
public abstract string MyPropertyName { get; }
Derived:
public override string MyPropertyName => nameof(OtherPropertyName); // or more complex logic
And yet another possible solution would be to pass the information to the base class's constructor as a string (or property expression should you be so inclined):
Base:
public string MyPropertyName { get; init; }
public BaseClass(string propertyName)
{
MyPropertyName = propertyName; // maybe validate that the property exists
}
Derived:
public MyTestClassB() : BaseClass(nameof(OtherPropertyName)) {}

Get class name from the class who extend it

I have a class like this
public class BaseClass
{
public string Request { get; set;}
}
and I have the class like this :
public class ExtendClass : BaseClass
{
}
So actually the property Request will always be set with the name of ExtendClass. So it actually will be Request="ExtendClass"
I have many class who extend BaseClass. I know I just can pass string to it, but is that possible to do it?

You can use object.GetType which will always return the type on top in the hierarchy (so the last deriving class):
public string Request
{
get
{
return this.GetType().Name;
}
}
Name will return the short type name, without the namespace. If you want that too, you should use FullName.

You have multiple choices. For example, you can use reflections:
public string Request { get {return this.GetType().Name; }}
Or you can make it more explicit, with abstract property (and that way you can specify not only class names):
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public abstract string Request { get; }
}
class ExtendClass : BaseClass
{
public override string Request { get {return "ExtendClass"; } }
}

C# calling parent property while the child property is being called

I wanna see if there is anyway that when the child property method is being called, it will call the parent property as well.
Note that the child is generated by a code generator from edmx. So I can't change anything except adding a partial class for the child class. (It might be too trouble to change the generator.)
The situation I am having :
I have a class "MyClass" that is automatically generated from the database. I can't change anything on it except adding a partial class or change the code generator.
Now, I need to "do something" whenever the property Name is being called. I am thinking if I can put a parent there and make it call the parent to do "something" when the child property is "Name" is being called.
What I want :
public class ClassBase
{
public string Name
{
get
{
CallMethod();
return Name;
}
}
}
public class MyClass : ClassBase
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
myClass.Name; < -- this will call the parent as well.
Is there anyway to do it?
Thanks in advance

Not really related but since you're not strictly using automatic properties in ClassBase, you should create a private string variable for Name. Something like _name or whatever your internal coding standards dictate.
public class ClassBase
{
private string _name;
public virtual string Name
{
get
{
CallMethod();
return _name;
}
set
{
_name = value;
}
}
}
public class MyClass : ClassBase
{
//Pretty pointless really since you're not doing anything with MyClass.Name.
public new string Name
{
get
{
return base.Name;
}
set
{
base.Name = value;
}
}
MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
myClass.Name; <-- this will call the parent as well.

Based on "can't change base class" comment there is pretty much nothing you can do to make some code to be executed instead/before/after base class because your property/method will not be called when your new class used as base class (see sample in details part).
Potential solution : if you need to extend specially designed parital class's and it provides extension poinst like CallMethod is marked as partial - it is expected for implemnting portion of the class to implement it :
partial public class ClassBase
{
partial void CallMethod();
public string Name {get {CallMethod(); return "";}}
}
// in generated portion of "ClassBase"
partial public class ClassBase
{
partial void CallMethod() { /* do something here */ }
}
Answer to exact "how to call base class property" is to use base, but hiding property/method this way is confusing (see below):
new public string Name { get { return base.Name;} }
Note that you can't use automatic property in derived class case as you explicitly want some additional code to be executed. If you need set in derived class you need own backing field like:
private string derivedName;
new public string Name {
get { return base.Name + derivedName;}
set { derivedName = value;}
}
Details:
As said in comments hiding base class' properties/methods leads to very confusing behavior. For you case (slightly updated base class with baking field as original sample had infinite recursion):
public class ClassBase
{
private string name;
public string Name
{
get
{
CallMethod();
return name;
}
}
}
You can try to hide Name property in derived class:
public class MyClass : ClassBase
{
// notice "new" to show comiler you know what you doing
// otherwise you'll get warning (but behavior will be the same)
new public string Name { get; set; }
}
The issue with hiding is that base class' method is still easily callable and likely be called by mistake if using derived class as base class:
MyClass myDerved = new MyClass();
ClassBase myDervedAsBase = myDerved;
var name = myDerived.Name; // calls MyClass.Name
var name = myDerivedAsBase.Name; // calls ClassBase.Name
This can be solved by making base class' method/property virtual - but it requires change in base class:
public class ClassBase
{
virtual public string Name { get {... } }
}
public class MyClass : ClassBase
{
override public string Name { get { ... } }
}
If you need to call base class' method/property from derived class usebase.MethodName() like:
override public string Name { get
{
// do some new stuff here
var baseName = base.Name;
// maybe even change result
return baseName;
}
}
If you expect most derived classes to need such behavior it could be better to design base class explicitly to enforce such behavior. For example you can have property to call virtual method before/after computing the value to return like:
public class ClassBase
{
virtual protected string AboutToReturnName(string result)
{
return name;
}
public string Name
{
get
{
var result = "MyName";
return AboutToReturnName(result);
}
}
}
More ideas:
Alternative to virtual is partial methods which works when instead of deriving class is combined from many "partial" parts like ASP.Net pages - see Partial Classes and Methods
If you need notifications around change of property - consider implementing INotifyPropertyChange
if you need to know when properties/method are called in general - consider using interfaces and automatically generate wrapper classes that have pre/post callback. I.e. mocking frameworks (like EasyMoq or RhinoMock) and DI containers (like Unity) provide and use such functionality.

You cannot do it without modifying the code generator. The modification would have to generate a call base.Name.

You can override the property in your subclass with the new operator.
public class MyClass : ClassBase
{
public new string Name { get; set; }
}

Calling Generic Property In Generic Class From Interface Implemented By Generic Class

I have a generic class that has one type parameter (T). I needed to store a collection of these generic objects that are of different types, so I created an interface that the generic class implements as suggested here. There is a property in the generic class of type T that I need to access when iterating through the generic list that contains the collection of Interface objects. So far the only way I have been able to get the value is to call a method using reflection.
interface ISomeClass {
//?
}
class SomeClass<T> : ISomeClass {
T ValueINeed { get; set;}
}
class ClassThatHasListOfGenericObjects{
List<ISomeClass> _l = new List<ISomeClass>();
public AddToList<T>(T someClass) : where T : ISomeClass {
_l.Add(someClass);
}
public SomeMethod(){
foreach(ISomeClass i in _l){
i.ValueINeed; //I don't know how to access the property in the generic class
}
}
}

As I see it you have two options. The easy option is to expose the value (as an object) on the interface (and possibly its type as well). Here's how that would look:
interface ISomeClass
{
object ValueINeed { get; set; }
// Only needed if you care about static type rather than using ValueINeed.GetType()
Type TypeOfValue { get; }
}
class SomeClass<T> : ISomeClass
{
public T ValueINeed { get; set; }
public Type TypeOfValue { get { return typeof(T); } }
object ISomeClass.ValueINeed { get { return ValueINeed; } set { ValueINeed = (T)value; } }
}
This has the disadvantage that there's a bit of casting going on and you might need to invoke reflection to do certain things with the value. It has the advantage that it's easy to understand and implement.
The other alternative would be to encode an "existential type" which truly represents a SomeClass<T> for some unknown T (like a SomeClass<?> in Java). This is much more complicated and hard to follow, but avoids any casts:
interface ISomeClassUser<X>
{
X Use<T>(SomeClass<T> s);
}
interface ISomeClassUser
{
void Use<T>(SomeClass<T> s);
}
interface ISomeClass
{
X Apply<X>(ISomeClassUser<X> user);
void Apply(ISomeClassUser user);
}
class SomeClass<T> : ISomeClass
{
public T ValueINeed { get; set; }
public X Apply<X>(ISomeClassUser<X> user) { return user.Use(this); }
public void Apply(ISomeClassUser user) { user.Use(this); }
}
// Assumes you want to get a string out, use a different generic type as needed
class XmlUser : ISomeClassUser<string>
{
public string Use<T>(SomeClass<T> s)
{
string str = "";
// do your conditional formatting here, branching on T as needed
// ...
return str;
}
}
class ClassThatHasListOfGenericObjects
{
List<ISomeClass> _l = new List<ISomeClass>();
XmlUser user = new XmlUser();
public string SomeMethod()
{
string s = "";
foreach (ISomeClass i in _l)
{
s += i.Apply(user);
}
return s;
}
}

Add ValueINeed to the interface and you'll be able to call it in SomeMethod().

I think you might just need a little refactoring. Looks like you're almost there
interface ISomeClass<T> {
T ValueINeed { get; set; }
}
class SomeClass<T> : ISomeClass {
T ValueINeed { get; set;}
}
class ClassThatHasListOfGenericObjects{
List<ISomeClass> _l = new List<ISomeClass>();
public AddToList<T>(T someClass) : where T : ISomeClass {
_l.Add(someClass);
}
public SomeMethod(){
foreach(ISomeClass i in _l){
i.ValueINeed; //this will work now, since it's in the interface
}
}
}

The elements' types you are using is of ISomeClass, so if want to access a member property you need to either cast i to SomeClass or add the property deceleration to the interface
interface ISomeClass {
T ValueNeeded
{
get;
set;
}
}
Note that you still need to implement the property in SomeClass.

Setting value to a field in the derived class

using System;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(new B("MyName").Name);
}
}
abstract class A
{
public A(string name)
{
this.GetType().GetField("Name").SetValue(this, name);
}
}
class B : A
{
public B(string name)
: base(name)
{
}
public string Name
{
set;
get;
}
}
}
Is it possible to do something like that?

I can't stress how very, very, very bad this is. You are creating an inverse coupling that is convoluted, confusing and contrived, severely lacking in clarity, failing best practices and object oriented principals, which is going to create a maintenance and management nightmare for people implementing derivatives of your abstract class. Do the right thing!!
abstract class A
{
protected A(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public abstract string Name
{
get;
protected set;
}
}
class B: A
{
public B(string name) : base(name)
{
}
private string m_name;
public override string Name
{
get { return "B Name: " + m_name; }
protected set
{
m_name = value;
}
}
}

It is possible, but i wouldn´t recommend to do that. The problem is that your base class knows to much about the class that are derived from it.
When you derive a class from your abstract base class that does not define the property Name you get an Exception on runtime.
If you expect that each class, that is derived from your base class, has a property Name, then it would be easier to define the Property Name in your abstract base class and set the property with you constructor.

It's really bad form to do that. Generally you should just call a method like 'SetPossibleData()', and force all children to implement it in a fashion they decide.
Why do you need to do this?

Use GetProperty() Method,
public A(string name)
{
this.GetType().GetProperty("Name").SetValue(this,name,null);
}

It would be really straight forward if every class initializes the fields and properties it defines. Why does B expect the base class initialize its Name?
abstract class A
{
public A()
{
}
}
class B : A
{
// I know, its trivial, but it does the same ...
public B(string name) : base()
{
Name = name;
}
public string Name { set; get; }
}
The only thing I could think of why you wrote this code is that the base class has some logic to initialize the field. Straight forward would be to let the derived class call the logic, but initialize the field itself:
abstract class A
{
public A()
{
}
protected string GenerateName(string someArg)
{
// complicated logic to generate the name
}
}
class B : A
{
public B(string someArg) : base()
{
Name = base.GenerateName(someArg);
}
public string Name { set; get; }
}