Develop Reference

Generic Extension Method with Concrete Class Override

I have a third party DLL that returns objects like Customers, Orders, etc. I'll call them Your Entities. They do have a common IYourEntity interface so I can use that as a source constraint.
I want to create a generic conversion extension method to convert all these different third party entities to My Entities with some streamlined and more maintainable code.
....but I can't figure out how to make a generic extension method that will call the concrete extension method for the specific conversion of each class.
Putting some of the main aspects of my code below, but you can get a full fiddle to play with here.
Yes, I'm probably showing I'm a bit clueless on how to do this and maybe trying to combine different concepts. Any pointers much appreciated as I've been beating my head for a couple of days now and need a life line :)
public interface IYourEntity
{
int Id
{
get;
set;
}
}
public interface IConvertToMyEntity<TYourEntity, TMyEntity>
where TYourEntity : class, IYourEntity, new()
where TMyEntity : class, IMyEntity, new()
{
TMyEntity ToMyEntity(TYourEntity yourEntity);
}
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
private static IMyEntity ToMyEntity(this IYourEntity yourEntity)
{
return new MyEntity1();
}
public static List<IMyEntity> ToMyEntityList(this List<IYourEntity> lstYourEntities)
{
return lstYourEntities.ConvertAll(q => q.ToMyEntity());
}
}
public class YourEntity1 : IYourEntity, IConvertToMyEntity<YourEntity1, MyEntity1>
{
public int Id
{
get;
set;
}
public string YourEntityName
{
get;
set;
}
public MyEntity1 ToMyEntity(YourEntity1 yourEntity)
{
return new MyEntity1()
{Id = yourEntity.Id, MyEntityName = yourEntity.YourEntityName, CreatedOn = DateTime.UtcNow};
}
public List<MyEntity1> ToMyEntityList(List<YourEntity1> lstYourEntities)
{
return lstYourEntities.ConvertAll(q => ToMyEntity(q));
}
}

Since the classes implementing IYourEntity are from a third party and not under your control, you can't implement an own IConvertToMyEntity<T1, T2> interface upon these.
One way you can handle it is by overloads of such conversion (extension) methods.
There's no need for any generic T type arguments; the common IYourEntity interface suffices.
Suppose you have 3 classes implementing the IYourEntity interface;
e.g. YourCustomer, YourOrder and YourProduct.
These need to be converted to IMyEntity instances, of which you might have different concrete implementations;
e.g. a general MyEntity and a specific MyProduct.
For the conversion you set up an extension method targeting IYourEntity.
This extension method will be called to convert an IYourEntity to an IMyEntity in case a more specific overload of this extension method does not exist.
public static IMyEntity ToMyEntity(this IYourEntity target)
{
return new MyEntity { Id = target.Id, EntityName = "Fallback name" };
}
For the entities that require a custom conversion, you set up overloads of this extension method targeting those specific source class types.
Below are such ones for YourOrder and YourProduct (but not for YourCustomer).
public static IMyEntity ToMyEntity(this YourOrder target)
{
return new MyEntity { Id = target.Id, EntityName = target.OrderName.ToUpper() };
}
public static IMyEntity ToMyEntity(this YourProduct target)
{
return new MyProduct { Id = target.Id * 100, EntityName = target.ProductName };
}
Next, define the extension method to convert the list of IYourEntity instances to a list of IMyEntity instances. In the code below, the inbetween cast to dynamic enables that the appropriate ToMyEntity overload will be called.
Note that the ToMyEntity methods don't have to be extension methods, but it might be convenient to have these in place in case you need to convert a single instance instead of a list.
public static List<IMyEntity> ToMyEntities(this List<IYourEntity> target)
{
var myEntities = new List<IMyEntity>();
foreach (var yourEntity in target)
{
var myEntity = Extensions.ToMyEntity((dynamic)yourEntity);
myEntities.Add(myEntity);
}
return myEntities;
}
An example - .net fiddle
var yourEntities = new List<IYourEntity>()
{
new YourCustomer() { Id = 1 },
new YourOrder() { Id = 2, OrderName = "Order-2"},
new YourProduct() { Id = 3, ProductName = "Product-3"}
};
var myEnties = yourEntities.ToMyEntities();
myEnties.ForEach(o => Console.WriteLine("{0} - {1} ({2})",
o.Id, o.EntityName, o.GetType().Name
));
The output of the example above looks like below.
Notice how the YourCustomer instance was handled by the general IYourEntity conversion, whereas the YourOrder and YourProduct instances got a specific treatment.
1 - Fallback name (MyEntity)
2 - ORDER-2 (MyEntity)
300 - Product-3 (MyProduct)

You can change your extension method to this:
private static IMyEntity ToMyEntity(this IYourEntity yourEntity)
{
if (yourEntity is IConvertToMyEntity<IYourEntity, IMyEntity> convertible)
return convertible.ToMyEntity;
return new MyEntity1();
}
This will not work in most cases unless you also make your interface co- and contra-variant:
public interface IConvertToMyEntity<in TYourEntity, out TMyEntity>
where TYourEntity : class, IYourEntity, new()
where TMyEntity : class, IMyEntity, new()
{
TMyEntity ToMyEntity(TYourEntity yourEntity);
}

It is still not completely clear to me how you can make a third party class implements IConvertToMyEntity that easily. Assuming you did this only to show us your actual goal, you should be very careful with what you are trying to accomplish in the Main.
If you use a List<IYourEntity>, you can only use methods and properties defined in the interface, unless you know what you are doing with specific cast. The need for List<IYourEntity> or List<IMyEntity> limits a lot the implementation of a custom mapper between My classes and Your classes. Here a possible solution:
As I said, I did not change Your classes:
public interface IYourEntity
{
int Id
{
get;
set;
}
}
public class YourEntity1 : IYourEntity
{
public int Id
{
get;
set;
}
public string YourEntityName
{
get;
set;
}
}
Also My classes are very simple and do not contain any logic for the mapping. This is a debatable choice, but I generally prefer to keep conversion logic separated from the classes involved. This helps to maintain clean your code in case you have several conversion functions for the same pair of classes. By the way, here they are:
public interface IMyEntity
{
int Id
{
get;
set;
}
DateTime CreatedOn
{
get;
set;
}
}
public class MyEntity1 : IMyEntity
{
public int Id
{
get;
set;
}
public string MyEntityName
{
get;
set;
}
public DateTime CreatedOn
{
get;
set;
}
}
And this is how I designed the custom converter
public interface IMyEntityConverter
{
IMyEntity Convert(IYourEntity yourEntity);
}
public class MyEntity1Converter : IMyEntityConverter
{
public IMyEntity Convert(IYourEntity yourEntity)
{
var castedYourEntity = yourEntity as YourEntity1;
return new MyEntity1()
{
Id = castedYourEntity.Id,
MyEntityName = castedYourEntity.YourEntityName,
CreatedOn = DateTime.UtcNow
};
}
}
It is clear the lack of genericity, but you cannot do otherwise if you need an extension method on a List of generic My and Your classes. Also tried with covariant and contravariant interfaces but C# does not let you use them with this implementation.
Now the core of the solution: you need something that binds Your class to the My class with a custom converter, and all of this should be as more transparent as possible.
public class EntityAdapter<YourType, MyType>
where YourType : IYourEntity
where MyType : IMyEntity
{
protected YourType wrappedEntity;
protected IMyEntityConverter converter;
public EntityAdapter(YourType wrappedEntity, IMyEntityConverter converter)
{
this.wrappedEntity = wrappedEntity;
this.converter = converter;
}
public static implicit operator YourType(EntityAdapter<YourType, MyType> entityAdapter) => entityAdapter.wrappedEntity;
public static explicit operator MyType(EntityAdapter<YourType, MyType> entityAdapter) =>
(MyType) entityAdapter.converter.Convert(entityAdapter.wrappedEntity);
public MyType CastToMyEntityType()
{
return (MyType) this;
}
}
The pseudo-transparency here is given by the implicit cast to Your class. The advantage is that you can cast this EntityAdapter to an instance of a My class by calling CastToMyEntityType or the explicit operator overload.
The painful part is with the extension methods:
public static class EntityAdapterExtensions
{
public static List<IMyEntity> ToIMyEntityList(this List<EntityAdapter<IYourEntity, IMyEntity>> lstEntityAdapters)
{
return lstEntityAdapters.ConvertAll(e => e.CastToMyEntityType());
}
public static List<EntityAdapter<IYourEntity, IMyEntity>> ToEntityAdapterList(this List<IYourEntity> lstYourEntities)
{
return lstYourEntities.Select(e =>
{
switch (e)
{
case YourEntity1 yourEntity1:
return new EntityAdapter<IYourEntity, IMyEntity>(yourEntity1, new MyEntity1Converter());
default:
throw new NotSupportedException("You forgot to map " + e.GetType());
}
}).ToList();
}
}
The first one is pretty straightforward to understand, but the second one is definitely something that require maintenance. I gave up on generics for the reasons already explained, so the only thing left to do is to create the EntityAdapters starting from the actual entity types.
Here is the fiddle

This may be a little controversial but maybe a different way is better?
Firstly, and this is more for my sake, I would suggest more easily understandable terminology so instead of 'your' and 'my' I would use 'source' and 'dest'.
Secondly I wonder if the generics route is necessary? I'm assuming (and I may be wrong) that for each of the classes you have coming from your third-party assembly, you have a specific class for it to be converted to. So maybe this could be achieved much more easily with a constructor override in your destination class.
// third party class example
public class SourceClass
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
// the destination class in your project
public class DestClass
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedOn { get; set; }
// default constructor
public DestClass()
{
}
// conversion constructor
public DestClass(SourceClass source)
{
Id = source.Id;
Name = source.Name;
CreatedOn = DateTime.UtcNow;
}
}
This way you convert a single instance using:
// source being an instance of the third-party class
DestClass myInstance = new DestClass(source);
And you can convert a list with LINQ:
// source list is IList<SourceClass>
IList<DestClass> myList = sourceList.Select(s => new DestClass(s)).ToList();
If you wanted to you could implement extensions for your conversions. This again would not be generic as you'll need one for each class pairing but as it's an alternative to writing a converter class for each, it will be overall less code.
public static class SourceClassExtensions
{
public static DestClass ToDest(this SourceClass source)
=> new DestClass(source);
public static IList<DestClass> ToDest(this IList<SourceClass> source)
=> source.Select(s => new DestClass(s)).ToList();
}
If you still want something generic then you'll want a converter for each class pair, implementing a suitable interface. Then I'd recommend a converter factory class where you'll need to register the specific converters either into a dictionary in the class or via dependency injection. I can go into this further if you'd prefer but I think it would be more complicated.

sorry for writing here its not an actual answer,
there is no option for generically to do this
you have to write for every entity
public interface IConvertToMyEntity<TYourEntity, TMyEntity>
where TYourEntity : class, IYourEntity, new()
where TMyEntity : class, IMyEntity, new()
{
TMyEntity ToMyEntity(TYourEntity yourEntity);
}
I saw this code from your question.
It depends on what you want to do after transformation
you should use data mapper
public class MapProfile : Profile
{
public MapProfile()
{
CreateMap<TYourEntity , TMyEntity >();
CreateMap<TMyEntity , TYourEntity >();
}
}

Inner class within Interface in C#

The following question shows how to implement an interface that contains a class in java:
inner class within Interface
The code in Java is:
public interface A {
class B {
}
}
I was hoping the same thing was possible in C#, though I haven't yet been able to get anything working.
For reference, I have a class which makes lookups of key values, but the keys aren't named in a way that makes them easy to understand. I'd like to have a compile time lookup for keys, so the interface would be something like:
interface Lookup {
class Keys {
string SomeKey() => "0"
}
}
Which means I suppose I have two questions:
Is it possible to have an interface containing a class?
Is there a better way of having a lookup between two strings (or any other values) that I can reference reliably at compile time?

Simply put no you can't have a class inside an interface.
From your comments you are talking about having a restricted list of available strings for the keys so I'm wondering if you are in fact not looking for a string/string lookup but just want a convenient way of referencing a list of fixed strings. So a class with constants is all you need:
public static class Strings
{
public const string AString = "A";
public const string BString = "B";
public const string CString = "C";
}
Accessed like this:
var s = Strings.AString;

You cannot have an class within an interface in C#. Interfaces are very simple in C#, and only provide a contract of functionality.
If you want to have a mapping between two strings, a Dictionary<string, string> may be of use to you.

An interface can't itself have any instance data. It's implementation however can have any instance data it requires.
For example, a random example that might give you some insight:
public class SomeClass
{
public string Key {get; set;}
}
public interface ISomeInterface
{
string Value { get; set; }
SomeClass SomeClass { get; set;}
}
public class SomeInterfaceImplementation : ISomeInterface
{
public SomeInterfaceImplementation()
{
SomeClass = new SomeClass()
{
Key = "ABC"
};
}
public string Value { get; set; }
public SomeClass SomeClass { get; set; }
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
var example = new SomeInterfaceImplementation()
{
Value = "A value",
} as ISomeInterface;
Console.WriteLine($"{example.SomeClass.Key} has value '{example.Value}'");
}
}
In the example, the default constructor "generates" a key of ABC. We could implement this any way your logic requires. But you also have a contract that requires "SomeClass" and it's key is present.
Anywhere you want to use the contract, just accept the Interface and not an implementation class.
Additionally, feel free to play with the fiddle:

Most of the answers under this question are no longer true.
Since C# 8.0, when default interface methods were added, it is possible for an interface to have member declaration that declare for example nested type.
The following code is correct for C# 8.0:
public interface IA
{
class B
{
}
}

Covariance and Contravariance related understanding the point and architecture

First of all apologize for long post nevertheless i wanted to highlight problem exactly and to be most readable and understandably. I am developing architecture of my program which will be responsible for files/databases data gather and face some architecture issues so far. All information step by step down below.
Let's consider following code below:
public interface IWatchService<TEntity> where TEntity : IEntity
{
IList<TEntity> MatchingEntries { get; set; }
}
public interface IWatchServiceDatabase<TEntity> : IWatchService<TEntity> where TEntity : IDatabaseEntity
{ }
public interface IWatchServiceFiles<TEntity> : IWatchService<TEntity> where TEntity : IFileEntity
{ }
class Database : IWatchServiceDatabase<DatabaseQuery>
{
public IList<DatabaseQuery> MatchingEntries { get; set; }
}
class Files : IWatchServiceFiles<CsvFile>
{
public IList<CsvFile> MatchingEntries { get; set; }
}
class Consumer
{
public IWatchService<IEntity> WatchService { get; set; }
public Consumer(IWatchService<IEntity> watchService)
{
WatchService = watchService;
var newList = WatchService.MatchingEntries;
}
public void AddNewEntries(IEntity entity) => WatchService.MatchingEntries.Add(entity);
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
IWatchServiceDatabase<DatabaseQuery> db = new Database();
IWatchServiceFiles<CsvFile> filesCsv = new Files();
var dbConsumer = new Consumer(db); //cannot convert from 'IWatchServiceDatabase<DatabaseQuery>' to 'IWatchService<IEntity>'
var filesCsvConsumer = new Consumer(filesCsv); //cannot convert from 'IWatchServiceFiles<CsvFile>' to 'IWatchService<IEntity>'
dbConsumer.AddNewEntries(new DatabaseQuery());
dbConsumer.AddNewEntries(new CsvFile()); //illegal cause it's not FileConsumer !!!
filesCsvConsumer.AddNewEntries(new CsvFile());
filesCsvConsumer.AddNewEntries(new DatabaseQuery()); //illegal cause it's not DbConsumer !!!
}
}
public interface IEntity { }
public interface IFileEntity : IEntity
{
int Id { get; set; }
string Name { get; set; }
}
public interface IDatabaseEntity : IEntity { }
public class CsvFile : IFileEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class XmlFile : IFileEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class DatabaseQuery : IDatabaseEntity { }
We have two errors there:
var dbConsumer = new Consumer(db);
var filesCsvConsumer = new Consumer(filesCsv);
Errors:
cannot convert from 'IWatchServiceDatabase' to 'IWatchService'
cannot convert from 'IWatchServiceFiles' to 'IWatchService'
This seems to be understandable because otherwise "we would be able" to add CsvFile or XmlFile to dbConsumer where generic IDatabaseEntity is expected and CsvFile and XmlFile are in fact IFileEntity and from the other hand DatabaseQuery to filesConsumer which expects IFileEntity and DatabaseQuery is IDatabaseEntity
//Database related
dbConsumer.AddNewEntries(new DatabaseQuery());
dbConsumer.AddNewEntries(new CsvFile()); //illegal cause it's not FileConsumer !!!
//Files related
filesCsvConsumer.AddNewEntries(new CsvFile());
filesCsvConsumer.AddNewEntries(new DatabaseQuery()); //illegal cause it's not DbConsumer !!!
From my understanding this is the clue why compiler raise those errors and which is fine. Therefore I've decided to overcome it in this way:
public interface IWatchService<out TEntity> where TEntity : IEntity
{
IEnumerable<TEntity> MatchingEntries { get; }
}
As can be seen i marked generic parameter out and changed IList to IEnumerable because IEnumerable can be only foreached. Without possibility to modify the list.
Now having this there is no possibility to modify MatchingEntries e.g Add() on therefore we are now not able to add e.g CsvFile (IFileEntity) where IDatabaseEntity is expected and vice versa DatabaseQuery (IDatabaseEntity) where IFileEntity is expected. Fine and understandably.
At the end i have two main questions:
What is the benefit to have this: IEnumerable MatchingEntries { get; } since it's {get;} it cannot be initialized or populated with values therefore i would always get empty list when calling that property. Or i am in wrong? Can somebody explain showing based on my code what can be done with it?
Let's imagine i want to have possibility to Add items to this MatchingEntries list and in Consumer class i want still to be able to pass in ctor either Database or Files related classes based on interfaces. How this can be accomplished? Please also show an example based on current code.
Many thanks for your support and hope someone benefit from it as i saw a lot of confusions related to that topic.

First question:
What is the benefit to have this: IEnumerable<T> MatchingEntries { get; } since it's {get;} it cannot be initialized or populated with values therefore I would always get empty list when calling that property. Or I am in wrong? Can somebody explain showing based on my code what can be done with it?
I am confused by the question. The interface says that a class that implements that interface must have a getter of this name and type. It says nothing at all about the contents of that sequence:
interface IFoo<out T>
{
IEnumerable<T> Bar { get; }
}
Now we can implement that interface however we want:
class TigerFoo : IFoo<Tiger>
{
public IEnumerable<Tiger> Bar
{
get
{
return new List<Tiger>() { new Tiger("Tony"), new Tiger("Terry") };
}
}
}
So why you think the returned sequence must be empty, I do not understand.
Similarly, nothing is stopping you from making a class that implements a setter:
class GiraffeFoo : IFoo<Giraffe>
{
public IEnumerable<Giraffe> Bar { get; set; }
}
…
GiraffeFoo gf = new GiraffeFoo();
List<Giraffe> giraffes = new List<Giraffe>() { new Giraffe("Gerry") };
gf.Bar = giraffes;
Nothing stops you from changing the contents of the list:
class TurtleFoo : IFoo<Turtle>
{
private List<Turtle> turtles = new List<Turtle>();
public IEnumerable<Turtle> Bar => turtles;
public void AddATurtle() => turtles.Add(new Turtle("Tommy"));
}
It is a mystery to me why you think you cannot do any of these things. You want to add a member to the collection? Write a method that adds a member to the collection. You just can't put it in the interface if you wan the interface to be covariant. But the interface tells you what services you must provide, not what services you must not provide! I do not understand why you think that an interface tells you what a class cannot do.
Since T is marked as out, you can now use any of these covariantly:
IFoo<Animal> ia1 = new TigerFoo();
IFoo<Animal> ia2 = new GiraffeFoo();
IFoo<Animal> ia3 = new TurtleFoo();
Of course you don't get to use the methods of the class once it is in an interface, but you never get to use the methods of a class once something is in an interface.
Second question:
Let's imagine I want to have possibility to Add items to this MatchingEntries list and in Consumer class i want still to be able to pass in ctor either Database or Files related classes based on interfaces. How this can be accomplished? Please also show an example based on current code.
Just write code that does that. I don't understand what the question is asking. Please clarify the question.

How to verify completeness of save/load system

I am making a save/load system for a big game project in C#.
Each class that has to be saved implements a method DoSnapshot().
Inside the method, the programmer must make a call to a function for every field in the class - either DoSnapshot(foo) if foo should be saved, or Ignore(foo) if it should not.
I have a DoSnapshot method for many primitive types like DoFloat, DoString as well as versions for complex types.
I have 100s of classes and the project is still being developed.
Is it possible to add some kind of verification that all of the fields in each class are either used in a Snapshot() or an Ignore() call? Omitting fields would cause bugs.
The verification could either be runtime, or compile-time. I only want to use it during development, it will not be released to users.

You could add an attribute to the fields that need to be saved, and then loop over every property in your class in the DoSnapshot method. When the property has the attribute you're looking for, you call Snapshot, otherwise you call Ignore.
public class SomeClass : SomeBaseClass
{
[Required]
public string Foo { get; set; }
public string Bar { get; set; }
public override void DoSnapshot()
{
var properties = this.GetType().GetProperties();
foreach (var property in properties)
{
var isRequired = property.GetCustomAttributes(typeof (RequiredAttribute), false).Length > 0;
if (isRequired)
{
// Something
}
else
{
// SomethingElse
}
}
}
}

What i would do is create an attribute and "tag" each field if it should be saved or not. Then, at runtime, i would query the class using reflection to get all fields which should be serialized:
public class RandomClass
{
public string Foo { get; set; }
[Ignore]
public int Bar { get; set; }
}
public class IgnoreAttribute : Attribute
{
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var properties = typeof(RandomClass).GetProperties()
.Where(prop => !prop.IsDefined(typeof(IgnoreAttribute), false));
// Serialize all values
}
}

return a class containing generic List

I'm trying to construct a class in c# (5.0) that I can use as a base class and it contains a List, but List could be 2 different types. I want to do the following:
public class BaseC
{
string header { get; set; }
List<object> recs { get; set; }
}
public class derive1: BaseC
{
List<myclassA> recs;
}
public class derive2: BaseC
{
List<myclassB> recs;
}
and importantly what I want to do is return the derived classes from a method in another class:
public BaseC PopulateMyDerivedClass()
{
BaseC b = new BaseC();
b.header = "stuff";
b.recs = FileHelperEngine<myclassB> fhe.ReadStringAsList(x);
}
the main point is that method PopulateMyDerivedClass really does the exact same thing for both derive1 and derive2, just that it returns a different type of list.
I think I need generics. But is that at the base class level and also is PopulateMyDerivedClass then supposed to return a generic? I think that perhaps I am not dealing with polymorhpism, but as you can guess I am new to generics, so struggling.

I think what you want is to make BaseC a generic class and specify the generic when defining the derived classes:
public class BaseC<T>
{
//...
virtual List<T> Recs { get; set; }
}
public class Derived1 : Base<MyClassA>
{
override List<MyClassA> Recs { get; set; }
}
Good point by Alexei Levenkov:
Usual note: DerivedX classes in this case will not have common parent unlike original sample. One may need to add more layer of classes (as non-generic parent of BaseC) or use an interface if DerivedX need to be treated as having common parent/interface.

I get the feeling that your code design could use some rethinking. For one, typically when we talk about "polymorphism", we are usually talking about polymorphic behaviors (methods), rather than members. I think you might want to consider two classes that implement an interface that does all the things you want each class to do (parses data into its own type of list and acts on it as you need it to).
Nevertheless, without getting way into the details of your code, I think something like this might be what you were trying to achieve:
public class BaseC<T>
{
string header { get; set; }
public List<T> recs {get;set;}
}
and
public BaseC<T> PopulateClass<T>()
{
var b = new BaseC<T>();
b.recs = new List<T>();
T first = (T)Convert.ChangeType("1", typeof(T));
b.recs.Add(first);
return b;
}
And to check our sanity:
BaseC<String> d1 = PopulateClass<String>();
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Print(d1.recs.First().ToString());
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Print(d1.recs.First().GetType().ToString());
BaseC<int> d2 = PopulateClass<int>();
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Print(d2.recs.First().ToString());
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Print(d2.recs.First().GetType().ToString());
prints
1
System.String
1
System.Int32