My base class has a method to serialize itself that I want derived classes to use.
public abstract class Base
{
public int Property1 { get; set; }
public virtual string Serialize()
{
...
return System.Text.Json.JsonSerializer.Serialize(this, jsonSerializerOptions);
}
}
The problem is that "this" in the base classes refers to the base class. When calling Serialize() from derived classes, only the properties of the base class are serialized. What can I use instead of "this" to pass to the Json serializer so that it will refer to the instance of the derived class.
Derived class may look like this:
public class Derived : Base
{
public int Property2 { get; set; }
}
I then call the Serialize() method like this:
Derived derived = new Derived();
string json = derived.Serialize();
Only Property1 is serialized.
The reason of it serialize Property1 only is you didn't override the virtual method in the derived class, So it works only for property1.
Sample:
public abstract class Base
{
public int Property1 { get; set; } = 20;
public virtual void Display()
{
MessageBox.Show(Property1.ToString());
}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
public int Property2 { get; set; } = 9;
public override void Display() //without this you can't achieve what you want
{
base.Display();
MessageBox.Show(Property2.ToString());
}
}
public class Test
{
public void ShowResult()
{
Derived derived = new Derived();
derived.Display();
}
}
Test test = new Test();
{
test.ShowResult();
}
OUTPUT
Two Messageboxes
First displays: 20
Second displays: 9
If I didn't override the virtual method in the derived class the OUTPUT would be:
One Messageboxe ONLY
Displays: 20
From Documentation
When a virtual method is invoked, the run-time type of the object is
checked for an overriding member. The overriding member in the most
derived class is called, which might be the original member, if no
derived class has overridden the member.
we can't change 'this' behavior, but you can try below solution, its work like what you need
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Derived d = new Derived();
Console.WriteLine(d.Serialize());
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public abstract class Base
{
public int Property1 { get; set; }
}
public class Derived : Base
{
public int Property2 { get; set; }
}
public static class Extensions
{
public static string Serialize(this Base obj)
{
return System.Text.Json.JsonSerializer.Serialize((object)obj);
}
}
The overload method you are using is Serialize< BaseClass >(this, options). This when called from the base class always pass the BaseType as T.
Fortunately, JsonSerializer provides another overload which you can use from baseclass and achieve the desired behavior without overriding in derived class. For this, You should be using Serialize(this,this.GetType(),options). this.GetType() wil always returns the instance type even when call is done from a base class.
Related
I'm trying to create a simple service where derived classes can override a virtual method by passing in its own objects. Cant seem to get the syntax right. Please see the codes below:
So the base class is as follows:
public class FooBase
{
public virtual Task StartFooAsync<TParam>(TParam param) where TParam : IFooParam
{
Console.WriteLine(param.GetType());
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
}
And the IFooParam interface:
public interface IFooParam
{
public string Title { get; set; }
}
And the class that implements this simple interface is:
public class FooParam : IFooParam
{
public string Title { get; set; }
}
Now when I try to inherit the FooBase class as:
public class FooOne : FooBase
{
public override Task StartFooAsync(FooParam param) // wont compile :(
{
return base.StartFooAsync(param);
}
}
I get compile time error telling me there's no suitable method to override for StartFooAsync
The goal here is to inherit from the FooBase class and provide own implementation with its preferred type as parameter for StartFooAsync
No, if the virtual method is a generic method, the override has to be as well. A generic method allows the caller to specify the type argument.
Here's an example of why your code can't work... this should be entirely valid:
class OtherParam : IFooParam
{
public string Title { get; set; }
}
FooBase x = new FooOne(); // FooOne derives from FooBase
var p = new OtherParam { Title = "xyz" };
x.StartFooAsync<OtherParam>(p);
There's nothing in the declaration of FooBase that would stop that from compiling... but you haven't provided an implementation of StartFooAsync that can handle OtherParam.
One alternative approach is to make FooBase generic instead:
public class FooBase<TParam> where TParam : IFooParam
{
public virtual Task StartFooAsync(TParam param)
{
...
}
}
Then your FooOne would derive from FooBase<FooParam>. That would prevent the broken code I showed before, because x would to be declared as either FooBase<FooParam> or FooOne, and the StartFooAsync method would only accept FooParam.
I have 2 APIs which both have the same methods but with different names.
I made an abstract class inherited from this with both of them.
Now I am trying to make another class which uses those APIs and I don't want it to care which API it uses.
How do I pass the abstract class as a parameter and use it as one of the api's?
Is there a better way to do it?
Example Code :
public abstract class AbstractClass
{
public abstract string Func1();
}
public class Class1: AbstractClass
{
public override string Func1()
{
return "Class1";
}
}
public abstract class Class2: AbstractClass
{
public override string Func1()
{
return "Class2";
}
}
public class Class3
{
Type type;
public Class3(Type type)
{
this.type = type;
}
public string UseFunc1()
{
//I know this wont work but what shuld I do
type a = new type();
return a.Func1();
}
}
I think what you might be trying to achieve is the below. While you can't create an abstract class you can pass one
public class Class3
{
AbstractClass abstractMember
public Class3(AbstractClass abstractMember)
{
this.abstractMember = abstractMember;
}
public string UseFunc1()
{
return abstractMember.Func1();
}
}
You'd call it like:
Class2 c2 = new Class2();
Class3 c3 = new Class3(c2);
Is there a neat way to specify that a class must contain a factory method that returns the same kind of object as the class that overrides the abstract method? (Edit: Or as Johnathon Sullinger more eloquently puts it, [...] have a base class enforce a child class to implement a method that returns an instance of the child class itself, and not allow returning an instance of any other Type that inherits from the base class.)
For example, if I've got two classes, SimpleFoo : BaseFoo and FancyFoo : BaseFoo, can I define an abstract factory method public TFoo WithSomeProp(SomeProp prop) where TFoo is a type parameter that is somehow fixed by the abstract method definition to the particular class that overrides it?
I had hopes of compile-time guarantees that either
a concrete WithSomeProp method definition in SomeFoo : BaseFoo will only be able to produce SomeFoos. If static abstract method definitions were legal, perhaps the following (pseudo-syntax) method extension best expresses this need:
public static abstract TFoo WithSomeProp<TFoo>(this TFoo source, SomeProp prop)
where TFoo : BaseFoo;
I don't think this is possible in C#.
or at least some way to parameterize the return type in an abstract method, e.g.
public abstract TFoo WithSomeProp<TFoo>(SomeProp prop)
where TFoo : BaseFoo;
This wouldn't prevent FancyFoo.WithSomeProp from returning SimpleFoos, but ok.
This abstract method itself seems to work, but my concrete definition then fails:
public override SimpleFoo WithSomeProp(SomeProp prop)
{
return new SimpleFoo(this.SomeOtherProp, ..., prop);
}
with the warning
no suitable method found to override
It appears to me that specifying type parameters in an abstract method does not allow fixing them in the overrides of those definitions, but rather it specifies that "A method with a type parameter should exist".
For now I simply have public abstract BaseFoo WithSomeProp(SomeProp prop);.
It sounds like what you want to do, is have a base class enforce a child class to implement a method that returns an instance of the child class itself, and not allow returning an instance of any other Type that inherits from the base class. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, that is not something you can do.
You can however force the child-class to specify what it's Type is to the base class, so that the base class can then enforce that the return value must be the Type specified by the child-class.
For instance, given a base class called BaseFactory, and BaseFactory<T>, we can create an abstract class that requires children to specify to the parent, what type the creation method returns. We include a BaseFactory class so we can constrain T to only being children classes of BaseFactory.
EDIT
I'll leave the original answer below in the event that it helps, but after some thought, I think I've got a better solution for you.
You'll still need the base class to take a generic argument that defines what the child Type is. The difference now however is that the base class has a static creation method instead of instance methods. You can use this creation method to create a new instance of the child class, and optionally invoke a callback for configuring the property values on the new instance before you return it.
public abstract class BaseFactory { }
public abstract class BaseFactory<TImpl> : BaseFactory where TImpl : BaseFactory, new()
{
public static TImpl Create(Action<TImpl> itemConfiguration = null)
{
var child = new TImpl();
itemConfiguration?.Invoke(child);
return child;
}
}
You then just create your children classes normally, without worrying about overriding any methods.
public class Foo : BaseFactory<Foo>
{
public bool IsCompleted { get; set; }
public int Percentage { get; set; }
public string Data { get; set; }
}
public class Bar : BaseFactory<Bar>
{
public string Username { get; set; }
}
Then you would use the factory as-such.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Both work
Bar bar1 = Bar.Create();
Foo foo1 = Foo.Create();
// Won't compile because of different Types.
Bar bar2 = Foo.Create();
// Allows for configuring the properties
Bar bar3 = Bar.Create(instanceBar => instanceBar.Username = "Jane Done");
Foo foo2 = Foo.Create(instanceFoo =>
{
instanceFoo.IsCompleted = true;
instanceFoo.Percentage = 100;
instanceFoo.Data = "My work here is done.";
});
}
Original Answer
The BaseFactory<T> will be reponsible for creating a new instance of TImpl and giving it back.
public abstract class BaseFactory { }
public abstract class BaseFactory<TImpl> : BaseFactory where TImpl : BaseFactory
{
public abstract TImpl WithSomeProp();
}
Now, your child class can be created, and inherit from BaseFactory<T>, telling the base class that T represents itself. This means the child can only ever return itself.
public class Foo : BaseFactory<Foo>
{
public override Foo WithSomeProp()
{
return new Foo();
}
}
public class Bar : BaseFactory<Bar>
{
public override Bar WithSomeProp()
{
return new Bar();
}
}
Then you would use it like:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var obj1 = new Bar();
// Works
Bar obj2 = obj1.WithSomeProp();
// Won't compile because obj1 returns Bar.
Foo obj3 = obj1.WithSomeProp();
}
}
If you really want to make sure that the generic specified is the same as the owning Type, you could instead make WithSomeProp a protected method, so that children classes can only see it. Then, you create a public method on the base class that can do type checking.
public abstract class BaseFactory { }
public abstract class BaseFactory<TImpl> : BaseFactory where TImpl : BaseFactory
{
protected abstract TImpl WithSomeProp();
public TImpl Create()
{
Type myType = this.GetType();
if (typeof(TImpl) != myType)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException($"{myType.Name} can not create instances of itself because the generic argument it provided to the factory is of a different Type.");
}
return this.WithSomeProp();
}
}
public class Foo : BaseFactory<Foo>
{
protected override Foo WithSomeProp()
{
return new Foo();
}
}
public class Bar : BaseFactory<Bar>
{
protected override Bar WithSomeProp()
{
return new Bar();
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var obj1 = new Bar();
// Works
Bar obj2 = obj1.Create();
// Won't compile because obj1 returns Bar.
Foo obj3 = obj1.Create();
}
}
Now, if you create a child class that passes a different Type as T, the base class will catch it and throw an exception.
// Throws exception when BaseFactory.Create() is called, even though this compiles fine.
public class Bar : BaseFactory<Foo>
{
protected override Foo WithSomeProp()
{
return new Foo();
}
}
Not sure if this gets you what you wanted at least, but I think this will probably be the closest thing you can get.
Inspired by Johnathon Sullinger's fine answer, here is the code I ended with. (I added a theme.)
I passed the type parameter T along with the class definition and constrained that T : Base<T>.
BaseHyperLink.cs:
public abstract class BaseHyperLink<THyperLink> : Entity<int>
where THyperLink : BaseHyperLink<THyperLink>
{
protected BaseHyperLink(int? id, Uri hyperLink, ContentType contentType, DocumentType documentType)
: base(id)
{
this.HyperLink = hyperLink;
this.ContentType = contentType;
this.DocumentType = documentType;
}
public Uri HyperLink { get; }
public ContentType ContentType { get; }
public DocumentType DocumentType { get; }
public abstract THyperLink WithContentType(ContentType contentType);
}
SharedHyperLink.cs:
public sealed class SharedHyperLink : BaseHyperLink<SharedHyperLink>
{
public SharedHyperLink(int? id, Uri hyperLink, ContentType contentType, DocumentType documentType)
: base(id, hyperLink, contentType, documentType)
{
}
public override SharedHyperLink WithContentType(ContentType contentType)
{
return new SharedHyperLink(this.Id, contentType, this.DocumentType);
}
}
MarkedHyperLink.cs:
public sealed class MarkedHyperLink : BaseHyperLink<MarkedHyperLink>
{
public MarkedHyperLink(int? id, Uri hyperLink, ContentType contentType, DocumentType documentType, Mark mark)
: base(id, hyperLink, contentType, documentType)
{
this.Mark = mark;
}
public Mark Mark { get; }
public override MarkedHyperLink WithContentType(ContentType contentType)
{
return new MarkedHyperLink(this.Id, contentType, this.DocumentType, this.Mark);
}
}
QUESTION IS CLARIFIED
new thread : subclass properties accessed in generic method with superclass input
I have a base class A
subClasses B, C, and D inherit from A.
Each subClass has 3 subClasses a, b, and c.
a, b, and c have a list of unique properties.
However, now I want to build a generic function to access those properties, so how would I do this without switching on Type?
Clarification : I do not want a : B to have abstract C methods/properties
Example:
public void Method(A a){
if(a.isSubClassOf(B))
{Console.WriteLine(a.BaProperty);}
if(a.isSubClassOf(C))
{Console.WriteLine(a.CbProperty);}
if(a.isSubClassOf(D))
{Console.WriteLine(a.DcProperty);}
}
You can't define a member in derived class and access it via the reference to base class without casting to derived class:
class A {}
class B
{
public int i;
}
A a = new B();
a.i = 0; // error
((B)a).i = 0; // OK
Either declare virtual property in any of base types in your hierarchy, or use casting to the concrete derived type. Of course, in the second case your method doesn't make any sense.
Typically, you would use a virtual or abstract method defined in A and overridden in the subclasses.
public abstract class A
{
protected abstract PropertyType PropertyValue {get;}
public void Method()
{
Console.WriteLine(PropertyValue);
}
}
public class B : A
{
protected override PropertyType Property { get { return PropertyType.B; } }
}
// etc...
An elegant solution is to override ToString
public abstract class A { }
public class B : A {
public int b { get; set; }
public override string ToString()
{
return b.ToString();
}
}
// Do the same with C and D ....
A[] array = new A[] { new B(), new C(), new D() };
foreach (A a in array) {
Console.WriteLine(a);
}
Note that Console.WriteLine does not need to know about a special method or property in A. It also works for types not deriving from A.
It depends greatly in what you really want to achieve. In some cases what Steve Czetty suggests is the best option.
In others you could just keep all the properties different and have a virtual method in the base class that returns for example in this case a "string" that you can then write in the console or anything you wish.
Edit: You could override ToString as Olivier suggested. But only if you feel what yo are going to retun is the "String representation of the object".
public abstract class A
{
public string PropertyA { get; set; }
public virtual string GetString() //
{
return PropertyA;
}
}
public class B:A
{
public string PropertyB { get; set; }
public override string GetString()
{
return PropertyB;
}
}
public class C:A
{
public string PropertyC { get; set; }
public override string GetString()
{
return string.Format("{0} - {1}", base.GetString(), PropertyC) // for example if you wanted to do something more complex
}
}
Now if what you need can not be solved like this, you could cast as Dennis Suggested.
There is another posibility: you could use the visitor pattern. Here you can find several ways to implement it.
Just so you have an idea you would wind up having a class similar to this: (it will depend on what you really want to achieve)
You have to implement some other basic things (interface and some methods), but from a Reference to the base class you will be able to call the corresponding "Visit" method easily. There is a lot of detail in the link i added.
class ClassicVisitor : IAVisitor
{
public string SuperComplexStringResult { get;set; }
public void Visit(B b) { SuperComplexStringResult = String.Format("Super Complex Stuff + {0}", b.PropertyB); }
public void Visit(C c) { SuperComplexStringResult = String.Format("Super Complex Stuff + {0}", c.PropertyC); }
}
I'm trying to setup some classes like:
public abstract class AnimalBase {
public string SpeciesName { get; private set; }
public AnimalBase(string speciesName) {
this.SpeciesName = speciesName;
}
public abstract void CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass defaultVals);
}
public class Mammal : AnimalBase {
public bool WalksUpright { get; private set; }
public Mammal(string speciesName) : base(speciesName) {
this.CopyFrom(new MammalDefaultClass(speciesName));
}
public override void CopyFrom(MammalDefaultClass defaultVals) {
this.WalksUpright = defaultVals.WalksUpright;
}
public void Cripple() {
this.WalksUpright = false;
}
}
public class MammalDefaultClass : AnimalDefaultClass {
public bool WalksUpright { get; private set; }
public MammalDefaultClass(string speciesName) {
using (var dataStore = theoreticalFactory.GetDataStore()) {
this.WalksUpright = dataStore[speciesName].WalksUpright;
}
}
}
Obviously that's not quite what I'm trying to accomplish, but the idea is:
Several classes (Mammal, Fish, Insect, etc) which inherit from an abstract base (Animal).
Each child class has a corresponding class it can use (in this case to populate mutable default values) as a parameter for a method which was defined as abstract in the base class.
Each of those corresponding classes (MammalDefaultClass, FishDefaultClass, InsectDefaultClass, etc) inherit from a common base class (AnimalDefaultClass).
Those AnimalDefaultClass derivatives exist because each class of Animal will have different properties, but by definition there will always be a class capable of getting those values for any Animal.
My problem is:
That overridden version of CopyFrom(MammalDefaultClass) isn't being recognized as a valid override of the abstract CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass), even though MammalDefaultClass inherits from AnimalDefaultClass
Is it possible to specify a base class as an abstract member's parameter? Is there a simple* workaround? Or is this whole thing just laid out wrong?
-edit: my resolution-
After playing around some with MWB and sza's suggestions, I ended up having each subclass implement the method using the base parameter and then cast the input as appropriate, something like:
public class Mammal : AnimalBase {
...
// implements the abstract method from the base class:
public override void CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass defaultVals) {
this.CopyFrom((MammalDefaultClass)defaultVals);
}
public void CopyFrom(MammalDefaultClass defaultVals) {
this.WalksUpright = defaultVals.WalksUpright;
}
}
This solution forces me to always implement a CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass) , which was the point of the putting the abstract method in the base class in the first place.
I think you can try Abstract Factory pattern. Basically you want to handle some construction logic during the creating the object, and for each different subtype of the Product, you can do differently.
public abstract class AnimalBase
{
public string SpeciesName { get; private set; }
protected AnimalBase(string speciesName)
{
this.SpeciesName = speciesName;
}
}
public class Mammal : AnimalBase
{
public bool WalksUpright { get; set; }
public Mammal(string speciesName) : base(speciesName)
{
}
public void Cripple()
{
this.WalksUpright = false;
}
}
public interface IAnimalFactory<T> where T : AnimalBase
{
T CreateAnAnimal(string speciesName);
}
public class MammalFactory: IAnimalFactory<Mammal>
{
public Mammal CreateAnAnimal(string speciesName)
{
var mammal = new Mammal(speciesName);
var mammalDefault = new MammalDefaultClass(speciesName);
mammal.WalksUpright = mammalDefault.WalksUpright;
return mammal;
}
}
And when you want to create a sub-typed object, you can do e.g.
var mammalFactory = new MammalFactory();
var bunny = mammalFactory.CreateAnAnimal("Bunny");
So it turns out that even though MammalDefaultClass is a subclass of AnimalDefaultClass, you cannot override a function that takes an AnimalDefaultClass with one that takes a MammalDefaultClass.
Consider this block of code:
public class Dinosaur : AnimalDefaultClass;
Dinosaur defaultDinosaur;
public void makeDinosaur(AnimalDefaultClass adc)
{
adc.CopyFrom(defaultDinosaur);
}
MammalDefaultClass m;
makeDinosaur(m);
In this case MammalDefaultClass is a subclass of AnimalDefaultClass, so m can be passed to makeDinosaur as adc. Furthermore the CopyFrom for an AnimalDefaultClass only needs another AnimalDefault class, so I can pass in a dinosaur. But that class is actually a Mammal, and so needs a MammalDefaultClass, which dinosaur is not.
The work around would be to take the original type signature and throw an error if the argument is the wrong type (similar to how arrays act in Java).