Develop Reference

Is there a way to type check a generic function parameter using the shape of the object instead of inheritance?

I have a few EF model classes that I want to create. Each class has a few common properties that I want to set before inserting a new entity, for example:
public partial class BlogPost {
public DateTime CreatedTime { get; set; }
public string CreatorName { get; set; }
public string PostTitle { get; set; }
public string PostText { get; set; }
}
public partial class Comment {
public DateTime CreatedTime { get; set; }
public string CreatorName { get; set; }
public string CommentText { get; set; }
}
...
When I create these classes, I'm instantiating them like so:
var blogPost = new BlogPost {
CreatedTime = DateTime.UtcNow,
CreatorName = creatorName,
PostTitle = postTitle,
PostText = postText,
};
var comment = new Comment {
CreatedTime = DateTime.UtcNow,
CreatorName = creatorName,
...
};
...
I want to create a method to automatically set some of the common properties so I don't need to manually type them out for each class with the same properties. Since they don't extend the same class or implement the same interface, I'm wondering how this can be achieved. My first thought was to use a generic method; however, I don't know if there's a way to specify what properties the generic type should have without them extending the same class (similar to TypeScript's "duck typing"). My desired method looks something like this:
public void SetInitialProperties<T>(T dbEntity, DateTime createdTime, string creatorName) where T : ??? {
dbEntity.CreatedTime = createdTime;
dbEntity.CreatorName = creatorName;
}
...
var blogPost = new BlogPost { PostTitle = postTitle, PostText = postText };
SetInitialProperties(blogPost, createdTime, creatorName);
Worst case scenario if I can't use a generic, I could always use dynamic; however, I'd like to keep type checking if possible.

You can achieve what you want using reflection. You can pass in an object and resolve it's type, then get all the public properties of that given type and find if you have one called CreatedTime for example. Then you can set the value of the given property on the passed dbEntity object. However, I do not recommend this solution:
public void SetInitialProperties(object dbEntity, DateTime createdTime, string creatorName) {
// get the passed object's properties and find the one called CreatedTime
var createdTimePropertyInfo = dbEntity.GetType().GetProperties().Where(i => i.Name == "CreatedTime").FirstOrDefault();
// below line is equal to: dbEntity.CreatedTime = createdTime;
createdTimePropertyInfo.SetValue(dbEntity, createdTime);
var creatorNamePropertyInfo = dbEntity.GetType().GetProperties().Where(i => i.Name == "CreatorName").FirstOrDefault();
creatorNamePropertyInfo.SetValue(dbEntity, creatorName);
}
You would be better off on the long run by creating a common interface or even an abstract base class so you don't have to implement CreatedTime and CreatorName and other properties for every EF model. It would look like the following:
public interface IUserEntry
{
DateTime CreatedTime { get; set; }
string CreatorName { get; set; }
}
public abstract class UserEntryBase : IUserEntry
{
public DateTime CreatedTime { get; set; }
public string CreatorName { get; set; }
}
public partial class BlogPost : UserEntryBase
{
public string PostTitle { get; set; }
public string PostText { get; set; }
}
public partial class Comment : UserEntryBase
{
public string CommentText { get; set; }
}
And your SetInitialProperties would be pretty simple:
public void SetInitialProperties(IUserEntry dbEntity, DateTime createdTime, string creatorName)
{
dbEntity.CreatedTime = createdTime;
dbEntity.CreatorName = creatorName;
}
Once you develop onto an interface, you achieve much more flexibility than by using reflection or a dynamic type, since you get the compile-time checking that was mentioned before me and you can see the common properties of your models.

You can't do that in C# because C# uses a nominal type system and not a structural type system.
For your particular case you have to come up with an interface that contains the properties in common and which will be implemented by both entities, then use that new interface as you generic function parameter constraint.

If you're absolutely sure the properties will have the same name, you could pass a dynamic to set property values. However, this prevents any compile-time checking of the typing, so if you accidently pass an incompatible type it won't be caught until runtime.
public void SetInitialProperties(dynamic dbEntity, DateTime createdTime, string creatorName) {
dbEntity.CreatedTime = createdTime;
dbEntity.CreatorName = creatorName;
}

Map JSON column from MySql Database to C# Class from Web Api

I have a MySql database with columns Id int and Name:json
Places Table Sample
Id Name
1 {"en":"Sphinx","ar":"أبو الهول","fr":"Le sphinx"}
C# Place class
public class Place
{
[Key, Column("id")]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Column("name")]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
I'm connecting with EntityFramework 6 and connection success and retrieve data like this
{Id = 1, Name = "{\"en\":\"Sphinx\", \"ar\":\"أبو الهول\", \"fr\":\"Le sphinx\"}" }
What I want how to Map Name to new Object not JSON string
something like this
Place class
public class Place
{
[Key, Column("id")]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Column("name")]
public Localized<string> Name { get; set; }
}
Localized class
public class Localized<T>
{
public T en { get; set; } // english localization
public T ar { get; set; } // arabic localization
public T fr { get; set; } // french localization
}
when I do this Name property come with NULL value
Code in Repository
using (var context = new PlacesEntityModel())
{
return context.Places.Take(5).ToList();
}
I don't want to use AutoMapper,
I want something in EntityFramework to select only one language in Database Level without fetching all other data and then map it
how to fix this?

You can try extension method to map from your entity type.
public class Place
{
[Key, Column("id")]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Column("name")]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class PlaceDTO
{
[Key, Column("id")]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Column("name")]
public Localized<string> Name { get; set; }
}
public class Localized<T>
{
public T en { get; set; } // english localization
public T ar { get; set; } // arabic localization
public T fr { get; set; } // french localization
}
Extenstion Method ToDto
public static class Extensions
{
public static PlaceDTO ToDto(this Place place)
{
if (place != null)
{
return new PlaceDTO
{
Id = place.Id,
Name = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Localized<string>>(place.Name)
};
}
return null;
}
}
Usage
var place = new Place() { Id = 1, Name = "{\"en\":\"Sphinx\", \"ar\":\"أبو الهول\", \"fr\":\"Le sphinx\"}" };
var placeDTO = place.ToDto();
Console.WriteLine($"{placeDTO.Id}-{placeDTO.Name.ar}-{placeDTO.Name.en}-{placeDTO.Name.fr}");

First of all, by using a class with a property per language, you restrict yourself. You'd always have to add new properties if you add new languages, which would of course be feasible, but unnecessary complicated. Furthermore you'd usually have the language as a string-ish object (or be able to convert), hence this would lead to code like this
Localized<string> name = ...;
switch(language)
{
case "en":
return name.en;
case "ar":
return name.ar;
case "fr":
return name.fr;
default:
throw new LocalizationException();
}
which is error-prone and overly complicated. For your problem, I think I'd opt to use some kind of dictionary
IDictionary<string, string> names = ...;
if(names.ContainsKey(language))
{
return names[language];
}
else
{
throw new LocalizationException();
}
which is easily extensible by just adding more translations to the dictionary.
To convert your JSON string to an IDcitionary<string, string>, you could use the following code
localizedNames = JObject.Parse(Name)
.Children()
.OfType<JProperty>()
.ToDictionary(property => property.Name,
property => property.Value.ToString());
From within your class this would effectively be
public class Place
{
[Key, Column("id")]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Column("name")]
public string Name { get; set; }
public Dictionary<string, string> LocalizedNames
{
get
{
return JObject.Parse(Name)
.Children()
.OfType<JProperty>()
.ToDictionary(property => property.Name,
property => property.Value.ToString());
}
}
}
The localized values can be accessed like
var localizedPlaceName = place.LocalizedNames[language];
Please note: Depending on your needs and use cases, you should consider the following issues:
Caching
In my snippet, the JSON string is parsed every time the localized names are accessed. Depending on how often you access it, this might be detrimental to performance, which could be mitigated by caching the result (don't forget to delete the cache when Name is set).
Separation of concerns
The class as is is supposed to be a pure model class. You might want to introduce domain classes that encapsulate the presented logic, rather than adding the logic to the model class. Having a factory that creates readily localized objects based on the localizable object and the language could be an option, too.
Error handling
In my code there is no error handling. Depending on the reliability of input you should consider additional error handling.

devart.com/dotconnect/mysql/docs/EF-JSON-Support.html
Like what #Nkosi said
In that case then, take a look at this article devart.com/dotconnect/mysql/docs/EF-JSON-Support.html
It probably can given that the library was able to build that feature in. You would need to figure out what they they did (reverse engineer)

I usually just use JSON.Net, I notice that another answer referenced JObject, but without going into whether your data-model is the right model, I generally find that you can do:
var MyObjectInstance = JObject.Parse(myJsonString).ToObject<MyObjectType>();
I notice that you have ComponentModel attributes on your class. I don't know off hand how many of these JSon.Net supports, and you'd have to research that. It definitely supports some attributes from XML serialization, and also has some of it's own.
Note that you can also convert a JSOn array into a list:
var MyObjectList = JArray.Parse(myJsonString).ToObject<IEnumerable<MyObjectType>();

I want something in EntityFramework to select only one language in
Database Level without fetching all other data and then map it
if you want it to be from database level, you can always create a view and then include this view in your project.
Example :
CREATE VIEW `PlacesLocalized` AS
SELECT
Id
, TRIM(REPLACE(name->'$.en', '"','')) AS en
, TRIM(REPLACE(name->'$.ar', '"','')) AS ar
, TRIM(REPLACE(name->'$.fr', '"','')) AS fr
FROM
places
This would create a model class Like :
public class PlacesLocalized
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string en {get; set;}
public string ar {get; set;}
public string fr {get; set;}
}
Then, you can do :
var places = context.PlacesLocalized.Where(x=> x.en == "Sphinx");
But if you don't have enough permissions to do this in the database level, then you would need to specify the query in your EF. There is no easy way to change the execution logic of Entity Framework just for specific classes. That's why Entity Framework included SqlQuery method, which would give more flexibility to have custom queries when needed (like yours).
So, if you need to specify the localization from Entity Framework, then you would do a repository class to specify all custom queries you need including creating any DTO needed.
The basic way would be something like this :
public enum Localized
{
English,
Arabic,
French
}
public class PlaceRepo : IDisposable
{
private readonly PlacesEntityModel _context = new PlacesEntityModel();
public List<Place> GetPlacesLocalized(Localized localized = Localized.English)
{
string local = localized == Localized.Arabic ? "$.ar"
: localized == Localized.French ? "$.fr"
: "$.en";
return _context.Places.SqlQuery("SELECT Id, name-> #p0 as Name FROM places", new[] { local })
.Select(x=> new Place { Id = x.Id, Name = x.Name.Replace("\"", string.Empty).Trim() })
.ToList();
}
private bool _disposed = false;
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (!_disposed)
{
if (disposing)
{
_context.Dispose();
}
_disposed = true;
}
}
~PlaceRepo()
{
Dispose(false);
}
}
now, you can do this :
using(var repo = new PlaceRepo())
{
var places = repo.GetPlacesLocalized(Localized.Arabic);
}

public class Place
{
[Key, Column("id")]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Column("name")]
public string Name { get; set; }
public static explicit operator Place(PlaceDTO dto)
{
return new Place()
{
Id = dto.Id,
Name = dto.Name
};
}
}
public class PlaceDTO
{
[Key, Column("id")]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Column("name")]
public Localized<string> Name { get; set; }
public static explicit operator PlaceDTO(Place pls)
{
return new PlaceDTO()
{
Id = pls.Id,
Name = pls.Name
};
}
}
var placeDTO = (placeDto)place;
we can achieve this using explicit operator without using auto mapper

AutoMapping objects

I have a weird situation where I have objects and Lists of objects as part of my entities and contracts to interface with a third-party service. I'm going to try to see if I can replace the actual object class with something more specific in the entities and contracts to get around this, but I am curious if there is a way to get AutoMapper to handle this as is.
Here are some dummy classes:
public class From
{
public object Item { get; set; }
}
public class FromObject
{
public string Value { get; set; }
}
public class To
{
public object Item { get; set; }
}
public class ToObject
{
public string Value { get; set; }
}
And the quick replication:
Mapper.CreateMap<From, To>();
Mapper.CreateMap<FromObject, ToObject>();
From from = new From { Item = new FromObject { Value = "Test" } };
To to = Mapper.Map<To>(from);
string type = to.Item.GetType().Name; // FromObject
Basically, the question is this: Is there a way to get AutoMapper to understand that from.Item is a FromObject and apply the mapping to ToObject? I'm thinking there's probably not a way to make it automatic, since there's nothing that would indicate that to.Item has to be a ToObject, but is there a way to specify during the CreateMap or Map calls that this should be taken into account?

I don't think there is an "automatic" way of doing it, since AutoMapper won't be able to figure out that From.Item is FromObject and To.Item is ToObject.
But, while creating mapping, you can specify that
Mapper.CreateMap<FromObject, ToObject>();
Mapper.CreateMap<From, To>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.Item, opt => opt.MapFrom(src => Mapper.Map<ToObject>(src.Item)));
From from = new From { Item = new FromObject { Value = "Test" } };
To to = Mapper.Map<To>(from);
string type = to.Item.GetType().Name; // ToObject

If you're willing to use an additional interface, this can be accomplished using Include. You can't just map object to object in this fashion, though.
public class From
{
public IItem Item { get; set; }
}
public class FromObject : IItem
{
public string Value { get; set; }
}
public class To
{
public object Item { get; set; }
}
public class ToObject
{
public string Value { get; set; }
}
public interface IItem
{
// Nothing; just for grouping.
}
Mapper.CreateMap<From, To>();
Mapper.CreateMap<IItem, object>()
.Include<FromObject, ToObject>();
From from = new From { Item = new FromObject { Value = "Test" } };
To to = Mapper.Map<To>(from);
string type = to.Item.GetType().Name; // ToObject

Return a List<SomeObject> without a certain property using Linq in c#?

I have an object containing different properties like the object below:
public class CompressedLogResponse
{
public string LoggerType { get; set; }
public int NumberOfRegisters { get; set; }
public int NewLogId { get; set; }
public DateTime LoggerAnnounceTime { get; set; }
public List<Log> Log{ get; set; }
}
How can I return a List of this objekt that does not include the List<Log> Log property?
Linq would be preffered
Thanks for any help that you can provide

You cannot just hide a property of a class (you declared it a as public)
Option 1:
Althought as Robson wrote you can set it null (thats not very reliable thaught cause nobody expects a class containing a property that is always null)
Option2:
If you consume the class on the same place use a anonymous type as Mez wrote, althought it sounds like you want to hide the Property from external usage. (I don't like the dynamic approach, the dynamic keyword was made for interop/DOM not for transporting anonymous types.)
Option3:
If you want a List of this type to be returned without the Log property, you have to create a new class (Inheritance is a good way to realize this):
public class CompressedLogResponseBase
{
public string LoggerType { get; set; }
public int NumberOfRegisters { get; set; }
public int NewLogId { get; set; }
public DateTime LoggerAnnounceTime { get; set; }
}
public class CompressedLogResponse : CompressedLogResponseBase
{
public List<Log> Log{ get; set; }
}
Now you can return a list of base items (that do not have a Log property at all)
public List<CompressedLogResponseBase> ReturnWithoutLog(IEnumerable<CompressedLogResponse> items)
{
return ((IEnumerable<CompressedLogResponseBase>)items).ToList();
}
If a IEnumerable as return type is suficient it becomes really easy
public IEnumerable<CompressedLogResponseBase> ReturnWithoutLog(IEnumerable<CompressedLogResponse> items)
{
return items
}

whith "does not include the List Log property" i guess you mean that the property "public List Log" will be blanked but still there, so you can just null that property out, because if you create an object that doesn't contain the "public List Log" property, than it will not be a "CompressedLogResponse" but will be another type.
List<CompressedLogResponse> listOne = new List<CompressedLogResponse>();
//....
//fill the listOne
//....
List<CompressedLogResponse> listWithoutListLog = (from item in listOne
select new CompressedLogResponse(
LoggerType = item.LoggerType,
NumberOfRegisters = item.NumberOfRegisters ,
NewLogId = item.NewLogId ,
LoggerAnnounceTime = item.LoggerAnnounceTime ,
Log= null)).ToList();

You can return an anonymous list of your original list like the following;
public static List<dynamic> Test() {
List<CompressedLogResponse> list = new List<CompressedLogResponse>();
var result = list.Select(x => new
{
x.LoggerAnnounceTime,
x.LoggerType,
x.NewLogId,
x.NumberOfRegisters
});
return result.ToList<dynamic>();
}
Take a look at the .Select(), and also the dynamic keyword.
Then to call it,
var x = Test();
foreach(dynamic o in x)
{
int NumberOfRegisters;
//You have 2 ways... either by
NumberOfRegisters = o.NumberOfRegisters;
// or reflection
NumberOfRegisters = o.GetType().GetProperty("NumberOfRegisters").GetValue(o, null);
}

C# - copying property values from one instance to another, different classes

I have two C# classes that have many of the same properties (by name and type). I want to be able to copy all non-null values from an instance of Defect into an instance of DefectViewModel. I was hoping to do it with reflection, using GetType().GetProperties(). I tried the following:
var defect = new Defect();
var defectViewModel = new DefectViewModel();
PropertyInfo[] defectProperties = defect.GetType().GetProperties();
IEnumerable<string> viewModelPropertyNames =
defectViewModel.GetType().GetProperties().Select(property => property.Name);
IEnumerable<PropertyInfo> propertiesToCopy =
defectProperties.Where(defectProperty =>
viewModelPropertyNames.Contains(defectProperty.Name)
);
foreach (PropertyInfo defectProperty in propertiesToCopy)
{
var defectValue = defectProperty.GetValue(defect, null) as string;
if (null == defectValue)
{
continue;
}
// "System.Reflection.TargetException: Object does not match target type":
defectProperty.SetValue(viewModel, defectValue, null);
}
What would be the best way to do this? Should I maintain separate lists of Defect properties and DefectViewModel properties so that I can do viewModelProperty.SetValue(viewModel, defectValue, null)?
Edit: thanks to both Jordão's and Dave's answers, I chose AutoMapper. DefectViewModel is in a WPF application, so I added the following App constructor:
public App()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<Defect, DefectViewModel>()
.ForMember("PropertyOnlyInViewModel", options => options.Ignore())
.ForMember("AnotherPropertyOnlyInViewModel", options => options.Ignore())
.ForAllMembers(memberConfigExpr =>
memberConfigExpr.Condition(resContext =>
resContext.SourceType.Equals(typeof(string)) &&
!resContext.IsSourceValueNull
)
);
}
Then, instead of all that PropertyInfo business, I just have the following line:
var defect = new Defect();
var defectViewModel = new DefectViewModel();
Mapper.Map<Defect, DefectViewModel>(defect, defectViewModel);

Take a look at AutoMapper.

There are frameworks for this, the one I know of is Automapper:
http://automapper.codeplex.com/
http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/01/22/automapper-the-object-object-mapper.aspx

Replace your erroneous line with this:
PropertyInfo targetProperty = defectViewModel.GetType().GetProperty(defectProperty.Name);
targetProperty.SetValue(viewModel, defectValue, null);
Your posted code is attempting to set a Defect-tied property on a DefectViewModel object.

In terms of organizing the code, if you don't want an external library like AutoMapper, you can use a mixin-like scheme to separate the code out like this:
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
var d = new Defect() { Category = "bug", Status = "open" };
var m = new DefectViewModel();
m.CopyPropertiesFrom(d);
Console.WriteLine("{0}, {1}", m.Category, m.Status);
}
}
// compositions
class Defect : MPropertyGettable {
public string Category { get; set; }
public string Status { get; set; }
// ...
}
class DefectViewModel : MPropertySettable {
public string Category { get; set; }
public string Status { get; set; }
// ...
}
// quasi-mixins
public interface MPropertyEnumerable { }
public static class PropertyEnumerable {
public static IEnumerable<string> GetProperties(this MPropertyEnumerable self) {
return self.GetType().GetProperties().Select(property => property.Name);
}
}
public interface MPropertyGettable : MPropertyEnumerable { }
public static class PropertyGettable {
public static object GetValue(this MPropertyGettable self, string name) {
return self.GetType().GetProperty(name).GetValue(self, null);
}
}
public interface MPropertySettable : MPropertyEnumerable { }
public static class PropertySettable {
public static void SetValue<T>(this MPropertySettable self, string name, T value) {
self.GetType().GetProperty(name).SetValue(self, value, null);
}
public static void CopyPropertiesFrom(this MPropertySettable self, MPropertyGettable other) {
self.GetProperties().Intersect(other.GetProperties()).ToList().ForEach(
property => self.SetValue(property, other.GetValue(property)));
}
}
This way, all the code to achieve the property-copying is separate from the classes that use it. You just need to reference the mixins in their interface list.
Note that this is not as robust or flexible as AutoMapper, because you might want to copy properties with different names or just some sub-set of the properties. Or it might downright fail if the properties don't provide the necessary getters or setters or their types differ. But, it still might be enough for your purposes.

This is cheap and easy. It makes use of System.Web.Script.Serialization and some extention methods for ease of use:
public static class JSONExts
{
public static string ToJSON(this object o)
{
var oSerializer = new System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptSerializer();
return oSerializer.Serialize(o);
}
public static List<T> FromJSONToListOf<T>(this string jsonString)
{
var oSerializer = new System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptSerializer();
return oSerializer.Deserialize<List<T>>(jsonString);
}
public static T FromJSONTo<T>(this string jsonString)
{
var oSerializer = new System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptSerializer();
return oSerializer.Deserialize<T>(jsonString);
}
public static T1 ConvertViaJSON<T1>(this object o)
{
return o.ToJSON().FromJSONTo<T1>();
}
}
Here's some similiar but different classes:
public class Member
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
public bool IsCitizen { get; set; }
public DateTime? Birthday { get; set; }
public string PetName { get; set; }
public int PetAge { get; set; }
public bool IsUgly { get; set; }
}
public class MemberV2
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
public bool IsCitizen { get; set; }
public DateTime? Birthday { get; set; }
public string ChildName { get; set; }
public int ChildAge { get; set; }
public bool IsCute { get; set; }
}
And here's the methods in action:
var memberClass1Obj = new Member {
Name = "Steve Smith",
Age = 25,
IsCitizen = true,
Birthday = DateTime.Now.AddYears(-30),
PetName = "Rosco",
PetAge = 4,
IsUgly = true,
};
string br = "<br /><br />";
Response.Write(memberClass1Obj.ToJSON() + br); // just to show the JSON
var memberClass2Obj = memberClass1Obj.ConvertViaJSON<MemberV2>();
Response.Write(memberClass2Obj.ToJSON()); // valid fields are filled

For one thing I would not place that code (somewhere) external but in the constructor of the ViewModel:
class DefectViewModel
{
public DefectViewModel(Defect source) { ... }
}
And if this is the only class (or one of a few) I would not automate it further but write out the property assignments. Automating it looks nice but there may be more exceptions and special cases than you expect.

Any chance you could have both classes implement an interface that defines the shared properties?