Develop Reference

deriving types from an array of individually typed classes

I'm trying to come up with the best way to pass multiple individually typed classes into a method. I won't know beforehand how many individually typed classes will be passed into the method so have started the code off like this...
An Interface
public interface ITypedClass {}
A Typed Class
public class TypedClass<T> : ITypedClass
{
public IEnumerable<T> Output() {}
}
A Method
public static void DoSomething(params ITypedClass[] typedClasses) {}
... and with these run something like the following, where the DoSomething method populates the typed classes with respective values based on the collective of what is passed into the DoSomething method.
var typedClassA = new TypedClass<TypeA>();
var typedClassB = new TypedClass<TypeB>();
...
var typedClassN = new TypedClass<TypeN>();
DoSomething(typedClassA, typedClassB, ... typedClassN etc
var valueA - typedClassA.Output();
var valueB - typedClassB.Output();
...
var valueN - typedClassN.Output();
Unfortunately inside the DoSomething method...
var typedClass = (TypedClass<T>)typedClasses.First();
... the individual values in the typedClasses parameter can't be converted back to TypedClass because the DoSomething method doesn't know what T is in each instance.
Can anyone think of a better way to do this?

The answer seems a little bit obvious with more thought. Had to sleep on it a few nights before the obviousness finally clicked. Don't have DoSomething process the typed input, have TypedClass do it for you and instead have DoSomething split up the work.
New Interface
public interface ITypedClass
{
void Input(object value);
}
New Typed Class
The Input method here handles the conversion from object value to List value
public class TypedClass<T> : ITypedClass
{
public List<T> value;
public void Input(object value) {...}
public IEnumerable<T> Output() => value;
}
New Method
DoSomething now divides up the work...
public static void DoSomething(params ITypedClass[] typedClasses)
{
foreach (var c in typedClasses)
{
c.Input(...);
}
}
Now when calling the following ...
var typedClassN = new TypedClass<TypeN>();
DoSomething(... typedClassN ... );
var valueN = typedClassN.Output();
valueN will have a value and DoSomething can handle a variable amount of typed classes

How can I add an extension method to many classes?

I have about 1000 classes in which i need to count the number of properties of. I have the following code:
public static int NumberOfProperties()
{
Type type = typeof(C507);
return type.GetProperties().Count();
}
I could copy and paste this in to each class changing the typeof parameter but this seems a bit tedious.
Is there anyway to make an extensions method to do this by just doing var nop = C507.NumberOfProperties();?

Just to add to the answers suggesting an extension for object for completeness: you can also consider implementing an extension only for Type:
public static int GetPropertyCount(this Type t)
{
return t.GetProperties().Length;
}
and use it like this:
typeof(C507).GetPropertyCount();
The advantage is that you can get the number of properties directly from the type and do not have to create an instance first.

So you can write an extension method that uses object or one that uses type.
public static class ObjectExtensions
{
public static int GetNumberOfProperties(this object value)
{
return value.GetType().GetProperties().Count();
}
public static int GetNumberOfProperties(this Type value)
{
return value.GetProperties().Count();
}
}
Usage:
new C507().GetNumberOfProperties();
typeof(C507).GetNumberOfProperties();
However, you explicitly state two things:
I could copy and paste this in to each class changing the typeof
I have about 1000 classes
You'll likely not want to instantiate a 1000 classes or copy and paste typeof() 1000 times
In this case, you will want to read them all from the Assembly.
So something like:
typeof(SomeClass).Assembly.GetTypes().Select(x => new
{
x.Name,
PropertyCount = x.GetType().GetProperties().Count()
});
Where SomeClass is a class (doesn't matter which) where all the classes reside.
I just simply select them out into an anonymous object which contains the Types name and property count.
This:
typeof(SomeClass).Assembly
Is just a convience way to get the assembly. There are other ways.
Assembly.GetAssembly(typeof(Program)).GetTypes()
Assembly.GetCallingAssembly().GetTypes()
Assembly.Load("Some Assemble Ref").GetTypes()
You can do allsorts with the types that you find. If you select out the Type itself, you can instantiate it later using Activator.CreateInstance (if it has parameterless constuctor). You can also auto fill the properties with reflection as well.

It is impossible to have a static extension method as you imagine it. That being said, it would be possible to create a generic method in a helper class as follows.
public static int NumberOfProperties<T>()
{
Type type = typeof(T);
return type.GetProperties().Count();
}
Given a type SomeType it could be called as int n = NumberOfProperties<SomeType>().

You could make an extension method on object like this:
public static int PropertyCount(this object thing)
{
return thing.GetType().GetProperties().Count();
}
And use it on any object you like:
var x = "some string";
var numProps = x.PropertyCount();

If you want to have an extension method on object:
public static ObjectExtensions
{
public static int NumberOfProperties(this object value)
{
if (null == value)
throw new ArgumentNullException("value"); // or return 0
// Length: no need in Linq here
return value.GetType().GetProperties().Length;
}
}
...
C507 myObj = new C507();
// How many properties does myObj instance have?
int propCount = myObj.NumberOfProperties();
If you want to have an extesnion method on Type:
public static TypeExtensions
{
public static int NumberOfProperties(this Type value)
{
if (null == value)
throw new ArgumentNullException("value"); // or return 0
// Length: no need in Linq here
return value.GetProperties().Length;
}
}
...
// How many properties does C507 type have?
int propCount = typeof(C507).NumberOfProperties();

There are a couple of ways to do this that are variations of the same thing.
You can pass the Type as an argument to a method:
public static class Helper {
public static int NumberOfProperties(Type type)
{
return type.GetProperties().Count();
}
}
Which you would call like this:
// Imagine you have a class called MyClass
var result = Helper.NumberOfProperties(typeof(MyClass));
You use use the generic system in C# to make the syntax a little cleaner. That would look like this:
public static class Helper {
// Notice the argument was removed and
// the use of the "generic" syntax <T>
public static int NumberOfProperties<T>()
{
var type = typeof(T);
return type.GetProperties().Count();
}
}
And you would call it like this:
var result = Helper.NumberOfProperties<MyClass>();
You could also use "Extensions" which allow you to call it as if it was a method that belonged to your classes.
public static class Helper {
// notice the `this` keyword before the parameter
// this is what tells C# that this is an extension method
public static int NumberOfProperties<T>(this T #this)
{
var type = typeof(T);
return type.GetProperties().Count();
}
}
This will allow you to call the method like this:
var instance = new MyClass();
var result = instance.NumberOfProperties();
In this example I used the generic syntax so that it applies to any type of object. If you wanted to limit it to only objects that inherit from a specific interface or base class you would just change it from using the generic syntax to using the base class/interface. Like this:
public static class Helper {
// notice the type got changed from a generic <T>
// to specifying the exact class you want to "extend"
public static int NumberOfProperties(this MyBaseClass #this)
{
var type = typeof(T);
return type.GetProperties().Count();
}
}
As #rené-vogt mentioned you can also create the extension method so that it extends the type Type instead. See his answer in this thread: https://stackoverflow.com/a/38455233/984780

You can make a generic extension method which can apply to all types:
public static int PropertyCount<T>(this T obj)
{
return typeof(T).GetProperties().Length;
}
This will apply to all types including value types (I.E. structs) which applying to object will not. Thanks to piedar for pointing out my mistake here, applying to object does still add this extension method to value types.

If your classed can implement an interface, then you can extend that interface.
public interface IExtensible {
}
class C507 : IExtensible {
}
public static int NumberOfProperties(this IExtensible extensible)
{
Type type = extensible.GetType();
return type.GetProperties().Count();
}
That being said, having hundreds of (generated?) classes looks like a bad solution to begin with.

How could I achieve JQuery style method calls on IEnumerables in C#?

In JQuery you can write $('.my-class').hide() and it will call hide() on all the results. There's no for loop, no iterating, no LINQ extensions and lambdas etc. and it makes dealing with lists super fun. I want to be able to have this functionality on IEnumerables in C#. I think Matlab has a similarly concise syntax when operating on arrays/matrices.
Long story short, I want the following code (or similar) to work:
class Program
{
static List<MyClass> MyList = new List<MyClass>();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
MyList.Add(new MyClass());
MyList.MyMethod();
// should be exactly equivalent to:
MyList.Select(n => n.MyMethod());
}
}
class MyClass
{
public int MyMethod() { return 123; }
}
I'm aware this is possible on a case-by-case basis using extension methods:
public static IEnumerable<int> MyMethod(this IEnumerable<MyClass> lst)
{
return lst.Select(n => n.MyMethod());
}
But we'd have to create one extension method for every single method on every single type that you wanted this behaviour on.
Ideally this would be possible for all types and all methods and still be type-safe at compile time. I suspect I'm asking too much from the C# language here, but how would we do this or something similar in a as-generic-as-possible way?
Possible solutions:
Auto-generate extension methods for particular types. If we only intend to use this notation for a few types, we could just generate the extension methods once automatically. This would achieve the exact syntax and full type safety but generating code would be a pain.
A single extension method that returns a dynamic object built using reflection on the supplied type. The idea is that we'd use reflection to iterate through the type's methods and build up a dynamic object that would have all the methods like .MyMethod() that would behind the scenes call Select(...) on the IEnumerable. The syntax would end up being something like MyList.Selector().MyMethod(). But now we've lost the syntax and type safety. Clever, maybe. Useful, probably not.
Intercepting method calls? Is it possible to decide how to react to a method call at runtime? I don't know. Again you'd lose type safety.

The most simple solution is using dynamic objects. If you are willing to throw away type safety, you can make a IEnumerable type that behaves statically when needed and dynamically otherwise, here's a sample prototype:
public class DynamicIEnumerable<T> : DynamicObject, IEnumerable<T>
{
public IEnumerable<T> _enumerable;
public DynamicIEnumerable(IEnumerable<T> enumerable)
{
this._enumerable = enumerable;
}
public override bool TryInvokeMember(InvokeMemberBinder binder, object[] args, out object result)
{
result = new DynamicIEnumerable<T>(_enumerable.Select(x => (T)typeof(T).InvokeMember(binder.Name, BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, null, x, null)));
return true;
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
return _enumerable.GetEnumerator();
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return _enumerable.GetEnumerator();
}
}
In TryInvokeMember, the invoked member on IENumerable is applied on all items using reflection. The only constraints on this approach is that you have to return this in invoked method. Here's a sample of how to use this approach:
public class SomeClass
{
public int Value {get;set;}
public SomeClass(int value)
{
this.Value = x;
}
public SomeClass Plus10()
{
Value += 10;
return this;
}
}
static void Main()
{
dynamic d = new DynamicIEnumerable<X>(Enumerable.Range(0, 10).Select(x => new SomeClass(x)));
foreach (var res in d.Plus10().Plus10())
Console.WriteLine(res.Value);
}

how would we do this or something similar in a as-generic-as-possible way?
This isn't a pretty solution but it does work:
public class MyClass
{
public void MyMethod()
{
}
public void MyMethod2()
{
}
}
Extension Method:
public static class WeirdExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<T> CallOnAll<T>(this IEnumerable<T> instance ,
Action<T> call)
{
foreach(var item in instance)
{
call(item);
}
return instance;
}
}
Usage (chaining/fluent):
var blah = new List<MyClass>();
blah.CallOnAll(b => b.MyMethod())
.CallOnAll(b => b.MyMethod2());
Notes
This isn't quite possible due to a the underlying assumption that you'd have to every single method on every single type. In jQuery/Html there is only one underlying type of an Html Element. All elements are exposed to the same methods (whether or not the type supports it). In jQuery, you can call $('head').hide() but it won't do anything visually, but because it is an element, it will be inline styled. If you need a new method, you do have a build one, but for only one type because there is only one type.
In contrast with C# you build your types (many many types) and they all have different methods (sure there could be overlap).

How do I get the custom attributes of a method from Action<T>?

How can I get the custom attributes of a method from a Action<T> delegate?
Example:
//simple custom attribute
public class StatusAttribute : Attribute
{
public string Message { get; set; } = string.Empty;
}
// an extension methodto wrap MethodInfo.GetCustomAttributes(Type, Bool) with
// generics for the custom Attribute type
public static class MethodInfoExtentions
{
public static IEnumerable<TAttribute> GetCustomAttributes<TAttribute>(this MethodInfo methodInfo, bool inherit) where TAttribute : Attribute
{
object[] attributeObjects = methodInfo.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(TAttribute), inherit);
return attributeObjects.Cast<TAttribute>();
}
}
// test class with a test method to implment the custom attribute
public class Foo
{
[Status(Message="I'm doing something")]
public void DoSomething()
{
// code would go here
}
}
// creates an action and attempts to get the attribute on the action
private void CallDoSomething()
{
Action<Foo> myAction = new Action<Foo>(m => m.DoSomething());
IEnumerable<StatusAttribute> statusAttributes = myAction.Method.GetCustomAttributes<StatusAttribute>(true);
// Status Attributes count = 0? Why?
}
I realize I could do this by using reflection on Foo, but for what I'm trying to create I have to use an Action<T>.

The problem is that the action doesn't directly point at Foo.DoSomething. It points at a compiler-generated method of the form:
private static void <>__a(Foo m)
{
m.DoSomething();
}
One option here would be to change it to an Expression<Action<T>>, then you can dissect the expression tree afterwards and extract the attributes:
Expression<Action<Foo>> myAction = m => m.DoSomething();
var method = ((MethodCallExpression)myAction.Body).Method;
var statusAttributes = method.GetCustomAttributes<StatusAttribute>(true);
int count = statusAttributes.Count(); // = 1

The issue is that the lambda m => m.DoSomething() is not the same as DoSomething. It is a lambda expression which gets compiled into a method call on a compiler-generated method, possibly using a compiler-generated type (though maybe not the latter, since there are no captured local variables).
A very verbose way of getting an Action<Foo> from an instance (non-static) method of the Foo type is this:
var myAction = (Action<Foo>)Delegate.CreateDelegate(
typeof(Action<Foo>),
null, // treat method as static, even though it's not
typeof(Foo).GetMethod("DoSomething", BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public)
);
Obviously, that is far from ideal and probably in fact useless in your case; but it's worth knowing ;)
Update: Actually, it just occurred to me you could write a quick extension method to make this easy for any instance method that you want to wrap as a static method (and maintain the "correct" MethodInfo):
public static class ActionEx
{
public static Action<T> ToStaticMethod<T>(this Action action)
{
if (!(action.Target is T))
{
throw new ArgumentException("Blah blah blah.");
}
return (Action<T>)Delegate.CreateDelegate(
typeof(Action<T>),
null,
action.Method
);
}
}
This would allow you to do:
Action<Foo> myAction = new Action(new Foo().DoSomething).ToStaticMethod<Foo>();
Admittedly, it's not as nice as m => m.DoSomething(); but it does give you an Action<T> whose Method property actually references the DoSomething method directly.
Alternately, instead of an Action<T>, you could use an Expression<Action<T>> and get the MethodInfo from that. Note that the syntax looks just the same in this case:
Action<Foo> myAction = m => m.DoSomething();
Expression<Action<Foo>> myExpression = m => m.DoSomething();
But that is a tricky proposition since an arbitrary Expression<Action<T>> is not guaranteed to be as simple as just m => m.DoSomething().

None of previous answers (except #Marc Gravell♦ 's which has no user's code) seems to be compilable :)
So I would propose mine:
private static void CallDoSomething()
{
var f = new Foo();
Action myAction = f.DoSomething;
IEnumerable<StatusAttribute> statusAttributes = myAction.Method.GetCustomAttributes<StatusAttribute>(true);
}

Is there any way to infer an Action type, or a full Action?

I find myself (too) often using a construct like the following:
class MyClass
{
public TypeA ObjectA;
public TypeB ObjectB;
public TypeC ObjectC;
public List<TypeD> ListOfObjectD = new List<TypeD>();
public void DoSmth()
{
return SomeConstruct(
/*...*/
new Setter<TypeA>(a => ObjectA = a), // these are the
new Setter<TypeB>(b => ObjectB = b), // things I'm trying
new Setter<TypeC>(c => ObjectC = c), // to make shorter
new Setter<TypeD>(d => ListOfObjectD.Add(d)),
/*...*/
);
}
}
class Setter<T>
{
public Action<T> Action;
public Setter(Action<T> action)
{
Action = action;
}
}
Is there any way for the Setter class to infer the type of the Action and create the standard (T obj) => Member = obj Action by only passing the Member in some way? I'm thinking of something like:
new Setter(ObjectA)
which of course is not valid syntax, but should give you an idea what I'm trying to achieve. I'm using this construct literally hundreds of time in my code, so the code
saved by this small change would be tremendous.
Edit: Added the TypeD example. The part
new Setter<TypeD>(d => ListOfObjectD.Add(d))
can be simplified to
new Setter<TypeD>(ListOfObjectD.Add)
which is awesome because it cuts from the redundant code. If only <TypeD> could also be inferred it would be perfect. I'm looking for something like this for the others.
#Lazarus - basically the purpose is to return setters, so other objects can set certain members of the class (or it can do other stuff defined in the Action) without accessing the class itself, only the Setter object. The full list of reasons is long and convoluted, but the structuring of the program works like a charm and I doubt needs changing (the example of course is simplified and doesn't really make sense as is).
Edit 2: I found a good way to simplify things for List's:
static class SetterHelper
{
public static Setter<T> GetSetter<T>(this List<T> list)
{
return new Setter<T>(list.Add);
}
}
Now I can just use this:
ListOfObjectD.GetSetter()
which works perfectly! why can't I do the same for T directly? I tried this:
static class SetterHelper
{
public static Setter<T> GetSetter<T>(this T item)
{
return new Setter<T>(t => item = t); // THIS DOESN'T SET THE PASSED MEMBER
}
}
Of course it won't work as intended because it will set item, but not the passed member. I tried adding ref as (ref this T item) but it won't compile :(... It would have been perfect.

Best I can offer you is the following syntax:
Setter.For( () => ObjectA );
using this helper class
static class Setter
{
public static Setter<T> For<T>(Expression<Func<T>> e)
{
ParameterExpression[] args = { Expression.Parameter(((e.Body as MemberExpression).Member as FieldInfo).FieldType) };
Action<T> s = Expression.Lambda<Action<T>>(Expression.Assign(e.Body, args[0]), args).Compile();
return new Setter<T>(s);
}
}