Develop Reference

JsonSerializer.Serialize only serializes the properties of the base class [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Override ToString() is not working in abstract class (.net-core 3.1)
(2 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
I would like to have a base class that overrides ToString by converting any objects that inherits it to JSON. When running this program, it seems like this in the context of the base object is not the full object, but instead only the base object itself.
Is it possible to refer to the inherited object from the base object?
using System;
using System.Text.Json;
namespace Test
{
public class BaseModel
{
public override string ToString()
{
return JsonSerializer.Serialize(this);
}
}
public class Data : BaseModel
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Value { get; set; }
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var data = new Data { Name = "Test", Value = 42 };
Console.WriteLine(data);
}
}
}

This happens because JsonSerialize.Serialize<TValue>(TValue, [JsonSerializerOptions]) is a generic method, and, due to type interference, your code is compiled as:
public override string ToString()
{
return JsonSerializer.Serialize<BaseModel>(this);
}
In this case, the solution is to use the non-generic overload JsonSerialize.Serialize(object, Type, [JsonSerializerOptions]) instead:
public override string ToString()
{
return JsonSerializer.Serialize(this, this.GetType());
}

You have to define ToString method in the derived class.
public override string ToString()
{
return JsonSerializer.Serialize(this);
}

Casting to a generic interface [duplicate]

I have the following classes
public abstract class BaseViewPresenter { }
public abstract class BaseView<T> : UserControl
where T : BaseViewPresenter { }
public class LoginPresenter : BaseViewPresenter { }
public partial class LoginView : BaseView<LoginPresenter> { }
I have a method that looks like this (simplified)
public BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> Resolve(BaseViewPresenter model)
{
var type = model.GetType();
var viewType = _dataTemplates[type];
// Correctly creates BaseView object
var control = Activator.CreateInstance(viewType);
// Fails to cast as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> so returns null
return control as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter>;
}
When I call this using an instances of LoginPresenter
var login = new LoginPresenter();
var ctl = Resolve(login);
The line Activator.CreateInstance(viewType) correctly resolves into a new instances of my LoginView, however control as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> can't do the cast correctly so returns null.
Is there a way to correctly cast the control into BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> without using specific type generics?
Since LoginView inherits from BaseView<LoginPresenter>, and LoginPresenter inherits from BaseViewPresenter, I would assume there's a way to convert LoginView to BaseView<BaseViewPresenter>.
I am stuck with using .Net 3.5

This is a very frequently asked question. Let's rename your types:
abstract class Fruit { } // was BaseViewPresenter
abstract class FruitBowl<T> where T : Fruit // was BaseView
class Apple : Fruit { } // was LoginPresenter
class BowlOfApples : FruitBowl<Apple> { } // was LoginView
Your question now is:
I have a BowlOfApples, which inherits from FruitBowl<Apple>. Why can I not use it as a FruitBowl<Fruit>? An apple is a fruit, so a bowl of apples is a bowl of fruit.
No, it isn't. You can put a banana in a bowl of fruit, but you can't put a banana in a bowl of apples, and therefore a bowl of apples is not a bowl of fruit. (And by similar argument, a bowl of fruit is not a bowl of apples either.) Since the operations you can legally perform on the two types are different, they cannot be compatible.
Here is a photo of StackOverflow legend Jon Skeet demonstrating this fact:
The feature you want is called generic contravariance, and it is supported only on interfaces and delegate types when the compiler can prove that the variance is safe, and when the varying type is a reference type. For example, you can use an IEnumerable<Apple> in a context where IEnumerable<Fruit> is needed because the compiler can verify that there is no way that you can put a Banana into a sequence of fruit.
Do a search on "C# covariance and contravariance" on this site or on the web and you'll find many more details about how this feature works. In particular, my series of articles on how we designed and implemented this feature in C# 4 starts here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2007/10/16/covariance-and-contravariance-in-c-part-one.aspx

I accepted Eric's answer since it provides a great explanation of why what I wanted wasn't possible, but I also thought I'd share my solution in case anyone else runs into this same problem.
I removed the generic type parameter from my original BaseView class, and created a 2nd version of the BaseView class that included the generic type parameter and specifics for it.
The first version is used by my .Resolve() method or other code that doesn't care about the specific types, and the second version is used by any code that does care, such as the implentation of a BaseView
Here's an example of how my code ended up looking
// base classes
public abstract class BaseViewPresenter { }
public abstract class BaseView : UserControl
{
public BaseViewPresenter Presenter { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BaseView<T> : BaseView
where T : BaseViewPresenter
{
public new T Presenter
{
get { return base.Presenter as T; }
set { base.Presenter = value; }
}
}
// specific classes
public class LoginPresenter : BaseViewPresenter { }
public partial class LoginView : BaseView<LoginPresenter>
{
// Can now call things like Presenter.LoginPresenterMethod()
}
// updated .Resolve method used for obtaining UI object
public BaseView Resolve(BaseViewPresenter presenter)
{
var type = model.GetType();
var viewType = _dataTemplates[type];
BaseView view = Activator.CreateInstance(viewType) as BaseView;
view.Presenter = presenter;
return view;
}

You're expecting to treat the type as being covariant with respect to the generic argument. Classes can never be covariant; you'd need to use an interface rather than (or in addition to) an abstract class to make it covariant with respect to T. You'd also need to be using C# 4.0.

My usual solution to this problem is to create an intermediary class that has access to the type-parametric class's methods through delegates. Fields can also be accessed through getters/setters.
The general pattern goes:
public abstract class Super {}
public abstract class MyAbstractType<T> where T : Super {
public MyGeneralType AsGeneralType() {
return MyGeneralType.Create(this);
}
// Depending on the context, an implicit cast operator might make things
// look nicer, though it might be too subtle to some tastes.
public static implicit operator MyGeneralType(MyAbstractType<T> t) {
return MyGeneralType.Create(t);
}
public int field;
public void MyMethod1() {}
public void MyMethod2(int argument) {}
public abstract bool MyMethod3(string argument);
}
public delegate T Getter<T>();
public delegate void Setter<T>(T value);
public delegate void MyMethod1Del();
public delegate void MyMethod2Del(int argument);
public delegate bool MyMethod3Del(string argument);
public class MyGeneralType {
public Getter<int> FieldGetter;
public Setter<int> FieldSetter;
public MyMethod1Del MyMethod1;
public MyMethod2Del MyMethod2;
public MyMethod3Del MyMethod3;
public static MyGeneralType Create<T>(MyAbstractType<T> t) where T : Super {
var g = new MyGeneralType();
g.FieldGetter = delegate { return t.field; };
g.FieldSetter = value => { t.field = value; };
g.MyMethod1 = t.MyMethod1;
g.MyMethod2 = t.MyMethod2;
g.MyMethod3 = t.MyMethod3;
return g;
}
public int field {
get { return FieldGetter(); }
set { FieldSetter(value); }
}
}
The above exemplifies getting all the methods and fields but normally I only need a few of them. This is a general solution to the problem and one could feasibly write a tool to generate these intermediary classes automatically, which I might at some point.
Try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/tLkmgR
Note that this is enough for all my cases, but you can be extra hacky with this:
public abstract class MyAbstractType<T> where T : Super {
// ... Same everything else ...
// data fields must become abstract getters/setters, unfortunate
public abstract int field {
get;
set;
}
public static implicit operator MyAbstractType<Super>(MyAbstractType<T> t) {
return MyGeneralType.Create(t);
}
}
public class MyGeneralType : MyAbstractType<Super> {
// ... same constructors and setter/getter
// fields but only keep method fields
// that contain the method references for
// implementations of abstract classes,
// and rename them not to clash with the
// actual method names ...
public MyMethod3Del myMethod3Ref;
// Implement abstract methods by calling the corresponding
// method references.
public override bool MyMethod3(string argument) {
return myMethod3Ref(argument);
}
// Same getters/setters but with override keyword
public override int field {
get { return FieldGetter(); }
set { FieldSetter(value); }
}
}
And there you go, now you can literally cast a MyAbstractType<Sub> where Sub : Super to a MyAbstractType<Super>, although it's no longer the same object anymore, but it does retain the same methods and data, it's sort of a complex pointer.
public class Sub : Super {}
public class MySubType : MyAbstractType<Sub> {
public int _field;
public override int field {
get { return _field; }
set { _field = value; }
}
public override bool MyMethod3(string argument) {
Console.WriteLine("hello " + argument);
return argument == "world";
}
}
public class MainClass {
public static void Main() {
MyAbstractType<Sub> sub = new MyAbstractType<Sub>();
MyAbstractType<Super> super = sub;
super.MyMethod3("hello"); // calls sub.MyMethod3();
super.field = 10; // sets sub.field
}
}
This isn't as good in my opinion, the other version of MyGeneralType is a more straighforward layer over the concrete types, plus it doesn't require rewriting the data fields, but it does actually answer the question, technically. Try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/S3r3ke
Example
Using these abstract classes:
public abstract class Animal {
public string name;
public Animal(string name) {
this.name = name;
}
public abstract string Sound();
}
public abstract class AnimalHouse<T> where T : Animal {
List<T> animals;
public AnimalHouse(T[] animals) {
this.animals = animals.ToList();
}
public static implicit operator GeneralAnimalHouse(AnimalHouse<T> house) {
return GeneralAnimalHouse.Create(house);
}
public List<string> HouseSounds() {
return animals.Select(animal => animal.Sound()).ToList();
}
}
We make this "general" variant:
public delegate List<string> HouseSoundsDel();
public class GeneralAnimalHouse {
public HouseSoundsDel HouseSounds;
public static GeneralAnimalHouse Create<T>(AnimalHouse<T> house) where T : Animal {
var general = new GeneralAnimalHouse();
general.HouseSounds = house.HouseSounds;
return general;
}
}
And finally with these inheritors:
public class Dog : Animal {
public Dog(string name) : base(name) {}
public override string Sound() {
return name + ": woof";
}
}
public class Cat : Animal {
public Cat(string name) : base(name) {}
public override string Sound() {
return name + ": meow";
}
}
public class DogHouse : AnimalHouse<Dog> {
public DogHouse(params Dog[] dogs) : base(dogs) {}
}
public class CatHouse : AnimalHouse<Cat> {
public CatHouse(params Cat[] cats) : base(cats) {}
}
We use it like this:
public class AnimalCity {
List<GeneralAnimalHouse> houses;
public AnimalCity(params GeneralAnimalHouse[] houses) {
this.houses = houses.ToList();
}
public List<string> CitySounds() {
var random = new Random();
return houses.SelectMany(house => house.HouseSounds())
.OrderBy(x => random.Next())
.ToList();
}
}
public class MainClass {
public static void Main() {
var fluffy = new Cat("Fluffy");
var miu = new Cat("Miu");
var snuffles = new Cat("Snuffles");
var snoopy = new Dog("Snoopy");
var marley = new Dog("Marley");
var megan = new Dog("Megan");
var catHouse = new CatHouse(fluffy, miu, snuffles);
var dogHouse = new DogHouse(snoopy, marley, megan);
var animalCity = new AnimalCity(catHouse, dogHouse);
foreach (var sound in animalCity.CitySounds()) {
Console.WriteLine(sound);
}
}
}
Output:
Miu: meow
Snoopy: woof
Snuffles: meow
Fluffy: meow
Marley: woof
Megan: woof
Notes:
I added names so it's clear that the method references carry their owner's data with them, for those unfamiliar with delegates.
The required using statements for this code are System, System.Collections.Generic, and System.Linq.
You can try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/6qkHL3#
A version that makes GeneralAnimalHouse a subclass of AnimalHouse<Animal> can be found here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/XS0ljg

use a generic type as parameter in C#

is there a method to tell a method which type a generic has? what i want to do is to tell the method it can be only an object of type A or B but nothing else, so i can work within like
if (myObject.GetType() == typeof(myTypeA)){doAstuff();}
if (myObjectGetType() == typeof(myTypeB)) {doBstuff();}
method<T>(T myObject){ T = myTypeA, T = myTypeB, T = nothing else}
thanks for any help

You could check for the type inside the method, then cast it to the appropriate type and do the appropriate "stuff":
public void method<T>(T myObject)
{
if (myObject is myTypeA)
{
myTypeA objA = myObject as myTypeA;
objA.DoA_Stuff();
}
else if (myObject is myTypeB)
{
myTypeB objB = myObject as myTypeB;
objB.DoB_Stuff();
}
else
{
return ;
}
}
But that would be a waste of generics. If they share some methods you could also make a base class, and let typeA and typeB inherit from it. Then your method could take a base class object as parameter:
public void method(BaseClass myObject)
and there would be only one if - case and one casting. Only the one with more methods then the base class.
EDIT:
Imagine you would have such a structure:
public class BaseType
{
public int SharedProp { get; set; } // shared property
public virtual int DoSharedStuff() // shared method
{
return SharedProp;
}
}
public class myTypeA : BaseType
{
public int A_Prop { get; set; }
// overwritten shared meth adjusted to the needs of type A
public override int DoSharedStuff()
{
return base.SharedProp + this.A_Prop;
}
}
public class myTypeB : BaseType
{
public int B_Prop { get; set; }
// overwritten shared meth adjusted to the needs of type B
public override int DoSharedStuff()
{
return base.SharedProp + this.B_Prop;
}
// individual method of Type B
public int DoB_Stuff()
{
return this.B_Prop;
}
}
Then you method would take only one of the children of the base class and execute according to the needs:
public void method(BaseType myObject)
{
// shared case: here type A will perform type A action
// and type B will perform type B action
myObject.DoSharedStuff();
// case B where you need really the extra stuff!
if (myObject is myTypeB)
{
myTypeB objB = myObject as myTypeB;
objB.DoB_Stuff();
}
}
This approach or phenomenon is called Polymorphism

You can restrict the allowed types for a gernic with the where command:
public void Test<T>(T param) where T : TypeA {
...
}
https://learn.microsoft.com/de-de/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/keywords/where-generic-type-constraint
But this are only simple constraints so it does not solve the problem for two classes but for this case you can use method overloading:
public void Test(TypeA param) {
...
}
public void Test(TypeB param) {
...
}
If you have only two classes I think that is the best solution because generics would have no benefits.

Dynamically create instance of a class which is derived from an abstract class [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How to create instance of inherited in static base method?
(3 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I have 2 classes which are derived from an abstract class
abstract class Order
{
public virtual boolean Export()
{
...
}
}
class TradeOrder : Order
{
public override bool Export()
{
//Create a new order
}
}
class LibraryOrder : Order
{
public override bool Export()
{
//Dont create order but Update an existing order
}
}
TradeOrder is created for customertype "Trade" and LibraryOrder is created for customertype "Library".
The customer type will grow in near future.
How do I create instance of the derived class based on the customer type without using if...else or swicth ...case?
The instance of the class will call the export method to either create or update a sales order.
-Alan-

Here is one way to achieve what you want. We can call it "convention over configuration approach" since, obviously, your derived order type names and your enum names have to match.
namespace ConsoleApplication2
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var customerType = CustomerType.Library;
var order = (Order)Activator.CreateInstance("ConsoleApplication2", "ConsoleApplication2." + customerType.ToString() + "Order").Unwrap();
}
}
public enum CustomerType
{
Trade,
Library
}
public abstract class Order
{
public virtual void Export() { }
}
public class TradeOrder : Order
{
public override void Export() { }
}
public class LibraryOrder : Order
{
public override void Export() { }
}
}

I suggest have a map of object type name and Type and create instance based on the mapping. The mapping details can be initialized in the code or from external source (Ex. Config file).
enum OrderType
{
TradeOrder,
LibraryOrder
}
Dictionary<OrderType, Type> _orderTypeMap = new Dictionary<OrderType, Type>
{
{ OrderType.LibraryOrder, typeof(LibraryOrder)},
{ OrderType.TradeOrder, typeof(TradeOrder)}
};
Order GetOrderInstance(OrderType orderType)
{
return Activator.CreateInstance(_orderTypeMap[orderType]) as Order;
}

No base class problem, How to use Castle.DynamicProxy Mixin in this particular case?

I have a 3rd party badly designed library that I must use.
It has all sorts of types it works with, we'll call them SomeType1, SomeType2 etc.
None of those types share a common base class but all have a property named Value with a different return type.
All I want to do is to be able to Mixin this class so I'll be able to call someType1Instance.Value and someType2Instance.Value without caring what the concreate type it is and without caring what the return type is (I can use object).
So my code is currently:
public interface ISomeType<V>
{
V Value {get; set;}
}
public interface ISomeTypeWrapper
{
object Value { get; set; }
}
public class SomeTypeWrapper<T> : ISomeTypeWrapper
where T : ISomeType<???>
{
T someType;
public SomeTypeWrapper(T wrappedSomeType)
{
someType = wrappedSomeType
}
public object Value
{
get { return someType.Value; }
set { someType.Value = value != null ? value : default(T); }
}
}
public class SomeType1
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}
public class SomeType2
{
public string Value { get; set; }
}
The problem is that I don't know what T might be until runtime due to the fact that I get a dictionary of objects.
I can iterate the dictionary and use reflection to create a SomeWrapperType on runtime but I would like to avoid it.
How can I mixin the concreate type of SomeType to ISomeType?
How can I know what V type parameter is? (wish I had typedefs and decltype like in c++)
How can I, with the minimum of use of reflection possible Mixin those classes with the interface/base class?

You could try the Duck Typing Extensions for Windsor. It means you will need to register each of your types.
container
.Register(Component.For(typeof(SomeType1)).Duck<ISomeType>())
.Register(Component.For(typeof(SomeType2)).Duck<ISomeType>());
You could probably use linq and the register AllTypes syntax to reduce code if the names are similar.
Alternatively in the short term create a factory which can return you the objects you need, implement a concrete object for each type. No you are using the interface you can remove the factory at a later date and replace it with something else with minimal impact:
public class SomeTypeWrapperFactory
{
public ISomeType<int> CreateWrapper(SomeType1 someType1)
{
return new SomeType1Wrapper(someType1);
}
public ISomeType<string> CreateWrapper(SomeType2 someType2)
{
return new SomeType2Wrapper(someType2);
}
}
public class SomeType1Wrapper : ISomeType<int> { ... }
public class SomeType2Wrapper : ISomeType<int> { ... }
Regardless of how you implement the wrapper, be the individually or using a god like class you have the ability to change how the wrapping is done and keep the rest of your code clean.

Why SomeTypeWrapper but not SomeObjectWrapper?
public class SomeObjectWrapper : ISomeType
{
Object _someObject;
PropertyInfo _valuePropertyInfo;
public SomeObjectWrapper(Object wrappedSomeObject)
{
_someObject = wrappedSomeObject;
_valuePropertyInfo = _someObject.GetType().GetProperty("Value", System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Public);
}
public object Value
{
get { return _valuePropertyInfo.GetValue(_someObject, null); }
set { _valuePropertyInfo.SetValue(_someObject, value, null); }
}
}

Edited With .NET 3.5 using LinFu
You may use LinFu instead of Castle. However, you would be using reflection anyway, both with Castle's and with Linfu's DynamicProxy, only hidden in the guts of the libraries instead of being exposed in your code. So if your requirement to avoid the use of reflection is out of performance concerns, you wouldn't really avoid it with this solution.
In that case I would personally choose Orsol's solution.
However: here's an example with LinFu's ducktyping.
public interface ISomeType {
object Value{get; set;}
}
public class SomeType1
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}
public class SomeType2
{
public string Value { get; set; }
}
public class SomeTypeWrapperFactory
{
public static ISomeType CreateSomeTypeWrapper(object aSomeType)
{
return aSomeType.CreateDuck<ISomeType>();
}
}
class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var someTypes = new object[] {
new SomeType1() {Value=1},
new SomeType2() {Value="test"}
};
foreach(var o in someTypes)
{
Console.WriteLine(SomeTypeWrapperFactory.CreateSomeTypeWrapper(o).Value);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Since you don't know the type of the SomeType's until runtime, I would not use mixins, but the visitor pattern (I know this doesn't answer the question on how to use mixins for this, but I just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents).
With .NET 4 using dynamic
See Bradley Grainger's post here on using c#4's dynamic keyword to implement the visitor pattern.
In your case, reading all the "Value" properties from your dictionary of SomeType's could work like this:
public class SomeType1
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}
public class SomeType2
{
public string Value { get; set; }
}
public class SomeTypeVisitor
{
public void VisitAll(object[] someTypes)
{
foreach(var o in someTypes) {
// this should be in a try-catch block
Console.WriteLine(((dynamic) o).Value);
}
}
}
class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var someTypes = new object[] {
new SomeType1() {Value=1},
new SomeType2() {Value="test"}
};
var vis = new SomeTypeVisitor();
vis.VisitAll(someTypes);
}
}