I'm trying to build a series of attribute classes to make it easier for our development team to validate objects. The objects are POCO classes like this.
public class User
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Company { get; set; }
}
I want to decorate this model with a custom attribute.
public class User
{
[MustHaveValue]
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Company { get; set; }
}
Then I would create my own class implementing ValidationAttribute, the base class in .NET Framework, which belongs to System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.
public class MustHaveValueAttribute : ValidationAttribute
{
.
.
public override IsValid(object value)
{
// validation logic.
}
}
And then I can validate the User model whenever I want by making the set of instances like ValidationContext, List<ValidationResult>.
But in an enterprise environment, problems just can't be solved by a specific class. My validation scenario requires more complex and more flexible ways. Imagine that one of the required validation scenarios would something like this.
public class User
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Company { get; set; }
// Check if an item exists in this list.
[MustHaveMoreThanOneItem]
public IList<Client> Clients { get; set; }
}
Then I would need to make another attribute class
public class MustHaveMoreThanOneItemAttribute : ValidationAttribute
{
.
.
public override IsValid(object value)
{
// Let's assume this value is List<Client> for now.
// I know the exact type, so I'm going to cast it to List<Client> without further considerations
List<Client> clients = value as List<Client>;
if(clients.Count > 0) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
}
But the problem is that there are a lot of other models that have a nested list items. Try to imagine the time when I want to reuse the MustHaveMoreThanOneItem in one of the other models like...
public class Department
{
public string Name { get; set; }
[MustHaveMoreThanOneItem]
public IList<Employee> { get; set; }
}
You already know that it's not going to work because it was strongly typed only for List<Client>. So I decided to use Generic there to solve this problem.
But to my disappointment, the _Attribute interface doesn't support Generic. There's no additional implementation like _Attribute<T> : Attribute and therefore, no ValidationAttribute<T> alas!! I just cannot use Generic here !!
public class Department
{
public string Name { get; set; }
// No way to use this syntax.
[MustHaveMoreThanOneItem<Employee>]
public IList<Employee> { get; set; }
}
So I made a conclusion that Attribute must have been designed for a fixed set of validations like email format, card format, null check, and etc IMAO.
But I still want to use an attribute and give a lot of flexibilities in it to prevent the duplicated, verbose validation codes like this.
if(model.Clients.Count > 0) ...
if(model.Name != null) ...
if(model.Clients.GroupBy(x => x.Country == Country.USA).Count >= 1) ...
if(model.Clients.Where(x => x.CompanyName == Company.Google).ToList().Count > 1 ) ...
.
.
.
I want to pose two questions here.
If Attirbute supports Generic, this problem will be solved?
Is there any way to implement Generic Attribute? in order to use
[MustHaveMoreThanOneItem<Employee>] annotation on a class member?
You can generically check any object that implements IEnumerable like this:
public class MustHaveMoreThanOneItemAttribute : ValidationAttribute
{
public override bool IsValid(object value)
{
// omitted null checking
var enumerable = value as IEnumerable;
var enumerator = enumerable.GetEnumerator();
if (!enumerator.MoveNext())
{
return false;
}
if (!enumerator.MoveNext())
{
return false;
}
return true;
}
}
C# by definition does not support generic type attributes, although this has been requested actively for a long time:
https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/953
https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/124
However, you can still inject a type into a validation attribute via constructor. You then can use reflection or whatever you need to define your custom validation criteria.
public class MustHaveMoreThanOneItemAttribute : ValidationAttribute
{
public Type EnumerableType { get; }
public MustHaveMoreThanOneItemAttribute(Type t)
=> this.EnumerableType = typeof(ICollection<>).MakeGenericType(t);
public override bool IsValid(object value)
{
var count = this.EnumerableType.GetProperty("Count").GetValue(value) as int?;
return (count ?? 0) > 1;
}
}
Now this allows you to use something similar to your goal:
public class Department
{
public string Name { get; set; }
[MustHaveMoreThanOneItem(typeof(Employee))]
public IList<Employee> { get; set; }
}
Related
I am using Microsoft.Extension.Options in ASP.NET Core 3.1 and I want to validate entries in an configuration file.
For this I want that, e.g. a RangeAttribute is applied to each element of an IEnumerable.
class MyConfiguration
{
[ApplyToItems]
[Range(1, 10)]
publlic IList<int> MyConfigValues { get; set; }
}
Or something like that. How do I write the ApplyToItems method?
As far as I know there is no way to retrieve the other ValidationAttributes while a possible ApplyToItems is validated.
Alternatively I could imagine something like:
[Apply(Range(1, 10)]
public List<int> MyConfigValues { get; set; }
but is that even valid syntax? How would I write an Attribute like Apply that takes other Attributes as parameter without falling back on something like
[Apply(new RangeAttribute(1, 10)]
which does not look nice.
To create a custom data annotation validator follow these gudelines:
Your class has to inherit from System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.ValidationAttribute class.
Override bool IsValid(object value) method and implement validation logic inside it.
That's it.
(from How to create Custom Data Annotation Validators)
So in your case it could be something like this:
public class ApplyRangeAttribute : ValidationAttribute
{
public int Minimum { get; set; }
public int Maximum { get; set; }
public ApplyRangeAttribute()
{
this.Minimum = 0;
this.Maximum = int.MaxValue;
}
public override bool IsValid(object value)
{
if (value is IList<int> list)
{
if (list.Any(i => i < Minimum || i > Maximum))
{
return false;
}
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
Edit
Here's how you would use it:
class MyConfiguration
{
[ApplyRange(Minimum = 1, Maximum = 10)]
public IList<int> MyConfigValues { get; set; }
}
My situation is the following:
I'm coding a MVC website on Visual Studio 2013 using database-first approach with Entity Framework.
EF automatically generates the models. But I need to add custom attributes (~NOT~ necessarily for data validation but also for internal processes) and, via reflection, access those custom attributes.
Let's say I have
public partial class Application {
public int AppID {get; set;}
public string Name {get; set;}
//etc...
}
I've tried the following approaches:
• On a different file I continue the partial class:
public partial class Application {
[MyAttributeOne]
public int AppID { get; set; }
[DataType(DataType.Text)]
[MyAttributeTwo]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
• Use the MetaData class
public class ApplicationMetadata {
[MyAttributeOne]
public int SolutionID { get; set; }
[DataType(DataType.Text)]
[MyAttributeTwo]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
[MetadataType(typeof(ApplicationMetadata))]
public partial class Application { }
• Inherit the class with attributes:
public class ApplicationMetadata {
[MyAttributeOne]
public int SolutionID { get; set; }
[DataType(DataType.Text)]
[MyAttributeTwo]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public partial class Application : ApplicationMetadata { }
• And the 'Buddy class' approach where I do basically the previous 2 approaches but instead I define the class with the attributes inside the 'Application' class.
Am I doing something wrong? Or is this simply impossible?
I need to be able to make the following code work:
foreach (PropertyInfo propertyInfo in currentObject.GetType().GetProperties())
{
foreach (CustomAttributeData attrData in propertyInfo.GetCustomAttributesData())
{
if (typeof(attrData) == typeof(MyAttributeOne))
//stuff
else if (typeof(attrData) == typeof(MyAttributeTwo))
//different stuff
else
//yet more stuff
}
}
Thank you very much for the attention!
Regards.
OK, this is a little involved but it's fairly simple. This is also really a bit of a brain dump but it does work and gives you enough to work with. Lets set up with some basics:
//A couple of custom attributes
public class MyAttributeOne : Attribute { }
public class MyAttributeTwo : Attribute { }
//A metadata class where we can use the custom attributes
public sealed class MyEntityMetadata
{
//This property has the same name as the class it is referring to
[MyAttributeOne]
public int SomeProperty { get; set; }
}
//And an entity class where we use System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.MetadataType
//to tell our function where the metadata is stored
[MetadataType(typeof(MyEntityMetadata))]
public class MyEntity
{
public int SomeProperty { get; set; }
}
OK, still with me? Now we need a function to process the properties in the same way you did earlier:
public void DoStuff(object currentObject)
{
//Lets see if our entity class has associated metadata
var metaDataAttribute = currentObject.GetType()
.GetCustomAttributes()
.SingleOrDefault(a => a is MetadataTypeAttribute) as MetadataTypeAttribute;
PropertyInfo[] metaProperties = null;
//Cache the metadata properties here
if (metaDataAttribute != null)
{
metaProperties = metaDataAttribute.MetadataClassType.GetProperties();
}
//As before loop through each property...
foreach (PropertyInfo propertyInfo in currentObject.GetType().GetProperties())
{
//Refactored this out as it's called again later
ProcessAttributes(propertyInfo.GetCustomAttributes());
//Now check the metadata class
if (metaProperties != null)
{
//Look for a matching property in the metadata class
var metaPropertyInfo = metaProperties
.SingleOrDefault(p => p.Name == propertyInfo.Name);
if (metaPropertyInfo != null)
{
ProcessAttributes(metaPropertyInfo.GetCustomAttributes());
}
}
}
}
And of course, here is the refactored method to process the attributes:
private void ProcessAttributes(IEnumerable<Attribute> attributes)
{
foreach (var attr in attributes)
{
if (attr is MyAttributeOne)
{
Console.WriteLine("MyAttributeOne found");
}
else if (attr is MyAttributeTwo)
{
Console.WriteLine("MyAttributeTwo found");
}
else
{
}
}
}
Programmatically type an object
C# mvc4 Project
I have two similar ViewModels, that contain over a dozen complex objects, that I want to call a common method from my Create and Edit Actions to populate the ViewModels.
Something along the lines of this
private void loadMdlDtl(CreateViewModel cvM, EditViewModel evM)
{
If (vM1 != null) { var vM = vM1}
If (vM2 != null) { var vM = vM2}
// about two dozen complex objects need to be populated
vM.property1 = …;
vM.property2 = …;
…
}
This doesn’t work because vM isn’t in scope.
Is there any way to Programmatically type the vM object so that I don't have to create two loadModel methods or otherwise duplicate a lot of code ?
SOLUTION:
Create an Interface:
public interface IViewModels
{
string property1 { get; set; }
int property2 { get; set; }
IEnumerable<ValidationResult> Validate(ValidationContext validationContext);
}
Have View Models inherit from interface:
public class CreateViewModel : IViewModels, IValidatableObject
{
string property1 { get; set; }
int property2 { get; set; }
IEnumerable<ValidationResult> Validate(ValidationContext validationContext);
{
// implementation
}
}
public class EditViewModel : IViewModels, IValidatableObject
{
string property1 { get; set; }
int property2 { get; set; }
IEnumerable<ValidationResult> Validate(ValidationContext validationContext);
{
// implementation
}
}
Call the method from Actions passing the View Model:
public ActionResult Create()
{
var vM = new CreateViewModel();
...
loadMdlDtl(vM);
...
}
But now accept the interface rather than the View Model into the method:
private void loadMdlDtl(IViewModel vM)
{
// implementation
}
Since you want to access properties and/or methods that are the same across all objects, you can define an interface with such properties and methods. Have each object implement that interface.
public interface IMyCommonStuff
{
string property1 { get; set; }
int property2 { get; set; }
int SomeMethod();
}
UPDATE
If some of the methods and/or properties have identical implementations, that implementation can be done in a common base type. I would suggest still using an interface definition when acting on your objects. Example:
public class MyCommonImplementation : IMyCommonStuff
{
public virtual int SomeMethod()
{
// Implementation goes here.
}
public string property1 { get; set; }
public int property2 { get; set; }
}
public class MyConcreteSubclass : MyCommonImplementation, IMyCommonStuff
{
// Add only the things that make this concrete subclass special. Everything
// else is inherited from the base class
}
Eric's answer is the standard way of doing it, but if you want to save time, you could use dynamic keyword to define vM, such as:
dynamic vM;
if (vM1 != null) vM = vM1;
if (vM2 != null) vM = vM2;
//about two dozen complex objects need to be populated
vM.property1 = …;
vM.property2 = …;
…
Let's say I have a class from a 3rd-party, which is a data-model. It has perhaps 100 properties (some with public setters and getters, others with public getters but private setters). Let's call this class ContosoEmployeeModel
I want to facade this class with an interface (INavigationItem, which has Name and DBID properties) to allow it to be used in my application (it's a PowerShell provider, but that's not important right now). However, it also needs to be usable as a ContosoEmployeeModel.
My initial implementation looked like this:
public class ContosoEmployeeModel
{
// Note this class is not under my control. I'm supplied
// an instance of it that I have to work with.
public DateTime EmployeeDateOfBirth { get; set; }
// and 99 other properties.
}
public class FacadedEmployeeModel : ContosoEmployeeModel, INavigationItem
{
private ContosoEmployeeModel model;
public FacadedEmployeeModel(ContosoEmployeeModel model)
{
this.model = model;
}
// INavigationItem properties
string INavigationItem.Name { get; set;}
int INavigationItem.DBID { get; set;}
// ContosoEmployeeModel properties
public DateTime EmployeeDateOfBirth
{
get { return this.model.EmployeeDateOfBirth; }
set { this.model.EmployeeDateOfBirth = value; }
}
// And now write 99 more properties that look like this :-(
}
However, it's clear that this will involve writing a huge amount of boilerplate code to expose all the properties , and I'd rather avoid this if I can. I can T4 code-generate this code in a partial class, and will do if there aren't any better ideas, but I though I'd ask here to see if anyone had any better ideas using some super wizzy bit of C# magic
Please note - the API I use to obtain the ContosoEmployeeModel can only return a ContosoEmployeeModel - I can't extend it to return a FacededEmployeeModel, so wrapping the model is the only solution I can think of - I'm happy to be corrected though :)
The other approach may be suitable for you is to use AutoMapper to map base class to your facade here is sample code:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var model = new Model { Count = 123, Date = DateTime.Now, Name = "Some name" };
Mapper.CreateMap<Model, FacadeForModel>();
var mappedObject = AutoMapper.Mapper.Map<FacadeForModel>(model);
Console.WriteLine(mappedObject);
Console.ReadLine();
}
class Model
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public int Count { get; set; }
}
interface INavigationItem
{
int Id { get; set; }
string OtherProp { get; set; }
}
class FacadeForModel : Model, INavigationItem
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string OtherProp { get; set; }
}
}
Resharper allows the creation of "delegating members", which copies the interface of a contained object onto the containing object and tunnels the method calls/property access through to the contained object.
http://www.jetbrains.com/resharper/webhelp/Code_Generation__Delegating_Members.html
Once you've done that, you can then extract an interface on your proxy class.
I want to create a class that can take different types of value in a property. I am trying to do this using polymorphism, but I am not still learning how to do this properly, hence my request for advice.
I have a base class and two classes that inherit from it:
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public Unit Unit { get; set; }
}
public class DerivedClassFloat : BaseClass
{
public float Value { get; set; }
public override string ToString()
{
return Value.ToString();
}
}
public class DerivedClassString : BaseClass
{
public string Value { get; set; }
public override string ToString()
{
return Value;
}
}
All is good, I can create a List and add different specialized subclasses. My problem comes when I need change the values of the items in my list:
foreach (var item in ListOfBaseClasses)
{
if(item is DerivedClassFloat)
((DerivedClassFloat) item).Value = float.NaN;
if (item is DerivedClassString)
((DerivedClassString) item).Value = string.Empty;
}
According to what I have read, that looks like a code smell. Is there a better way to access the value property of my derived classes based on the type I am trying to assign?
What about when you want to create the right subclass based on the value?
BaseClass newClass = null;
if (phenotype is DerivedClassFloat)
newClass = new DerivedClassFloat(){Value = 12.2};
if (phenotype is DerivedClassString)
newClass = new DerivedClassString(){Value = "Hello"};
I read about overriding virtual methods, but that works if I want to process the value, not to add or change it … maybe I am missing something?
I should make this more concrete, my apologies, I am not used to post question in this great site.
I need a property that is made of a list of attributes. Each attribute has a name and a value, but the value can be of different types. For example:
public class Organism
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<Attribute> Attributes { get; set; }
}
public class Attribute
{
public string AttributeName { get; set; }
public object AttributeValue { get; set; }
}
For a given organism I can have several attributes holding different value types. I wanted to avoid using the object type so that I don’t have to cast to the right type. I though property polymorphism was the solution to handle this case elegantly, but then I found myself using If ..Then which didn’t seem too different from casting in the first place.
If in your particular case you want to reset Value, you can define an abstract ResetValue method in the base class, which will be implemented by the derives classes.
As for your second case, you should check out Creational Design Patterns, and specifically the Factory and Prototype design patterns.
You can use generics to define the type and the implementing subclass will set the Value type to the type constraint:
public abstract class BaseClass<T>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public Unit Unit { get; set; }
public T Value { get; set; }
public override string ToString()
{
return Value.ToString();
}
}
public class DerivedFloat : BaseClass<float> {}
public class DerivedString : BaseClass<string> {}
You can use Generics for this particular case:
public abstract class BaseClass<T>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public Unit Unit { get; set; }
public T Value { get; set; }
}
public class DerivedClassFloat : BaseClass<float>
{
public override string ToString()
{
return Value.ToString();
}
}
public class DerivedClassString : BaseClass<string>
{
public override string ToString()
{
return Value;
}
}
Polymorphic behaviour works on abstraction. Based on what your trying to do, you can reduce code smell to moving as much of your variability in code to base classess.
i would suggest is instead of property write method like as follows. You can something like as follows.
public void setValue(string val, Type type);//move this to your base class
Class MyValue{
private string strVal;
private int intVal;
//constructor
MyValue(string val, Type type){
//check the type enum here and set the values accordingly
}
}
then when set values
foreach (var item in ListOfBaseClasses)
{
item.setValue = MyValue("",Type.INT);
}
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to achieve with this approach - the Value properties are not of the same type, there is also no Value property on the base class which suggests that other types derived from the base class might not have it at all.
If all of your classes require a Value property, then maybe it should be of the most general type object - you could put it onto the base class, but that would require casting the values in the derived classes.
But then you could have a NullObject to represent an absence of value that you could assign to the Value property for every derived class.
You can use the abstract factory pattern. Consider this example:
// Base class
class Button
{
protected Button()
{
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
// Factory interface
public interface ButtonFactory
{
Button CreateButton();
}
// And the concrete classes
class WindowsButton : Button
{
// ...
}
class WindowsButtonFactory : ButtonFactory
{
public Button CreateButton()
{
return new WindowsButton();
}
}
class MacButton : Button
{
// ...
}
class MacButtonFactory : ButtonFactory
{
public Button CreateButton()
{
return new MacButton();
}
}
Furthermore, you can combine the abstract factory pattern with the strategy pattern to encapsulate the custom behaviors that change with type.