Develop Reference

Detect nested type of generic

I'm working on a project which needs to determine the type of an object, take the information from that type and move it to a structure that fits in our database.
For this, I'm using Pattern Matching with a case statement which works fine.
The only thing that I got stuck with is that some types have nested types as well. The information in those nested types is the information that I need.
Take a look at the code below:
public class CallAnswered
{
public string Caller { get; set; }
public MetaDataInformation MetaData{ get; set; }
}
public class CallAbandoned
{
public string ReasonForAbandonment{ get; set; }
public MetaDataInformation MetaData { get; set; }
}
public class MetaDataInformation
{
public DateTime ReceivedAt { get; set; }
public DateTime AnsweredAt { get; set; }
}
public void DetermineType<T>(T callEvent)
{
switch (callEvent)
{
case CallAnswered callAnswered:
case CallAbandoned callAbandoned:
// Somehow, I need to access the "MetaData" property as a type
break;
}
}
Like shown in the code above, I am able to detect the parent type and assign it a variable. Bu I have no clue on how to get the nested MetaDataInformation type.
Does anyone have an idea how this can be resolved?

You do not need a generic type here. By deriving from an abstract base class, you can solve two problems.
You can use the base type instead of the generic type and access all the public members of this base class.
You can add an abstract method in the base class implemented in the two derived classes making the switch statement obsolete.
public abstract class Call
{
public MetaDataInformation MetaData { get; set; }
public abstract void Process();
}
public class CallAnswered : Call
{
public string Caller { get; set; }
public override void Process()
{
// TODO: Do Answer things. You can access MetaData here.
}
}
public class CallAbandoned : Call
{
public string ReasonForAbandonment{ get; set; }
public override void Process()
{
// TODO: Do Abandonment things. You can access MetaData here.
}
}
somewhere else
public void ProcessCalls(Call callEvent)
{
// Replaces switch statement and does the right thing for both types of calls:
callEvent.Process();
}
This is called a polymorphic behavior.
See also:
Polymorphism (Wikikpedia)
Polymorphism (Microsoft Docs)

C# Interface containing an array of interface, hierarchy

I have an Interface for a master-detail common interface hierarchy:
public interface ITModel
{
ITPeriodHead[] PeriodHeads { get; set; }
}
I try to use it this way:
public class T19Model:ITModel
{
public T19Item[] Items { get; set; }
**public T19PeriodHead[] PeriodHeads { get; set; }**
}
The array of PeriodHeads causes error at compile time,
despite T19PeriodHead implements ITPeriodHead, like this:
public class T19PeriodHead : BaseTPeriodHead, ITPeriodHead
{ ...
What is the solution? If I use the array of ITPeriodHead, I will not be able to access the periodhead items members, properties, methods....
Any help is appriciated.

You have to honor the interface contract. You are returning a more specific class that the interface defines, so you are not fully defining the interface.
You could explicitly implement the interface, but you have an issue with the setter - what if someone tries to set the property to an array of objects that are not T19PeriodHeads?:
public class T19Model:ITModel
{
public T19Item[] Items { get; set; }
public T19PeriodHead[] PeriodHeads { get; set; }
ITPeriodHead[] ITModel.PeriodHeads
{
get {return PeriodHeads;}
set {/* what to do here if value is not an array of T19PeriodHeads? */}
}
}
If you do not need a setter for the array property (maybe an Add method instead?) then you are fine.

Casting derived class to base class keeps knowledge of derived when using generics

I have a weird scenario that I can't seem to wrap my head around. I have the following base class:
public class Note
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string SenderId { get; set; }
...
}
Which is then derived by the following class:
public class NoteAttachment : Note
{
public string FileType { get; set; }
public string MD5 { get; set; }
...
}
I use these classes to communicate with a server, through a generic wrapper:
public class DataRequest<T> : DataRequest
{
public T Data { get; set; }
}
public class DataRequest
{
public string SomeField { get; set; }
public string AnotherField { get; set; }
}
So I have a NoteAttachment sent to the method, but I need to wrap a Note object to send to the server. So I have the following extension method:
public static DataRequest<T> GetDataRequest<T>(this T data)
{
DataRequest<T> dataRequest = new DataRequest<T>
{
SomeField = "Some Value",
AnotherField = "AnotherValue",
Data = data
};
return dataRequest;
}
Now the problem. Calling the extension method in the following way works fine, however even though the DataRequest type is DataRequest<Note>, the Data field is of type NoteAttachment.
var noteAttachment = new NoteAttachment();
...
Note note = (Note)noteAttachment;
var dataRequest = note.GetDataRequest();
Debug.WriteLine(dataRequest.GetType()); //MyProject.DataRequest`1[MyProject.Note]
Debug.WriteLine(dataRequest.Data.GetType()); //MyProject.NoteAttachment <--WHY?!
What am I doing wrong?

You are mixing two things: run-time type of an object and compile type of a field.
Type of Data field is still Note. You can verify for yourself with reflection. For example, the following will print "Note":
Console.Write(
typeof(DataRequest<Note>).GetProperty("Data").PropertyType.Name);
The Type of the object that this field contains can be Note or any derived type. Assigning an object to the variable of a base class does not change its run-time class. And since GetType() returns the type of an object you get the actual derived type (NoteAttachment).

As #Alexi answered your first question, ill try the second question in the comment. Add a KnownType attribute to your note class like this:
[KnownType(typeof(NoteAttachment)]
public class Note

Facade a class without writing lots of boilerplate code?

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.

How to create and set a polymorphic property?

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.