How can I access to the Id property of the instance? I have the following code:
public void InsertOrUpdate(Book book)
{
if (book.Id == default(int)) {
And I want to make it generic now:
public class TheRepository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class
{
public void InsertOrUpdate(T instance)
{
if (instance.Id == default(int))//How can I access Id here
{
context.Set<T>().Add(instance);
I searched for similar posts and I think I should write something like instance.GetType().GetProperty("Id").GetValue() but I don't know how exactly?
You could do a hack like this. Define an interface with only one property of type int called Id:
interface IHaveId
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
Then state that you entity implements the interface:
public class Book : IHaveId
Last state that the type used in your generic Repository class should implement this interface.
public class TheRepository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class, IHaveId
{
public void InsertOrUpdate(T instance)
{
if (instance.Id == default(int))
{
context.Set<T>().Add(instance);
}
}
}
Doing so you avoid the use of reflection, which is very expensive in general terms. Furthermore, your code now is more clear.
Currently, the compiler knows nothing of T except that it's a class. This means that it can never know that it has an Id property, because there's nothing stopping you from creating an instance of TheRepository<string> - which doesn't have an Id property, of course.
The code snippet you mention in your answer, using reflection, is not a good way to do it. What happens if, as I mentioned, you create a repository of strings? This code will necessarily fail, because string doesn't have the Id property.
What you need to do in this case is make sure that class Book, along with any other entities you need to persist in the repository, implement a base class that includes ID:
public abstract class DataObject
{
public int Id {get;set;}
}
public class Book : DataObject
{}
Now, you can restrict your repository to classes that inherit DataObject:
public class TheRepository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : DataObject
Now, the compiler is assured that any instance of T, regardless of what T is, always inherits DataObject, and thus has an Id property.
Related
I am struggling to formulate my question properly, I hope I can clarify it through the following description:
I have an abstract generic base class that is supposed to describe a specific container item, upon other things, and another abstract class of the same name to reference the generic classes by. I also created an interface to reference them by, both work but still result in the same issue eventually. For this example i am using the shared base class
public abstract class ItemEditorState
{
}
and the derived generic class
public abstract class ItemEditorState<T> : ItemEditorState where T : Item
{
public abstract SimpleDatabase<T> Items { get; set; }
public abstract void DoStuff();
...
}
So far so good.
Now I have classes deriving from ItemEditorState<T> corresponding to different Items.
public class EditorStateItemA : ItemEditorState<ItemA>
{
private ItemADatabase _itemADatabase; //ItemADatabase is public class ItemADatabase : SimpleDatabase<ItemA> {}
public override SimpleDatabase<ItemA> Items { get => _itemADatabase; set => _itemADatabase = value; }
public override void DoStuff(){}
...
}
So far so good again.
Now I have a static manager class holding a List<ItemEditorState> of references to all ItemEditorStates, such as EditorStateItemA, EditorStateItemB etc.
public static class ItemEditorStateManager
{
public static List<ItemEditorState> itemEditorStates = new List<ItemEditorState>();
public int GetState(int index) => itemEditorStates[index];
}
But since I reference the derived class instances by the shared abstract base class (or in another case the IItemEditorState interface), I can't access any members.
What I would like to do is access the Items list of any of EditorStateItemA or EditorStateItemB within the list in the ItemEditorStateManagerfrom the ItemEditorStateManager.GetState(index) method.
I know I would probably have to cast it to the proper class first, but I don't know the specific type at that point. I am sure my architecture is off, but I can't wrap my head around it.
I currently have a small object hierarchy that looks like this:
public class BaseClass {
// this class is empty and exists only so the others can extend it and share the
// same base type
}
public class ChildA : BaseClass {
public Subject<AssociatedClassA> Results;
}
public class ChildB : BaseClass {
public Subject<AssociatedClassB> Results;
}
In my design I would like to enforce that every class that extends from BaseClass should contain a Subject<SomeType> called Results. I'm wondering if there is a way that I can move Results into the base class or an interface such that I can supply the generic type for the Subject when constructing the base class. For example, it would be awesome if I could do something like this:
ChildA<AssociatedClassA> instance = new ChildA<AssociatedClassA>();
Or even better since there should really only be one template parameter that matches with ChildA if when I constructed it that could be taken care of for me:
ChildA instance = new ChildA();
// Results is automatically set to Subject<AssociatedClassA>
I'm stuck trying to implement this now as if I try to move Results into the base class the Subject requires a template parameter which I can't necessarily supply. There could potentially be more than 2 derived classes and I don't like the idea that someone extending this system has to know to add Results manually to each child class.
Following the suggestions of the 2 answers below this solves my desire to move Results into the base class, however I've run into another issue in that I was hoping to be able to use BaseClass as a generic parameter to methods such that any of the derived classes could be used. For example:
public void ProcessBaseClass(BaseClass base) {
// base could be ChildA or ChildB here
}
This no longer works since BaseClass now requires a type argument. Is there any way that I can have the best of both worlds here or am I stuck due to my design choices?
If appropriate, you can make the parent generic:
public class BaseClass<T> {
public Subject<T> Results;
}
public class ChildA : BaseClass<AssociatedClassA> {
}
public class ChildB : BaseClass<AssociatedClassB> {
}
You can make the base class itself generic:
public class BaseClass<T> {
public T Results { get; protected set; }
}
I have some classes with common properties, however, I cannot make them derive from a base type (LINQ-to-SQL limitations).
I would like to treat them as if they had a base type, but not by using Reflection (performance is critical).
For example:
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
}
public class Vehicle
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Label { get; set; }
}
In this case I would be happy if I had the Id property available, regardless of the type I'm holding.
Is there any way in C# to to something similar to this:
public static int GetId<T>(T entity) where T // has an int property 'Id'
{
return entity.Id;
}
I guess I could have used dynamic, however, I'm looking for a way to restrict the code in compile time from using this method for an object that has no Id property.
You can use interfaces:
public interface IHasId
{
int Id { get; }
}
public class User : IHasId { ... }
public class Vehicle : IHasId { ... }
public static int GetId<T>(T entity) where T : IHasId
{
return entity.Id;
}
However, if you are not able to modify the classes to add the interface, you won't be able to do this. No compile-time checks will verify that a property exists on T. You'd have to use reflection - which is slow and obviously not ideal.
There is no way to guarantee a type has a given member without constraining to a common base type or interface. One way to work around this limitation is to use a lambda to access the value
public static int Use<T>(T value, Func<T, int> getIdFunc) {
int id = getIdFunc(value);
...
}
Use(new User(), u => u.Id);
Use(new Vehicle(), v => v.Id);
You can create an interface with the common properties and make your classes implement it:
public interface IEntity
{
int Id { get; set; }
}
public class User : IEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
}
public class Vehicle : IEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Label { get; set; }
}
public static int GetId<T>(T entity) where T : IEntity
{
return entity.Id;
}
You could simplify GetId like this:
public static int GetId(IEntity entity)
{
return entity.Id;
}
The other answers mentioning the interface approach are certainly good, but I want to tailor the response to your situation involving Linq-to-SQL.
But first, to address the question title as asked
Can C# constraints be used without a base type?
Generally, the answer is no. Specifically, you can use struct, class, or new() as constraints, and those are not technically base types, and they do give some guidance on how the type can be used. That doesn't quite rise to the level of what you wish to do, which is to limit a method to types that have a certain property. For that, you will need to constrain to a specific interface or base class.
For your specific use case, you mention Linq-to-SQL. If you are working from models that are generated for you, then you should have options to modify those classes without modifying the generated model class files directly.
You probably have something like
// code generated by tool
// Customer.cs
public partial class Customer // : EntityBaseClasses, interfaces, etc
{
public int ID
{
get { /* implementation */ }
set { /* implementation */ }
}
}
And other similar files for things such as Accounts or Orders or things of that nature. If you are writing code that wishes to take advantage of the commonly available ID property, you can take utilize the partial in the partial class to define a second class file to introduce a common interface type to these models.
public interface IIdentifiableEntity
{
int ID { get; }
}
And the beauty here is that using it is easy, because the implementation already exists in your generated models. You just have to declare it, and you can declare it in another file.
public partial class Customer : IIdentifiableEntity { }
public partial class Account : IIdentifiableEntity { }
// etc.
This approach has proven valuable for me when using a repository pattern, and wishing to define a general GetById method without having to repeat the same boilerplate in repository after repository. I can constrain the method/class to the interface, and get GetById for "free."
Either you need to make both classes implement an interface with the properties you need, and use that in the generic constraint, or you write separate methods for each type. That's the only way you'll get compile-time safety.
I have a database table which contains an ID column and a Name column. I am tasked with designing a program that accepts one of the IDs as an argument to Main().
Bold is edit 2
I need to use that ID which must exist in the database, to correspond to some code to run. Each row in the table corresponds to slightly different code, but a lot of them share a lot of code. I need a design that will minimize code duplication.
So far what I've developed is an abstract base class that has an abstract Int32 field ID to enforce derived classes having their corresponding ID in the database. That way I can reflect over the derived classes to find the one whose ID matches the Main() argument and instantiate that class. Then I just call the virtual methods from Main() which runs the most derived code that has been defined.
public abstract class Base {
public abstract Int32 Id { get; }
public void Foo() {
// Do something
}
}
public class Derived {
public override Int32 Id { get { return 42; } }
public void Foo() {
// Do something more specific
}
}
Does anyone have any better ideas how to achieve what I want? I like the idea of keeping the ID right in the class definition, but I'm open to changing that if it makes sense.
Thanks!
EDIT:
One thing I don't like about this is that I have to reflect over each derived type and instantiate that type to check the ID. Does anyone have a better idea on how to do that?
Instead of using a property to define the ID of the class, use a custom attribute. That way, you don't have to instantiate the object to check what its ID is.
When your program runs, it can scan the assembly for all classes with that attribute tag, and find the one with the matching ID, instantiate that class, and then run it's Foo method. If you perform this kind of lookup multiple times per application run, you could instatiate all the classes with your custom attribute and then put them into a Dictionary to provide quick lookups by ID.
Your code might look something like this:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class)]
public class CommandAttribute {
public CommandAttribute(int id) {
ID = id;
}
public int ID { get; private set; }
}
public abstract class Command {
public abstract void Execute();
}
[Command(2)]
public class MyCommand : Command {
public override void Execute() {
//Do something useful
}
}
The other advantage of using a custom attribute is that you have to explicitly tag everything that is a candidate for being instantiated and executed by ID, rather than assuming than anything derived from your base class is a candidate. If you are sharing code between the classes, you might want to make a common base class for them that derives from your base class, but should not be instantiated or executed on its own.
One thing I don't understand is, what is the point of the "Name" field if the class you want to run is identified by the ID? If you can decide what the name of each ID is, then you could use the name field as the fully qualified type name of the class you want to execute, which then avoid having to scan through all the types in your assembly (or application domain, depending upon the scope of your search). That setup is a bit more prone to typos, however.
It sounds like you need to implement a factory pattern.
I would define an interface:
public interface IWidget
{
void Foo();
}
Then the base class:
public abstract class WidgetBase : IWidget
{
public void Foo()
{
this.Bar()
}
protected virtual void Bar()
{
// Base implementation
}
}
The factory:
public static WidgetFactory
{
public static IWidget Create(int id)
{
// Get class name from id, probably use the name in your database.
// Get Type from class name
// Get constructor for Type
// Create instance using constructor and return it.
}
}
A derived class:
public class DerivedWidget : WidgetBase
{
protected override void Bar()
{
// call base implementation
base.Bar();
// derived implementation
}
}
In your main:
public void Main(int id)
{
var widget = WidgetBase.Create(id);
widget.Foo();
}
I like #Xint0's idea of using a Factory for this kind of task, but I thought I'd still contribute another answer.
A better way to implement your original design would be to pass the ID to the base constructor as follows:
public abstract class Base {
public Int32 Id { get; private set; }
protected Base(Int32 id) {
this.Id = id;
}
public void Foo() {
// Do something
}
}
public class Derived : Base {
public Derived : base(42) {}
public void Foo() {
// Do something more specific
}
}
I have a generic repository that I use for common things such as FetchAllData, GetbyID and so on... Anyway, I want to include a Deactivate(T Entity) method so that instead of deleting data I will just turn their status off so the user will not see the data, but I can see it whenever I need. Basically, something similar to:
public interface IGenericRepository<T> where T : class {
...somecode
}
public class GenericRepository<T> : IGenericRepository<T> where T : class {
public T GetbyID(int id) { ... }
public void Deactivate(T entity) {
entity.stat = 0; // I know that this stat is common in all tables. However,
// my problem is that I don't know how to make appear stat
// in IntelliSense.
}
}
I know that this can be done, but I how do I do it?
Declare a interface:
public interface IDeactivatable {
int stats { get; set; }
}
Then your entities must derive from IDeactivatable.
Tip: You can add a generic type constraint too:
[...] IGenericRepository<T> where T : class, IDeactivatable [...]