Develop Reference

ReferenceEquals with casting challenge. Casting to child type make ReferenceEquals return false

Casting does not make copies of objects. More concretely IEnumerable.Cast, according to this resource, which makes total sense. However for this app, find fiddle, reference equals is false if I change the log at the end from the Cast<BaseClass> to Cast<DerivedClass1>. Check logs at the main program.
are equal: True areEqualRef: True areEqualRef: False
Posting the code, just in case, omit it of you get my point playing around with the fiddle :)
using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
namespace ConsoleApp17
{
public class BaseClass {
string name = "I am base";
public Type type;
public enum Type {
a,b,c,d
}
public BaseClass(Type type) {
this.type = type;
}
}
public class DerivedClass1 : BaseClass
{
string name = "I am derivedA";
public DerivedClass1(): base(Type.a) {
}
}
public class DerivedClass2 : BaseClass
{
string name = "I am derivedB";
public DerivedClass2() : base(Type.b)
{
}
}
public class Foo
{
public Dictionary<BaseClass.Type, List<BaseClass>> dict = new Dictionary<BaseClass.Type, List<BaseClass>>();
public Foo() {
dict[BaseClass.Type.a] = new List<BaseClass>();
dict[BaseClass.Type.b] = new List<BaseClass>();
dict[BaseClass.Type.c] = new List<BaseClass>();
dict[BaseClass.Type.d] = new List<BaseClass>();
AddItem(new DerivedClass1());
AddItem(new DerivedClass1());
AddItem(new DerivedClass2());
AddItem(new DerivedClass2());
AddItem(new DerivedClass2());
}
public IEnumerable<T> GetEnumByType<T>(BaseClass.Type type) where T : BaseClass
{
if (dict.ContainsKey(type))
{
if (type == BaseClass.Type.a)
{
Console.WriteLine($"are equal: { object.ReferenceEquals(dict[type].Cast<T>(), dict[BaseClass.Type.a])}");
}
return dict[type].Cast<T>();
}
return null;
}
public void AddItem<T>(T item) where T : BaseClass
{
dict[item.type].Add(item);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Foo foo = new Foo();
IEnumerable myList = foo.GetEnumByType<BaseClass>(BaseClass.Type.a);
Console.WriteLine($"areEqualRef: {object.ReferenceEquals(foo.dict[BaseClass.Type.a].Cast<BaseClass>(), foo.dict[BaseClass.Type.a])}");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
Update:
Updated the fiddle with both logs to avoid the need of copy/pasting

You need to notionally separate what is being compared here. When it says that Enumerable.Cast<T> doesn't make copies of objects, it is talking about the individual objects in the sequence. Not the sequence itself. In order to perform the necessary reshaping, the sequence returned from the Cast<T> method is a different wrapper/decorator instance over the original sequence.
Since you're using ReferenceEquals on the sequence, this will report false. However, if you were to compare each object from the sequences (pairwise in turn), you would find that those were the same objects.

generic method access hidden property in c#

I'm currently having trouble and I have no clue how to fix it.
I have 2 classes:
class A
{
public string MyParam { get; set; }
}
class B : A
{
public new string MyParam { get { return base.MyParam != null ? base.MyParam.Substring(1) : null; } }
}
When I try to access the B.MyParam it works when I have a the correct type, but in most of my methods I have a generic type
with :
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
public class A
{
public string MyParam { get; set; }
}
public class B : A
{
public new string MyParam
{
get { return base.MyParam != null ? base.MyParam.Substring(1) : null; }
}
}
public static void MyMethod<T>(T variable) where T : A
{
Console.WriteLine(variable.MyParam);//this print hello
Console.WriteLine((variable as B).MyParam);//this print ello (exactly what i want)
Console.WriteLine(typeof(T)); // this print ConsoleApplication1.Program+A
Console.WriteLine(variable.GetType()); // this print ConsoleApplication1.Program+B
// so i need something like that
Console.WriteLine((variable as variable.GetType()).MyParam); // this line is invalid
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
A a = new B();
a.MyParam = "Hello";
Console.WriteLine(a.GetType());
MyMethod(a);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
Is there a way to do it?
Thank you in advance.
EDIT: it seems that what i want is :
dynamic variable2 = Convert.ChangeType(variable, variable.GetType());
Console.WriteLine(variable2.MyParam);

Your code doesn´t make any sense. If A inherits from B you´ll need A to override the base-implementation for your property. So I´ll assume you should rethink your inheritance-chain.
You can use override for this. Thus when your variable-parameter is of your base-class (I renamed that to A) you´re calling the base-method, if it´s a derived instance (here B) you´re calling the override:
class A
{
public virtual string MyParam { get; }
}
class B : A // note here that B derives from A, not the other way round
{
public override string MyParam
{
get { return base.MyParam != null ? base.MyParam.Substring(1) : null; },
set { ... }
}
}
EDIT: While new intrduces a new member which (accidentally) has the same name (and signature) as the base-member it effectivly hides the base-member. Thus you effectivly have two members. Your only way to indicate which member should be used is by casting your instance to the desired class from which you need the implementation. However this somehow breaks the purpose of generics as the generic member has to know the exact types that are possible for the type-parameter.
Anyway this seems like broken design to me, as you´re actually creating a new member which has another meaning. So you should also give it a new name.

Based on your generic method, I think all you need is an interface.
public interface IMyParam
{
string MyParam { get; set; }
}
Your classes.
class A : IMyParam
{
public virtual string MyParam { get; set; }
}
class B : A
{
public override string MyParam
{
get { return base.MyParam != null ? base.MyParam.Substring(1) : null; }
}
}
And your method, won't need to be generic.
public void MyMethod(IMyParam variable)
{
// Your logic here, for example.
Console.WriteLine(variable.MyParam);
}
Calling your method.
A a = new A();
a.MyParam = "Hello";
B b = new B();
b.MyParam = "Hello";
A ab = new B();
ab.MyParam = "Hello";
MyMethod(a); // Prints Hello
MyMethod(b); // Prints ello
MyMethod(ab); // Prints ello

How to write universal manipulator using generics?

I have interface that defines value and few operations:
public interface IValue<T>
{
T Value { get; }
void InteractionA(IValue<T> target);
void InteractionB(IValue<T> target);
bool Check(IValue<T> target);
}
Then i implement class based on that interface
public class DoubleValue : IValue<double>
{
public double Value { get; private set; }
public bool Check(IValue<double> target)
{
// ...
return false;
}
public void InteractionA(IValue<double> target)
{
// ...
}
public void InteractionB(IValue<double> target)
{
// ...
}
}
Now i want to make universal manipulator that operates on pool of values and uses generics (so i only write it once). Because of the way i want to use this class in the future it cannot be declared static. Moving generic type into methods also doesn't do any good.
The closest i could get is:
public class ValueManipulator<T>
{
public IEnumerable<IValue<T>> Pool { get; private set; }
public ValueManipulator(IEnumerable<IValue<T>> pool)
{
Pool = pool;
}
public void ManipulateA()
{
foreach (int i in Enumerable.Range(0, Pool.Count()))
{
IValue<T> firstValue = Pool.ElementAt(i);
foreach (IValue<T> secondValue in Pool.Skip(i))
{
if (firstValue.Check(secondValue))
firstValue.InteractionA(secondValue);
else
firstValue.InteractionB(secondValue);
}
}
}
public void ManipulateB()
{
// ...
}
}
Main problem with this ValueManipulator class is that i need to know T of IValue used in DoubleValue (in this case double). So it looks like this:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ValueManipulator<double> doubleManipulator = new ValueManipulator<double>();
doubleManipulator.Manipulate(ProvideDoubles());
}
private static IEnumerable<DoubleValue> ProvideDoubles()
{
yield return new DoubleValue();
yield return new DoubleValue();
yield return new DoubleValue();
}
How do i make ValueManipulator so user does not need to know what type was used in value implementation?

Well, if your ValueManipulator<T> has no state, as appears to be your case according to your code snippets, then simply make the methods generic instead of the class, that way you can leverage type inference.
public class ValueManipulator
{
public void Manipulate<T>(IEnumerable<IValue<T>> pool)
{
foreach (int i in Enumerable.Range(0, pool.Count()))
{
IValue<T> firstValue = pool.ElementAt(i);
foreach (IValue<T> secondValue in pool.Skip(i))
{
if (firstValue.Check(secondValue))
firstValue.InteractionA(secondValue);
else
firstValue.InteractionB(secondValue);
}
}
}
}
Now you can simply do:
ValueManipulator myManipulator = new ValueManipulator();
myManipulator.Manipulate(ProvideDoubles()); //type inference will figure out T is double
If this is a valid solution then consider making ValueManipulator a static class:
ValueManipulator.Manipulate(ProvideDoubles());
P.D. Please follow advice in commentaries and change ValueType to some other name thats less confusing.
UPDATE After your latest edit to your question, where you clearly state that ValueManipulator<T> does have state, the solution seems to be implementing a static factory class:
public static class ValueManipulator
{
public static ValueManipulator<T> Create<T>(IEnumerable<IValue<T>> pool)
=> new ValueManipulator<T>(pool);
}
public class ValueManipulator<T> { ... }
And again you let type inference do its job:
var doubleManipulator = ValueManipulator.Create(ProvideDoubles());

Possible to declare an interface containing an extension?

As part of a testing library, I would like to define an interface which says 'this object knows how to initialize itself randomly'. If members of the randomly filled object are references, the random initialization should be capable of assigning null to these members.
If I was doing this for one class, the code could look like this
public class QWorker
{
double mxVal = 0;
public void fillRandomly(System.Random xRng)
{
mxVal = xRng.NextDouble();
}
}
public class QBoss
{
public QWorker mxWorker;
void fillRandomly(System.Random xRng)
{
if (xRng.Next() % 2 == 1)
x1 = null;
else
{
x1 = new QWorker();
x1.fillRandomly(xRng);
}
}
}
Now if QBoss had mulitple reference-type members, if/else would have to be done for every member. It would look ugly and could be cumbersome to maintain. To cimrcumvent, I came up with the following sample code:
public interface QIRandomizable<T> where T : new()
{
static void fillRandomly(this System.Random xThis, ref T xRef); // XXX
}
class QWorker : QIRandomizable<QWorker>
{
public double mxDouble;
}
public static class QWorkerExtensions
{
public static void fillRandomly(this System.Random xThis, ref QWorker xRef)
{
if ((xThis.Next() % 2) == 1)
xRef = null;
else
{
xRef = new QWorker();
xRef.mxDouble = xThis.NextDouble();
}
}
}
public class QBoss : QIRandomizable<QBoss>
{
public QWorker mx1;
public QWorker mx2;
public static void fillRandomly(this System.Random xThis, ref QBoss xRef)
{
xRef = new QBoss();
xThis.fillRandomly(ref xRef.mxMember1); // can be null
xThis.fillRandomly(ref xRef.mxMember2); // can be null
}
}
However this does not compile and the first problem is on line marked XXX - the static keyword does not belong there.
As a result, I would like to ask the following:
Is it possible to declare an interface with an extension inside?
If yes, what should I change?
If not, is there a different way how to accomplish what I want?
Any help is much appreciated,
Daniel

No, you cannot. That's because you can only declare instance-methods on an interface, and extension methods must be static.
You can try something like this:
public interface IDoesSomething
{
void fillRandomly(Random r);
}
public class QBoss
{
public double mx1 { get; set; }
public double mx2 { get; set; }
public int mx3 { get; set; }
public object refType { get; set; }
public void fillRandomly(Random r)
{
FillRandom(GetProps(this), this, r);
}
}
public static IEnumerable<PropertyInfo> GetProps(object blah)
{
return blah.GetType().GetProperties();
}
public static void FillRandom(IEnumerable<PropertyInfo> obj, object onObj, Random r)
{
Action<PropertyInfo, object> setVal = (prop, val) => { prop.SetValue(onObj, val); };
foreach (var o in obj)
{
if (!o.PropertyType.IsValueType)
{
if (r.Next() % 2 != 1)
{
var v = Activator.CreateInstance(o.PropertyType);
setVal(o, v);
var id = v as IDoesSomething;
if (id != null)
id.fillRandomly(r);
}
}
if (o.PropertyType == typeof(double))
setVal(o, r.NextDouble());
if (o.PropertyType == typeof(int))
setVal(o, (int)(r.NextDouble() * 100));
//etc, etc
}
}
Here, you decide what to do once, and set the properties. This currently only works for properties, not fields, so you might want to refactor it a little to take both FieldInfo and PropertyInfo
Testing it yields:
mx1 0.786868741170908
mx2 0.434705327001729
mx3 51
refType Object

Override function in base class

In the below example, I want to replace part of a calculation without having to re-implement the entire calculation in the derived sub classes.
class DummyCalcBase
{
public int changeable_part()
{
return 5;
}
public int common_calculation()
{
return 5 * changeable_part();
}
}
class DummyCalc : DummyCalcBase
{
public new int changeable_part()
{
return 10;
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int c = new DummyCalcBase().common_calculation();
Console.WriteLine("Base gives " + c.ToString());
int c2 = new DummyCalc().common_calculation();
Console.WriteLine("Calc gives " + c2.ToString());
}
}
This then gives output:
Base gives 25
Calc gives 25
What I would like is to get DummyCalc().common_calculation() to call the new changeable_part (and give the answer 50).
This would mean I don't have to copy and paste the same method into sub classes.

you can override method if it is virtual
class DummyCalcBase
{
public virtual int changeable_part()
{
return 5;
}
public int common_calculation()
{
return 5 * changeable_part();
}
}
class DummyCalc : DummyCalcBase
{
public override int changeable_part()
{
return 10;
}
}
methods with new keyword only hide methods of base class
if method is virtual, the following code will compute 50:
DummyCalcBase dummy = new DummyCalc();
int calc = dummy.common_calculation();
SO: new vs override difference

Mark the method in the base class as either virtual if you want to provide a default implementation that derived types can override, or abstract if you want to leave the implementation up to derived types.
Then simply override those methods in your derived types, and provide functionality as needed.

If your scenario is as simple as you describe here, go for the virtual method, with an override method in the sub-class. If your calculation is more complex, you should take a look at the strategy pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_pattern
Your code will than look something like this:
public interface IStrategy
{
int getValue();
}
public class Context
{
private readonly IStrategy strategy;
public Context(IStrategy strategy)
{
this.strategy = strategy;
}
public int common_calculation()
{
return 5 * strategy.getValue();
}
}
public class FiveStrategy : IStrategy
{
public int getValue()
{
return 5;
}
}
public class TenStrategy : IStrategy
{
public int getValue()
{
return 10;
}
}
internal class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var context5 = new Context(new FiveStrategy());
Console.WriteLine(context5.common_calculation());
var context10 = new Context(new TenStrategy());
Console.WriteLine(context10.common_calculation());
Console.ReadLine();
}
}