I have a weird situation where I have objects and Lists of objects as part of my entities and contracts to interface with a third-party service. I'm going to try to see if I can replace the actual object class with something more specific in the entities and contracts to get around this, but I am curious if there is a way to get AutoMapper to handle this as is.
Here are some dummy classes:
public class From
{
public object Item { get; set; }
}
public class FromObject
{
public string Value { get; set; }
}
public class To
{
public object Item { get; set; }
}
public class ToObject
{
public string Value { get; set; }
}
And the quick replication:
Mapper.CreateMap<From, To>();
Mapper.CreateMap<FromObject, ToObject>();
From from = new From { Item = new FromObject { Value = "Test" } };
To to = Mapper.Map<To>(from);
string type = to.Item.GetType().Name; // FromObject
Basically, the question is this: Is there a way to get AutoMapper to understand that from.Item is a FromObject and apply the mapping to ToObject? I'm thinking there's probably not a way to make it automatic, since there's nothing that would indicate that to.Item has to be a ToObject, but is there a way to specify during the CreateMap or Map calls that this should be taken into account?
I don't think there is an "automatic" way of doing it, since AutoMapper won't be able to figure out that From.Item is FromObject and To.Item is ToObject.
But, while creating mapping, you can specify that
Mapper.CreateMap<FromObject, ToObject>();
Mapper.CreateMap<From, To>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.Item, opt => opt.MapFrom(src => Mapper.Map<ToObject>(src.Item)));
From from = new From { Item = new FromObject { Value = "Test" } };
To to = Mapper.Map<To>(from);
string type = to.Item.GetType().Name; // ToObject
If you're willing to use an additional interface, this can be accomplished using Include. You can't just map object to object in this fashion, though.
public class From
{
public IItem Item { get; set; }
}
public class FromObject : IItem
{
public string Value { get; set; }
}
public class To
{
public object Item { get; set; }
}
public class ToObject
{
public string Value { get; set; }
}
public interface IItem
{
// Nothing; just for grouping.
}
Mapper.CreateMap<From, To>();
Mapper.CreateMap<IItem, object>()
.Include<FromObject, ToObject>();
From from = new From { Item = new FromObject { Value = "Test" } };
To to = Mapper.Map<To>(from);
string type = to.Item.GetType().Name; // ToObject
Related
I have different classes sharing some properties of same type and name. I wish to assign same property values to each other. I explain my intention better in comments in the following pseudo-code. Is it possible in C#?
Ponder that there are a plethora of common properties but in unrelated classes, must we assign them one-by-one?
Second case is about sharing same properties but some of them may be nullable, who knows!
Side note: the classes already exist, cannot be altered, touched. Kinda sealed.
Can't it be done using nameofoperator and two for loops? Compare property names if matched, assign?
using System;
namespace MainProgram
{
class HomeFood
{
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public string food1 { get; set; }
public string food2 { get; set; }
public int cucumberSize { get; set; }
}
class AuntFood
{
public string food2 { get; set; }
public int cucumberSize { get; set; }
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public string food1 { get; set; }
// extra
public double? length { get; set; }
}
class GrandpaFood
{
public string? food2 { get; set; }
public int cucumberSize { get; set; }
public DateTime? Date { get; set; }
public string food1 { get; set; }
// extra
}
static class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var home = new HomeFood
{
Date = new DateTime(2020, 1, 1),
food1 = "cucumber",
food2 = "tomato",
cucumberSize = 123
};
var aunt = new AuntFood();
/*
First case: same types
Expected for-each loop
assigning a class's property values
to other class's property values
or for-loop no matter
foreach(var property in HomeFood's properties)
assign property's value to AuntFood's same property
*/
var home2 = new HomeFood();
var grandpa = new GrandpaFood
{
Date = new DateTime(2020, 1, 1),
food1 = "dfgf",
food2 = "dfgdgfdg",
cucumberSize = 43534
};
/*
Second case: similar to first case
with the exception of same type but nullable
or for-loop no matter
foreach(var property in GrandpaFood's properties)
assign property's value to GrandpaFood's same property
we don't care if it is null e.g.
Home2's same property = property's value ?? default;
*/
}
}
}
Based on the comments in the questions, this is just to show how it can be done with reflection.
Disclaimer, this is just a very simplified example on how to use reflection to sync properties. It does not handle any special cases (modifiers, read only, type mismatch, etc)
I would strongly suggest to use automapper to achieve the qp goals.
public class Type1
{
public string Property1 { get; set; }
public string Property2 { get; set; }
}
public class Type2
{
public string Property1 { get; set; }
public string Property3 { get; set; }
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var t1 = new Type1 { Property1 = "Banana" };
var t2 = new Type2();
var properties1 = typeof(Type1).GetProperties().ToList();
var properties2 = typeof(Type2).GetProperties().ToList();
foreach(var p in properties1)
{
var found = properties2.FirstOrDefault(i => i.Name == p.Name);
if(found != null)
{
found.SetValue(t2, p.GetValue(t1));
}
}
Console.WriteLine(t2.Property1);
}
}
The short answer is, apply OOP. Define a base Food class and inherit from it in any specific food classes you have. You can put all the shared props in the base class.
public class Food
{
public string food2 { get; set; }
// other shared stuff
}
class GrandpaFood : Food
{
// other specific stuff
}
As others have said, use some of the Object Oriented properties, like inheriting a super class of implement an interface.
In case you go for inheritance, consider making the super class (the one you inherit from) abstract. This means that the super class itself cannot be instantiated, which greatly reduces the risk of violating the Liskov Substitutional Principle. Also it often reflects the real problem better. In your example, this would also be the case, as “food” is not an actual thing in the real world, but rather a group of things.
I have two objects, I want to map them using AutoMapper Attributes, these are my target objects:
public class ClaseB
{
public string UBLVersionID_nuevo { get; set; }
public ClaseB_inside objetoB_inside { get; set; }
}
public class ClaseB_inside
{
public string texto_inside { get; set; }
}
and this is my source class:
[MapsTo(typeof(ClaseB))]
public class ClaseA
{
[MapsToProperty(typeof(ClaseB), "objetoB_inside.texto_inside")]
public string texto { get; set; } = "texto prueba";
[MapsToProperty(typeof(ClaseB), "UBLVersionID_nuevo")]
public string texto2 { get; set; } = "texto 2 de prueba";
}
when I try to map I get the following error:
Error mapping types
and with this change:
[MapsTo(typeof(ClaseB))]
public class ClaseA
{
[MapsToProperty(typeof(ClaseB_inside), "objetoB_inside.texto_inside")]
public string texto { get; set; } = "texto prueba";
[MapsToProperty(typeof(ClaseB), "UBLVersionID_nuevo")]
public string texto2 { get; set; } = "texto 2 de prueba";
}
I get null in ClaseB.objetoB_inside but ClaseB.UBLVersionID_nuevo it works.
What am I doing wrong?
I think the issue is with the way you are defining the mapping. Consider the following if you weren't using Automapper attributes and was initializing through the static API:
Mapper.Initialize(expression =>
{
expression.CreateMap<ClaseA, ClaseB>()
.ForMember(
from => from.objetoB_inside.texto_inside,
to => to.MapFrom(a => a.texto2));
});
This mapping would result in the following exception:
Expression 'from => from.objetoB_inside.texto_inside' must resolve to top-level member and not any child object's properties. Use a custom resolver on the child type or the AfterMap option instead.
And I think that's the same issue with the Attributes definition.
So I would suggest implementing the following:
public class MapsToClaseB : MapsToAttribute
{
public MapsToClaseB() : base(typeof(ClaseB)) { }
public void ConfigureMapping(IMappingExpression<ClaseA, ClaseB> mappingExpression)
{
mappingExpression.AfterMap(
(a, b) => b.objetoB_inside = new ClaseB_inside{texto_inside = a.texto});
}
}
You just then need to decorate your class with this:
[MapsToClaseB]
Suppose you have this source model:
public abstract class SourceModelBase {
}
public class SourceContact : SourceModelBase {
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public KeyValuePair Pair { get; set; }
public SourceAddress Address { get; set; }
}
public class KeyValuePair { // Not derived from SourceModelBase.
public string Key { get; set; }
public string Value { get; set; }
}
public class SourceAddress : SourceModelBase {
public string StreetName { get; set; }
public string StreetNumber { get; set; }
}
Now the destination model should be mapped 1:1 by default (subject to normal AutoMapper configuration), but each thing derived from SourceModelBase should be mapped to a wrapper class class Wrap<T> { T Payload { get; set; } string Meta { get; set; } }.
public abstract class DestinationModelBase {
}
public class DestinationContact : DestinationModelBase {
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public KeyValuePair Pair { get; set; } // Not wrapped, base class not `SourceModelBase`.
public Wrap<DestinationAddress> Address { get; set; }
}
public class DestinationAddress : DestinationModelBase {
public string StreetName { get; set; }
public string StreetNumber { get; set; }
}
Since the contact class itself is derived from SourceModelBase it should be wrapped as well.
The result should have this structure:
Wrap<DestinationContact> Contact
string Meta // Comes from the custom wrapper logic.
DestinationContact Payload
string FirstName
string LastName
KeyValuePair Pair
string Key
string Value
Wrap<DestinationAddress> Address
string Meta // Comes from the custom wrapper logic.
DestinationAddress Payload
string StreetName
string StreetNumber
Obviously this wrapping should nest, illustrated by the fact that the mapped object itself is subject to it and so is its Address property.
For some reason all I keep finding are questions related to mapping from destination to source. I know I have to somehow use ResolveUsing and if the destination type is derived from SourceModelBase, somehow apply custom logic to provide the Wrap<T> value based on the value of the source property.
I don't know where to start at all, though. Especially when the source object itself is specified to be subject of the wrapping logic as well.
What's the best, most AutoMapper-idiomatic way to wrap the nested objects if they meet a condition and at the same time wrap the original object as well if it meets the same condition? I already have the mapper creation abstracted away so I can mold the original object automatically before passing it to the mapper, which may help with subjecting the original object to the resolver as well by doing mapper.Map(new { Root = originalObject }) so the resolver sees the instance of the original object as if it was a value of a property of source object as well, not the source object itself.
According to this issue on AutoMapper GitHub page, there is no direct way to do it.
But there is some workarounds. For example - reflection.
In this case you need to know wrapper type and implement converter for desired types. In this example it's MapAndWrapConverter from TSource to Wrap<TDestination>
CreateWrapMap method creates two bindings:
SourceAddress -> Wrap<DestinationAddress> and SourceContact -> Wrap<DestinationContact> which allow you to map SourceContant to wrapped DestinationContact.
internal class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
var config = new MapperConfiguration(cfg =>
{
cfg.CreateMap<SourceAddress, DestinationAddress>();
cfg.CreateMap<SourceContact, DestinationContact>();
cfg.CreateWrapMap(
//func selecting types to wrap
type => typeof(DestinationModelBase).IsAssignableFrom(type)
&& !type.IsAbstract,
typeof(Wrap<>),
typeof(MapAndWrapConverter<,>));
});
var mapper = config.CreateMapper();
//Using AutoFixture to create complex object
var fixture = new Fixture();
var srcObj = fixture.Create<SourceContact>();
var dstObj = mapper.Map<Wrap<DestinationContact>>(srcObj);
}
}
public static class AutoMapperEx
{
public static IMapperConfigurationExpression CreateWrapMap(
this IMapperConfigurationExpression cfg,
Func<Type, bool> needWrap, Type wrapperGenericType,
Type converterGenericType)
{
var mapperConfiguration =
new MapperConfiguration((MapperConfigurationExpression)cfg);
var types = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes();
foreach (var dstType in types.Where(needWrap))
{
var srcType = mapperConfiguration.GetAllTypeMaps()
.Single(map => map.DestinationType == dstType).SourceType;
var wrapperDstType = wrapperGenericType.MakeGenericType(dstType);
var converterType = converterGenericType.MakeGenericType(srcType, dstType);
cfg.CreateMap(srcType, wrapperDstType)
.ConvertUsing(converterType);
}
return cfg;
}
}
public class MapAndWrapConverter<TSource, TDestination>
: ITypeConverter<TSource, Wrap<TDestination>>
{
public Wrap<TDestination> Convert(
TSource source, Wrap<TDestination> destination, ResolutionContext context)
{
return new Wrap<TDestination>
{
Payload = context.Mapper.Map<TDestination>(source)
};
}
}
CreateWrapMap method is a little bit messy, especially the part with finding matching types. But it can be refined according to your needs.
I could use some advice on refactoring. In my application users are able to dynamically add new form fields; customfield. For each type (text, dropdown, checkbox, etc.) a ViewModel (TextBoxViewModel, DropDownViewModel, CheckboxViewModel, etc.) is defined.
When I post a form, the appropriate Edit action is executed and I read each customfield to store their values.
Currently the implementation works but is ugly; I switch/case/if/else through all ViewModel types and based on the type I execute the required logic.
This is the the current implementation:
private static void MapToModel(Ticket ticket, TicketViewModel model)
{
ticket.Id = model.Id;
ticket.Name = model.Name;
ticket.Attributes.Clear();
foreach (var cvm in model.Controls)
{
var attribute = new TicketAttribute
{
Id = cvm.Id,
Name = cvm.Name,
};
if (cvm is TextBoxViewModel)
{
attribute.Value = ((TextBoxViewModel) cvm).Value;
}else if (cvm is DropDownListViewModel)
{
attribute.Value = ((DropDownListViewModel)cvm).Values;
}
ticket.Attributes.Add(attribute);
}
}
And I would like to refactor this to something like this, but without putting all logic in the ViewModel. Best I could come up with is the visitor pattern where I would add a Accept method to the ViewModel class, and use visitors to execute the logic required:
This would still require the same switching logic on types in the AddAttribute method:
foreach (var cvm in model.Controls)
{
ticket.Attributes.AddAttribute(cvm);
}
This would require logic in the ViewModel class
foreach (var cvm in model.Controls)
{
ticket.Attributes.Add(cvm.AddAttribute);
}
I want to refactor this to create a more generic approach, so that in future when new types of fields are added I don't have to update all codes with new constructions to check for types.
[solution after the provided help]
I had to cast the object, I cannot use different returntypes in different implementations of IControlViewModel so that is one part I have to work around, but overall this is beautiful.
ticket.Attributes = model.Controls
.OfType<IControlViewModel>()
.Select(cvm => new TicketAttribute {
Id = cvm.Id,
Name = cvm.Name,
Value = (string)cvm.OutputValue
})
.ToList();
public interface IControlViewModel
{
string Id { get; }
string Name { get; }
object OutputValue { get; }
}
public abstract class ControlViewModel : IControlViewModel
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public abstract string Type { get; }
public string Label { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool Visible { get; set; }
public abstract object OutputValue { get; }
}
public class TextBoxViewModel : ControlViewModel
{
public override string Type
{
get { return "textbox"; }
}
public override object OutputValue
{
get
{
return Value;
}
}
public string Value {set; }
}
1) Create an interface which defines that you will have output value property on each of your view models
public interface IControlViewModel
{
object OutputValue{get;}
}
2) Implement interface in each of your viewmodels:
public TextBoxViewModel: IControlViewModel
{
...
public object OutputValue
{
get
{
//return whatever is your expected output value from control
return Value;
}
}
...
}
3) Then you can get all attributes with this single LINQ statement:
ticket.Attributes = model.Controls
.OfType<IControlViewModel>()
.Select(cvm => new TicketAttribute {
Id = cvm.Id,
Name = cvm.Name,
Value = cvm.OutputValue
})
.ToList();
4) This code will work fine even if you create new control types, just make sure to implement interface in your new viewmodels.
I have an object containing different properties like the object below:
public class CompressedLogResponse
{
public string LoggerType { get; set; }
public int NumberOfRegisters { get; set; }
public int NewLogId { get; set; }
public DateTime LoggerAnnounceTime { get; set; }
public List<Log> Log{ get; set; }
}
How can I return a List of this objekt that does not include the List<Log> Log property?
Linq would be preffered
Thanks for any help that you can provide
You cannot just hide a property of a class (you declared it a as public)
Option 1:
Althought as Robson wrote you can set it null (thats not very reliable thaught cause nobody expects a class containing a property that is always null)
Option2:
If you consume the class on the same place use a anonymous type as Mez wrote, althought it sounds like you want to hide the Property from external usage. (I don't like the dynamic approach, the dynamic keyword was made for interop/DOM not for transporting anonymous types.)
Option3:
If you want a List of this type to be returned without the Log property, you have to create a new class (Inheritance is a good way to realize this):
public class CompressedLogResponseBase
{
public string LoggerType { get; set; }
public int NumberOfRegisters { get; set; }
public int NewLogId { get; set; }
public DateTime LoggerAnnounceTime { get; set; }
}
public class CompressedLogResponse : CompressedLogResponseBase
{
public List<Log> Log{ get; set; }
}
Now you can return a list of base items (that do not have a Log property at all)
public List<CompressedLogResponseBase> ReturnWithoutLog(IEnumerable<CompressedLogResponse> items)
{
return ((IEnumerable<CompressedLogResponseBase>)items).ToList();
}
If a IEnumerable as return type is suficient it becomes really easy
public IEnumerable<CompressedLogResponseBase> ReturnWithoutLog(IEnumerable<CompressedLogResponse> items)
{
return items
}
whith "does not include the List Log property" i guess you mean that the property "public List Log" will be blanked but still there, so you can just null that property out, because if you create an object that doesn't contain the "public List Log" property, than it will not be a "CompressedLogResponse" but will be another type.
List<CompressedLogResponse> listOne = new List<CompressedLogResponse>();
//....
//fill the listOne
//....
List<CompressedLogResponse> listWithoutListLog = (from item in listOne
select new CompressedLogResponse(
LoggerType = item.LoggerType,
NumberOfRegisters = item.NumberOfRegisters ,
NewLogId = item.NewLogId ,
LoggerAnnounceTime = item.LoggerAnnounceTime ,
Log= null)).ToList();
You can return an anonymous list of your original list like the following;
public static List<dynamic> Test() {
List<CompressedLogResponse> list = new List<CompressedLogResponse>();
var result = list.Select(x => new
{
x.LoggerAnnounceTime,
x.LoggerType,
x.NewLogId,
x.NumberOfRegisters
});
return result.ToList<dynamic>();
}
Take a look at the .Select(), and also the dynamic keyword.
Then to call it,
var x = Test();
foreach(dynamic o in x)
{
int NumberOfRegisters;
//You have 2 ways... either by
NumberOfRegisters = o.NumberOfRegisters;
// or reflection
NumberOfRegisters = o.GetType().GetProperty("NumberOfRegisters").GetValue(o, null);
}