Develop Reference

What exactly is a "File Number"?

I'm working in some C# code that had earlier been converted over from VB6 and it does lots of file I-O. All over the place I see this:
fn = VBNET.FileSystem.FreeFile();
...followed by VBNET.FileSystem.FileOpen(), some file I-O, and then VBNET.FileSystem.FileClose() .
The call to FreeFile() generates a "file number", which is required to open the file. But what IS a file number and how do you release it back to the system when you're done with it?
The documentation at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.visualbasic.filesystem.freefile.aspx doesn't seem to say, but it does say that an exception would be thrown if "more than 255 files are in use", which implies to me that it would be a good idea to release them when I'm done with them.
N.B. - I understand that there are better file-IO libraries to use but this is what we're stuck with until we have resources to rewrite this stuff, so I just want to understand it.

Those VB6 commands (FreeFile, FileOpen, FileClose, LOF, etc.) were present at least as far back as QBasic. I expect that the file number was originally an MS-DOS file handle.
A quick google search came up with these links:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/269030 - Maximum file handles in MS-DOS is 255, which may explain that limit. (Not really the subject of the page, but first link that I found.)
http://stanislavs.org/helppc/file_handles.html - The INT21 functions listed seem to match up with the old style file commands.
Back in QBasic (if memory serves), the FileOpen command opened the file and reserved the file handle. The FileClose command closed the file and freed the handle.
FreeFile was just a convenience method to get an unused file handle: if you knew that you didn't have (for example) file #1 open, then you could just call OPEN "C:\DOS\RUN" FOR INPUT AS #1 and not bother calling FreeFile. You would still close it with CLOSE #1
I can't remember if that changed in VB6. As Hans Passant mentioned, internally in .NET the file number is now just an index into an array of VB6File objects. FileSystem.vb

In early version of BASIC, pre-objects, when you wanted to do I/O to a file, you needed to tell the interpreter which open file you wanted to use by its number. The runtime had a table of open files, and the file number was basically an index into that table. The concept is similar to a file handle, as you would have used via the Windows API, but every BASIC program had it own set of file numbers.
Normally, the way you would do file I/O would be something like the following:
OPEN #1, "path\to\file"
PRINT #1, "Stuff I want in the file"
CLOSE #1
You would be responsible for keeping tracking of which file numbers you had opened, what files they pointed to, etc.
For simple programs, this isn't a big deal, but when you start to write modular programs, with shared subroutines and external libraries and such, that system becomes unworkable. If you're writing a logging routine, for example, you have to somehow select a file number for your log file that you can guarantee is never being used anywhere else, or bad things would happen.
The FreeFile function is VB's answer to this problem. Calling FreeFile returns the next available slot in the open files list, which you can then be sure no one else is using. In pseudo-code, it would be like doing this in the above code:
I = 0
WHILE ALREADYOPEN(#I)
I = I + 1
WEND
OPEN #I, "path\to\file"
PRINT #I, "stuff to go into file"
CLOSE #I
FreeFile basically does the equivalent of the the loop, except it already knows which file numbers are used and which aren't so it can just give you an answer. Otherwise, the I/O works exactly the same: once you have your free file number, you open it, read/write to it, and close it again.

Best way to track files being moved (possibly between disks), VB.NET (or C#)

I am developing a "dynamic shortcutting" application which creates special shortcut files which point to a registry entry rather than an actual file/executable. The registry entry contains the path of the desired file. I want to have a daemon running which watches the linked-to files and updates their registry entries if they are moved or renamed. Renamed I can handle using System.IO.FileSystemWatcher, but what is the best way to handle moved files?
I know this is beyond the basic functions of FSW (despite being a low-level file-system operation). The question is, what is the best way of doing it?
Most posts/articles I have read suggest ways that feel altogether "hacky", which basically involve looking for a delete followed by a create in a new place of a file, and connecting the two by file size, meta-data, time between the delete/create triggers, hashes, etc. This may well be the method I have to resort to, setting up FSWs on all drives. However, I am hoping there might be a better way.
Is it possible to either:
2.1. Listen in to the shell and "hear" move operations?
2.2 Or (even more radical) replace or add something to the shell move operation that either triggers some sort of event or performs the registry-updating task itself, precluding the need for the daemon?
I have a feeling that everyone is going to tell me that 1. is the only course, but I look forward to your suggestions. (answers in VB.NET preferred, but can translate from C# if necessary).

[I'm not sure if this should be appended as an "update" to my original post or posted as a separate answer]
To sum up (all two of) the answers plus my own experimenting (to try to give a definitive answer to this question):
It seems the only high-level (.NET) solution is to use the FileSystemWatcher which does not detect "move" out-of-the-box (despite it being a low-level command). The FSW approach is non-trivial, comparably resource-expensive, sloppy in places (i.e. using timers) and has its limitations and caveats. Nor does it provide a true reflection of "move" - it merely infers it from symptoms that are very likely to be a move (and have the same effect on the file-system in any case) but could theoretically be produced by non-move actions. Also, it appears you have to know what files you want to watch for moves in advance of the move happening, there's no-way of telling as it occurs.
On a lower-level (which would involve C++), one could hook API calls to get a faithful picture of when "moves" are called. This has the advantage that you don't have to decide to watch files in advance, and is also less resource-expensive than listening to "deletes" and "creates" and trying to compare them.
On a systems-programming level (which would involve C++ and could easily break your computer if you didn't know what you were doing) one could build a filesystem filter driver: this would take the concept of detecting moves to a truly anal level, detecting re-allocation of filesystem resources performed even without the kernel.
After some experimenting, here is the general structure of how the FileSystemWatcher approach (or at least the most obvious one to me) works, its quirks and its limitations. [no code atm, it's all pretty integrated into my application and I'm yet to optimise it, but I might add some snippets in here later].
The FileSystemWatcher method (to detect when files are moved or renamed):
.1. FileSystemWatchers.
You will need to create one FSW for each highest-level directory you want to monitor (for example, one for each writable logical drive).
.2. Renamed.
Straightforward renaming of the file is trivially handled.
.3. Moved.
This part is very far from trivial; it basically involves comparing files in three different scenarios.
3.0.1. Deciding if a deleted/moved-from file is the same as a created/moved-to file.
For determining whether a deleted and a created file are a match, filename is useless (can be changed during a move). You could use a mixture of file size and attributes like time created, or even a hash of the entire file. In my particular solution I only needed to watch the movement of specific files "registered" before load-time, so I was able to give these files a unique fingerprint as metadata that I could then use to compare files (this works fine in real-world scenarios, but is easy to break maliciously in testing, which disappoints me as a perfectionist.)
3.0.1.1. When to read filesize/attributes/take hash?
Before I came up with the static fingerprint idea, I was testing my code with a simple filesize + creation date validation check. I quickly realised though that I had to have a note of the filesize and creation date (or hash or whatever else you want to use) of the deleted file BEFORE it signals as "deleted", because you can't check the size of a file that doesn't exist. If (like me) you know the files you want to watch in advance, then you need to read in those values before you enable the FileSystemWatchers; you also need to listen for "change" events on those files to update the values of filesize and creation date, take a new hash etc. This then begs the question: what do you do if you DON'T know what files you are interested in watching to see if they move? What if you only know you are possibly interested in knowing if they've moved when they "delete"? That, unfortunately, is beyond me (it wasn't something I had to deal with.) Unless you can come up with a solution to this problem, there is zero point in continuing with the FileSystemWatcher approach. Furthermore, I would conjecture (though could very easily be wrong) that there is no high-level solution that will meet your needs. If you do however come up with a solution (please post it below/comment on this post/edit it in here on this post), I have made the rest of this compatible.
3.1. Scenario 1: Direct moving of the file itself.
Upon the "delete" of a specific file being detected, you need to start listening for a "create" of a congruous file. Rather than listening indefinitely for the matching "create" of a file that might just have been deleted (which in reality involves inspecting every file created in the directory), you can use a timer to start and stop a "listening" flag (practical, but from a purist point of view a little arbitrary), deciding that after e.g. 1000ms with no appropriately matching create it's likely there won't be one.
3.2.0. A common misconception.
A lot of people seem to be under the impression, after glancing at the docs, that moving or renaming a folder triggers a rename for all their subfiles and subfolders rather than a delete and a create. In actual fact what the docs say is:
If you cut and paste a folder with files into a folder being watched, the FileSystemWatcher object reports only the folder as new, but not its contents because they are essentially only renamed.
(i.e. only the top folder throws rename or create/delete and the subfiles/subfolders throw NOTHING). Meaning if you want to know when and where a certain file is moved, you have to listen out for each and every of its ascendent folders as well.
3.2.1. Scenario 2: Renaming of a containing folder.
In my solution, because I knew all the files I was watching, whenever one of my FileSystemWatchers reported a rename of a folder rather than a file (the portion of the string after the last "/" will contain no ".") I checked each of my watched files to see if their paths were in that directory and if so, changed the beginning of the filepath to the path of the new directory et voila!, I knew where my files had been moved to. If you do not now in advance what files you are looking for, then you will have to recursively search through everything in every folder that throws a "rename".
3.2.2. Scenario 3: Moving of a containing folder.
This one feels like a slap in the face: in order to build your move-detection routine, you have to be able to detect moves. Here folders will throw a "delete" followed by a "create". In my case the solution just recycles the techniques in 3.1 and 3.2.1: when a folder "delete" is detected, I check to see if it contains any of my watched files. If it does, I set a "listen" flag (and a timer to snuff it) and check the subdirectory path of my file in the old folder against every new folder "create" that is detected to see if it points to a file with the desired fingerprint. If it does, I now have the old and new paths of the file and have detected the move. If you don't know what files to watch for, you may have to validate folder moves by comparing size on disk and number of subfiles/subfolders between "deleted" folder and "created" folders to confirm a folder has moved first, then search the folder recursively for the files you're interested in.
3.3. FURTHER COMPLICATION: Cross-drive moving of large files.
This is a problem I fortunately didn't run into (because I was only comparing fingerprint metadata, and didn't need access to files); however moving large files between drives (which transfer in stages, triggering a create event then a series of change events) can cause real headaches.
3.3.1. Headache 1: The "create" fires when the destination file is incomplete.
This means comparing its size to a "deleted" file will produce a false negative. You can't even take a hash of the first part of the file to indicate to your program that this "might" be the deleted file, because the move operation will have the file access permissions locked down. You just have to try and tell if the created file might still be moving and wait for it to finish.
3.3.2. Headache 2: No sure way to "tell" that the created file is still being moved.
Some have suggested checking the file access permissions on the created file, but they might be indistinguishable from those on a file created and still in use by any random application. Others have suggested setting short time-limited listen flags for "changes" on the file, but again this is indistinguishable from a file being modified by an application. In fact if the file happened to be a log file constantly and rapidly being updated by some process, then waiting for "changes" to the file to timeout might never end.
3.3.3. Headache 3: (UNTESTED) possibly these sort of moves "delete" the file after "creating" the destination file*.
It makes sense that this would be the case, though I haven't tested it. [if anyone does know, feel free to edit (or delete) this section appropriately]
3.4. A philosophical quandry: are two identical files the same?
This is a very pedantic and arbitrary thought-experiment, but say you have two drives, each with an identical copy of File.txt. You run a batch file that deletes the copy on the first drive then immediately makes a copy of the file on the second drive into the same folder on the second drive and names it Copy of File.txt. Unless you are using fingerprints, your code will identify a delete and then a create of an identical file and be unable to distinguish what happened from a move (with renaming) of the file from the first drive to the second. The final state of the filesystem is identical in both cases so it shouldn't cause your application to behave unexpectedly, but art thou really content to call that a "move" based purely on isomorphism? (especially when you know the kernel sees it differently)?

Using high-level unrestricted api provided by C# - no, you cant. Use FileSystemWatcher.. On same drive operation of moving file is not "delete and create" - it's "rename".
If you can/want to go into lower-level, then you can hook MoveItem and MoveItems of IFileOperation shell's interface, and MoveFile from Kernel32.dll... It will work with most of apps, but require expansion for security rights for your application, that mostly unacceptable in corporative environment..

The task has two flaws that make it hard to implement: (a) move operation across the disks is actually a sequence of read/write operations followed by deletion rather than move. And during those read/write operations there can be some transformation of data in place ; and (b) moving can be performed not by just a shell.
What you can do is employ a filesystem filter driver to intercept file operations right when they take place. Then you need to detect the sequence of read and write operations performed by the same process over your file. I.e. if your code detects, that the file is read sequentially (NOTE: some copying tools can read the file in multiple threads in parallel) and then write similar blocks of data to the other file AND after reading everything the source file is deleted AND the complete file contents have been written to the other place, then you can guess that you have come over file move operation.

Bump & update: This may well be against the rules of StackOverflow, but I would like to point out to the many people landing on this page (and the myriad similar questions on SO) that I have started a feature request on MicroSoft UserVoice to add MOVE detection to FileSystemWatcher. The best solution in the long term, rather than trying to work around the problem, might be to petition MicroSoft to fix it. If you have come here because you too need a solution to this problem, please consider clicking here and voting for this feature.

Is it possible to be sure a certain file can be written to without opening it?

I wrote a custom control for output file name selection with the typical: text box for the filename, a "browse" button, and some other functionality specific to my application.
The text box changes color depending on the filename. If the file location cannot be written to, it turns red. If the file already exist, it turns yellow. Otherwise, it remains the system-assigned color.
To see if a file exists, I use IO.File.Exists; simple enough.
I implemented the "if the file can be written to" as a simple try-catch block where a file is actually opened, something written in it, closed, then deleted. If at any point an exception is thrown, I know the user can't use that filename and I turn the text box red.
This is a catch-all; since I'm doing the actual operation I intend to do, it is fool-proof. However, it seems irresponsible to have software creating and deleting files like crazy just to see if it can.
So my question is, how do I replicate this functionality without creating files? I can see I have to:
Check the path for legality (e.g., 'z:' is not a valid filename). This entails parsing the path and making sure all directories exist.
If the location exists, I have to check for write permissions. (Several answered questions exist to this end.)
Is there anything else?
EDIT
Within minutes I see people are already voting up an answer that criticizes that I'm checking at all that the file is accessible before actual writing to it occurs. While I appreciate experts "standing back" from my question to see whether or not there is a completely different way to achieve it, telling me I shouldn't be doing it is not an answer to my question.
So let me elaborate on my application (I am not expecting hundreds of users at the same time).
I use this file chooser control in data acquisition applications. In many situations the test that you are about to run is "expensive" in one way or another. Therefore it is critical to set things up very carefully. Overwriting data can be very expensive (and for the fearful user I have a checkbox that will append the date and time down to the millisecond to the filename).
So the purpose of my indicator colors is not to provide a surefire way for the software to know the file can be written to (that check is still done at the instant it actually has to), it's to serve as an indicator to the user that at least he has set up the file name correctly so if he goes forward he is guaranteed not to overwrite old data and he's almost sure a last-minute IO error (filename typo) won't let the experiment run unrecorded.

I suggest this - don't check anything before user commits the action. With your current approach, even if you verified the file is okay, it may be locked 5 seconds later when the user actually commits to write to a file. Doing preliminary checks may only give user a false impression of estimated success. Especially consider this point on a terminal server with 100+ simultaneous users.
There is nothing wrong with showing a prompt with Retry/Cancel/etc. if no access, and let user decide.
EDIT:
No offense, but there are standards on how such collisions are handled. Windows standard is to show a prompt to the user. Also consider this - if you suddenly have a deny in write access to the folder, which you are not expected to have, you probably need to hire another system/network administrator.
If the operation is costly, make sure this guy is paid well. C'mon, what if your network goes down during writing? Hard drive? Router? There are many reasons why writing to a file can be interrupted, and you should be prepared for that. If you cannot afford it, make sure you have invested in good infrastructure and good people to support it.
Down on earth, you can increase chances of acquiring a successful lock on the file:
Pick a unique file name, using datetime-based hash as a suffix/prefix.
Write to user's home directory, also known as %UserProfile%, it is likely that you will succeed.

I can understand your problem with not wanting to risk losing "expensive" data because the file couldn't be written and a responsible program will do it's best to avoid the situation.
I would do this by cacheing the results. Before the test is run write a mock result to a file somewhere in the user data space, then leave the file open and write the real result to the file. After this is done write it to the user-specified file. Provide a recovery option that will read the cache file and write it out to the user's file.
Your approach could fail because just because the file was writable at the start doesn't mean it's still writable. The network could have gone down. Someone could have removed the flash drive. Someone else could be doing a large data transfer through a buggy router. (Real world case--it took me a long time to prove it was a network problem and not my program. finally accepted it was their fault when I showed that dir :*.* /s on multiple machines at once would almost certainly cause one or more to fail.)

FileSystemWatcher and write completion

I am implementing an event handler that must open and process the content of a file created by a third part application over which I have no control. I am warned by a note in "C# 4.0 in a nutshell" (page 495) about the risk to open a file before it is fully populated; so I am wondering how to manage this occurrence. To keep at minimum the load on the event handler, I am considering to have the handler simply insert in a queue the file names and then to have a different thread to manage the processing, but, anyways, how may I make sure that the write is completed and the file read is safe? The file size could be arbitrary.
Some idea? Thanks

A reliable way to achieve what you want might be to use FileSystemWatcher + NTFS USN journal.
Maybe more complicated than you expected, but FileSystemWatcher alone won't tell you for sure that the newly created file has been closed
-first, the FileSystemWatcher, to know when a file is created. From there you have the complete file path, and are 1 or 2 pinvokes away from getting the file unique ID (which can help you to track it during its whole lifetime).
-then, read the USN journal, which tracks everything that occurs on your drive. Filter on entries corresponding to your new file's ID, and read the journal until reaching the entry with the 'Close' event.
From there, unless your file is manipulated in special ways (opened and closed multiple times by the application that generates it), you can assume it is safe to read it and do whatever you wanted to do with it.
A really great C# implementation of an USN journal parser is StCroixSkipper's work, available here:
http://mftscanner.codeplex.com/
If you are interested I can give you more help about USN journal, as I use it in my project.

Our workaround is to watch for a specific extension. When a file is uploaded, the extension is ".tmp". When its done uploading, it's renamed to have the proper extension.
Another alternative is to have the server try to move the file in a try/catch block. If the fie isn't done being uploaded, the attempt to move the file will throw an exception, so we wait and try again.

Realistically, you can't know. If the other applications "write" operation is to open the file denying write access to everyone else then when it's done, close the file. When you get a notification then you could simply open the file requesting write access and if that fails, you know the operation isn't complete. But, if the "write" operation is to open the file, write, close the file, open the file again, and write again, etc., then you're pretty much out of luck.
The best solution I've seen is to set a timer after the last notification. When the timer elapses, try to open the file for write--if you can, assume the "operation" is done and do what you need to do. If the open fails, assume the operation is still in progress and wait some more.
Of course, nothing is foolproof. Despite the above, another operation could start while you're doing what you want with the file and cause interaction problems.

Read/writing to a file which is definitely going to be in use at random times

I need to read a text based log file to check for certain contents (the completion of a backup job). Obviously, the file is written to when the job completes.
My question is, how can I (or how SHOULD I write the code to) read the file, taking into account the file may be locked, or locked by my process when it needs to be read, without causing any reliability concerns.

Assuming the writing process has at least specified System.IO.FileShare.Read when opening the file, you should be able to read the text file while it is still being written to.

In addition to the answer by #BrokenGlass:
Only open the file for reading. If you try to open it for Read/Write access, it's more likely (almost certain) to fail - you may not be able to open it, and/or you may stop the other process being able to write to it.
Close the file when you aren't reading it to minimise the chance that you might cause problems for any other processes.
If the writing process denies read access while it is writing to the file, you may have to write some form of "retry loop", which allows your application to wait (keep retrying) until the file becomes readable. Just try to open the file (and catch errors) - if it fails, Sleep() for a bit and then try again. (However, if you're monitoring a log file, you will probbably want to keep checking it for more data anyway)

When a file is being written to, it is locked for all other processes that try to open the file in Write-mode. Read-mode will always be available.
However, if your writing process saves changes while you have already opened the file in your reading process, the changes will not be reflected there until you refresh (Close-Open) the file again.