Develop Reference

Generic Extension Method with Concrete Class Override

I have a third party DLL that returns objects like Customers, Orders, etc. I'll call them Your Entities. They do have a common IYourEntity interface so I can use that as a source constraint.
I want to create a generic conversion extension method to convert all these different third party entities to My Entities with some streamlined and more maintainable code.
....but I can't figure out how to make a generic extension method that will call the concrete extension method for the specific conversion of each class.
Putting some of the main aspects of my code below, but you can get a full fiddle to play with here.
Yes, I'm probably showing I'm a bit clueless on how to do this and maybe trying to combine different concepts. Any pointers much appreciated as I've been beating my head for a couple of days now and need a life line :)
public interface IYourEntity
{
int Id
{
get;
set;
}
}
public interface IConvertToMyEntity<TYourEntity, TMyEntity>
where TYourEntity : class, IYourEntity, new()
where TMyEntity : class, IMyEntity, new()
{
TMyEntity ToMyEntity(TYourEntity yourEntity);
}
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
private static IMyEntity ToMyEntity(this IYourEntity yourEntity)
{
return new MyEntity1();
}
public static List<IMyEntity> ToMyEntityList(this List<IYourEntity> lstYourEntities)
{
return lstYourEntities.ConvertAll(q => q.ToMyEntity());
}
}
public class YourEntity1 : IYourEntity, IConvertToMyEntity<YourEntity1, MyEntity1>
{
public int Id
{
get;
set;
}
public string YourEntityName
{
get;
set;
}
public MyEntity1 ToMyEntity(YourEntity1 yourEntity)
{
return new MyEntity1()
{Id = yourEntity.Id, MyEntityName = yourEntity.YourEntityName, CreatedOn = DateTime.UtcNow};
}
public List<MyEntity1> ToMyEntityList(List<YourEntity1> lstYourEntities)
{
return lstYourEntities.ConvertAll(q => ToMyEntity(q));
}
}

Since the classes implementing IYourEntity are from a third party and not under your control, you can't implement an own IConvertToMyEntity<T1, T2> interface upon these.
One way you can handle it is by overloads of such conversion (extension) methods.
There's no need for any generic T type arguments; the common IYourEntity interface suffices.
Suppose you have 3 classes implementing the IYourEntity interface;
e.g. YourCustomer, YourOrder and YourProduct.
These need to be converted to IMyEntity instances, of which you might have different concrete implementations;
e.g. a general MyEntity and a specific MyProduct.
For the conversion you set up an extension method targeting IYourEntity.
This extension method will be called to convert an IYourEntity to an IMyEntity in case a more specific overload of this extension method does not exist.
public static IMyEntity ToMyEntity(this IYourEntity target)
{
return new MyEntity { Id = target.Id, EntityName = "Fallback name" };
}
For the entities that require a custom conversion, you set up overloads of this extension method targeting those specific source class types.
Below are such ones for YourOrder and YourProduct (but not for YourCustomer).
public static IMyEntity ToMyEntity(this YourOrder target)
{
return new MyEntity { Id = target.Id, EntityName = target.OrderName.ToUpper() };
}
public static IMyEntity ToMyEntity(this YourProduct target)
{
return new MyProduct { Id = target.Id * 100, EntityName = target.ProductName };
}
Next, define the extension method to convert the list of IYourEntity instances to a list of IMyEntity instances. In the code below, the inbetween cast to dynamic enables that the appropriate ToMyEntity overload will be called.
Note that the ToMyEntity methods don't have to be extension methods, but it might be convenient to have these in place in case you need to convert a single instance instead of a list.
public static List<IMyEntity> ToMyEntities(this List<IYourEntity> target)
{
var myEntities = new List<IMyEntity>();
foreach (var yourEntity in target)
{
var myEntity = Extensions.ToMyEntity((dynamic)yourEntity);
myEntities.Add(myEntity);
}
return myEntities;
}
An example - .net fiddle
var yourEntities = new List<IYourEntity>()
{
new YourCustomer() { Id = 1 },
new YourOrder() { Id = 2, OrderName = "Order-2"},
new YourProduct() { Id = 3, ProductName = "Product-3"}
};
var myEnties = yourEntities.ToMyEntities();
myEnties.ForEach(o => Console.WriteLine("{0} - {1} ({2})",
o.Id, o.EntityName, o.GetType().Name
));
The output of the example above looks like below.
Notice how the YourCustomer instance was handled by the general IYourEntity conversion, whereas the YourOrder and YourProduct instances got a specific treatment.
1 - Fallback name (MyEntity)
2 - ORDER-2 (MyEntity)
300 - Product-3 (MyProduct)

You can change your extension method to this:
private static IMyEntity ToMyEntity(this IYourEntity yourEntity)
{
if (yourEntity is IConvertToMyEntity<IYourEntity, IMyEntity> convertible)
return convertible.ToMyEntity;
return new MyEntity1();
}
This will not work in most cases unless you also make your interface co- and contra-variant:
public interface IConvertToMyEntity<in TYourEntity, out TMyEntity>
where TYourEntity : class, IYourEntity, new()
where TMyEntity : class, IMyEntity, new()
{
TMyEntity ToMyEntity(TYourEntity yourEntity);
}

It is still not completely clear to me how you can make a third party class implements IConvertToMyEntity that easily. Assuming you did this only to show us your actual goal, you should be very careful with what you are trying to accomplish in the Main.
If you use a List<IYourEntity>, you can only use methods and properties defined in the interface, unless you know what you are doing with specific cast. The need for List<IYourEntity> or List<IMyEntity> limits a lot the implementation of a custom mapper between My classes and Your classes. Here a possible solution:
As I said, I did not change Your classes:
public interface IYourEntity
{
int Id
{
get;
set;
}
}
public class YourEntity1 : IYourEntity
{
public int Id
{
get;
set;
}
public string YourEntityName
{
get;
set;
}
}
Also My classes are very simple and do not contain any logic for the mapping. This is a debatable choice, but I generally prefer to keep conversion logic separated from the classes involved. This helps to maintain clean your code in case you have several conversion functions for the same pair of classes. By the way, here they are:
public interface IMyEntity
{
int Id
{
get;
set;
}
DateTime CreatedOn
{
get;
set;
}
}
public class MyEntity1 : IMyEntity
{
public int Id
{
get;
set;
}
public string MyEntityName
{
get;
set;
}
public DateTime CreatedOn
{
get;
set;
}
}
And this is how I designed the custom converter
public interface IMyEntityConverter
{
IMyEntity Convert(IYourEntity yourEntity);
}
public class MyEntity1Converter : IMyEntityConverter
{
public IMyEntity Convert(IYourEntity yourEntity)
{
var castedYourEntity = yourEntity as YourEntity1;
return new MyEntity1()
{
Id = castedYourEntity.Id,
MyEntityName = castedYourEntity.YourEntityName,
CreatedOn = DateTime.UtcNow
};
}
}
It is clear the lack of genericity, but you cannot do otherwise if you need an extension method on a List of generic My and Your classes. Also tried with covariant and contravariant interfaces but C# does not let you use them with this implementation.
Now the core of the solution: you need something that binds Your class to the My class with a custom converter, and all of this should be as more transparent as possible.
public class EntityAdapter<YourType, MyType>
where YourType : IYourEntity
where MyType : IMyEntity
{
protected YourType wrappedEntity;
protected IMyEntityConverter converter;
public EntityAdapter(YourType wrappedEntity, IMyEntityConverter converter)
{
this.wrappedEntity = wrappedEntity;
this.converter = converter;
}
public static implicit operator YourType(EntityAdapter<YourType, MyType> entityAdapter) => entityAdapter.wrappedEntity;
public static explicit operator MyType(EntityAdapter<YourType, MyType> entityAdapter) =>
(MyType) entityAdapter.converter.Convert(entityAdapter.wrappedEntity);
public MyType CastToMyEntityType()
{
return (MyType) this;
}
}
The pseudo-transparency here is given by the implicit cast to Your class. The advantage is that you can cast this EntityAdapter to an instance of a My class by calling CastToMyEntityType or the explicit operator overload.
The painful part is with the extension methods:
public static class EntityAdapterExtensions
{
public static List<IMyEntity> ToIMyEntityList(this List<EntityAdapter<IYourEntity, IMyEntity>> lstEntityAdapters)
{
return lstEntityAdapters.ConvertAll(e => e.CastToMyEntityType());
}
public static List<EntityAdapter<IYourEntity, IMyEntity>> ToEntityAdapterList(this List<IYourEntity> lstYourEntities)
{
return lstYourEntities.Select(e =>
{
switch (e)
{
case YourEntity1 yourEntity1:
return new EntityAdapter<IYourEntity, IMyEntity>(yourEntity1, new MyEntity1Converter());
default:
throw new NotSupportedException("You forgot to map " + e.GetType());
}
}).ToList();
}
}
The first one is pretty straightforward to understand, but the second one is definitely something that require maintenance. I gave up on generics for the reasons already explained, so the only thing left to do is to create the EntityAdapters starting from the actual entity types.
Here is the fiddle

This may be a little controversial but maybe a different way is better?
Firstly, and this is more for my sake, I would suggest more easily understandable terminology so instead of 'your' and 'my' I would use 'source' and 'dest'.
Secondly I wonder if the generics route is necessary? I'm assuming (and I may be wrong) that for each of the classes you have coming from your third-party assembly, you have a specific class for it to be converted to. So maybe this could be achieved much more easily with a constructor override in your destination class.
// third party class example
public class SourceClass
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
// the destination class in your project
public class DestClass
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedOn { get; set; }
// default constructor
public DestClass()
{
}
// conversion constructor
public DestClass(SourceClass source)
{
Id = source.Id;
Name = source.Name;
CreatedOn = DateTime.UtcNow;
}
}
This way you convert a single instance using:
// source being an instance of the third-party class
DestClass myInstance = new DestClass(source);
And you can convert a list with LINQ:
// source list is IList<SourceClass>
IList<DestClass> myList = sourceList.Select(s => new DestClass(s)).ToList();
If you wanted to you could implement extensions for your conversions. This again would not be generic as you'll need one for each class pairing but as it's an alternative to writing a converter class for each, it will be overall less code.
public static class SourceClassExtensions
{
public static DestClass ToDest(this SourceClass source)
=> new DestClass(source);
public static IList<DestClass> ToDest(this IList<SourceClass> source)
=> source.Select(s => new DestClass(s)).ToList();
}
If you still want something generic then you'll want a converter for each class pair, implementing a suitable interface. Then I'd recommend a converter factory class where you'll need to register the specific converters either into a dictionary in the class or via dependency injection. I can go into this further if you'd prefer but I think it would be more complicated.

sorry for writing here its not an actual answer,
there is no option for generically to do this
you have to write for every entity
public interface IConvertToMyEntity<TYourEntity, TMyEntity>
where TYourEntity : class, IYourEntity, new()
where TMyEntity : class, IMyEntity, new()
{
TMyEntity ToMyEntity(TYourEntity yourEntity);
}
I saw this code from your question.
It depends on what you want to do after transformation
you should use data mapper
public class MapProfile : Profile
{
public MapProfile()
{
CreateMap<TYourEntity , TMyEntity >();
CreateMap<TMyEntity , TYourEntity >();
}
}

Force a child class to pass itself as the Generic parameter to the base class

I want to force my child classes to pass themselves as as the generic parameter to the parent class.
For example :
class BaseClass<T> where T: BaseClass
{
//FullClassName : Tuple [Save,Update,Delete]
Dictionary<string,Tuple<delegate,delegate,delegate>> dict = new Dictionary...;
static BaseClass()
{
RegisterType();
}
private static void RegisterType()
{
Type t = typeof(T);
var props = t.GetProperties().Where(/* Read all properties with the SomeCustomAttribute */);
/* Create the delegates using expression trees and add the final tuple to the dictionary */
}
public virtual void Save()
{
delegate d = dict[t.GetType().FullName];
d.Item1(this);
}
}
class ChildClass : BaseClass<ChildClass>
{
[SomeCustomAttribute]
public int SomeID {get;set;}
[SomeCustomAttribute]
public string SomeName {get; set;}
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
ChildClass c = new ChildClass();
c.Save();
}
}
Obviously the above code won't compile. I'll restate : I want the child class to pass itself as the generic parameter and not any other child of BaseClass.
(The above code is kind of a psuedo code and will still not compile).

You can do this:
public class BaseClass<T> where T: BaseClass<T> { }
public class ChildClass : BaseClass<ChildClass> { }
But this doesn't force you to use ChildClass as the generic parameter. You could do this public class OtherChildClass : BaseClass<ChildClass> { } which would break the "coontract" that you want to enforce.

The direct answer is that if your accessing a static method then typeof(T) will give you the type for reflection.
However, there is probably better solutions than using reflection. Options:
1) Static constructor on the child class.
2) Abstract method declared in the base class.
I do not know the application, but I get concerned about my design if I feel like using a static constructor, I also get concerned if a base class needs to initialize the child class.
I suggest looking at injection as a solution rather than inheritance. It offers superior unit testing and often a better architecture.
More info (after initial post), this is my preferred solution:
public interface IRegesterable
{
void Register();
}
public class Widget : IRegesterable
{
public void Register()
{
// do stuff
}
}
public class Class1
{
public Class1(IRegesterable widget)
{
widget.Register();
}
}
Hope this helps

The ConcurrentDictionary is being used as a Set<Type>. We can check in the Set<Type> if the type has been initialized. If not we run RegisterType on the type.
public abstract class BaseClass
{
//Concurrent Set does not exist.
private static ConcurrentDictionary<Type, bool> _registeredTypes
= new ConcurrentDictionary<Type, bool>();
protected BaseClass()
{
_registeredTypes.GetOrAdd(GetType(), RegisterType);
}
private static bool RegisterType(Type type)
{
//some code that will perform one time processing using reflections
//dummy return value
return true;
}
}
public class ChildClass : BaseClass
{
}
There are several inefficiencies with this pattern though.
object.GetType() is pretty darn slow, and inefficient.
Even with the HashSet behavior, we are checking for initialization on each instanciation. Its as fast as I can get it, but its still pretty superfluous.

Setting Custom Values on Extended class

Im not sure if it is possible. I am running into a unique issue dealing with a clients api.
I am needing to extend a class and add a bool property that does not exist in the base class.
below is an example of what I am trying to accomplish.
public class baseClass
{
//.. No Editable Access
}
public class Extended
{
public bool flaggedAsDeleted(this baseClass bc)
{
//Idealy was looking for get; set; but I know that don't work
return true;// Need to know if possible to set property on baseClass or Alternative
}
public void flagAsDeleted(this baseClass bc)
{
flaggedAsDeleted = true;
}
}
public class program
{
public void doit()
{
baseClass bc = new baseClass();
bc.flagAsDeleted();
}
}

If you're trying to actually extend a class, you do it like this:
public class BaseClass
{
//.. No Editable Access
}
public class Extended : BaseClass
{
public bool FlaggedAsDeleted { get; set; }
}
If you're trying to add data to an existing class, you have two options:
Inheritance - as seen above.
Encapsulation - create a new object that holds an instance of the type you're adding to.
C# provides a feature called Extension Methods, which allows you to seemingly add methods to existing classes. However, these are really just syntactic sugar, as you're still constrained to the class's public API.
public class BaseClass
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
public static void Increment(this BaseClass b)
{
b.Value += 1;
}
}
Extension methods do not allow you to add data to an existing class though.

This is not unique. This is a common problem solved using a Design Pattern called decorator.

Specify generic type as argument param without knowing T

I'm approaching a problem while still having some ignorance regarding Generics and their proper declarations / uses. I get the premiss, but some of the ins-n-outs of generics still elude me.
Given the following code (does not compile and contains code-smell):
public interface IUIConcern<out T> where T : IUIConcernExtension
{
string Name { get; }
Func<T> Extend();
}
public class UIConcern
{
public static void Register<T>(string concernName, IUIConcern<T> uiConcern) where T : IUIConcernExtension
{
Concerns.Add(uiConcern);
}
public static List<IUIConcern<T>> Concerns{
get {
// Logic...
}
set {
// Logic...
}
}
}
... I have a few questions:
Why do I have to specify this part public static void Register<T>(string concernName, IUIConcern<T> uiConcern) where T : IUIConcernExtension
with a constraint when I have already constrained the T in the declaration public interface IUIConcern<out T> where T : IUIConcernExtension
How can I have a property that holds a List<> of my IUIConcern<T> without knowing T other than knowing it will be derived from IUIConcernExtension?
Again, I realize this doesn't compile and is not correct, just looking to see how I can hold a list of generic items that may have many different type of IUIConcern<> elements.
Thank you!

You need to have a base interface, for instance:
public interface IUIConcern
{
string Name { get; }
}
public interface IUIConcern<out T> : IUIConcern where T : IUIConcernExtension
{
Func<T> Extern();
}
How you would define Concerns and Register would depend on how you treat T. Alternatively if you only deal with instances where you know T, you could use a Dictionary<Type, List<IUIConcern>> to hold anything, or potentially drop the base interface and just store using object depending on what you need in your controller code.

The problem is not located at the interface, but the problem is because of your generic implementation using static methods and properties.
The answer from Guvante was correct when saying that you need to define the IUIConcernExtension, but that is of course very logical, so im assuming you have just omitted that part since it does not matter for the issue you are facing.
The problem in the code is that you have created a class that has static methods and procedures, with the generic definition not laying at class level, but at methods level, because of this, the property that has and the Method cannot assume you are always with the same type!!
Lets say you call call :
Register<string>("something", UIConcern<string>)
but before that you have already called:
Register<Type>("something", UIConcern<Type>)
How could the compiler allows you to that?! So the answer is to define the generic type at class level, with this all properties and methods will be of same .
Also you need to use a private member for your list, since you doing everything static, the correct code should be:
interface IUIConcernExtension
{
string Name { get; }
}
public interface IUIConcern<out T> where T : IUIConcernExtension
{
Func<T> Extend();
}
public class UIConcern<T> where T : IUIConcernExtension
{
private static List<IUIConcern<T>> _Concerns = new List<IUIConcern<T>>();
public static void Register(string concernName, IUIConcern<T> uiConcern)
{
Concerns.Add(uiConcern);
}
public static List<IUIConcern<T>> Concerns
{
get { return _Concerns; }
set { _Concerns = value; }
}
}

How to pass an enum to a parent class's static function to instantiate a child class Part II?

This is a followup to a previous question. There was a mistake in that question (I actually posted my current solution instead of the better one I'm looking for).
I have 3 classes, ParentClass,ClassA,ClassB. Both ClassA and ClassB are subclasses of ParentClass. I wanna try to create objects of type ClassA or ClassB using some kind of enumeration to identify a type, and then instantiate the object cast as the parent type. How can I do that dynamically? Please take a look at the code below, and the part that says //what do I put here?. Thanks for reading!
public enum ClassType
{
ClassA,
ClassB
};
public abstract class ParentClass
{
public static readonly Dictionary<ClassType, Type> Types =
new Dictionary<ClassType, Type>{
{ClassType.ClassA, typeof(ClassA) },
{ClassType.ClassB, typeof(ClassB) }
};
public ParentClass()
{
//....
}
public static ParentClass GetNewObjectOfType(ClassType type)
{
//What do I put here?
}
}
public class ClassA:ParentClass
{
//....
}
public class ClassB:ParentClass
{
//.......
}

You can do it easily with the Activator class, especially if there aren't any arguments to the constructors:
return Activator.CreateInstance(Types[type]);

To restate your question: you're looking for advice on how to code a static factory method.
I don't think you need a separate enumeration to accomplish this. This is a LINQPad script I threw together (EDIT: added static constants, demo creation using them)
void Main()
{
var a = ParentClass.Create(typeof(ClassA));
var b = ParentClass.Create(typeof(ClassB));
var c = ParentClass.Create(ParentClass.ClassAType);
a.Dump();
b.Dump();
c.Dump();
}
public abstract class ParentClass
{
public static readonly Type ClassAType = typeof(ClassA);
public static readonly Type ClassBType = typeof(ClassB);
public string SomeProp { get; set; }
protected ParentClass() {}
public static ParentClass Create(Type typeToCreate)
{
// validate that type is derived from ParentClass
return (ParentClass)Activator.CreateInstance(typeToCreate);
}
}
public class ClassA:ParentClass {
public ClassA()
{
SomeProp = "ClassA~";
}
}
public class ClassB:ParentClass
{
public ClassB()
{
SomeProp = "ClassB~";
}
}

As stated in the previous question:
Reflection is slow and is often used where it isn't needed
Activator.CreateInstance uses reflection to track down a parameter-less constructor. To solve this problem - that isn't needed. The parent class already knows all of the types it is responsible for creating.
One of the reasons to use a static factory method, is that there may be substantial work, or different kinds of work involved in creating the child classes. I think if you beef up your map some, you'll have a easier time coding that static factory:
public static readonly Dictionary<ClassType, Func<ParentClass>> Types =
new Dictionary<ClassType, Func<ParentClass>>{
{ClassType.ClassA, () => new ClassA(1, 2, 3) },
{ClassType.ClassB, () => new ClassB("1") }
};
public static ParentClass GetNewObjectOfType(ClassType type)
{
Func<ParentClass> maker = Types[type];
ParentClass result = maker();
return result;
}