Develop Reference

Roslyn Check If Field Declaration has been assigned to

I'm writing an app which converts keys to use resources from a RESX File. This code was working with local variables before:
public static void AnalyzeConstDeclaration(SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context)
{
var fieldDeclaration = (FieldDeclarationSyntax)context.Node;
if (false == IsValidFieldDeclaration(context, fieldDeclaration))
{
return;
}
var firstVariable = fieldDeclaration.Declaration.Variables.FirstOrDefault();
var dataFlowAnalysis = context.SemanticModel.AnalyzeDataFlow(firstVariable);
var variableSymbol = context.SemanticModel.GetDeclaredSymbol(firstVariable);
if (dataFlowAnalysis.WrittenOutside.Contains(variableSymbol))
{
return;
}
var firstSymbol = context.SemanticModel.GetDeclaredSymbol(firstVariable);
context.ReportDiagnostic(Diagnostic.Create(Rule, context.Node.GetLocation(), firstSymbol.Name));
}
However when I try to get the dataFlowAnalysis I receive an error:
Additional information: statementOrExpression is not a StatementSyntax or an ExpressionSyntax.
How can Ideally just need to see if anyone has written to this variable outside of the declaration.

DataFlow works by analyzing order of execution within a single method.
It doesn't make sense for class-level fields.
Instead, you should use a simple syntax visitor (or SymbolFinder) to search the entire class for assignments to the field.
You'll probably also want to check whether it's ever passed as a ref parameter.

Using statement on object passed via parameter

Seeking best inputs on correct usage of C# using statement. Can I use using statement on a parameter object as in the following uncommon example code snippet (viz., multi-layer application)?
Although the code snippet is different from what I feel that the using statement should be in ProcessFileAndReturnNumberFromStream() method of 'Business' class.
Why is it an uncommon practice to use using statement on object passed via parameter? Please correct or elaborate on the flaw?
using System;
using System.IO;
class Data
{
public double? GetNumberFromStream(StreamReader sr)
{
double? number;
try
{
using (sr)
{
number = Convert.ToDouble(sr.ReadToEnd());
return number;
}
}
finally
{
number = null;
}
}
}
class Business
{
public double? ProcessFileAndReturnNumberFromStream()
{
string fileName = "Test.txt";
StreamReader sr = new StreamReader(fileName);
Data dat = new Data();
return dat.GetNumberFromStream(sr);
}
}
class GUI
{
static void Main()
{
Business bus = new Business();
double? number = bus.ProcessFileAndReturnNumberFromStream();
Console.WriteLine(number);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
Please help.
Thanks

If a method is passed an object that implements IDisposable, it's usually the responsibility of the caller to manage the lifetime of that object, rather than the callee.
public double? ProcessFileAndReturnNumberFromStream()
{
string fileName = "Test.txt";
Data dat = new Data();
using (StreamReader sr = new StreamReader(fileName))
{
return dat.GetNumberFromStream(sr);
}
}

The caller that is passing the instance of IDisposable should be the one to use the using statement. If the callee uses it, the object will be disposed while outside the immediate control of the caller who 'owns' the object.

Can I use using statement on a parameter object as in the following uncommon example code snippet (viz., multi-layer application)?
You can, but it's generally odd to do so. Usually whatever is creating the StreamReader would be expecting to "own" it and dispose of it when they're done with it. It would be more usual for your ProcessFileAndReturnNumberFromStream method to be:
using (StreamReader sr = new StreamReader(fileName))
{
Data dat = new Data();
return dat.GetNumberFromStream(sr);
}
(Although I'd personally use File.OpenText instead of explicitly constructing the StreamReader.)
Your GetNumberFromStream method would then not need the using statement. It also doesn't need the try/finally block at all - it's an odd implementation all round, given that it will never return null, either...
It's also odd that you're creating a new instance of Data and then doing nothing with it - as your GetNumberFromStream method doesn't use an instance variables or override a base class method, you should consider making it static.

Such API would be extremely troublesome.
You would never know whether or not the object passed to a method is disposed inside the method or not. Thus, if this is you who create the object and pass it there, you would also never know whether or not you should dispose the object you have just created and passed to the method or not.
I guess then, while this is technically possible, it would promote the bad programming style.

Why do I have to manually create ExpandoObject to properly use the dynamic keyword?

I was looking at the question Use 'dynamic' throw a RuntimeBinderException. I face a similar problem:
Basically, I want to create a "HTML helper" in ASP.NET MVC that uses dynamic arguments, akin to the htmlArguments parameter for many of the existing helpers (more code below):
public BootstrapCell(Action<string> emitContentAction, dynamic args)
View:
#using (grid.Cell(ViewContext.Writer.Write, new {Position = 4}))
{
<p>zomg!</p>
}
However in the naive approach, i get RuntimeBinderException thrown at me, declaring that 'object' does not contain a definition for 'Position', even though when debugging and hovering over the _args variable, it clearly does have a Position property.
The caller and the callee are in separate assemblies. Why is that problem happening?
(The solution to that has been shown in the same question: Manually create an ExpandoObject to hold the args.)
Implementation:
public class Cell
{
private readonly string _tagName;
private dynamic _args;
private Action<string> EmitContentAction;
public BootstrapCell(Action<string> emitContentAction, dynamic args) : DisposableBaseClass
{
_args = args;
EmitContentAction = emitContentAction;
OnContextEnter();
}
protected void OnContextEnter()
{
var sb = new StringBuilder("<");
sb.Append(_tagName);
if (_args.Position > 0)
{
sb.Append(" class=\"offset");
sb.Append(args.Position);
sb.Append("\"");
}
sb.Append(">");
EmitContentAction(sb.ToString());
}
}
[Edited to make clearer that my problem arises when "obviously" the Position property is set. I am aware that if the property never was defined in the first place, an exception must be raised.]

That code is fatally flawed.
It does work, as long as you specify that property:
void Bar()
{
Foo(new {Position = 0});
}
void Foo(dynamic args)
{
Console.WriteLine(args.Position);
}
That will output 0, it will not throw a RuntimeBinderException.
But the purpose of such code is the possibility for the caller to specify only the properties needed and omit the rest.
You are trying to check for this omission via if(args.Position != null). But that doesn't work, it already requires Position to exist.
When you have a look at the routing API of ASP.NET that also supports those anonymous configuration objects you will notice that the type of the parameter is object and not dynamic.
Using object instead of dynamic will enable your API to be used across assembly boundaries.
So how does it work?
Just like in the linked answer, you need to manually create a dictionary of the properties. Whether you use a plain old Dictionary<string, object> or an ExpandoObject is a matter of preference.
Using ExpandoObject will make your code a bit simpler to read and write, but it is not required.
About the actual exception you are getting:
Please note that it tells you it can't find the Position property on object. If it would be an anonymous type that was missing the Position property the exception message wouldn't refer to object but to an anonymous type. Something like this:
'<>f__AnonymousType0' does not contain a definition for 'Position'

Binary serialization of mutable F# record

I have used binary serialization to save an F# record from a C# class. All works fine:
F#:
type GameState =
{
LevelStatus : LevelStatus
Grid : Variable<Option<Ball> [,]>
...
}
let game_state : GameState = aGameState()
C#:
public void OnSaveGame() {
using (var stream = File.Open("game_status.sav", FileMode.Create))
{
var binary_formatter = new BinaryFormatter();
binary_formatter.Serialize(stream, PuzzleBobble.game_state);
}
}
Now, I'm refactoring my F# module and I would like to have a mutable record to serialize:
let mutable game_state = aGameState()
game_state <- myGameState()
This way the file is created but when I try to deserialize it I get a null object.
I've changed nothing of my previous implementation, except the added mutable keyword.
My question is: is there anything wrong with serialization of a mutable F# record? Or serialization it self is right, and I have to look for a different error somewhere else in my code?
EDIT:
Even accessing the record through methods like suggested #Brian, it seems not to work.
Here's some more details. When I deserialize the previous saved object this way (that works without game_state declared mutable):
public void OnLoadGame() {
using (var stream = File.Open("game_status.sav", FileMode.Open))
{
var binary_formatter = new BinaryFormatter();
try
{
GameLogic.GameState state = binary_formatter.Deserialize(stream) as GameLogic.GameState;
GameLogic.load_game_state(state);
}
catch (ArgumentNullException e) {
Console.WriteLine(e.Message);
}
}
}
I get the following exception:
'System.ArgumentNullException' in FSharp.Core.dll

I have once seen some weird bug where module-scoped mutable variables in F# libraries were not properly initialized, is it possible you're hitting that?
If you change the code to define
let getGameState() = game_state
let setGameState(x) = game_state <- x
and then use the get/set functions, instead of referring to the mutable variable directly, does the problem go away? If so, this might be an exotic compiler bug that we know about.

"using" keyword in java [duplicate]

Does Java have a using statement that can be used when opening a session in hibernate?
In C# it is something like:
using (var session = new Session())
{
}
So the object goes out of scope and closes automatically.

Java 7 introduced Automatic Resource Block Management which brings this feature to the Java platform. Prior versions of Java didn't have anything resembling using.
As an example, you can use any variable implementing java.lang.AutoCloseable in the following way:
try(ClassImplementingAutoCloseable obj = new ClassImplementingAutoCloseable())
{
...
}
Java's java.io.Closeable interface, implemented by streams, automagically extends AutoCloseable, so you can already use streams in a try block the same way you would use them in a C# using block. This is equivalent to C#'s using.
As of version 5.0, Hibernate Sessions implement AutoCloseable and can be auto-closed in ARM blocks. In previous versions of Hibernate Session did not implement AutoCloseable. So you'll need to be on Hibernate >= 5.0 in order to use this feature.

Before Java 7, there was no such feature in Java (for Java 7 and up see Asaph's answer regarding ARM).
You needed to do it manually and it was a pain:
AwesomeClass hooray = null;
try {
hooray = new AwesomeClass();
// Great code
} finally {
if (hooray!=null) {
hooray.close();
}
}
And that's just the code when neither // Great code nor hooray.close() can throw any exceptions.
If you really only want to limit the scope of a variable, then a simple code block does the job:
{
AwesomeClass hooray = new AwesomeClass();
// Great code
}
But that's probably not what you meant.

Since Java 7 it does: http://blogs.oracle.com/darcy/entry/project_coin_updated_arm_spec
The syntax for the code in the question would be:
try (Session session = new Session())
{
// do stuff
}
Note that Session needs to implement AutoClosable or one of its (many) sub-interfaces.

Technically:
DisposableObject d = null;
try {
d = new DisposableObject();
}
finally {
if (d != null) {
d.Dispose();
}
}

The closest java equivalent is
AwesomeClass hooray = new AwesomeClass();
try{
// Great code
} finally {
hooray.dispose(); // or .close(), etc.
}

As of now, no.
However there is a proposal of ARM for Java 7.

If you're interested in resource management, Project Lombok offers the #Cleanup annotation. Taken directly from their site:
You can use #Cleanup to ensure a given
resource is automatically cleaned up
before the code execution path exits
your current scope. You do this by
annotating any local variable
declaration with the #Cleanup
annotation like so:
#Cleanup InputStream in = new FileInputStream("some/file");
As a
result, at the end of the scope you're
in, in.close() is called. This call is
guaranteed to run by way of a
try/finally construct. Look at the
example below to see how this works.
If the type of object you'd like to
cleanup does not have a close()
method, but some other no-argument
method, you can specify the name of
this method like so:
#Cleanup("dispose") org.eclipse.swt.widgets.CoolBar bar = new CoolBar(parent, 0);
By default, the cleanup method is presumed to be
close(). A cleanup method that takes
argument cannot be called via
#Cleanup.
Vanilla Java
import java.io.*;
public class CleanupExample {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
InputStream in = new FileInputStream(args[0]);
try {
OutputStream out = new FileOutputStream(args[1]);
try {
byte[] b = new byte[10000];
while (true) {
int r = in.read(b);
if (r == -1) break;
out.write(b, 0, r);
}
} finally {
out.close();
}
} finally {
in.close();
}
}
}
With Lombok
import lombok.Cleanup;
import java.io.*;
public class CleanupExample {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
#Cleanup InputStream in = new FileInputStream(args[0]);
#Cleanup OutputStream out = new FileOutputStream(args[1]);
byte[] b = new byte[10000];
while (true) {
int r = in.read(b);
if (r == -1) break;
out.write(b, 0, r);
}
}
}

No, Java has no using statement equivalent.

In java 8 you can use try. Please refer to following page. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/exceptions/tryResourceClose.html

Please see this List of Java Keywords.
The using keyword is unfortunately not part of the list.
And there is also no equivalence of the C# using keyword through any other keyword as for now in Java.
To imitate such "using" behaviour, you will have to use a try...catch...finally block, where you would dispose of the resources within finally.

ARM blocks, from project coin will be in Java 7. This is feature is intended to bring similar functionality to Java as the .Net using syntax.

To answer the question regarding limiting scope of a variable, instead of talking about automatically closing/disposing variables.
In Java you can define closed, anonymous scopes using curly brackets. It's extremely simple.
{
AwesomeClass hooray = new AwesomeClass()
// Great code
}
The variable hooray is only available in this scope, and not outside it.
This can be useful if you have repeating variables which are only temporary.
For example, each with index. Just like the item variable is closed over the for loop (i.e., is only available inside it), the index variable is closed over the anonymous scope.
// first loop
{
Integer index = -1;
for (Object item : things) {index += 1;
// ... item, index
}
}
// second loop
{
Integer index = -1;
for (Object item : stuff) {index += 1;
// ... item, index
}
}
I also use this sometimes if you don't have a for loop to provide variable scope, but you want to use generic variable names.
{
User user = new User();
user.setId(0);
user.setName("Andy Green");
user.setEmail("andygreen#gmail.com");
users.add(user);
}
{
User user = new User();
user.setId(1);
user.setName("Rachel Blue");
user.setEmail("rachelblue#gmail.com");
users.add(user);
}