I have a scenario where I need the properties in my class to map to a dictionary. Here is a code sample:
public string Foo
{
get
{
if (!PropertyBag.ContainsKey("Foo"))
{
return null;
}
return PropertyBag["Foo"];
}
set
{
PropertyBag["Foo"] = value;
}
}
I have to apply this pattern to multiple properties. Is there a way to use attributes to do that?
I know that PostSharp would work for this purpose, but I was hoping there is a way to do it without using it.
This feels like a code smell to me. It would be better to use regular POCOs and convert them to a Dictionary only when needed.
public class BlogPost
{
public string Title { get; set; }
public string Body { get; set; }
public int AuthorId { get; set; }
public Dictionary<string, object> ToDictionary()
{
return this.GetType()
.GetProperties(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public)
.ToDictionary(prop => prop.Name, prop => prop.GetValue(this, null));
}
}
Inspiration: How to convert class into Dictionary?
And to be honest, a ToDictionary method on your POCO's seems like a code smell. It would be better to refactor your code so the conversion of POCOs to Dictionaries happens in its own layer, as a service maybe.
Edit: This Gist I found while searching google for "c# convert object to dictionary" could provide a more generalized solution, and probably more bullet proof than my cobbled together example:
Gist: https://gist.github.com/jarrettmeyer/798667
From the Gist:
public static class ObjectToDictionaryHelper
{
public static IDictionary<string, object> ToDictionary(this object source)
{
return source.ToDictionary<object>();
}
public static IDictionary<string, T> ToDictionary<T>(this object source)
{
if (source == null)
ThrowExceptionWhenSourceArgumentIsNull();
var dictionary = new Dictionary<string, T>();
foreach (PropertyDescriptor property in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(source))
AddPropertyToDictionary<T>(property, source, dictionary);
return dictionary;
}
private static void AddPropertyToDictionary<T>(PropertyDescriptor property, object source, Dictionary<string, T> dictionary)
{
object value = property.GetValue(source);
if (IsOfType<T>(value))
dictionary.add(property.Name, (T)value);
}
private static bool IsOfType<T>(object value)
{
return value is T;
}
private static void ThrowExceptionWhenSourceArgumentIsNull()
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("source", "Unable to convert object to a dictionary. The source object is null.");
}
}
Credit: jerrettmeyer at GitHub
This should add a ToDictionary method to every object.
Edit: From the following comment
To give a bit of context, I am using Entity Framework and I have a class hierarchy that I would like to keep in one table while avoiding null columns everywhere.
Entity framework supports multiple table inheritance. That might be a better solution in your case.
You can write a GetValueOrDefault extension method and reduce the code a little.
public static class DictionaryExtensions
{
public static TValue GetValueOrDefault<TKey, TValue>(this IDictionary<TKey,TValue> self, TKey key)
{
TValue value;
self.TryGetValue(key,out value);
return value;
}
}
public string Foo
{
get
{
return PropertyBag.GetValueOrDefault("Foo");
}
set
{
PropertyBag["Foo"] = value;
}
}
You can eliminate the magic strings using expressions.
If you're using at least .NET 4.5 then you have the CallerMemberNameAttribute which you could use like this:
class SomeClass
{
public string Foo
{
get
{
return GetPropertyValue();
}
set
{
SetPropertyValue( value );
}
}
private string GetPropertyValue( [CallerMemberName] string name = null )
{
string value;
PropertyBag.TryGetValue( name, out value );
return value;
}
private void SetPropertyValue( string value, [CallerMemberName] string name = null )
{
PropertyBag[name] = value;
}
}
This will result in the compiler filling out the name of the member for you. If you're not (or otherwise can't) use .NET 4.5, another alternative would be to take advantage of expression trees as suggested in another answer.
class Test
{
Dictionary<string,object> _values = new Dictionary<string, object>();
public string Foo
{
get
{
var value = GetValue();
return value == null ? string.Empty : (string)value;
}
set
{
SetValue(value);
}
}
private object GetValue()
{
var stack = new StackTrace();
var key = GetGenericName(stack.GetFrame(1).GetMethod().Name);
if (_values.ContainsKey(key)) return _values[key];
return null;
}
private void SetValue(object value)
{
var stack = new StackTrace();
var key = GetGenericName(stack.GetFrame(1).GetMethod().Name);
_values[key] = value;
}
private string GetGenericName(string key)
{
return key.Split('_')[1];
}
}
Related
I'm trying to do do the following:
GetString(
inputString,
ref Client.WorkPhone)
private void GetString(string inValue, ref string outValue)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(inValue))
{
outValue = inValue;
}
}
This is giving me a compile error. I think its pretty clear what I'm trying to achieve. Basically I want GetString to copy the contents of an input string to the WorkPhone property of Client.
Is it possible to pass a property by reference?
Properties cannot be passed by reference. Here are a few ways you can work around this limitation.
1. Return Value
string GetString(string input, string output)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(input))
{
return input;
}
return output;
}
void Main()
{
var person = new Person();
person.Name = GetString("test", person.Name);
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
}
2. Delegate
void GetString(string input, Action<string> setOutput)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(input))
{
setOutput(input);
}
}
void Main()
{
var person = new Person();
GetString("test", value => person.Name = value);
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
}
3. LINQ Expression
void GetString<T>(string input, T target, Expression<Func<T, string>> outExpr)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(input))
{
var expr = (MemberExpression) outExpr.Body;
var prop = (PropertyInfo) expr.Member;
prop.SetValue(target, input, null);
}
}
void Main()
{
var person = new Person();
GetString("test", person, x => x.Name);
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
}
4. Reflection
void GetString(string input, object target, string propertyName)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(input))
{
var prop = target.GetType().GetProperty(propertyName);
prop.SetValue(target, input);
}
}
void Main()
{
var person = new Person();
GetString("test", person, nameof(Person.Name));
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
}
I wrote a wrapper using the ExpressionTree variant and c#7 (if somebody is interested):
public class Accessor<T>
{
private Action<T> Setter;
private Func<T> Getter;
public Accessor(Expression<Func<T>> expr)
{
var memberExpression = (MemberExpression)expr.Body;
var instanceExpression = memberExpression.Expression;
var parameter = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T));
if (memberExpression.Member is PropertyInfo propertyInfo)
{
Setter = Expression.Lambda<Action<T>>(Expression.Call(instanceExpression, propertyInfo.GetSetMethod(), parameter), parameter).Compile();
Getter = Expression.Lambda<Func<T>>(Expression.Call(instanceExpression, propertyInfo.GetGetMethod())).Compile();
}
else if (memberExpression.Member is FieldInfo fieldInfo)
{
Setter = Expression.Lambda<Action<T>>(Expression.Assign(memberExpression, parameter), parameter).Compile();
Getter = Expression.Lambda<Func<T>>(Expression.Field(instanceExpression,fieldInfo)).Compile();
}
}
public void Set(T value) => Setter(value);
public T Get() => Getter();
}
And use it like:
var accessor = new Accessor<string>(() => myClient.WorkPhone);
accessor.Set("12345");
Assert.Equal(accessor.Get(), "12345");
without duplicating the property
void Main()
{
var client = new Client();
NullSafeSet("test", s => client.Name = s);
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
NullSafeSet("", s => client.Name = s);
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
NullSafeSet(null, s => client.Name = s);
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
}
void NullSafeSet(string value, Action<string> setter)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(value))
{
setter(value);
}
}
If you want to get and set the property both, you can use this in C#7:
GetString(
inputString,
(() => client.WorkPhone, x => client.WorkPhone = x))
void GetString(string inValue, (Func<string> get, Action<string> set) outValue)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(outValue.get()))
{
outValue.set(inValue);
}
}
This is covered in section 7.4.1 of the C# language spec. Only a variable-reference can be passed as a ref or out parameter in an argument list. A property does not qualify as a variable reference and hence cannot be used.
Just a little expansion to Nathan's Linq Expression solution. Use multi generic param so that the property doesn't limited to string.
void GetString<TClass, TProperty>(string input, TClass outObj, Expression<Func<TClass, TProperty>> outExpr)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(input))
{
var expr = (MemberExpression) outExpr.Body;
var prop = (PropertyInfo) expr.Member;
if (!prop.GetValue(outObj).Equals(input))
{
prop.SetValue(outObj, input, null);
}
}
}
Another trick not yet mentioned is to have the class which implements a property (e.g. Foo of type Bar) also define a delegate delegate void ActByRef<T1,T2>(ref T1 p1, ref T2 p2); and implement a method ActOnFoo<TX1>(ref Bar it, ActByRef<Bar,TX1> proc, ref TX1 extraParam1) (and possibly versions for two and three "extra parameters" as well) which will pass its internal representation of Foo to the supplied procedure as a ref parameter. This has a couple of big advantages over other methods of working with the property:
The property is updated "in place"; if the property is of a type that's compatible with `Interlocked` methods, or if it is a struct with exposed fields of such types, the `Interlocked` methods may be used to perform atomic updates to the property.
If the property is an exposed-field structure, the fields of the structure may be modified without having to make any redundant copies of it.
If the `ActByRef` method passes one or more `ref` parameters through from its caller to the supplied delegate, it may be possible to use a singleton or static delegate, thus avoiding the need to create closures or delegates at run-time.
The property knows when it is being "worked with". While it is always necessary to use caution executing external code while holding a lock, if one can trust callers not to do too do anything in their callback that might require another lock, it may be practical to have the method guard the property access with a lock, such that updates which aren't compatible with `CompareExchange` could still be performed quasi-atomically.
Passing things be ref is an excellent pattern; too bad it's not used more.
This is not possible. You could say
Client.WorkPhone = GetString(inputString, Client.WorkPhone);
where WorkPhone is a writeable string property and the definition of GetString is changed to
private string GetString(string input, string current) {
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(input)) {
return input;
}
return current;
}
This will have the same semantics that you seem to be trying for.
This isn't possible because a property is really a pair of methods in disguise. Each property makes available getters and setters that are accessible via field-like syntax. When you attempt to call GetString as you've proposed, what you're passing in is a value and not a variable. The value that you are passing in is that returned from the getter get_WorkPhone.
Inspired by Sven's expression tree solution, below is a smplified version that doesn't rely on reflection. Also, it removes the unnecessary custom getter and field expressions.
using System;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
namespace Utils;
public class Accessor<T>
{
public Accessor(Expression<Func<T>> expression)
{
if (expression.Body is not MemberExpression memberExpression)
throw new ArgumentException("expression must return a field or property");
var parameterExpression = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T));
_setter = Expression.Lambda<Action<T>>(Expression.Assign(memberExpression, parameterExpression), parameterExpression).Compile();
_getter = expression.Compile();
}
public void Set(T value) => _setter(value);
public T Get() => _getter();
private readonly Action<T> _setter;
private readonly Func<T> _getter;
}
Properties cannot be passed by reference ? Make it a field then, and use the property to reference it publicly:
public class MyClass
{
public class MyStuff
{
string foo { get; set; }
}
private ObservableCollection<MyStuff> _collection;
public ObservableCollection<MyStuff> Items { get { return _collection; } }
public MyClass()
{
_collection = new ObservableCollection<MyStuff>();
this.LoadMyCollectionByRef<MyStuff>(ref _collection);
}
public void LoadMyCollectionByRef<T>(ref ObservableCollection<T> objects_collection)
{
// Load refered collection
}
}
What you could try to do is create an object to hold the property value. That way you could pass the object and still have access to the property inside.
To vote on this issue, here is one active suggestion of how this could be added to the language. I'm not saying this is the best way to do this (at all), feel free to put out your own suggestion. But allowing properties to be passed by ref like Visual Basic already can do would hugely help simplify some code, and quite often!
https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/1235
You can't ref a property, but if your functions need both get and set access you can pass around an instance of a class with a property defined:
public class Property<T>
{
public delegate T Get();
public delegate void Set(T value);
private Get get;
private Set set;
public T Value {
get {
return get();
}
set {
set(value);
}
}
public Property(Get get, Set set) {
this.get = get;
this.set = set;
}
}
Example:
class Client
{
private string workPhone; // this could still be a public property if desired
public readonly Property<string> WorkPhone; // this could be created outside Client if using a regular public property
public int AreaCode { get; set; }
public Client() {
WorkPhone = new Property<string>(
delegate () { return workPhone; },
delegate (string value) { workPhone = value; });
}
}
class Usage
{
public void PrependAreaCode(Property<string> phone, int areaCode) {
phone.Value = areaCode.ToString() + "-" + phone.Value;
}
public void PrepareClientInfo(Client client) {
PrependAreaCode(client.WorkPhone, client.AreaCode);
}
}
The accepted answer is good if that function is in your code and you can modify it. But sometimes you have to use an object and a function from some external library and you can't change the property and function definition. Then you can just use a temporary variable.
var phone = Client.WorkPhone;
GetString(input, ref phone);
Client.WorkPhone = phone;
It seems that you are needing to impose a business rule constraint on that field, while at the same time wanting to keep your code as DRY as possible.
It is achievable and also preserves your domain semantics by implementing a full property on that field and using your re-usable method:
public class Client
{
private string workPhone;
public string WorkPhone
{
get => workPhone;
set => SafeSetString(ref workPhone, value);
}
private void SafeSetString(ref string target, string source)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(source))
{
target = source;
}
}
}
The SafeSetString method can be placed in a Utilities class or wherever it makes sense.
Yes, you can't pass a property but you can convert your property to a property with backing field and do something like this.
public class SomeClass
{
private List<int> _myList;
public List<int> MyList
{
get => return _myList;
set => _myList = value;
}
public ref List<int> GetMyListByRef()
{
return ref _myList;
}
}
but there are better solutions like action delegate etc.
C# has the usefull Null Conditional Operator. Well explained in this answer too.
I was wondering if it is possible to do a similar check like this when my object is a dynamic/expando object. Let me show you some code:
Given this class hierarchy
public class ClsLevel1
{
public ClsLevel2 ClsLevel2 { get; set; }
public ClsLevel1()
{
this.ClsLevel2 = new ClsLevel2(); // You can comment this line to test
}
}
public class ClsLevel2
{
public ClsLevel3 ClsLevel3 { get; set; }
public ClsLevel2()
{
this.ClsLevel3 = new ClsLevel3();
}
}
public class ClsLevel3
{
// No child
public ClsLevel3()
{
}
}
If i perform this kind of chained null check, it works
ClsLevel1 levelRoot = new ClsLevel1();
if (levelRoot?.ClsLevel2?.ClsLevel3 != null)
{
// will enter here if you DO NOT comment the content of the ClsLevel1 constructor
}
else
{
// will enter here if you COMMENT the content of the ClsLevel1
}
Now, i will try to reproduce this behaviour with dynamics (ExpandoObjects)
dynamic dinRoot = new ExpandoObject();
dynamic DinLevel1 = new ExpandoObject();
dynamic DinLevel2 = new ExpandoObject();
dynamic DinLevel3 = new ExpandoObject();
dinRoot.DinLevel1 = DinLevel1;
dinRoot.DinLevel1.DinLevel2 = DinLevel2;
//dinRoot.DinLevel1.DinLevel2.DinLevel3 = DinLevel3; // You can comment this line to test
if (dinRoot?.DinLevel1?.DinLevel2?.DinLevel3 != null)
{
// Obviously it will raise an exception because the DinLevel3 does not exists, it is commented right now.
}
Is there a way to simulate this behaviour with dynamics? I mean, check for a null in a long chain of members?
If you want to support this in a more natural way you can inherit from DynamicObject and provide a custom implementation:
class MyExpando : DynamicObject
{
private readonly Dictionary<string, object> _dictionary = new Dictionary<string, object>();
public override bool TryGetMember(GetMemberBinder binder, out object result)
{
var name = binder.Name.ToLower();
result = _dictionary.ContainsKey(name) ? _dictionary[name] : null;
return true;
}
public override bool TrySetMember(SetMemberBinder binder, object value)
{
_dictionary[binder.Name.ToLower()] = value;
return true;
}
}
Testing:
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
dynamic foo = new MyExpando();
if (foo.Boo?.Lol ?? true)
{
Console.WriteLine("It works!");
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
The output will be "It works!". Since Boo does not exist we get a null reference so that the Null Conditional Operator can work.
What we do here is to return a null reference to the output parameter of TryGetMember every time a property is not found and we always return true.
EDIT: fixed, as ExpandoObjects and extension methods do not work well together. Slightly less nice, but hopefully still usable.
Helper method(s):
public static class DynamicExtensions
{
public static Object TryGetProperty(ExpandoObject obj, String name)
{
return name.Split('.')
.Aggregate((Object)obj, (o, s) => o != null
? TryGetPropertyInternal(o, s)
: null);
}
private static Object TryGetPropertyInternal(Object obj, String name)
{
var dict = obj as IDictionary<String, Object>;
return (dict?.ContainsKey(name) ?? false) ? dict[name] : null;
}
}
Usage:
if (DynamicExtensions.TryGetProperty(dinRoot, "DinLevel1.DinLevel2.DinLevel3") != null)
I know the fact that C# doesn't support properties with arguments except the default properties. But I think still it's nice to have such feature in some situations. As an example, an application might have settings which are specific to the language currently used. So such settings property may look like this.
settings.IsContentDownloaded["en-US"] = true;
Event thought this doesn't support by default, we can come up with a workaround to simulate this with other great feature available in the language. But the problem is what is the best workaround which provide a generalized approach to this problem.
I have my own workaround for this and I have shared it as an answer. But I'm looking for a better approach or any improvement to my approach.
create a dictionary where the keys are your strings such as "en-US" and the values are a bool:
Dictionary<string, bool> aaa = new Dictionary<string, bool>();
aaa.Add("en-US", true);
if(aaa["en-US"].Equals(true))
{
}
Its an interesting question, here is a method I came up with:
public class LocalizableSetting<T> : IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string, T>>
{
private Dictionary<string, T> _values;
public T this[string cultureName]
{
get { return _values[cultureName]; }
set
{
_values[cultureName] = value;
}
}
public IEnumerator<KeyValuePair<string, T>> GetEnumerator()
{
return _values.GetEnumerator();
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return _values.GetEnumerator();
}
public static implicit operator T(LocalizableSetting<T> value)
{
return value[CultureInfo.CurrentCulture.Name];
}
public static implicit operator LocalizableSetting<T>(T value)
{
var setting = new LocalizableSetting<T>();
setting[CultureInfo.CurrentCulture.Name] = value;
return setting;
}
}
Here LocalizableSetting stores localized values in an internal dictionary, which is really nothing special, however I added a feature that allows it to be used like normal properties as well, the implicit conversion operators.
This does take some tricks to use though, in order to properly use it in a class, you cannot use auto-properties, since you have to merge the two on a set, not overwrite it, so here is an example of how to use it in a class:
public class SomeLocalizableClass
{
//Explicitly declare the backing field for the property!
private LocalizableSetting<int> _intSetting = new LocalizableSetting<int>();
public LocalizableSetting<int> IntSetting
{
get { return _intSetting; }
set
{
//Merge, don't overwrite
foreach (var kvp in value)
_intSetting[kvp.Key] = kvp.Value;
}
}
}
Notice that in the set method, it iterates through the values and either overwrites the current one or adds a new one (with the help of the indexer).
So, this allows you to do something like this:
public class SomeConsumerClass
{
public void SomeMethod()
{
SomeLocalizableClass c = new SomeLocalizableClass();
c.IntSetting["fr-FR"] = 4; //Sets the french setting
c.IntSetting = 10; //Sets the current culture setting
int multipleSetting = c.IntSetting * c.IntSetting;
}
}
Where multipleSetting will be the multiple of the current culture values for that property due to the implicit conversion from LocalizableSetting<int> to int. The c.IntSetting = 10 causes an implicit conversion from the source type (int) to a LocalizableSetting<int> and then assigns it to the property, this is why a merge is needed instead of an overwrite.
There are a couple (big) holes that I left here, namely that the property should return some default value if the value for that culture is not found (currently it will throw an exception). But it shows one method of solving this issue.
I have used dictionary named _settingsRepositoty to store settings, but it might be anything which use to store setting based on the application type.
public class Settings
{
private Dictionary<string, object> _settingsRepository = new Dictionary<string, object>();
private LanguageSpecificPropertyFactory _factory;
public Settings()
{
_factory = new LanguageSpecificPropertyFactory(this);
}
public LanguageSpecificProperty<bool> IsContentDownloaded
{
get
{
return _factory.GetLanguageProperty("IsContentDownloaded", false);
}
}
private void Set<T>(string propertyName, string lang, T val)
{
string fullPropertyName = string.Format("{0}_{1}", propertyName, lang);
_settingsRepository[fullPropertyName] = val;
}
private T Get<T>(string propertyName, string lang, T defaultValue)
{
string fullPropertyName = string.Format("{0}_{1}", propertyName, lang);
if (!_settingsRepository.ContainsKey(fullPropertyName))
{
_settingsRepository[fullPropertyName] = defaultValue;
}
return (T)_settingsRepository[fullPropertyName];
}
public class LanguageSpecificProperty<T>
{
private string _properyName;
private T _defaultValue;
private Settings _settings;
internal LanguageSpecificProperty(Settings settings, string propertyName, T defaultValue)
{
_properyName = propertyName;
_defaultValue = defaultValue;
}
public T this[string lang]
{
get
{
return _settings.Get<T>(_properyName, lang, _defaultValue);
}
set
{
_settings.Set<T>(_properyName, lang, value);
}
}
}
public class LanguageSpecificPropertyFactory
{
private Dictionary<string, object> _properties = new Dictionary<string, object>();
private Settings _settings;
public LanguageSpecificPropertyFactory(Settings settings)
{
_settings = settings;
}
internal LanguageSpecificProperty<T> GetLanguageProperty<T>(string propertyName, T defaultValue)
{
if (!_properties.ContainsKey(propertyName))
{
_properties.Add(propertyName, new LanguageSpecificProperty<T>(_settings, propertyName, defaultValue));
}
return (LanguageSpecificProperty<T>)_properties[propertyName];
}
}
}
I was hoping to use a dynamically typed object to write to a CSV file.
I'm receiving a 'CsvHelper.CsvWriterException' within the CsvWriter.WriteObject method with this message: "No properties are mapped for type 'WpmExport.DynamicEntry'."
Here is the class that I'm trying use :
public class DynamicEntry : DynamicObject
{
private Dictionary<string, object> dictionary = new Dictionary<string, object>();
public override bool TryGetMember(
GetMemberBinder binder, out object result)
{
string name = binder.Name.ToLower();
return dictionary.TryGetValue(name, out result);
}
public override bool TrySetMember(
SetMemberBinder binder, object value)
{
dictionary[binder.Name.ToLower()] = value;
return true;
}
public override IEnumerable<string> GetDynamicMemberNames()
{
return dictionary.Keys.AsEnumerable();
}
}
Anyone with any ideas or working examples? The documentation at http://joshclose.github.io/CsvHelper/ hints that it is possible but doesn't provide any guidance.
TIA
The functionality does not exist yet. You can write dynamic but not DynamicObject. You can view a thread on the subject here. https://github.com/JoshClose/CsvHelper/issues/187
When the functionality get implemented, I'll update the answer with the version it's in.
Update
This functionality will be available in 3.0. You can currently try out the 3.0-beta from NuGet.
Because I cannot wait for Version 3.0 (and CsvHelper.Excel to support it), I have found a interim-solution.
Got the class to export:
public partial class EntryReportInventory
{
public Guid DeviceId { get; set; }
[ReportProperty]
public string DeviceName { get; set; }
public Dictionary<string, object> InventoryValues { get; set; }
public EntryReportInventory(Device device, Dictionary<string, object> inventoryValues)
{
this.DeviceId = device.Id;
this.DeviceName = device.Name;
this.InventoryValues = inventoryValues;
}
}
Created Mapper:
Type genericClass = typeof(DefaultCsvClassMap<>);
Type constructedClass = genericClass.MakeGenericType(typeof(EntryReportInventory));
return (CsvClassMap)Activator.CreateInstance(constructedClass);
And now the magic. I iterate all properties.
foreach (PropertyInfo property in mapping)
{
...
if (isInventoryReportBaseType && typeof(Dictionary<string, object>).IsAssignableFrom(property.PropertyType))
{
var dataSource = (ReportInventoryBase)Activator.CreateInstance(entityType, dbContext);
foreach (var item in dataSource.ColumnNameAndText)
{
var columnName = item.Key;
var newMap = new CsvPropertyMap(property);
newMap.Name(columnName);
newMap.TypeConverter(new InventoryEntryListSpecifiedTypeConverter(item.Key));
customMap.PropertyMaps.Add(newMap);
}
...
}
And my converter is:
public class InventoryEntryListSpecifiedTypeConverter : CsvHelper.TypeConversion.ITypeConverter
{
private string indexKey;
public InventoryEntryListSpecifiedTypeConverter(string indexKey)
{
this.indexKey = indexKey;
}
public bool CanConvertFrom(Type type)
{
return true;
}
public bool CanConvertTo(Type type)
{
return true;
}
public object ConvertFromString(TypeConverterOptions options, string text)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public string ConvertToString(TypeConverterOptions options, object value)
{
var myValue = value as Dictionary<string, object>;
if (value == null || myValue.Count == 0) return null;
return myValue[indexKey] + "";
}
}
Don't know why, but it works to pass the same property several times.
That's it :)
You only have to have a list before (here: dataSource.ColumnNameAndText, filled from an external source) to identify the columns/values.
I'm trying to do do the following:
GetString(
inputString,
ref Client.WorkPhone)
private void GetString(string inValue, ref string outValue)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(inValue))
{
outValue = inValue;
}
}
This is giving me a compile error. I think its pretty clear what I'm trying to achieve. Basically I want GetString to copy the contents of an input string to the WorkPhone property of Client.
Is it possible to pass a property by reference?
Properties cannot be passed by reference. Here are a few ways you can work around this limitation.
1. Return Value
string GetString(string input, string output)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(input))
{
return input;
}
return output;
}
void Main()
{
var person = new Person();
person.Name = GetString("test", person.Name);
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
}
2. Delegate
void GetString(string input, Action<string> setOutput)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(input))
{
setOutput(input);
}
}
void Main()
{
var person = new Person();
GetString("test", value => person.Name = value);
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
}
3. LINQ Expression
void GetString<T>(string input, T target, Expression<Func<T, string>> outExpr)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(input))
{
var expr = (MemberExpression) outExpr.Body;
var prop = (PropertyInfo) expr.Member;
prop.SetValue(target, input, null);
}
}
void Main()
{
var person = new Person();
GetString("test", person, x => x.Name);
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
}
4. Reflection
void GetString(string input, object target, string propertyName)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(input))
{
var prop = target.GetType().GetProperty(propertyName);
prop.SetValue(target, input);
}
}
void Main()
{
var person = new Person();
GetString("test", person, nameof(Person.Name));
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
}
I wrote a wrapper using the ExpressionTree variant and c#7 (if somebody is interested):
public class Accessor<T>
{
private Action<T> Setter;
private Func<T> Getter;
public Accessor(Expression<Func<T>> expr)
{
var memberExpression = (MemberExpression)expr.Body;
var instanceExpression = memberExpression.Expression;
var parameter = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T));
if (memberExpression.Member is PropertyInfo propertyInfo)
{
Setter = Expression.Lambda<Action<T>>(Expression.Call(instanceExpression, propertyInfo.GetSetMethod(), parameter), parameter).Compile();
Getter = Expression.Lambda<Func<T>>(Expression.Call(instanceExpression, propertyInfo.GetGetMethod())).Compile();
}
else if (memberExpression.Member is FieldInfo fieldInfo)
{
Setter = Expression.Lambda<Action<T>>(Expression.Assign(memberExpression, parameter), parameter).Compile();
Getter = Expression.Lambda<Func<T>>(Expression.Field(instanceExpression,fieldInfo)).Compile();
}
}
public void Set(T value) => Setter(value);
public T Get() => Getter();
}
And use it like:
var accessor = new Accessor<string>(() => myClient.WorkPhone);
accessor.Set("12345");
Assert.Equal(accessor.Get(), "12345");
without duplicating the property
void Main()
{
var client = new Client();
NullSafeSet("test", s => client.Name = s);
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
NullSafeSet("", s => client.Name = s);
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
NullSafeSet(null, s => client.Name = s);
Debug.Assert(person.Name == "test");
}
void NullSafeSet(string value, Action<string> setter)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(value))
{
setter(value);
}
}
If you want to get and set the property both, you can use this in C#7:
GetString(
inputString,
(() => client.WorkPhone, x => client.WorkPhone = x))
void GetString(string inValue, (Func<string> get, Action<string> set) outValue)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(outValue.get()))
{
outValue.set(inValue);
}
}
This is covered in section 7.4.1 of the C# language spec. Only a variable-reference can be passed as a ref or out parameter in an argument list. A property does not qualify as a variable reference and hence cannot be used.
Just a little expansion to Nathan's Linq Expression solution. Use multi generic param so that the property doesn't limited to string.
void GetString<TClass, TProperty>(string input, TClass outObj, Expression<Func<TClass, TProperty>> outExpr)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(input))
{
var expr = (MemberExpression) outExpr.Body;
var prop = (PropertyInfo) expr.Member;
if (!prop.GetValue(outObj).Equals(input))
{
prop.SetValue(outObj, input, null);
}
}
}
Another trick not yet mentioned is to have the class which implements a property (e.g. Foo of type Bar) also define a delegate delegate void ActByRef<T1,T2>(ref T1 p1, ref T2 p2); and implement a method ActOnFoo<TX1>(ref Bar it, ActByRef<Bar,TX1> proc, ref TX1 extraParam1) (and possibly versions for two and three "extra parameters" as well) which will pass its internal representation of Foo to the supplied procedure as a ref parameter. This has a couple of big advantages over other methods of working with the property:
The property is updated "in place"; if the property is of a type that's compatible with `Interlocked` methods, or if it is a struct with exposed fields of such types, the `Interlocked` methods may be used to perform atomic updates to the property.
If the property is an exposed-field structure, the fields of the structure may be modified without having to make any redundant copies of it.
If the `ActByRef` method passes one or more `ref` parameters through from its caller to the supplied delegate, it may be possible to use a singleton or static delegate, thus avoiding the need to create closures or delegates at run-time.
The property knows when it is being "worked with". While it is always necessary to use caution executing external code while holding a lock, if one can trust callers not to do too do anything in their callback that might require another lock, it may be practical to have the method guard the property access with a lock, such that updates which aren't compatible with `CompareExchange` could still be performed quasi-atomically.
Passing things be ref is an excellent pattern; too bad it's not used more.
This is not possible. You could say
Client.WorkPhone = GetString(inputString, Client.WorkPhone);
where WorkPhone is a writeable string property and the definition of GetString is changed to
private string GetString(string input, string current) {
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(input)) {
return input;
}
return current;
}
This will have the same semantics that you seem to be trying for.
This isn't possible because a property is really a pair of methods in disguise. Each property makes available getters and setters that are accessible via field-like syntax. When you attempt to call GetString as you've proposed, what you're passing in is a value and not a variable. The value that you are passing in is that returned from the getter get_WorkPhone.
Inspired by Sven's expression tree solution, below is a smplified version that doesn't rely on reflection. Also, it removes the unnecessary custom getter and field expressions.
using System;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
namespace Utils;
public class Accessor<T>
{
public Accessor(Expression<Func<T>> expression)
{
if (expression.Body is not MemberExpression memberExpression)
throw new ArgumentException("expression must return a field or property");
var parameterExpression = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T));
_setter = Expression.Lambda<Action<T>>(Expression.Assign(memberExpression, parameterExpression), parameterExpression).Compile();
_getter = expression.Compile();
}
public void Set(T value) => _setter(value);
public T Get() => _getter();
private readonly Action<T> _setter;
private readonly Func<T> _getter;
}
Properties cannot be passed by reference ? Make it a field then, and use the property to reference it publicly:
public class MyClass
{
public class MyStuff
{
string foo { get; set; }
}
private ObservableCollection<MyStuff> _collection;
public ObservableCollection<MyStuff> Items { get { return _collection; } }
public MyClass()
{
_collection = new ObservableCollection<MyStuff>();
this.LoadMyCollectionByRef<MyStuff>(ref _collection);
}
public void LoadMyCollectionByRef<T>(ref ObservableCollection<T> objects_collection)
{
// Load refered collection
}
}
What you could try to do is create an object to hold the property value. That way you could pass the object and still have access to the property inside.
To vote on this issue, here is one active suggestion of how this could be added to the language. I'm not saying this is the best way to do this (at all), feel free to put out your own suggestion. But allowing properties to be passed by ref like Visual Basic already can do would hugely help simplify some code, and quite often!
https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/1235
You can't ref a property, but if your functions need both get and set access you can pass around an instance of a class with a property defined:
public class Property<T>
{
public delegate T Get();
public delegate void Set(T value);
private Get get;
private Set set;
public T Value {
get {
return get();
}
set {
set(value);
}
}
public Property(Get get, Set set) {
this.get = get;
this.set = set;
}
}
Example:
class Client
{
private string workPhone; // this could still be a public property if desired
public readonly Property<string> WorkPhone; // this could be created outside Client if using a regular public property
public int AreaCode { get; set; }
public Client() {
WorkPhone = new Property<string>(
delegate () { return workPhone; },
delegate (string value) { workPhone = value; });
}
}
class Usage
{
public void PrependAreaCode(Property<string> phone, int areaCode) {
phone.Value = areaCode.ToString() + "-" + phone.Value;
}
public void PrepareClientInfo(Client client) {
PrependAreaCode(client.WorkPhone, client.AreaCode);
}
}
The accepted answer is good if that function is in your code and you can modify it. But sometimes you have to use an object and a function from some external library and you can't change the property and function definition. Then you can just use a temporary variable.
var phone = Client.WorkPhone;
GetString(input, ref phone);
Client.WorkPhone = phone;
It seems that you are needing to impose a business rule constraint on that field, while at the same time wanting to keep your code as DRY as possible.
It is achievable and also preserves your domain semantics by implementing a full property on that field and using your re-usable method:
public class Client
{
private string workPhone;
public string WorkPhone
{
get => workPhone;
set => SafeSetString(ref workPhone, value);
}
private void SafeSetString(ref string target, string source)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(source))
{
target = source;
}
}
}
The SafeSetString method can be placed in a Utilities class or wherever it makes sense.
Yes, you can't pass a property but you can convert your property to a property with backing field and do something like this.
public class SomeClass
{
private List<int> _myList;
public List<int> MyList
{
get => return _myList;
set => _myList = value;
}
public ref List<int> GetMyListByRef()
{
return ref _myList;
}
}
but there are better solutions like action delegate etc.