I want to be able to store code in a database and then execute it dynamically (using Roslyn). However, I want to be able to (inject?) properties from calling code. See below:
using Roslyn.Scripting.CSharp;
using RoslynMVCTest.Interfaces;
namespace RoslynMVCTest.Services
{
public class MyService
{
private readonly IInjectedService _injectedService;
public MyService(IInjectedService injectedService)
{
_injectedService = injectedService;
}
public bool SomeMethod()
{
string codeString = #"
using RoslynMVCTest.Interfaces;
public class SomethingDoer
{
public IInjectedService InjectedService {get;set;}
public static bool DoSomething()
{
return IInjectedService.SomeOtherMethod();
}
}";
var engine = new ScriptEngine();
var session = engine.CreateSession(_injectedService);
session.AddReference(this.GetType().Assembly);
//How do I set the property in my dynamic code to _injectedService??
var result = session.Execute<bool>("SomethingDoer.DoSomething()");
return result;
}
}
}
I realize there are probably syntax and other issues here, but it's a good representation of what I want to do. Is there a way to do this?
First I'm going to answer your question matching your original code as closely as possible. Second, I'm going to show a far more concise example that might in fact be all that you're after.
You can certainly declare your type as you've done, but a few things will have to be fixed to even get it to make sense.
Your SomethingDoer class declares a non-static InjectedService property, despite the fact that you attempt to consume that property in a static method. I will assume for the sake of discussion that you intended SomethingDoer.DoSomething to be non-static as well and will thus instanatiate that class.
public static bool DoSomething()
To:
public bool DoSomething()
The "sesion" you pass to CreateSession is your actual service. To understand why this won't work, you have to understand what the argument you pass to CreateSession means and what's done with it. What the "session" means is that all the public properties of that object are available to your scripting session as raw identifiers without the need to . reference them on any target. Thus, to get your code working, I've introduced a new class (inner to the main service class for convenience) called Session:
public class Session
{
public IInjectedService InjectedService { get; set; }
}
Furthermore, I've used this new class when invoking CreateSession:
var session = engine.CreateSession(new Session { InjectedService = _injectedService });
What this means is that the property InjectedService is now available to you within your codeString.
Perhaps most importantly, your code codeString is never actually consumed by your code! You seem to have, understandably, conceived of this process as setting up a string for your code, and then imagined that you could then invoke some arbitrary method within it. On the contrary, there is only one block of code. So if you really want to declare a whole class in your script-code, you're still going to have to consume it directly within your script-code as well. This means that the final two lines of your codeString should actually look like:
var somethingDoer = new SomethingDoer { InjectedService = InjectedService };
somethingDoer.DoSomething()";
Here we're instantiating SomethingDoer (because of change 1.) and setting the service property by the implicit InjectedService value provided by the session (because of change 2.).
For completeness, here is the fully working sample code:
namespace RoslynMVCTest.Interfaces
{
public interface IInjectedService
{
bool SomeOtherMethod();
}
}
namespace RoslynMVCTest.Services
{
using RoslynMVCTest.Interfaces;
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(new MyService(new InjectedService()).SomeMethod());
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
class InjectedService : IInjectedService
{
public bool SomeOtherMethod()
{
return true;
}
}
public class MyService
{
private readonly IInjectedService _injectedService;
public MyService(IInjectedService injectedService)
{
_injectedService = injectedService;
}
public class Session
{
public IInjectedService InjectedService { get; set; }
}
public bool SomeMethod()
{
string codeString = #"
using RoslynMVCTest.Interfaces;
public class SomethingDoer
{
public IInjectedService InjectedService { get; set; }
public bool DoSomething()
{
return InjectedService.SomeOtherMethod();
}
}
var somethingDoer = new SomethingDoer { InjectedService = InjectedService };
somethingDoer.DoSomething()";
var engine = new ScriptEngine();
var session = engine.CreateSession(new Session { InjectedService = _injectedService });
session.AddReference(this.GetType().Assembly);
//How do I set the property in my dynamic code to _injectedService??
var result = session.Execute<bool>(codeString);
return result;
}
}
}
Alternative Approach
If all you want to do is allow your script to run some code that interacts with your service, you can see how this is actually extremely trivial given all the points made above. Thus to concisely express what might be the intent of your original code, all you'd have to do is:
var result = session.Execute<bool>("InjectedService.SomeOtherMethod()");
The code passed in here is simply the body of the service method in the long-winded first example. Quite possibly this is all you need or want.
Related
How to access and set StaticProperty
public static class StaticClass
{
private bool? _staticValue = null;
public bool StaticProperty => _staticValue ?? ((bool)(_staticValue = GetStaticPropertyValue()));
public static bool GetStaticPropertyValue()
{
//get value
}
}
inside Test Method,
[TestMethod]
public void UnitTestSomeMethod()
{
var consumeClass = new ConsumeClass();
consumeClass.SomeMethod();
}
so that isEnabled variable is set to true in ConsumeClass.SomeMethod
public class ConsumeClass
{
public void SomeMethod()
{
var isEnabled = StaticClass.StaticProperty;
if(isEnabled)
{
//do something
}
}
}
The way your code currently looks like there´s only a dirty way using reflection, because there´s no setter for your property:
var property = typeof(StaticClass).GetProperty("StaticProperty", BindingFlags.Static)?.GetBackingField().SetValue(null, true);
This sometimes is neccessary for large legacy-systems that you can´t easily change but you have the need for unit-tests. However you should change the system as soon as possible, e.g. by using an internal setter:
public static bool StaticProperty { get; internal set; }
and add the InternalsVisibleTo-attribute to your assemby, in order to access its internal members within your test-assembly.
As per your edit the reflection-based approach is a bit easier, as you have a named backing-field which you can assign a new value:
typeof(StaticClass).GetField("_staticValue", BindingFlags.Static).SetValue(null, true);
However be aware that variable-names may change, so the above may fail at runtime when someone renames the backing-field.
I'm building a WinForms application using C# 2.0 for a Job Scheduler.
Wrote a public class Job in Program.cs defining the Job object.
//Class for defining Job object and its properties
public class Job
{
private int IntJobID;
public int JobID
{
get {return IntJobID;}
set {IntJobID = value;}
}
private string StrJobName;
public string JobName
{
get { return StrJobName; }
set { StrJobName = value; }
}
//Several other properties defined here.
}
Also wrote a public static class ApplicationName in Program.cs for containing application-wide config variables and all helper methods.
//Static Class for Global Properties and Global Methods
//*****************************************************
public static class ApplicationName
{
//Global Properties
//***************************
public static string ConfigFilePath = "D:\\ApplicationName\\conf\\ApplicationName.ini";
public static string DBFilePath = "D:\\ApplicationName\\data\\ApplicationName.xml";
//Global Methods
//************************
public static void HelperMethod1(Args)
{
}
public static string HelperMethod2(Args)
{
}
public static Job GetJobByID(int JobID)
{
XmlDocument XMLDB = new XmlDocument(); XMLDB.Load(DBFilePath);
Job ObjJob = new Job();
ObjJob.JobName = XMLDB.SelectSingleNode("/ApplicationName/Job[JobID=" + JobID.ToString() + "]/JobName").InnerText.Trim();
//Several other properties are retrieved from the DB and set to the object here.
return ObjJob;
}
}
One of the helper methods GetJobByID in the public static class ApplicationName is required to create/instantiate a Job object and return the same. I believe this is possible, a method within ClassA creating and returning an instance/object of ClassB.
Note: This method is meant for access from other forms such as Form1.cs, Form2.cs, etc. in the following way. To my knowledge, this is also allowed and is accepted practice.
private void FormAddEditJob_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
int SelectedJobID = Convert.ToInt32(this.Tag);
//Creating an instance of the Job Class
//Assigning the value of the Job object returned by GetJobByID method
Job JobToEdit = ApplicationName.GetJobByID(SelectedJobID);
TextBoxJobID.Text = SelectedJobID.ToString();
TextBoxJobName.Text = JobToEdit.JobName;
}
PROBLEM: The object returned by GetJobByID method is not getting stored in the object reference JobToEdit. Or even possible that the GetJobByID method does not return an object appropriately / as expected. What am I doing wrong here? Is this not the right way to return an object?
Issue identified and resolved.
One of the statements ObjJob.PropertyName = XMLDB.SelectSingleNode() in the GetJobByID method was throwing an exception, due to fetching null values from the DB, thereby resulting in the ObjJob object being returned as null. Found this by debugging line by line.
I need to determine which object my code is working with at a certain point and write out only the properties specific to that class. I cannot figure out how to do it. I was told I can do it, but I cannot figure it out. Can someone please show me how to determine which object I am working with and write the properties specific to that class only?
I've looked at other questions asked, but am not smart enough to make it fit my example.
Below, I've re-created an example of the code I am working with. I can see all the code, but I am allowed to only work in one method (for this example called "MethodIAmWorkingIn"). Only modifications I am allowed to make are in that method.
public class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
TestDetailsAndResultsContainer container = new TestDetailsAndResultsContainer();
DerivedClass1 derivedClass1 = new DerivedClass1();
derivedClass1.DerivedClass1Prop1 = "DerivedClass1Prop1";
derivedClass1.DerivedClass1Prop2 = "DerivedClass1Prop2";
DerivedClass2 derivedClass2 = new DerivedClass2();
derivedClass2.DerivedClass2Prop1 = "DerivedClass2Prop1";
derivedClass2.DerivedClass2Prop2 = "DerivedClass2Prop2";
container.TestDetails.Add(derivedClass1);
container.TestDetails.Add(derivedClass2);
TestResult testResult = new TestResult();
testResult.TestResultProp1 = "TestResultProp1";
testResult.TestResultProp2 = "TestResultProp2";
container.Data.Add(testResult);
Program p = new Program();
p.MethodIAmWorkingIn(container);
}
private void MethodIAmWorkingIn(TestDetailsAndResultsContainer container)
{
// I need to see if the container variable holds a DerivedClass1 or DerivedClass2 object.
foreach (var result in container.TestDetails)
{
var classINeedToDetermine = container.TestDetails.FirstOrDefault(m => m.TestDetailsProp1 == result.TestDetailsProp1);
if (classINeedToDetermine is DerivedClass1)
{
classINeedToDetermine = result as DerivedClass1;
}
else if (classINeedToDetermine is DerivedClass2)
{
classINeedToDetermine = result as DerivedClass2;
}
// Now I need to use the classINeedToDetermine object and write its specific properties.
// ???????????????????? I am stuck at this point ??????????????????
// I need to write one or the other below. Can this be done?
// If it is DerivedClass1, I need to write out those properties only.
Console.WriteLine(classINeedToDetermine.DerivedClass1Prop1);
Console.WriteLine(classINeedToDetermine.DerivedClass1Prop2);
// OR
// If it is DerivedClass2, I need to write out those properties only.
Console.WriteLine(classINeedToDetermine.DerivedClass2Prop1);
Console.WriteLine(classINeedToDetermine.DerivedClass2Prop2);
}
}
}
public class TestDetailsAndResultsContainer
{
public TestDetailsAndResultsContainer()
{
this.Data = new List<TestResult>();
this.TestDetails = new List<TestDetails>();
}
public List<TestDetails> TestDetails { get; set; }
public List<TestResult> Data { get; set; }
}
public abstract class TestDetails
{
public string TestDetailsProp1 { get; set; }
public string TestDetailsProp2 { get; set; }
}
public class TestResult
{
public string TestResultProp1 { get; set; }
public string TestResultProp2 { get; set; }
}
public class DerivedClass1 : TestDetails
{
public string DerivedClass1Prop1 { get; set; }
public string DerivedClass1Prop2 { get; set; }
}
public class DerivedClass2 : TestDetails
{
public string DerivedClass2Prop1 { get; set; }
public string DerivedClass2Prop2 { get; set; }
}
The as keyword does not do what you think it does.
Your classINeedToDetermine is a variable of type TestDetails. You can assign a subclass instance to it, but you still cannot access that subclasses specific properties via that variable.
You just need some scope:
if (classINeedToDetermine is DerivedClass1)
{
var derived1 = (DerivedClass1)result;
Console.WriteLine(derived1.DerivedClass1Prop1);
// etc
}
else if (classINeedToDetermine is DerivedClass2)
{
var derived2 = (DerivedClass2)result;
Console.WriteLine(derived2.DerivedClass2Prop1);
// etc
}
This kind of thing is not fun to maintain though.
Another way of doing it would be to use polymorphism: Your TestDetails class could define an abstract method called PrintProperties, and all your subclasses could implement it.
Then you just have to call PrintProperties on every object, without worrying about which subclass they are.
I'm not completely sure on what objects mean what here, but it should be something like this:
foreach(var v in result.GetType().GetProperties())
{
if(v.DeclaringType == result.GetType())
{
Console.WriteLine(v.GetValue(result));
}
}
Again, I wasn't totally clear on your usage of classINeedToDetermine versus result, but you can change those as you see so fit. I chose result as my example since classINeedToDetermine was null by that part of your code.
And by the way, this section of your code is redundant. It should be removed for clarity and efficiency.
if (classINeedToDetermine is DerivedClass1)
{
classINeedToDetermine = result as DerivedClass1;
}
else if (classINeedToDetermine is DerivedClass2)
{
classINeedToDetermine = result as DerivedClass2;
}
Edit:
On the other hand, if performance is more important to you than being scalable (read: if you know or have control over all the classes you'll be dealing with), you could use this is section to do something less, I hate to use this word for this, "generic."
if (classINeedToDetermine is DerivedClass1)
{
var typed = (DerivedClass1)result;
Console.WriteLine(typed.DerivedClass1Prop1);
Console.WriteLine(typed.DerivedClass1Prop2);
}
else if (classINeedToDetermine is DerivedClass2)
{
var typed = (DerivedClass2)result;
Console.WriteLine(typed.DerivedClass2Prop1);
Console.WriteLine(typed.DerivedClass2Prop2);
}
You can use Type.GetProperties to get all Properties for your class. Then you need to get the MethodInfo for the Get method via GetMethod.
Once you have the MethodInfo you can call Invoke, passing in your Derived Class. You can write then write the result to the Console.
I have just recently got involved in a classic ASP.NET project which contains lots of storing and reading values from the session and query strings. This could look something like the following:
Session["someKey"]=someValue;
And somewhere else in the code the value in the session is read. Clearly this violates the DRY principle since you'll have the literal string key spread out all over the code. One way to avoid this could be to store all keys as constants that could be referenced everywhere there is a need to read and write to the session. But I'm not sure that's the best way to do it. How would you recommend I best handle this so that I don't violate the DRY principle?
Create a separate public class where you can define your constants, e.g
public class SessionVars
{
public const string SOME_KEY = "someKey";
public const string SOME_OTHER_KEY = "someOtherKey";
}
and then anywhere in your code you can access session variables like this:
Session[SessionVars.SOME_KEY]=someValue;
This way you can get IntelliSence and other bells and whistles.
I think you're reading too much into DRY. I pertains more to things that could be wrapped up in a function. I.e. instead of repeating the same fives lines all over the place wrap those 5 lines in a function and call the function everywhere you need it.
What you have as an example is just setting a value in a dictionary (the session object in this case), and that is the simplest way to store and retrieve objects in it.
I can't remember for the life of me where I humbly re-purposed this code from, but it's pretty nice:
using System;
using System.Web;
namespace Project.Web.UI.Domain
{
public abstract class SessionBase<T> where T : class, new()
{
private static readonly Object _padlock = new Object();
private static string Key
{
get { return typeof(SessionBase<T>).FullName; }
}
public static T Current
{
get
{
var instance = HttpContext.Current.Session[Key] as T;
lock (SessionBase<T>._padlock)
{
if (instance == null)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[Key]
= instance
= new T();
}
}
return instance;
}
}
public static void Clear()
{
var instance = HttpContext.Current.Session[Key] as T;
if (instance != null)
{
lock (SessionBase<T>._padlock)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[Key] = null;
}
}
}
}
}
The idea behind it two fold. The type created should be the only type you need. It's basically a big strongly-typed wrapper. So you have some object you want to keep extending information in:
public class MyClass
{
public MyClass()
public string Blah1 { get; set; }
}
Then down the road you extend MyClass and you don't want to have to remember all the Key Values, store them in AppSettings or Const variables in Static Classes. You simply define what you want to store:
public class MyClassSession : SessionBase<MyClass>
{
}
And anywhere in your program you simply use the class.
// Any Asp.Net method (webforms or mvc)
public void SetValueMethod()
{
MyClassSesssion.Current.Blah1 = "asdf";
}
public string GetValueMethod()
{
return MyClassSession.Current.Blah1;
}
Optionally you could place the access to this session object in a base page and wrap it in a property:
class BasePage : Page
{
...
public string MySessionObject
{
get
{
if(Session["myKey"] == null)
return string.Empty;
return Session["myKey"].ToString();
}
set
{
Session["myKey"] = value;
}
}
...
}
Here you are repeating the myKey string but it is encapsulated into the property. If you want to go to the extreme of avoiding this, create a constant with the key and replace the string.
Is it possible to get value without creating an instance ?
I have this class:
public class MyClass
{
public string Name{ get{ return "David"; } }
public MyClass()
{
}
}
Now I need get the value "David", without creating instance of MyClass.
Real answer: no. It's an instance property, so you can only call it on an instance. You should either create an instance, or make the property static as shown in other answers.
See MSDN for more information about the difference between static and instance members.
Tongue-in-cheek but still correct answer:
Is it possible to get value without creating an instance ?
Yes, but only via some really horrible code which creates some IL passing in null as this (which you don't use in your property), using a DynamicMethod. Sample code:
// Jon Skeet explicitly disclaims any association with this horrible code.
// THIS CODE IS FOR FUN ONLY. USING IT WILL INCUR WAILING AND GNASHING OF TEETH.
using System;
using System.Reflection.Emit;
public class MyClass
{
public string Name { get{ return "David"; } }
}
class Test
{
static void Main()
{
var method = typeof(MyClass).GetProperty("Name").GetGetMethod();
var dynamicMethod = new DynamicMethod("Ugly", typeof(string),
Type.EmptyTypes);
var generator = dynamicMethod.GetILGenerator();
generator.Emit(OpCodes.Ldnull);
generator.Emit(OpCodes.Call, method);
generator.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);
var ugly = (Func<string>) dynamicMethod.CreateDelegate(
typeof(Func<string>));
Console.WriteLine(ugly());
}
}
Please don't do this. Ever. It's ghastly. It should be trampled on, cut up into little bits, set on fire, then cut up again. Fun though, isn't it? ;)
This works because it's using call instead of callvirt. Normally the C# compiler would use a callvirt call even if it's not calling a virtual member because that gets null reference checking "for free" (as far as the IL stream is concerned). A non-virtual call like this doesn't check for nullity first, it just invokes the member. If you checked this within the property call, you'd find it's null.
EDIT: As noted by Chris Sinclair, you can do it more simply using an open delegate instance:
var method = typeof(MyClass).GetProperty("Name").GetGetMethod();
var openDelegate = (Func<MyClass, string>) Delegate.CreateDelegate
(typeof(Func<MyClass, string>), method);
Console.WriteLine(openDelegate(null));
(But again, please don't!)
You can make that property static
public static string Name{ get{ return "David"; } }
Usage:
MyClass.Name;
You requirements do seem strange, but I think you're looking for some kind of metadata. You can use an attribute to achieve this:
public class NameAttribute : Attribute {
public string Name { get; private set; }
public NameAttribute(string name) {
Name = name;
}
}
[Name("George")]
public class Dad {
public string Name {
get {
return NameGetter.For(this.GetType());
}
}
}
[Name("Frank")]
public class Son : Dad {
}
public static class NameGetter {
public static string For<T>() {
return For(typeof(T));
}
public static string For(Type type) {
// add error checking ...
return ((NameAttribute)type.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(NameAttribute), false)[0]).Name;
}
}
Now this code can get names with and without instances:
Console.WriteLine(new Dad().Name);
Console.WriteLine(new Son().Name);
Console.WriteLine(NameGetter.For<Dad>());
Console.WriteLine(NameGetter.For<Son>());
You can make your property static, as pointed out by many others.
public static string Name{ get{ return "David"; } }
Be aware that this means your instances of MyClass will no longer have their own Name property, since static members belong to the class, not the individual object instances of it.
Edit:
In a note, you mentioned that you want to override the Name property in subclasses. At the same time, you want to be able to access it at the class level (access it without creating an instance of your class).
For the static properties, you would simply create a new Name property in each class. Since they are static, you're always (almost always, yay reflection) going to access them using a specific class, so you'd be specifying which version of Name you want to get. If you want to try and hack polymorphism in there and get the name from any given subclass of MyClass, you could do so using reflection, but I wouldn't recommend doing so.
Using the example from your comment:
public class Dad
{
public static string Name { get { return "George"; }
}
public class Son : Dad
{
public static string Name { get{ return "Frank"; }
}
public static void Test()
{
Console.WriteLine(Dad.Name); // prints "George"
Console.WriteLine(Son.Name); // prints "Frank"
Dad actuallyASon = new Son();
PropertyInfo nameProp = actuallyASon.GetType().GetProperty("Name");
Console.WriteLine(nameProp.GetValue(actuallyASon, null)); // prints "Frank"
}
As a side note, since you are declaring a property that has only a getter and it is returning a constant value, I recommend possibly using a const or static readonly variable instead.
public const string Name = "David";
public static readonly string Name = "David";
Usage for both would be the same:
string name = MyClass.Name;
The main benefit (and drawback) of const is that all references to it are actually replaced by its value when the code is compiled. That means it will be a little faster, but if you ever change its value, you will need to recompile ALL code that references it.
Whenever you write C# code, always check if your method and property getter/setter code does anything at all with other instance members of the class. If they don't, be sure to apply the static keyword. Certainly the case here, it trivially solves your problem.
The reason I really post to this question is that there's a bit of language bias at work in some of the answers. The C# rule that you can't call an instance method on a null object is a specific C# language rule. It is without a doubt a very wise one, it really helps to troubleshoot NullReferenceExceptions, they are raised at the call site instead of somewhere inside of a method where it gets very hard to diagnose that the this reference is null.
But this is certainly not a requirement to the CLR, nor of every language that run on the CLR. In fact, even C# doesn't enforce it consistently, you can readily bypass it in an extension method:
public static class Extensions {
public static bool IsNullOrEmpty(this string obj) {
return obj != null && obj.Length > 0;
}
}
...
string s = null;
bool empty = s.IsNullOrEmpty(); // Fine
And using your property from a language that doesn't have the same rule works fine as well. Like C++/CLI:
#include "stdafx.h"
using namespace System;
using namespace ClassLibrary1; // Add reference
int main(array<System::String ^> ^args)
{
MyClass^ obj = nullptr;
String^ name = obj->Name; // Fine
Console::WriteLine(name);
return 0;
}
Create a static property:
public class MyClass
{
public static string Name { get { return "David"; } }
public MyClass()
{
}
}
Get it like so:
string name1 = MyClass.Name;
That is not possible. As Name is an instance property, you can only get its value if you have an instance.
Also, note that you are not talking about a parameter, but about a property.
Create a static class or a static property, and you don't have to explicitly instantiate it.