I've written a custom attribute for decorating methods. The attributes help add non-critical but very helpful contextual data to the method. Currently, this helps with debugging, but eventually it will help with static analysis.
Because the Master of the data specified in the attributes is on a server and queriable, I figured I'd write a Visual Studio Intellisense extention to help my developers. The extension would kick in when typing in parameters in my Attribute's constructor. The completion suggestions would essentially be query results.
I've read and implemented a Statement Completion example on MSDN with relative success.
The example is for Completion on PlainText. I've changed it to work on Code instead. I'm one step closer. The problem I'm having, however, is that I can't seem to find how to make it aware of its context. The Completion kicks an whenever I type any code. I'd like it to be a bit more discriminating than this.
Question: Is it possible to make a custom Visual Studio Statement Completion extension aware of the language constructs around it?
I'd like to be able to only trigger Statement Completion when I'm typing into an Attribute's constructor. And, if possible, preferably only on Attributes derived from a given base class.
Is this kind of thing possible?
No. This is why we're building Roslyn, but until then you might be able to use a third-party parser, or your own hacked up parser or heuristics to make it work.
Related
Is this possible in C# to ensure that method/class have given signature.
For example I want to ensure that some method is public and static.
When isn't I want to this method red underlined.
I need it because I'm using this with component test runner app which uses reflection and expects public static bool methods from dlls. I want to force programmers to write public static bools component test methods. Is this a possibility to force them compile time? Or maybe force them build time by adding another simple app that checks it by reflection during post build event?
Is this possible? Maybe by method attributes? By reflection? But how?
Unfortunately, you cannot change/extend the C# compiler to achieve what you want here. However, there is a Microsoft project called Roslyn which exposes a public API for implementing your own extensions to the C# compiling pipeline.
Using Roslyn's structures, it should be easy to traverse your source code syntax trees looking for methods that are not public/static. Once you find them, you could generate a code issue reporting the problem; those issues are shown both in the code editor (wavy underline) and in the Errors List panel. From Roslyn's official documentation:
The code issue provider makes it easy to surface an error or suggestion to the user as a wavy underline in the editor or appear in the Error List window.
Look around for examples of CodeIssueProviders; it could be useful for what you need to do.
I want to log the entry of methods. In entry log I would have inputs\parameters received by the method. This has to be done for thousands of methods.
I thought of doing this logging of input parameters using C# ATTRIBUTES, since they fired before method call. (Something similar to ActionFilters in MVC)
Is that possible to read method parameters through attributes?
The concept you are looking for is called aspect oriented programming (AOP). It is a technique that allows you to "weave" in blocks of boilerplate code across your application code. Logging is a perfect example for that. You can either go the hard way and implement logging before and after each method call manually (which is on the one hand not feasible in large projects and on the other hand error prone).
Or you can use an AOP Framework that allows you to define these cross cutting functions in one place and apply it declaratively to your application code. There are several approaches to achieve this; one is to create IL after the build of the application logic and therefore integrating the aspects at compile time. A well known example for this is PostSharp. There also is a free edition that is good for the start.
BTW: PostSharp heavily relies on attributes, so you're on the right track.
Another option is to integrate the aspects at run time (keyword is interception). Most IoC Frameworks offer this. This approach is easy to use but has some downsides IMHO (weaker runtime Performance, only virtual methods can be intercepted).
Attributes are not 'fired before method call', the code that invokes a method that is decorated with an Attribute may (or may not) do something based on the presence of the Attribute.
The Attribute doesn't know the member it is applied on, nor can access it in any (straight forward) way.
I want to mark many of my C# functions as "deprecated" or "needs work". My plan is to create customer attributes that I use to tag the functions. I saw this question which seems to indicate that information only attributes will not effect performance:
Is this use of attributes in .Net (C#) expensive?
My question is whether this is a bad use for attributes. Is there better way to mark code so that I can come back in phase 2 and either eliminate the code or rework it in some way?
P.S. I realize that there is an Obsolete attribute, but it results in far too many compiler warnings. I want to be able to see the "real" compiler warnings.
This feels like you want to create some sort of Project Management attributes for your classes.
I see project management as different than your code. If a feature is not 'done' right the first time, chances are it will be burried under other priorities and 'good enough' will cut it.
Of course there is always the Task list comments just add // TODO: and you will get it in your task list editor in visual studio if you do need reminders in your code.
I wouldn't go so far as to decorate classes with 'needfixing' attributes. If it's done it's done, if it's not it's not, if you need a reminder a todo should be enough.
I won't say that it's "bad" to mark code that needs work with attributes, but it may be overkill. Have you considered XML comments?
Few days ago I asked what this attribute means:
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport("KERNEL32.DLL", EntryPoint="RtlZeroMemory")] public unsafe static extern bool ZeroMemory(byte* destination, int length);
I have learned that attributes are metadata but what I do not understand is - is this needed in this case? I thought metada are just that, metadata that can be ommited. Also the code seems to be running fine when I remove the attibute.
I would like to understand.
PS: Hans Passant mentioned its covered by any book about .NET Csharp..it is not, the largely used one VS 2010 from John Sharp does not cover it.
The metadata does usually have a reason and a meaning. In this particular case it tells the compiler how to bind this external method definition (e.g. to which DLL import it matches).
Other attributes control how interop is performed by the framework, yet other control how the object inspector displays data. 3rd-party attributes are also used extensively to control various behaviors, for instance for finding specific type information when performing reflection.
No, this attribute is absolutely required. It informs the CLR that what you've defined actually uses platform invokation services (or, P/Invoke) to call a function defined in unmanaged code.
Specifically, the RtlZeroMemory function, defined in the library kernel32.dll.
Without it, the compiler wouldn't know which function it was bound to, and the CLR wouldn't know which function to call at run-time.
This attribute is doing 2 things
Informs the CLR that the C method being invoked lives in kernel32.dll
Informs the CLR that the C method name is RtlZeroMemory and not ZeroMemory as it's named in code.
Yes this attribute is 100% necessary. It's a requirement for any PInvoke method to at the least name the DLL the C method lives in.
As your example shows, attributes are in fact needed in several key areas of .NET programming.
Attributes provide a model known as "Aspect-Oriented Programming" or AOP. Instead of having to write code that performs some specific task, such as serialization, DLL interop, logging, etc, you can instead simply decorate the classes or members on which you want these tasks performed with an attribute. Attributes are a special type of class, with members which can be invoked by the CLR as it runs your code, that will perform the task you wanted when you decorated the code.
You are correct in part; many attributes are intended simply to store metadata. DescriptionAttribute is a good one. However, even in this case, the attribute is important depending on how it's used. If you are decorating a member of a GUI class that you want to use in the designer, [Description()] provides valuable information to the user of the class in the designer, which may not be you. I've also seen and used many alternate uses for DescriptionAttribute; it can be applied to almost anything, so I've used it to provide "friendly names" for Enum constants, coupled with a GetDescription() extension method to grab them, when using Enums to populate drop-down lists.
So, while it's technically "metadata", an attribute's being "required" is governed by how much you want the task inherent in that attribute to be performed.
As for this particular attribute, I'm not too sure. To be honest, I've never seen it in almost a year of constant C#.
However, attributes in general can prove very useful. For instance, I was having issues with the VS2010 designer setting autocomplete properties in the wrong order, and getting run-time errors as a result. The solution was to add attributes to the autocomplete properties that prevented the designer from writing these properties to the design file, and instead setting the properties myself in the .cs file (in the proper order).
Summary: Attributes (usually) are not required, but can prove extremely useful.
I've been searching for this for quite a while with no luck so far. Is there an equivalent to Java's ClassFileTransformer in .NET? Basically, I want to create a class CustomClassFileTransformer (which in Java would implement the interface ClassFileTransformer) that gets called whenever a class is loaded, and is allowed to tweak it and replace it with the tweaked version.
I know there are frameworks that do similar things, but I was looking for something more straightforward, like implementing my own ClassFileTransformer. Is it possible?
EDIT #1. More details about why I need this:
Basically, I have a C# application and I need to monitor the instructions it wants to run in order to detect read or write operations to fields (operations Ldfld and Stfld) and insert some instructions before the read/write takes place.
I know how to do this (except for the part where I need to be invoked to replace the class): for every method whose code I want to monitor, I must:
Get the method's MethodBody using MethodBase.GetMethodBody()
Transform it to byte array with MethodBody.GetILAsByteArray(). The byte[] it returns contains the bytecode.
Analyse the bytecode as explained here, possibly inserting new instructions or deleting/modifying existing ones by changing the contents of the array.
Create a new method and use the new bytecode to create its body, with MethodBuilder.CreateMethodBody(byte[] il, int count), where il is the array with the bytecode.
I put all these tweaked methods in a new class and use the new class to replace the one that was originally going to be loaded.
An alternative to replacing classes would be somehow getting notified whenever a method is invoked. Then I'd replace the call to that method with a call to my own tweaked method, which I would tweak only the first time is invoked and then I'd put it in a dictionary for future uses, to reduce overhead (for future calls I'll just look up the method and invoke it; I won't need to analyse the bytecode again). I'm currently investigating ways to do this and LinFu looks pretty interesting, but if there was something like a ClassFileTransformer it would be much simpler: I just rewrite the class, replace it, and let the code run without monitoring anything.
An additional note: the classes may be sealed. I want to be able to replace any kind of class, I cannot impose restrictions on their attributes.
EDIT #2. Why I need to do this at runtime.
I need to monitor everything that is going on so that I can detect every access to data. This applies to the code of library classes as well. However, I cannot know in advance which classes are going to be used, and even if I knew every possible class that may get loaded it would be a huge performance hit to tweak all of them instead of waiting to see whether they actually get invoked or not.
POSSIBLE (BUT PRETTY HARDCORE) SOLUTION. In case anyone is interested (and I see the question has been faved, so I guess someone is), this is what I'm looking at right now. Basically I'd have to implement the profiling API and I'll register for the events that I'm interested in, in my case whenever a JIT compilation starts. An extract of the blogpost:
In your ICorProfilerCallback2::ModuleLoadFinished callback, you call ICorProfilerInfo2::GetModuleMetadata to get a pointer to a metadata interface on that module.
QI for the metadata interface you want. Search MSDN for "IMetaDataImport", and grope through the table of contents to find topics on the metadata interfaces.
Once you're in metadata-land, you have access to all the types in the module, including their fields and function prototypes. You may need to parse metadata signatures and this signature parser may be of use to you.
In your ICorProfilerCallback2::JITCompilationStarted callback, you may use ICorProfilerInfo2::GetILFunctionBody to inspect the original IL, and ICorProfilerInfo2::GetILFunctionBodyAllocator and then ICorProfilerInfo2::SetILFunctionBody to replace that IL with your own.
The great news: I get notified when a JIT compilation starts and I can replace the bytecode right there, without having to worry about replacing the class, etc. The not-so-great news: you cannot invoke managed code from the API's callback methods, which makes sense but means I'm on my own parsing the IL code, etc, as opposed to be able to use Cecil, which would've been a breeze.
I don't think there's a simpler way to do this without using AOP frameworks (such as PostSharp). If anyone has any other idea please let me know. I'm not marking the question as answered yet.
I don't know of a direct equivalent in .NET for this.
However, there are some ways to implement similar functionality, such as using Reflection.Emit to generate assemblies and types on demand, uing RealProxy to create proxy objects for interfaces and MarshalByRefObject objects. However, to advise what to use, it would be important to know more about the actual use case.
After quite some research I'm answering my own question: there isn't an equivalent to the ClassFileTransformer in .NET, or any straightforward way to replace classes.
It's possible to gain control over the class-loading process by hosting the CLR, but this is pretty low-level, you have to be careful with it, and it's not possible in every scenario. For example if you're running on a server you may not have the rights to host the CLR. Also if you're running an ASP.NET application you cannot do this because ASP.NET already provides a CLR host.
It's a pity .NET doesn't support this; it would be so easy for them to do this, they just have to notify you before a class is loaded and give you the chance to modify the class before passing it on the CLR to load it.