Develop Reference

Comparison of unspecified generic properties

Consider the following code:
public interface IIdentifiable<T>
{
T Id { get; set; }
}
public interface IViewModel
{
}
public class MyViewModel1 : IViewModel, IIdentifiable<int>
{
public string MyProperty { get; set; }
public int Id { get; set; }
}
public class MyViewModel2 : IViewModel, IIdentifiable<string>
{
public string MyProperty { get; set; }
public string Id { get; set; }
}
I also have class that operates with ViewModels:
public class Loader<T> where T: IViewModel
{
public void LoadData()
{
/*some important stuff here*/
if (typeof(IIdentifiable<??>).IsAssignableFrom(typeof(T)))
{ // ^- here's the first problem
data = data.Where(d => _dataSource.All(ds => ((IIdentifiable<??>) ds).Id != ((IIdentifiable<??>) d).Id)).ToList();
} // ^---- and there the second ----^
/*some important stuff here too*/
}
}
Now, as you can see, viewmodels that I have might implement the IIdentifiable<> interface. I want to check that, and if it's true,
I want to make sure my data list does not contains any entry that are already present in my _dataSourse list.
So I have 2 questions:
I don't know what IIdentifiable<> has in its generic parentheses, it might be int, string or even GUID.
I tried typeof(IIdentifiable<>).IsAssignableFrom(typeof(T)) which is the correct syntax, yet it always returns false.
Is there a way to check whether T is IIdentifiable<> without knowing the exact generic type?
If there is an answer for the first question, I would also like to know how can I compare the Id fields without knowing their type.
I found this answer quite useful, yet it doesn't cover my
specific case.
I know that I probably can solve that problem if I make my Loader<T> class a generic for two types Loader<T,K>, where K would be the
type in IIdentifiable<>, yet I would like to know if there are other solutions.
P.S. In addition to my first question: I'm also curious why one can write something like this typeof(IIdentifiable<>).IsAssignableFrom(typeof(T)) if it returns false when the generic type of IIdentifiable<> is not specified?
Edit: I guess, in hindsight, I understand why I can't write the code this bluntly - because there's might be the collection ICollection<IViewModel> where the entries implement different types of IIdentifiable<> (or don't implement it at all), and the check like that would fail awkwardly. Yet maybe there is a way to do something like that with some restrictions, but without creating second generic parameter to my Loader?

Try add two methods to your Loader<T>:
public bool CanCast<TId>()
{
var identifiableT = typeof(IIdentifiable<>).MakeGenericType(typeof(TId));
return identifiableT.IsAssignableFrom(typeof(T));
}
public IEnumerable<IIdentifiable<TId>> Filter<TId>(IEnumerable<T> data)
{
return data.Where(d => _dataSource.All(
ds => !((IIdentifiable<TId>) ds).Id.Equals(((IIdentifiable<TId>) d).Id)));
}
Then in LoadData
if (CanCast<int>())
data = Filter<int>(data);
else if (CanCast<Guid>())
data = Filter<Guid>(data);
// and so om

Well, I would suggest you to always use a string for identification. You can convert int and guid to a string. And if you want to ensure proper type is used then you can prefix the string with type information.
However, I do think that the performance of you algorithm would be very poor as you wouls essentially loop 2 containers so it would be O(n * m).
Thus it would be best to either do appropriate SQL query if both sources are from the database or use a dictionary if you do it in code. Alternatively if data is properly sorted, you could find duplicates more efficiently.
By the way generics are quite limited in C#. Sometime using ˋFunc<>ˋ could help but even then you have to provide extra information to the algorithm.

We should address your question in two steps (because there really are two problems to solve here).
First, make following change to your interface IIdentifiable<T>
public interface IIdentifiable<T>
where T : IEquatable<T>
{
T Id { get; set; }
}
This will ensure that you can compare Id properties correctly.
Secondly, in your LoadData() method, change the if statement to
if (T is IIdentifiable<T>)
{ // ^- here's the first problem
data = data.Where(d => _dataSource.All(ds => ((IIdentifiable<T) ds).Id != ((IIdentifiable<T) d).Id)).ToList();
}

How to let an Attribute in property 'A' know the existence of property 'B'?

How to let an Attribute in one property know the existence of another property?
Lets say i have this class, and like this, many others:
public class MyClass
{
[CheckDirty] //a custom attribute (that it is empty for now)
public int A { get; set; }
public int B { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public string Info { get; set; }
}
Somewhere in our program, if we want to see if an object changed values on any CheckDirty property, for example lets say it is diferent from DB, MyPropertyUtils.GetPropertiesIfDirty() does this, giving us an array of changed propertys, on any property with that attribute:
PropertyInfo[] MyPropertyUtils.GetPropertiesIfDirty(SomeBaseObject ObjectFromDB, SomeBaseObject NewValues);
Perfect.
So, lets say A changed and in this case Info holds some information we need(in another class might be any other property). If we want 'A' we just do property.GetValue(NewValues, null);
But we dont want 'A's value, we want 'A' or CheckDirty to tell us where to read some data we want. How can i tell my attribute CheckDirty where to get the values from?
I was thinking in giving an expression to CheckDirty but an Attribute's argument "must be a constant expression, typeof expression or array creation expression of an attribute parameter type"(thats what VS says).
So I decided, "ok, lets give it a string with the property's name", and so my try failed:
(this is all the code we need to work on, the rest was just to give some kind of context example)
public class CheckDirty : Attribute
{
public String targetPropertyName;
public CheckDirty(String targetPropertyName)
{
this.targetPropertyName = targetPropertyName;
}
}
public class MyClass
{
//Code fails on this line
[CheckDirty(BoundPropertyNames.Info)]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Info { get; set; }
public static class BoundPropertyNames
{
public static readonly string Info = ((MemberExpression)
((Expression<Func<MyClass, string>>)
(m => m.Info)
).Body
).Member.Name;
}
}
This is the error i get:
An attribute argument must be a constant expression, typeof expression or array creation expression of an attribute parameter type
We do NOT want to pass the name of the proprety as a String saing [CheckDirty("Info")] because that way if anyone in the future changes the class, and in concrete the property's name, no error would get thrown in compile time by it, only occuring the error in run time, when an "edit" to that field would occur. Or maybe it would just not do anything because it could not find the property.
Any idea how to not use the strongly typed string as a property name?

You may use something like this, first declare an interface that will be implemented by every class that need dirty checking:
interface IDirtyCheckPropertiesProvider {
string GetPropertyName(string dirtyProperty);
}
then implement it like that
class DataEntity : IDirtyCheckPropertiesProvider {
[CheckDirty]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Info { get; set; }
string GetPropertyName(string dirtyProperty) {
if (GetPropertyNameFromExpression(x => Id) == dirtyProperty)
return GetPropertyNameFromExpression(x => Info);
return null;
}
}
In class that will be responsible for handling dirty checks you must use this interface to get target property names.
There is a bit too much boilerplate that may be removed further by using Reflection API.
On the other hand using string for property names looks like more simple solution. If you use tool like Resharper - using string is a viable option - Resharper will automatically refactor string when you change property name.
Also for a long time string'ed property names were used in implementation of WPF INotifyPropertyChanged.
As comments suggested nameof is the best option in VS2015.

C#, How to simply change order of class members

Hi I Have a class derived from another class . Like this :
public class Customer
{
public string Date{ get; set; }
public string InstallationNo{ get; set; }
public string SerialNo { get; set; }
}
Then I have created a class named Customer_U which derived from Customer
public class Customer_U:Customer
{
public string Bill{ get; set; }
}
I have simple question. I have google many time but no answer. I have list filled with data like:
List<Customer_U> customer= new List<Customer_U>() I create a excel using this list. In excel colum order is like this :
Bill --- Date --- InstalltionNo --- SerialNo.
Idont want this order. I want "Bill" member to be last columns . How to set order of member when createin a class derived from another class

There is no defined order in a CLR class; it is up to the implementation that is inspecting the metadata of the class to determine how a class is interpreted.
For example, your Excel library is probably using reflection to inspect the class you pass it and reflection makes no guarantees as to the order in which things are processed.
Other implementations such as the WCF DataContractSerializer or ProtoBuf.NET handle order through the use of DataMember.
That said, if your library can handle dynamic or anonymous types then you can use the approach detailed in the other answers. .NET seems to consistently reflect these types in the same order that they were created.
var x = new { Z = "", Y = 1, X = true };
Console.WriteLine(x.GetType().GetProperties().Select(y => y.Name));
However it should be noted that this is an implementation detail and should not be relied upon. I'd see if you library allows you to specify the mapping between properties in your class and columns in your spreadsheet otherwise you might run into weird bugs in the future!

There is no ordering of class members in .NET. Whenever someone iterates over members in a class, they are imposing some order themselves.
The default seems to be shallow-first. So in your case, first all of Customer_U members are enumerated, and then Customer's.
If you do the enumeration yourself, there's nothing easier than simply using your own enumeration method:
class A
{
public string Date { get; set; }
public string SerialNo { get; set; }
}
class B : A
{
public string Bill { get; set; }
public string InstallationNo { get; set; }
}
public static IEnumerable<PropertyInfo> GetProperties(Type type)
{
if (type.BaseType == typeof(object)) return type.GetProperties().OrderBy(i => i.Name);
return GetProperties(type.BaseType)
.Concat
(
type
.GetProperties
(BindingFlags.DeclaredOnly | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance)
.OrderBy(i => i.Name)
);
}
This simple recursive method will output
Date
SerialNo
Bill
InstallationNo
Deep-first, alphabetical. If you don't want the alphabetical sort, you can omit the OrderBys, but note that then the order is simply unspecified, not necessarily the order you used in your class.
You can use this when building your Excel, for example - if there's a way to impose an order in the output data. If there's no way to impose your own order in whatever you're using to output your data, you could do a mapping to a new object based on this data, and hope that it turns out well - however, doing this dynamically is actually quite a bit of work.

As the other answers have pointed out, there is no such thing as a defined order for class properties in .NET.
However, it seems that what you are looking for is not an ordering of the properties themselves, but in fact a way to sort the properties when serializing the objects, e.g. to Excel.
This IS easily implemented using classes from the System.Runtime.Serialization namespace. There are various classes there that could help you control the serialization process, and allow you to be as specific as you want.
The simplest solution would likely be simply applying the DataMember attribute:
[DataContract]
public class Customer
{
[DataMember(Order = 1)]
public string Date{ get; set; }
[DataMember(Order = 2)]
public string InstallationNo{ get; set; }
[DataMember(Order = 3)]
public string SerialNo { get; set; }
}

You can create a new anonymous class using linq:
var x = from costumerItem in YourList
select new { Date = costumerItem.Date, ...and so on };
Afterwards, move this class to the excel.

Create a wrapper list like
var reOrderedCustomer = Customer.select(a => new { a.Date, a.InstallationNo ,
a.SerialNo, a.Bill }).ToList()
Or do this in your first select method which fills Customer list (If you want to avoid anonymous type)

How to pass data between function calls

We can pass data between functions by using class objects. Like i have class
public class AddsBean
{
public long addId{get;set;}
public int bid { get; set; }
public long pointsAlloted { get; set; }
public string userId { get; set; }
public enum isApproved { YES, NO };
public DateTime approveDate { get; set; }
public string title { get; set; }
public string description { get; set; }
public string Link { get; set; }
public DateTime dateAdded { get; set; }
}
We can call function like public List<AddsBean> getAdds(string Id). This approach is good when you need all the variables of class. But what if you need only 2 or 3 variables of class?
Passing object of class is not good because it will be wastage of memory. Another possible solution is to make different classes of lesser variables but that is not practical.
What should we do that will best possible solution to fulfill motive and best according to performance also?

In Java - "References to objects are passed by value".. So, you dont pass the entire object, you just pass the reference to the object to the called function.
EG:
class A{
int i;
int j;
double k;
}
class B{
public static void someFunc(A a) // here 'a' is a reference to an object, we dont pass the object.
{
// some code
}
public static void main(String[] args){
A a = new A();
B.someFunc(a); // reference is being passed by value
}
}

first of all, as Java is pass by value and references typed, there is no need to worry about the memory wastage.
next, as you have mentioned, it is not good to pass all the object if you do not need them all, in some situation, it's true. as you need to protect your data in instance, thus you can use different granularity of class, for instance:
class A
{id, name}
class B extends A
{password,birthday}
by refer to different class you can control the granularity yourself, and provide different client with different scope of data.
But in some condition, you need to use a instance to store all data in the whole application, like configure data in hadoop, or some other configuration related instance.
Try to choose the most suitable scope!

If you're sure that this is the source of problems and you don't want to define a new class with a subset of the properties, .NET provides the Tuple class for grouping a small number of related fields. For example, a Tuple<int, int, string> contains two integers and a string, in that order.
public Tuple<string, long, DateTime> GetPointsData()
{
AddsBean bean = ... // Get your AddsBean somehow
return Tuple.Create<string, long, DateTime>(bean.userId, bean.pointsAlloted, bean.approveDate);
}
Once this method goes out of scope, there is no longer a live reference to the object bean referred to and will be collected by the garbage collector at some point in the future.
That said, unless you're sure that instances of the AddsBean class are having a noticeable negative effect on the performance of your app, you should not worry about it. The performance of your application is probably affected far more by other operations. Returning a reference type (a type defined with class instead of struct) only passes a reference to the object, not the data of the object itself.

Dynamic Linq Library Help

I have the following class:
public class Item
{
public Dictionary<string, string> Data
{
get;
set;
}
}
and a list of it:
List<Item> items;
I need to filter and order this list dynamically using SQL-Like strings. The catch is, that I need to order it by the Data dictionary.
For example: Order By Data["lastname"] or Where Data["Name"].StartsWith("a"). I thought to use the dynamic linq library, but is there any way that my clients can write without the Data[]? For example:
Name.StartsWith("abc")
instead of
Data["Name"].StartsWith("abc")
?

You could add a property like this:
public class Item
{
public Dictionary<string, string> Data
{ get; set; }
public string Name { get { return Data["lastname"]; } }
}
//Call by: i.Name.StartsWith("abc");
Or an extension method:
public static class ItemExtensions
{
public static string Name(this Item item)
{
return item.Data["lastname"];
}
}
//Call by: i.Name().StartsWith("abc");
Or if it's a very commonly used method, you could add something like a .NameStartsWith():
public static string NameStartsWith(this Item item, stirng start)
{
return item.Data["lastname"].StartsWith(start);
}
//Call by: i.NameStartsWith("abc");

This doesn't have anything to do with the Linq Dynamic Query unit. That unit is for when you have actual fields/properties and the names of them will be given to you at runtime. In other words, you have a class like this:
public class Person
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
And you want to be able to write a query like this:
var sortedPeople = people.OrderBy("FirstName");
You are trying to do the exact opposite of this - you have a class that does not have any actual properties, just an attribute dictionary, and you want compile-time safety. You can't have it; there's no way to guarantee that an item will be in the dictionary, especially when the dictionary is public and anyone can add/remove directly from it!
If there's some reason that you must use that specific class design, then you could conceivably write some wrappers as Nick has presented, but I wouldn't even bother - they're not actually providing any encapsulation because the Data dictionary is still wide open to the whole world. Instead, I would just provide a single safe getter method or indexer property and create a few constants (or an enum) with the names of properties you expect to be in there.
public class Item
{
public Dictionary<string, string> Data { get; set; }
public string GetValue(string key)
{
if (Data == null)
return null;
string result;
Data.TryGetValue(key, out result);
return result;
}
}
public class ItemKeys
{
public const string Name = "Name";
public const string Foo = "Foo";
}
And so on. Really the ItemKeys isn't that important, the safe GetValue method is what's important, because otherwise you run the risk of a NullReferenceException if Data hasn't been assigned, or a KeyNotFoundException if even one Item instance doesn't have that property. Using the GetValue method here will succeed no matter what:
var myItems = items.OrderBy(i => i.GetValue(ItemKeys.Name));
If you find you're writing a lot of repetitive code for the same attributes, then start worrying about adding shortcut properties or extension methods to the class.

I assume that you don't know the names of the properties at compile-time (in which case, you could simply define properties and wouldn't have this problem). I have two suggestions that you could try, but I didn't implement any of them myself, so I can't guarantee that it will work.
If you can use .NET 4.0, you could inherit from DynamicObject and implement TryGetMember method (which is called when you use o.Foo on an object that is declared as dynamic). Assuming that Dynamic LINQ works with DLR, it should automatically invoke this method for objects that inherit from DynamicObject. Inside the TryGetMember method, you would get a name of the accessed property, so you could perform a dictionary lookup. (However, this solution would work only if Dynamic LINQ integrates well with DLR).
In any case, you could do some basic parsing of the string entered by the user and replace for example Name with Data["Name"]. This would definitely work, but it may be a bit difficult (because you should probably at least check that you're doing the replace in correct context - e.g. not inside a string constant).
Regarding extension methods - I'm not sure if Dynamic LINQ handles extension methods (but, I don't think so, because that would require searching all referenced assemblies)