Develop Reference

More concise way to pass, as constructor parameter, an Action that references private data?

This is stripped down from a more complex situation.
The goal is to construct several instances of class SubAction, each of which uses an action to alter how it uses its internal data.
Consider:
public class SubAction
{
private Action<SubAction> _DoIt;
public SubAction(Action<SubAction> doIt)
{
_DoIt = doIt;
}
public void DoIt()
{
_DoIt(this);
}
static public Action<SubAction> GetAction1 => (it) => it.DoSomething(it._Data.Value1);
static public Action<SubAction> GetAction2 => (it) => it.DoSomething(it._Data.Value2);
private void DoSomething(string value)
{
// ...
}
// This gets set by code not shown.
protected Data _Data;
}
public class Data
{
public string Value1;
public string Value2;
}
public class SubActionTests
{
static SubActionTests()
{
var actions = new List<SubAction>
{
new SubAction(SubAction.GetAction1),
new SubAction(SubAction.GetAction2),
};
// ... code not shown that calls a method to update each instance's _Data...
foreach (var subAction in actions)
{
subAction.DoIt();
}
}
}
This works, but it seems cumbersome. Specifically:
public Action<SubAction> _DoIt { get; set; }
...
static public Action<SubAction> GetAction1 => (it) => it.DoSomething(it._Data.Value1);
...
new SubAction(SubAction.GetAction1)
If I set DoIt AFTER constructing the object, could simply be:
public Action DoIt { get; set; }
...
public Action GetAction1 => () => DoSomething(_Data.Value1);
...
var it = new SubAction();
it.DoIt = it.GetAction1;
Which has simpler action declarations:
The actions don't need <SubAction>.
`GetAction1,2,3.. declarations are much simpler.
But more verbose instance initialization, because access to it is needed to set DoIt.
Unfortunately it isn't possible to refer to "it" during object initializer, so there doesn't seem to be any way to have BOTH the simpler initialization syntax AND the simpler action-declaration syntax.
Am I overlooking some solution?
ALTERNATIVE: factory method
NOTE: This could be approached quite differently, by using an enum to select between the different actions. But that is a different sort of complication; I'm looking for a way to describe these Actions themselves more succinctly.
Specifically, I'm aware there could be a factory method that takes an enum, to hide the complexity:
public enum WhichAction
{
Action1,
Action2
}
...
public static CreateSubAction(WhichAction which)
{
var it = new SubAction();
switch (which)
{
case WhichAction.Action1:
it.DoIt = it.GetAction1;
break;
case WhichAction.Action2:
it.DoIt = it.GetAction2;
break;
}
return it;
}
The downside of this is that each added action requires editing in multiple places.
ALTERNATIVE: sub-classes
Another alternative is to create multiple sub-classes.
That is what I was doing originally, but that was even more verbose - multiple lines per each new action.
And felt like "overkill".
After all, the approach I've got isn't terrible - its a single line for each new GetAction. It just felt like each of those lines "ought" to be much simpler.

Sadly, from what I understand, I don't think you can make the complexity disappear. You probably need to choose an approach from the ones you suggested (or even other solutions like using a strategy pattern).
Advice
When confronted with a design choice like this. I suggest you optimize for the consumer's side of things. In other words, design your classes to make them simple to use.
In your scenario, that would mean opting for your initial solution or the more complex solutions (factory method, sub-classes, strategy pattern, etc.).
The problem with the second solution is that your object can be in a limbo state when initializing it.
var it = new SubAction();
// Before you set DoIt, the object is not fully initialized.
it.DoIt = it.GetAction1;
Consumers can also forget to set DoIt. When possible, you should probably avoid designs that allow such mistakes.

While I'm still curious whether there are syntax alternatives that would streamline what I showed, so I'll accept an answer that shows a simpler syntax, turns out in my situation, I can easily avoid the need for those actions.
Discussing with a colleague, they pointed out that my current actions all have a similar pattern: get a string, pass it to SubAction.DoSomething.
Therefore I can simplify those actions down to a property that gets the appropriate string:
public abstract string CurrentValue { get; }
...
public virtual void DoIt()
{
DoSomething(CurrentValue);
}
Given the above, subclasses become so simple they no longer feel like "overkill":
public class SubAction1 : SubAction
{
protected override string CurrentValue => _Data.Value1;
}
...
// usage
new SubAction1()
That is straightforward; highly readable. And trivial to extend when additional conditions are needed.
There will be more complicated situations that do need to override DoSomething. In those, the "real work" dwarfs what I've shown; so its appropriate to subclass those anyway.

General design guidance c#; finding im unnecessarily passing objects between methods

Sorry its a bit vague perhaps but its been bugging me for weeks. I find each project I tackle I end up making what I think is a design mistake and am pretty sure theres a bettwe way.
When defining a class thats serialized from an event source like a sinple json doc definition. Lets call it keys class with various defined integers, bools and strings. i have multiple methods that make use of this and i find that i constantly need to paas this class as an object by means of an overload. So method a calls methods b, method b doesnt need these objects but it calls method c which does... In doing this bad practice im passing these 'keys' objects to method b for the sole purpose of method c accessibility.
Im probably missing one major OOP fundamental :) any guidance or reading would be appreciated as im googled out!!
public class Keys
{
public child Detail { get; set; }
}
public class child
{
public string instance { get; set; }
}
//my main entry point
public void FunctionHandler(Keys input, ILambdaContext context)
{
methodA(input)
}
static void methodA(Keys input)
{
//some-other logic or test that doesn't need Keys object/class if (foo==bar) {proceed=true;}
string foo = methodB(input)
}
static string methodB(Keys input)
{
//here i need Keys do do stuff and I return a string in this example
}

What you do is not necessarily bad or wrong. Remember that in C# what you actually pass are references, not objects proper, so the overhead of parameter passing is really small.
The main downside of long call chains is that the program logic is perhaps more complicated than it needs to be, with the usual maintainability issues.
Sometimes you can use the C# type system to let the compiler or the run time choose the proper function.
The compiler is employed when you overload method() for two different types instead of defining methodA() and methodB(). But they are distinguished by the parameter type, so you need different Key types which may be (but don't have to be) related:
public class KeyA {/*...*/}
public class KeyB {/*...*/}
void method(KeyA kA) { /* do something with kA */ }
void method(KeyB kB) { /* do something with kB */ }
This is of limited benefit; that the functions have the same name is just syntactic sugar which makes it clear that they serve the same purpose.
The other, perhaps more elegant and versatile technique is to create an inheritance hierarchy of Keys which each "know" what a method should do.
You'll need a base class with a virtual method which will be overridden by the inheriting classes. Often the base is an interface just declaring that there is some method(), and the various implementing types implement a method() which suits them. Here is a somewhat lengthy example which uses a virtual Output() method so that we see something on the Console.
It's noteworthy that each Key calls a method of an OutputterI, passing itself to it as a parameter; the outputter class then in turn calls back a method of the calling object. That's called "Double Dispatch" and combines run-time polymorphism with compile-time function overloading. At compile time the object and it's concrete type are not known; in fact, they can be implemented later (e.g. by inventing another Key). But each object knows what to do when its callback function (here: GetData()) is called.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace DoubleDispatch
{
interface KeyI
{ // They actually delegate that to an outputter
void Output();
}
interface OutputterI
{
void Output(KeyA kA);
void Output(KeyExtra kE);
void Output(KeyI k); // whatever this does.
}
class KeyBase: KeyI
{
protected OutputterI o;
public KeyBase(OutputterI oArg) { o = oArg; }
// This will call Output(KeyI))
public virtual void Output() { o.Output(this); }
}
class KeyA : KeyBase
{
public KeyA(OutputterI oArg) : base(oArg) { }
public string GetAData() { return "KeyA Data"; }
// This will compile to call Output(KeyA kA) because
// we pass this which is known here to be of type KeyA
public override void Output() { o.Output(this); }
}
class KeyExtra : KeyBase
{
public string GetEData() { return "KeyB Data"; }
public KeyExtra(OutputterI oArg) : base(oArg) { }
/** Some extra data which needs to be handled during output. */
public string GetExtraInfo() { return "KeyB Extra Data"; }
// This will, as is desired,
// compile to call o.Output(KeyExtra)
public override void Output() { o.Output(this); }
}
class KeyConsolePrinter : OutputterI
{
// Note: No way to print KeyBase.
public void Output(KeyA kA) { Console.WriteLine(kA.GetAData()); }
public void Output(KeyExtra kE)
{
Console.Write(kE.GetEData() + ", ");
Console.WriteLine(kE.GetExtraInfo());
}
// default method for other KeyI
public void Output(KeyI otherKey) { Console.WriteLine("Got an unknown key type"); }
}
// similar for class KeyScreenDisplayer{...} etc.
class DoubleDispatch
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
KeyConsolePrinter kp = new KeyConsolePrinter();
KeyBase b = new KeyBase(kp);
KeyBase a = new KeyA(kp);
KeyBase e = new KeyExtra(kp);
// Uninteresting, direkt case: We know at compile time
// what each object is and could simply call kp.Output(a) etc.
Console.Write("base:\t\t");
b.Output();
Console.Write("KeyA:\t\t");
a.Output();
Console.Write("KeyExtra:\t");
e.Output();
List<KeyI> list = new List<KeyI>() { b, a, e };
Console.WriteLine("\nb,a,e through KeyI:");
// Interesting case: We would normally not know which
// type each element in the vector has. But each type's specific
// Output() method is called -- and we know it must have
// one because that's part of the interface signature.
// Inside each type's Output() method in turn, the correct
// OutputterI::Output() for the given real type was
// chosen at compile time dpending on the type of the respective
// "this"" argument.
foreach (var k in list) { k.Output(); }
}
}
}
Sample output:
base: Got an unknown key type
KeyA: KeyA Data
KeyExtra: KeyB Data, KeyB Extra Data
b,a,e through KeyI:
Got an unknown key type
KeyA Data
KeyB Data, KeyB Extra Data

Call Method based on Type of Parameter

I have an object that can be of type AudioRequest or VideoRequest. Both classes inherit from Request. I have this class:
public static DoThings
{
public static void HandleRequest(AudioRequest r)
{
// Do things.
}
public static void HandleRequest(VideoRequest r)
{
// Do things.
}
}
I want to be able to call DoThings.HandleRequest(r) where r can be either a VideoRequest or AudioRequest and have it call the correct one. Is that possible? I have no control over the *Request classes, so I can't do anything to them. I do have control of the DoThings class and the code that calls HandleRequest. This is the code that calls it, it is WebAPI:
public Response Post(Request input)
{
return DoThings.HandleRequest(input);
}
The code above gives the error Argument 1: cannot convert from 'Request' to 'AudioRequest'.
The original code that I was cleaning up had this:
if (input.GetType() == typeof(AudioRequest))
{
var audioRequest = (AudioRequest)input;
DoThings.HandleRequest(audioRequest);
}
else if (input.GetType() == typeof(VideoRequest))
{
var videoRequest = (VideoRequest)input;
DoThings.HandleRequest(videoRequest);
}
But I figured there was a cleaner way to do this.

Based on the information you've provided so far, your question appears to be a duplicate of How to call a function dynamically based on an object type. I agree with the answer, that the fact that you want to do this suggests you should rethink the design. But, you can use dynamic to accomplish what you want.
Here's a simple console program that demonstrates the basic idea:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
A b = new B(), c = new C();
M(b);
M(c);
}
static void M(A a)
{
WriteLine("M(A)");
M((dynamic)a);
}
static void M(B b)
{
WriteLine("M(B)");
}
static void M(C c)
{
WriteLine("M(C)");
}
}
class A { }
class B : A { }
class C : A { }
The output is:
M(A)
M(B)
M(A)
M(C)
As you can see, in each case the M(A) method is called first, and then the appropriate M(B) or M(C) overload is called from M(A).
In your own example, this could look something like this:
public static DoThings
{
public static void HandleRequest(Request r)
{
// Dynamic dispatch to actual method:
HandleRequest((dynamic)r);
}
public static void HandleRequest(AudioRequest r)
{
// Do things.
}
public static void HandleRequest(VideoRequest r)
{
// Do things.
}
}
Note that dynamic does incur a run-time cost, particularly the first time a method is called with a given run-time type. But depending on the frequency and complexity of these "requests", using dynamic could be the cleanest way out of the current situation.

C# will call the appropriate function that matches the arguments and their types.
That being said, both of your functions accept AudioRequest, I believe one of those should accept a VideoRequest.
public static DoThings
{
public static void HandleRequest(AudioRequest r)
{
// Do things.
}
public static void HandleRequest(VideoRequest r)
{
// Do things.
}
}

If for some reason you must have two different functions that take only AudioRequest you can differentiate between two function with an extra parameter
public static class DoThings
{
public static void HandleRequest(AudioRequest r)
{
// Do things.
}
public static void HandleRequest(AudioRequest r, bool UseAlternativeMethod)
{
// Do other things.
}
}
Simply having a second parameter will call the second method regardless of it's value.
This isn't a best practices solution as you'd rather discriminate between them by accurately renaming the method name to be accurate but in practice you don't always have a choice.

Guard object in C#

In C++, it's fairly easy to write a Guard class which takes a reference to a variable (usually a bool) and when the instance object exits scope and gets destructed, the destructor resets the variable to the original value.
void someFunction() {
if(!reentryGuard) {
BoolGuard(&reentryGuardA, true);
// do some stuff that might cause reentry of this function
// this section is both early-exit and exception proof, with regards to restoring
// the guard variable to its original state
}
}
I'm looking for a graceful way to do this in C# using the disposal pattern (or maybe some other mechanism?) I'm thinking that passing a delegate to call might work, but seems a bit more error-prone than the guard above. Suggestions welcome!
Something like:
void someFunction() {
if(!reentryGuard) {
using(var guard = new BoolGuard(ref reentryGuard, true)) {
// do some stuff that might cause reentry of this function
// this section is both early-exit and exception proof, with regards to restoring
// the guard variable to its original state
}
}
}
With the understanding that the above code won't work.

You are correct…without unsafe code, you can't save the address of a by-ref parameter. But, depending on how much you can change the overall design, you can create a "guardable" type, such that it's a reference type containing the value to actually guard.
For example:
class Program
{
class Guardable<T>
{
public T Value { get; private set; }
private sealed class GuardHolder<TGuardable> : IDisposable where TGuardable : Guardable<T>
{
private readonly TGuardable _guardable;
private readonly T _originalValue;
public GuardHolder(TGuardable guardable)
{
_guardable = guardable;
_originalValue = guardable.Value;
}
public void Dispose()
{
_guardable.Value = _originalValue;
}
}
public Guardable(T value)
{
Value = value;
}
public IDisposable Guard(T newValue)
{
GuardHolder<Guardable<T>> guard = new GuardHolder<Guardable<T>>(this);
Value = newValue;
return guard;
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Guardable<int> guardable = new Guardable<int>(5);
using (var guard = guardable.Guard(10))
{
Console.WriteLine(guardable.Value);
}
Console.WriteLine(guardable.Value);
}
}

Here's a functional (as in lambda-based) way to do it. Pluses are, no need to use a using:
(note: This is not thread-safe. If you are looking to keep different threads from running the same code simultaneously, look at the lock statement, the monitor, and the mutex)
// usage
GuardedOperation TheGuard = new GuardedOperation() // instance variable
public void SomeOperationToGuard()
{
this.TheGuard.Execute(() => TheCodeToExecuteGuarded);
}
// implementation
public class GuardedOperation
{
public bool Signalled { get; private set; }
public bool Execute(Action guardedAction)
{
if (this.Signalled)
return false;
this.Signalled = true;
try
{
guardedAction();
}
finally
{
this.Signalled = false;
}
return true;
}
}
EDIT
Here is how you could use the guarded with parameters:
public void SomeOperationToGuard(int aParam, SomeType anotherParam)
{
// you can pass the params to the work method using closure
this.TheGuard.Execute(() => TheMethodThatDoesTheWork(aParam, anotherParam);
}
private void TheMethodThatDoesTheWork(int aParam, SomeType anotherParam) {}
You could also introduce overloads of the Execute method that accept a few different variants of the Action delegate, like Action<T> and Action<T1, T2>
If you need return values, you could introduce overloads of Execute that accept Func<T>

Sounds like the sort of thing you'd have to implement yourself - there are no such mechanisms built into C# or the .NET framework, though I did locate a deprecated class Guard on MSDN.
This sort of functionality would likely need to use a Using statement to operate without passing around an Action block, which as you said could get messy. Note that you can only call using against and IDisposable object, which will then be disposed - the perfect trigger for resetting the value of the object in question.

You can derive your object from IDisposable interface and implement it.
In specific case you are presenting here Dispose will be called as soon as you leave using scope.
Example:
public class BoolGuard : IDisposable
{
....
...
public void Dispose()
{
//DISPOSE IMPLEMANTATION
}
}

C# Variable Scope stopping me in my tracks

I'm fairly new to programming. The the constant issue I keep facing when I try anything for myself in C based languages is the scope.
Is there any way to use or modify a variable from within a different method or class? Is there also a way to do this without creating a new intance of a class or object? It seems to wipe the slate clean every time.
Example, I'm setting up a console text game, and I want a different background message to write to the console at certain intervals.
public static void OnTimedEvent(object scource, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
if(Exposition.Narration == 1)
{
Console.WriteLine("The bar is hot and muggy");
}
if (Exposition.Narration == 2)
{
Console.WriteLine("You see someone stealing beer from the counter");
}
if (Exposition.Narration == 3)
{
Console.WriteLine("There is a strange smell here");
}
}
But I have no way of making different messages play. If I create the variable from within the method it will send that variable to its defult everytime it runs. If I create a new instance of an object or a class, it sends things back to the defult as well. Also, I can't modify a single class when I'm creating new instances of them all the time.
That's just one example of where its been a problem. Is there a way to have a varable with a broader scope? Or am I thinking about this the wrong way?
edit:
To put it simply can I read or change a variable from within a different method or class?
using System;
namespace Examp
{
class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int number = 2;
other();
}
public static void other()
{
if (Main.number == 2)
{
number = 3
}
}
}
}

While I don't think I understood completely your question, you can see here some ways to make a variable "persist" outside a method:
Static variables
Static variables are something like a global variable. You can see them through all the program if you set them as public (if you set them as internal, it's different).
A static variable can be defined as:
class MyClass
{
static int MyVariable = 4;
}
....somewhere...
void MyMethod()
{
MyClass.MyVariable = 234;
}
As you can see, you can access them anywhere.
Variables on heap
If you create an object with new operator, if you keep reference to that object, every modify you do on it, it reflects on all references to that object that you have. For example
class MyClass
{
int X;
}
static class Program
{
static void Main(string args[])
{
MyClass a = new MyClass();
a.X = 40;
Method1(a);
Method2(a);
Console.WriteLine(a.X.ToString()); // This will print 32
}
static void Method1(MyClass c)
{
c.X = 10;
}
static void Method2(MyClass c)
{
c.X = 32;
}
}
You can even use refs to edit your variables inside a method
Basically you misunderstood the concept of "scope", because you question is "which variable types exist" (global/static/local etc.). What you would like to know about scope is this: A local variable exists only within { } where it's defined.
I hope this gives you some suggestion. The answer is definitely not complete but can give you an idea.
Try to be more specific so I can change my answer.
Answer to edit 1:
No you can't change a variable in the way you want, you must add it to the class (Program in this case), try adding:
class Program
{
static int number;
....
}
Obviusly you should remove the one inside the Main method.
Also note that int can't be modified (except without a ref) inside a function if you pass them as parameters because they are copied.
The reason is quite simple: a reference to a Class instance is (at least) the same size as an int (if we are speaking about 32/64 bit systems), so it takes the same time copying it or referencing it.
You can return a value from a method after you have done your calculations if you want, like this:
int x = 3;
x = DoSomethingWithX(x);
int DoSomethingWithX(int x)
{
x += 30;
}

Class access modifiers allow you to control the members that you want the class to expose to other classes. Furthermore, static class with singleton pattern allow use to reuse the same instance across your application.
Looking at your example, it appears that you are simply trying to read the class member, hence a public property in your class should suffice. The instance of this class can be passed while initializing the class in which your OnTimedEvent method is present (this method should be changed to an instance method to access non static members of the your class).
For example,
class MyClass
{
private Exposition exposition;
// Option 1: Use parametrized constructor
// Pass the instance reference of the other class while
// constructing the object
public MyClass(Exposition exposition)
{
this.exposition = exposition;
}
// Option 2: Use an initialize method
public void Initialize(Exposition exposition)
{
this.exposition = exposition;
}
// Remove static to access instance members
public void OnTimedEvent(object scource, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
// Better to use an enumeration/switch instead of magic constants
switch(exposition.Narration)
{
case HotAndMuggy:
Console.WriteLine("The bar is hot and muggy");;
break;
...
}
}
// Option 3: Use static properties of the Exposition class
// Note this approach should be used only if your application demands
// only one instance of the class to be created
public static void OnTimedEvent_Static(object scource, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
// Better to use an enumeration/switch instead of magic constants
switch(Exposition.Narration)
{
case HotAndMuggy:
Console.WriteLine("The bar is hot and muggy");;
break;
...
}
}
}