Develop Reference

Access to generic instance property

How can I access to the Id property of the instance? I have the following code:
public void InsertOrUpdate(Book book)
{
if (book.Id == default(int)) {
And I want to make it generic now:
public class TheRepository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class
{
public void InsertOrUpdate(T instance)
{
if (instance.Id == default(int))//How can I access Id here
{
context.Set<T>().Add(instance);
I searched for similar posts and I think I should write something like instance.GetType().GetProperty("Id").GetValue() but I don't know how exactly?

You could do a hack like this. Define an interface with only one property of type int called Id:
interface IHaveId
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
Then state that you entity implements the interface:
public class Book : IHaveId
Last state that the type used in your generic Repository class should implement this interface.
public class TheRepository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class, IHaveId
{
public void InsertOrUpdate(T instance)
{
if (instance.Id == default(int))
{
context.Set<T>().Add(instance);
}
}
}
Doing so you avoid the use of reflection, which is very expensive in general terms. Furthermore, your code now is more clear.

Currently, the compiler knows nothing of T except that it's a class. This means that it can never know that it has an Id property, because there's nothing stopping you from creating an instance of TheRepository<string> - which doesn't have an Id property, of course.
The code snippet you mention in your answer, using reflection, is not a good way to do it. What happens if, as I mentioned, you create a repository of strings? This code will necessarily fail, because string doesn't have the Id property.
What you need to do in this case is make sure that class Book, along with any other entities you need to persist in the repository, implement a base class that includes ID:
public abstract class DataObject
{
public int Id {get;set;}
}
public class Book : DataObject
{}
Now, you can restrict your repository to classes that inherit DataObject:
public class TheRepository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : DataObject
Now, the compiler is assured that any instance of T, regardless of what T is, always inherits DataObject, and thus has an Id property.

Generic class with non-generic method constraint?

I have this class working as my repository:
public class Repository<T> where T : class, new()
{
public T GetByID(int id)
{
//Code...
}
}
But there a few cases where I don't want to leave a class' default public constructor (such as some specific model properties that require some logic), like this:
public class Person
{
public CPersonID PersonID { get; private set; }
//This shouldn't exist outside Person, and only Person knows the rules how to handle this
public class CPersonID
{
internal CPersonID() { }
}
}
This makes the Repository template class invalid because of the new() constraint.
I'd like to make something like this:
public class Repository<T> where T : class
{
//This function should be created only when the T has new()
public GetByID(int id) where T : new()
{
}
//And this could be the alternative if it doesn't have new()
public GetByID(T element, int id)
{
}
}
Is there any way I can accomplish this?
Edit: Example of a Get method:
public IList<T> GetAll()
{
IList<T> list = new List<T>();
using(IConnection cn = ConnectionFactory.GetConnection())
{
ICommand cm = cn.GetCommand();
cm.CommandText = "Query";
using (IDataReader dr = cm.ExecuteReader())
{
while(dr.Read())
{
T obj = new T(); //because of this line the class won't compile if I don't have the new() constraint
//a mapping function I made to fill it's properties
LoadObj(obj, dr);
list.Add(obj);
}
}
}
return list;
}

As Lasse V. Karlsen already answered, this is not directly possible. However, you can get very close, close enough for practical purposes.
Given public class Repository<T> where T : class, you cannot define instance methods that only exist when T has a parameterless constructor. You don't need that. You just need repository.GetByID(3) to work. That can work if GetByID is an instance method, but also if it is an extension method, and extension methods can add requirements to T.
public static class RepositoryExtensions
{
public T GetByID(this Repository<T> repo, int id) where T : class, new()
{
...
}
}
Note that extension methods don't work if an instance method of the same name already exists, so if you go with this, you need both overloads of GetByID to be extension methods, not just this one.
The actual logic belongs in the Repository class, but you can forward to that:
public class Repository<T> where T : class
{
internal T GetByIDImpl(int id, Func<T> factory)
{
...
}
}
public static class RepositoryExtensions
{
public T GetByID(this Repository<T> repo, int id) where T : class, new()
{
return repo.GetByIDImpl(id, () => new T());
}
public T GetByID(this Repository<T> repo, T element, int id) where T : class
{
return repo.GetByIDImpl(id, () => element);
}
}

No, you can't do it this way.
All constraints have to be specified the place where you introduce the generic parameter, in this case at the class level.
As such you have two options:
Add , new() as a constraint, limiting the use of the repository class to use types that have a public parameterless constructor
Not add it as a constraint, and use reflection to try to construct the object at runtime
Note that point 2 there may fail (at runtime) if the type does not have a valid constructor.
There is no way you can ask the compiler to create a class where the ability to call a specific method is conditional, ie. "Only let me call GetByID if the type has a constructor".

If you want it as a compile-time constraint, you can do
public class Class<T> where T : class
{
public void Method<U> where U : T, new()
{
// ...
}
}
but this has the disadvantage that you'd have to do
new Class<HasConstructor>().Method<HasConstructor>();
as the type won't be implicitly picked up. The advantage is that the following won't compile:
new Class<NoConstructor>().Method<NoConstructor>();

Assigning implementation of a generic interface to a property

I have an interface
public interface IStrategy<T> where T : BaseModel
{
T GetModel(Guid userId);
}
and a concrete class inheriting the interface specifying that it should be a ConcreteModel
public class ConcreteStrategy: IStrategy<ConcreteModel>
{
ConcreteModel GetModel(Guid userId) { ... }
}
Now in the following method I can pass a new instance of ConcreteStrategy and everything works
public class Manager
{
public TModel GetContentModel<TModel>(IStrategy<TModel> strategy, Guid userId)
where TModel : ModelBase
{
return strategy.GetContentModel(userId);
}
}
But if I try to assign it to a property like this I get an error
public class Strategies
{
public static IStrategy<ModelBase> MyStrategy { get; set; }
}
Strategies.MyStrategy = new ConcreteStrategy();
Is there a way I can achieve this in C# ?
I want to be able to make a factory method that encapsulates the logic for which strategy to use and just return an instance of some type of strategy class (like ConcreteStrategy).
The error I am getting is:
Cannot implicitly convert type IStrategy<ModelBase> to IStrategy<ConcreteModel>

You need to make your interface covariant:
public interface IStrategy<out T> where T : BaseModel
Note that it will work only if T only appears in an output position in the interface (which is the case in the code you have shown, but I don't know if it's your real code).

Can C# constraints be used without a base type?

I have some classes with common properties, however, I cannot make them derive from a base type (LINQ-to-SQL limitations).
I would like to treat them as if they had a base type, but not by using Reflection (performance is critical).
For example:
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
}
public class Vehicle
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Label { get; set; }
}
In this case I would be happy if I had the Id property available, regardless of the type I'm holding.
Is there any way in C# to to something similar to this:
public static int GetId<T>(T entity) where T // has an int property 'Id'
{
return entity.Id;
}
I guess I could have used dynamic, however, I'm looking for a way to restrict the code in compile time from using this method for an object that has no Id property.

You can use interfaces:
public interface IHasId
{
int Id { get; }
}
public class User : IHasId { ... }
public class Vehicle : IHasId { ... }
public static int GetId<T>(T entity) where T : IHasId
{
return entity.Id;
}
However, if you are not able to modify the classes to add the interface, you won't be able to do this. No compile-time checks will verify that a property exists on T. You'd have to use reflection - which is slow and obviously not ideal.

There is no way to guarantee a type has a given member without constraining to a common base type or interface. One way to work around this limitation is to use a lambda to access the value
public static int Use<T>(T value, Func<T, int> getIdFunc) {
int id = getIdFunc(value);
...
}
Use(new User(), u => u.Id);
Use(new Vehicle(), v => v.Id);

You can create an interface with the common properties and make your classes implement it:
public interface IEntity
{
int Id { get; set; }
}
public class User : IEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
}
public class Vehicle : IEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Label { get; set; }
}
public static int GetId<T>(T entity) where T : IEntity
{
return entity.Id;
}
You could simplify GetId like this:
public static int GetId(IEntity entity)
{
return entity.Id;
}

The other answers mentioning the interface approach are certainly good, but I want to tailor the response to your situation involving Linq-to-SQL.
But first, to address the question title as asked
Can C# constraints be used without a base type?
Generally, the answer is no. Specifically, you can use struct, class, or new() as constraints, and those are not technically base types, and they do give some guidance on how the type can be used. That doesn't quite rise to the level of what you wish to do, which is to limit a method to types that have a certain property. For that, you will need to constrain to a specific interface or base class.
For your specific use case, you mention Linq-to-SQL. If you are working from models that are generated for you, then you should have options to modify those classes without modifying the generated model class files directly.
You probably have something like
// code generated by tool
// Customer.cs
public partial class Customer // : EntityBaseClasses, interfaces, etc
{
public int ID
{
get { /* implementation */ }
set { /* implementation */ }
}
}
And other similar files for things such as Accounts or Orders or things of that nature. If you are writing code that wishes to take advantage of the commonly available ID property, you can take utilize the partial in the partial class to define a second class file to introduce a common interface type to these models.
public interface IIdentifiableEntity
{
int ID { get; }
}
And the beauty here is that using it is easy, because the implementation already exists in your generated models. You just have to declare it, and you can declare it in another file.
public partial class Customer : IIdentifiableEntity { }
public partial class Account : IIdentifiableEntity { }
// etc.
This approach has proven valuable for me when using a repository pattern, and wishing to define a general GetById method without having to repeat the same boilerplate in repository after repository. I can constrain the method/class to the interface, and get GetById for "free."

Either you need to make both classes implement an interface with the properties you need, and use that in the generic constraint, or you write separate methods for each type. That's the only way you'll get compile-time safety.

How to declare a generic constraint that is a generic type

I have a two generic abstract types: Entity and Association.
Let's say Entity looks like this:
public class Entity<TId>
{
//...
}
and Association looks like this:
public class Association<TEntity, TEntity2>
{
//...
}
How do I constrain Association so they can be of any Entity?
I can accomplish it by the following:
public class Association<TEntity, TId, TEntity2, TId2>
where TEntity : Entity<TId>
where TEntity2: Entity<TId2>
{
//...
}
This gets very tedious as more types derive from Association, because I have to keep passing down TId and TId2. Is there a simpler way to do this, besides just removing the constraint?

This problem is usually solved by having your generic class (Entity<TId>, in this case) inherit from a common non-generic class.
public abstract class EntityBase
{
}
public class Entity<TId> : EntityBase
{
}
This will allow you to do:
public class Association<TEntity, TEntity2>
where TEntity : EntityBase
where TEntity2 : EntityBase
{
}
Edit
If having them inherit from a common class is an issue, then this could be easily done with an interface as well.

If the Id types are important inside the Association definition, you could create an enclosing "context":
public static partial class EntityIds<TId1, TId2> {
public class Association<TEntity1, TEntity2>
where TEntity1 : Entity<TId1>
where TEntity2 : Entity<TId2>
{
// ...
}
}
This way, the Association class declaration is still intelligible, and it retains the necessary type arguments for its type parameters.
A factory method could help you with the normal case:
public static class AssociationFactory {
public static EntityIds<TId1, TId2>.Association<Entity<TId1>, Entity<TId2>> Create<TId1, TId2>(/*params...*/) {
return new EntityIds<TId1, TId2>.Association<Entity<TId1>, Entity<TId2>>(/*params...*/);
}
}
It that looks like too much, and if you don't have entity specializations, you could model the association differently:
public class Association<TId1, TId2>
{
// ...
Entity<TId1> Entity1 { get; set; }
Entity<TId2> Entity2 { get; set; }
// ...
}