I receive a warning when I run some code through Visual Studio's Code Analysis utility which I'm not sure how to resolve. Perhaps someone here has come across a similar issue, resolved it, and is willing to share their insight.
I'm programming a custom-painted cell used in a DataGridView control. The code resembles:
public class DataGridViewMyCustomColumn : DataGridViewColumn
{
public DataGridViewMyCustomColumn() : base(new DataGridViewMyCustomCell())
{
}
It generates the following warning:
CA2000 : Microsoft.Reliability : In method 'DataGridViewMyCustomColumn.DataGridViewMyCustomColumn()' call System.IDisposable.Dispose on object 'new DataGridViewMyCustomCell()' before all references to it are out of scope.
I understand it is warning me DataGridViewMyCustomCell (or a class that it inherits from) implements the IDisposable interface and the Dispose() method should be called to clean up any resources claimed by DataGridViewMyCustomCell when it is no longer.
The examples I've seen on the internet suggest a using block to scope the lifetime of the object and have the system automatically dispose it, but base isn't recognized when moved into the body of the constructor so I can't write a using block around it... which I'm not sure I'd want to do anyway, since wouldn't that instruct the run time to free the object which could still be used later inside the base class?
My question then, is the code okay as is? Or, how could it be refactored to resolve the warning? I don't want to suppress the warning unless it is truly appropriate to do so.
If you're using Visual Studio 2010 then CA2000 is completely broken. It may also be broken in other versions of FxCop (a.k.a. Code Analysis), but VS2010 is the only one I can vouch for. Our codebase is giving CA2000 warnings for code like this...
internal static class ConnectionManager
{
public static SqlConnection CreateConnection()
{
return new SqlConnection("our connection string");
}
}
...indicating that the connection is not being disposed before it goes out of scope in the method. Well, yeah, that's true, but it isn't out of scope for the application as it's returned to a caller - that's the whole point of the method! In the same way, your constructor argument isn't going out of scope but is being passed to the base class, so it's a false positive from the rule rather than an actual problem.
This used to be a useful rule, but now all you can really do is turn it off until they fix it. Which is unfortunate, because the (very few) actual positives are things that should be fixed.
There is no safe and elegant way to have a chained constructor pass a new IDisposable object to the base constructor, since as you note it's not possible to wrap the chained constructor call in any sort of try finally block. There is an approach which is safe, but it's hardly elegant: define a utility method something like:
internal static TV storeAndReturn<TR,TV>(ref TR dest, TV value) where TV:TR
{
dest = value; return value;
}
Have the constructor look something like:
protected DataGridViewMyCustomColumn(ref IDisposable cleaner) :
base(storeAndReturn(ref cleaner, new DataGridViewMyCustomCell()))
{
}
Code which needs a new object would then have to call a public static factory method which would call the appropriate constructor within a try/finally block whose main line would null out cleaner just before it finished, and whose finally block would call Dispose on cleaner if it's not null. Provided that every subclass defines a similar factory method, this approach will ensure that the new IDisposable object will get disposed even if an exception occurs between time it's created and the time the encapsulating object is exposed to client code. The pattern is ugly, but I'm not sure any nicer other pattern would assure correctness.
Related
So I have a class which implements IDisposable, and I have several methods (in another class) which follow the pattern below:
public void SomeMethod()
{
DisposableObject disposableObject = new DisposableObject();
// Do some stuff with the object
SomeOtherMethod(disposableObject);
disposableObject.Dispose();
}
While all of these methods do different things, they all call SomeOtherMethod at the end, which does a few more things with the disposable object before it's no longer needed.
When I move disposableObject.Dispose(); into SomeOtherMethod, Visual Studio gives me a message saying:
"Use recommended dispose pattern to ensure that object created by 'new DisposableObject()' is disposed on all paths: using statement/declaration or try/finally"
This message appears regardless of whether or not I pass the disposable object to SomeOtherMethod using the ref keyword.
My question is, will that object be disposed as long as SomeOtherMethod calls Dispose() on it? I'm assuming it will, and Visual Studio continues to send the message simply because it isn't "aware" of what's happening to that object in subsequent methods, but I'd love to get some confirmation on that!
It may be disposed or may be not, depends on the fact whether the execution will reach the Dispose invocation or not and that's because an exception can be thrown before the Dispose is called. Using try finally construction explicitly or implicitly by using keyword ensures that it will be called for any scenario and that's why VS gives you the warning.
will that object be disposed
Sorry, but that’s a meaningless question. The CLR does not keep track of whether an object has had its “dispose” method called or not (see Will the Garbage Collector call IDisposable.Dispose for me? )
As a general rule, it is always much nicer (readable/ maintainable / less-bug-prone / etc) that a method that creates an issue should also be the one that cleans up after itself. As you’ve just found, this pattern also allows automated checking by the compiler - and again, it is also a good rule to ensure that your code compiles cleanly without errors OR WARNINGS.
In this case, the warning is giving you a couple of ways to implement this cleanly; personally, I would prefer the “using” clause (so avoiding having to have an explicit call to “dispose”) like :
public void SomeMethod()
{
using (DisposableObject disposableObject = new DisposableObject() )
{
// Do some stuff with the object
SomeOtherMethod(disposableObject);
}
}
No matter where one call the Dispose(), it is called.
Not using the language keyword using for the disposable pattern, therefore moving the dispose in another method, is an anti-pattern, therefore it is a bad practice and a source of potential problems.
You can only remove the warning by adding the warning number in the project build settings.
The method Dispose() doesn't destroy the object.
The dispose pattern is only for freeing unmanaged resources like windows handle and shared memories.
After a call to Dispose() you still have the object and so the reference to the object that remains referenced in the managed memory.
Dispose() is made to be called once time at the end of object usage and no more.
The compiler send you a warning because you break the standard behavior of the pattern usage that is to use the using keyword.
And breaking standards can be source of problems.
The using of disposable objects standard is made to avoid bugs by letting the compiler generates the try { ... } finally { Dispose() } block to be sure that Dispose() is correctly called in the right place to avoid mistakes.
So avoid calling the Dispose() directly.
Unless you are sure of what you do, prefer using:
public void SomeMethod()
{
using ( DisposableObject disposableObject = new DisposableObject() )
{
// Do some stuff with the object
SomeOtherMethod(disposableObject);
}
}
And your code may be robust.
How to dispose my object? I am doing it by this. Whats is wrong? The Obj.Dispose() function does not appear to be right.
class MainclassForm : Form, IDisposeable
{
public void createanddispose()
{
A obj = new A();
obj.dowork();
obj.Dispose();//does not appear as a function
}
}
You can better use the using statement. Something like
using (MyIDisposableObject obj = new MyIDisposableObject())
{
// object here
}
A good reference to check on MSDN: Avoiding Problems with the Using Statement
The C# "using" statement results in a call to Dispose(). This is the
same as Close(), which may throw exceptions when a network error
occurs. Because the call to Dispose() happens implicitly at the
closing brace of the "using" block, this source of exceptions is
likely to go unnoticed both by people writing the code and reading the
code. This represents a potential source of application errors.
To call Dispose() on an object, your class must be inherited from IDisposeable interface and have an implementation of it:
class A : IDisposable
{
public void Dispose()
{
GC.Collect();
}
}
There are a couple things wrong here, but I believe the root is that you might confusing IDisposable with a Garbage Collector.
IDisposable is an interface that the type A, in your example, may implement. It that were the case, you could be sure that any instance of A had the method Dispose() you're looking for. This is useful for things like Streams, where they need to be closed, but it's not useful for (just as an example) a ComplexNumber type that has no outstanding resources.
In these cases, your managed C# code will handle all the "disposal" that needs to happen. It will get rid of the memory that object is using. That feature comes for free (sort of), and you don't need (or want) to do anything to explicitly invoke it. That's the main difference between managed (C#, Java, etc.) and unmanaged (C++) code.
Essentially, if an object is using more than just memory (like an open file does), IDisposable will be useful. If it is just memory (like a Form, or DateTime, or a majority of other things), there's no need for it.
As for your specific code, you've applied IDisposable to the type that contains your functions. Just as you couldn't call this.AddMinutes(1) to get at DateTime's method, you can't get at this one.
If you do need the added functionality of implementing IDisposable, you'll have to do it on A. Applying IDisposable, like any other interface, to MainclassForm will tell the compiler that you have a Dispose() method on that class, which is true only because the Windows Forms object has one. If it didn't, this would throw a compiler error, and you'd have to add one.
Little confused (and not sure) with the kind of C# objects that I'm dealing with the at the moment.
For example:
interface IMyInterface
{
IDictionary<string, ICustomPath> MyPathDictionary { get; }
}
which is implemented by a class the also implements IDisposable
class MyClass:IMyInterface,IDisposable
{
}
IMyInterface myInterface = new MyClass();
I know how to dispose off instance "myInterface" of object MyClass (either by a using statement or explicitly cast instance to IDisposable like
((IDisposable)myInterface).Dispose();
or
((MyClass)myInterface).Dispose(); in the finally block after I'm done with what I'm doing.
But I have something like the following line of code
IExampleInterface exampleInterface = some condition ? myInterface.MyPathDictionary[key]:myInterface.CreateSomething(key);
And MyPathDictionary[key] is a dictionary value (where the key is of type string) and value of type IExampleInterface which is implemented by another class called ExampleClass, which also implements IDisposable like.
class ExampleClass:IExampleInterface,IDisposable
{
}
Now my confusion is caused by the above conditional statement since analysis of my code with a proprietary tool says that myInterface.MyPathDictionary[key] is causing a leak of resources/memory. What I'm not sure of is that when I'm disposing off myInterface explicitly in the finally block of my C# code then shall I explicitly dispose off myInteface.MyPathDiciotnary[key] as well because if I already disposed off myInterface then an invocation of MyPathDictionary[key] on it (myInterface) should automatically be disposed off.
Any suggestions regarding this conundrum will be appreciated.
If MyClass owns these resources then ((IDisposable)myInterface).Dispose(); should dispose of them. It is a common pattern to have a disposable root object recursively call dispose on anything that it owns. That kills the entire object tree which is convenient and intuitive for callers.
The key question is whether the objects contained in MyPathDictionary are owned or not.
Your static analysis tool probably thinks that myInterface.MyPathDictionary[key] is a factory method that creates what it returns. Property get operations are method calls. To the tool this might look like a factory. This is a false positive.
On the other hand if you actually called myInterface.CreateSomething(key) then this probably did create something that must be disposed of. You need to ensure this. Either by always disposing v no matter where its value came from. Or, by differentiating between the two cases.
I'd just wrap v in using and be done with it. Makes it easy to review the code and conclude that it is correct.
If implementations of your interface need to be disposable, the best way to handle it is to change your interface so that it also implements IDisposable. That way its clear to all users of the interface that it needs to be disposed properly. If some implementations don't actually need to dispose anything that's fine, they just have an empty implementation.
I was running VS2013's code analysis on one of my current projects, and came across "CA1001: Types that own disposable fields should be disposable." A simple example that generates the warning (presuming DisposableClass implements IDisposable) is:
class HasDisposableClassField
{
private DisposableClass disposableClass;
}
However, converting the field variable to a property no longer generates the warning, even if the circumstance is that the property will be instantiated by the class:
class HasDisposableClassProperty
{
private DisposableClass disposableClass { get; set; }
public HasDisposableClassProperty()
{
disposableClass = new DisposableClass();
}
}
In the first case it's clear that the class should implement the IDisposable pattern, and dispose of its disposableClass field appropriately. My question: is the lack of a warning for the second case a limitation of the code analysis tool? Should the class still implement IDisposable and dispose of the property, despite the lack of a warning?
Yes, the lack of a warning is a limitation of the analysis tool.
You should definitely still implement IDisposable and clean up after yourself assuming your IDisposable properties aren't being injected from elsewhere.
Yes; you still need to dispose it.
Putting something in a property does not magically dispose it for you.
The missing warning is a bug on Code Analysis (it ignores the backing field because it's compiler-generated)
Implementation of disposable should depend on how the resources that need disposing (whether disposable or non-managed) are created.
If your object receives a resource via injection (constructor, method or property), it probably does not own it and should therefore probably not dispose of it.
How the resource is stored (local variable, field or property (with backing field) is not important), however, you may need to check that your resource hasn't been dispose externally, as your object isn't its owner.
If your class creates a resource directly (via create, allocate, open handle, factory method), it probably does own it and should therefore probably dispose of it.
The problem is that most static code analysis tools have limited rule sets and therefore can not make such distinctions and instead try to cover the cases they consider more common.
I am working on a "learning program" and using the Code Rush refactoring tool with my learning. With the latest update of Code Rush it has been recommending implementing IDisposable to my programs. I know what MSDN says about IDisposable and I have a real basic understanding of what it does but because I don't know all the implications of implementing it I have been ignoring the recommendation. Today I decided to learn more about it and went along with the recommendation.
This is what it added to my program.
class Program : IDisposable
{
static Service _proxy;
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (disposing)
if (_proxy != null)
{
_proxy.Dispose();
_proxy = null;
}
}
~Program()
{
Dispose(false);
}
So my questions is this. Does that do everything I need to do to get the advantage of IDisposable or do I need to do something in code to make it work? I put a break points on that and never reached it through the debugger so either it was not needed or I am not using it the way it was intended. Can someone please shed some light on what this is doing for me or how I should use it so it does do something for me?
In this case, CodeRush is suggesting you implement IDisposable because your class encapsulates an IDisposable resource (it's seeing _proxy, though that's not entirely a good thing since it's static). Code Rush thinks that there is a type that you're using which should be explicitly cleaned up, but you're not providing a way to do it via your class.
That being said, IDisposable is tricky - and this is one case where the generated code is not really a good implementation (even if _proxy were an instance variable). I would recommend not using the destructor in this case. It will cause performance issues in the GC, and in this case, doesn't help with the safety, as the encapsulated resource should handle that the case where you forget to call Dispose() for you. For details, see my series on IDisposable, and, in particular, encapsulating an IDisposable class.
In addition, this class shouldn't implement IDisposable (unless there is some other reason to do so) given the code above, as the _proxy resource is static. Disposing a static resource from an instance is likely to cause problems, at least in a general case. (In this case, it's obviously not problematic, but it's not a good practice...) Typically, a static variable has a very different lifetime than an instance member, so automatically disposing of it would be inappropriate.
In a properly-written program, at any given time, for every object that could possibly have a meaningful implementation of IDisposable, there will be some entity that is responsible for ensuring that IDisposable.Dispose will get called on that object sometime between the last "real use" of that instance and its ultimate abandonment. In general, if an object Foo is going to hold references to objects which implement IDisposable, at least one of the following scenarios should apply:
Some other object will also hold the reference for at least as long as Foo needs it, and will take care of calling Dispose on it, so Foo should let the other object take care of the Dispose.
The object holding the reference will be the last thing to use the IDisposable object in question; if Foo doesn't call Dispose, nothing else will. In that scenario, Foo must ensure that that other object's Dispose method gets called once it (Foo) is no longer needed, and before it is abandoned. The most idiomatic way to handle this is for Foo to implement IDisposable.Dispose, and for its Dispose method to call Dispose on the IDisposable objects to which it holds the last useful references.
There are some scenarios where a class designer might not know whether its class is going to hold the last useful reference to an IDisposable object. In some cases, this issue may be resolved by having a class constructor specify whether a IDisposable passed to the constructor is being "lent" or "given". Other cases may require the use of reference-counting wrappers or other complex techniques.