Develop Reference

set a value to the attribute at run time

I have a namespace that contains some classes, one of the classes I'm working on contains properties, where each proprty has an attribute associated with it, as the follwing
namespace Local.Business
{
[DynamoDBTable("myTableName")]
public class Business
{
[DynamoDBHashKey("PK")]
public string MunId {get; set;}
[DynamoDBRangeKey("SK")]
public string Id {get; set;}
[DynamoDBProperty("Dba")]
public string Dba {get; set;}
}
}
the string "myTableName" need to be determined at runtime(by calling a function or reading it from other class's property)
How can I achieve that, please?

What you are trying to do is inherently flawed. You kinda can ish change attributes sort of, sometimes, but there's a good chance that whatever is consuming the attributes won't see the change, which makes it entirely pointless.
Basically: you need to find another way of reconfiguring DynamoDB at runtime. This isn't it.
For the "kinda can ish":
you can materialize attributes, and if they're mutable, change the copies you have; but when other code materializes the attributes, they'll get different unrelated versions, which will not have any changes you have made
there is an API that supports this concept (System.ComponentModel), but: most attribute consumers do not use that API - it is mostly just UI binding tools (think PropertyGrid, DataGridView, etc) that would take any notice of it - because they are expecting to work with things like DataTable that require a different approach to metadata and reflection

Set the table name value to empty string in the class file:
[DynamoDBTable("")]
During runtime, use the overloaded functions on DynamoDBMapper to pass DynamoDBMapperConfig configured with TableNameOverride

Actually I deleted the table property and I gave the table name in the query
dynamoDBOperationConfig = new DynamoDBOperationConfig();
dynamoDBOperationConfig.OverrideTableName = "tableName";
string munId = "1";
var search = dynamoDBcontext.QueryAsync<Business>(munId, dynamoDBOperationConfig);
and It works fine, thank you all guys for helping

How to Design whether a Class Property has Changed?

I have a class with about 20 properties but I'd simplify it for this question:
public class Product
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
I'd like to have a class or property that identifies whether my class is dirty. By this I mean to identify whether any of its values have changed?
There are 3 design approaches I can take:
1)
When setting the property inside the class, I check whether the property IsDirty.
public string Name
{
get { return this._name; }
set { if (this._name != value) { this.IsDirty = true; this._name = value; }
}
2)
When setting the property from outside the class, I check whether the property IsDirty.
e.g.
if (p.Name != newName)
{
p.IsDirty = true;
p.Name = newName;
}
This approach forces me to add lots of ifs in the client class. Some properties are even collections or even reference objects so the number of lines would be increased even.
3)
When the object is ready to be saved, then I check whether any properties IsDirty by getting a cloned object and checking the equality.
This would have a poorer performance as I would have to clone or load again the original object then compare the properties one by one.
Which one is the best design? or is there any other design pattern that can help with this?

Another option would be to Implement the INotifyPropertyChanged Interface.
Please note that this will help you make thing more tidy and your API clearer, but as far as internal implementation regarding keeping track after changes, It is still up to you to implement. I think this goes along best with your Option #1

Option 1 is clearly best: it puts the responsibility of tracking dirtiness where it belongs: inside the object. Option 2 is out because as you mentioned, you are forcing this responsibility onto the clients of your classes. And option 3 has the additional problem as you mentioned of performance.
Incidentally, you should look into a proxy implementation using DynamicProxy. This will allow your code to look like this:
public class Product
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
}
and with the judicious use of interceptors, you can get the behaviour you want. You can write an interceptor to intercept any "sets" and do some logic inside, such as setting an IsDirty flag.

Another idea would be to make this a GoF Observable and let interested Observer parties register their interest in changes. It's a more event-based approach.

This is the best solution and complies with SRP principle very nicely, I created the below classes:
ProductWithChangeDetection; this uses the Decorator pattern to add this new feature to an existing product object
ProductChangeDetector; this contains logics for checking and notification. Currently only exposes ChangeDetected property but if more complexity needed one should implement INotifyPropertyChange interface.
ProductEquitable; this implements IEquitable and has some overloads for checking whether two objects/properties are equal

Range validation - make exceptions to the rule

I have a class with a property which has a range attribution on it.
[Required]
[Range(5, 9999)]
public double Price { get; set; }
Which is respected at all times and on any user input.
But on one specific code path, where i am automating some entries, i want to be able to set the Price to 0. So i want to programmatically tell this model class to ignore this requirement.
Is it possible? If so how?

This seems like a duplicate of this question, but maybe I'm not completely understanding your requirements.
For your scenario I might try implementing the IValidatableObject interface so that way you can control the validation logic rather than using a declarative validation pattern.

I would suggest you to create a derived type of System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.ValidationAttribute. The implementation can be similar to RangeAttribute class with additional parameter of exceptional values.
Have a look at this MSDN article for details on how to do this.

Validation strategies

I have a business model with many classes in, some logical entities within this model consist of many different classes (Parent-child-grandchild.) On these various classes I define constraints which are invariant, for example that the root of the composite should have a value for Code.
I currently have each class implement an interface like so...
public interface IValidatable
{
IEnumerable<ValidationError> GetErrors(string path);
}
The parent would add a validation error if Code is not set, and then execute GetErrors on each child, which in turn would call GetErrors on each grandchild.
Now I need to validate different constraints for different operations, for example
Some constraints should always be checked because they are invariant
Some constraints should be checked when I want to perform operation X on the root.
Some additional constraints might be checked when performing operation Y.
I have considered adding a "Reason" parameter to the GetErrors method but for a reason I can't quite put my finger on this doesn't feel right. I have also considered creating a visitor and having a concrete implementation to validate for OperationX and another for OperationY but dislike this because some of the constraint checks would be required for multiple operations but not all of them (e.g. a Date is required for OperationX+OperationY but not OperationZ) and I wouldn't like to have to duplicate the code which checks.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

You have an insulation problem here, as your classes are in charge of doing their own validation, yet the nature of that validation depends on the type of operation you're doing. This means the classes need to know about the kinds of operations that can be performed on them, which creates a fairly tight coupling between the classes and the operations that use them.
One possible design is to create a parallel set of classes like this:
public interface IValidate<T>
{
IEnumerable<ValidationError> GetErrors(T instance, string path);
}
public sealed class InvariantEntityValidator : IValidate<Entity>
{
public IEnumerable<ValidationError> GetErrors(Entity entity, string path)
{
//Do simple (invariant) validation...
}
}
public sealed class ComplexEntityValidator : IValidate<Entity>
{
public IEnumerable<ValidationError> GetErrors(Entity entity, string path)
{
var validator = new InvariantEntityValidator();
foreach (var error in validator.GetErrors(entity, path))
yield return error;
//Do additional validation for this complex case
}
}
You'll still need to resolve how you want to associate the validation classes with the various classes being validated. It sounds like this should occur at the level of the operations somehow, as this is where you know what type of validation needs to occur. It's difficult to say without a better understanding of your architecture.

I would do a kind of attribute-based validation:
public class Entity
{
[Required, MaxStringLength(50)]
public string Property1 { get; set; }
[Between(5, 20)]
public int Property2 { get; set; }
[ValidateAlways, Between(0, 5)]
public int SomeOtherProperty { get; set; }
[Requires("Property1, Property2")]
public void OperationX()
{
}
}
Each property which is passed to the Requires-attribute needs to be valid to perform the operation.
The properties which have the ValidateAlways-attribute, must be valid always - no matter what operation.
In my pseudo-code Property1, Property2 and SomeOtherProperty must be valid to execute OperationX.
Of course you have to add an option to the Requires-attribute to check validation attributes on a child, too. But I'm not able to suggest how to do that without seeing some example code.
Maybe something like that:
[Requires("Property1, Property2, Child2: Property3")]
If needed you can also reach strongly typed property pointers with lambda expressions instead of strings (Example).

I would suggest using the Fluent Validation For .Net library. This library allows you to setup validators pretty easily and flexibly, and if you need different validations for different operations you can use the one that applies for that specific operation (and change them out) very easily.

I've used Sptring.NET's validation engine for exactly the same reason - It allows you to use Conditional Validators. You just define rules - what validation to apply and under what conditions and Spring does the rest. The good thing is that your business logic is no longer polluted by interfaces for validation
You can find more information in documentation at springframework.net I will just copy the sample for the their doc to show how it looks like:
<v:condition test="StartingFrom.Date >= DateTime.Today" when="StartingFrom.Date != DateTime.MinValue">
<v:message id="error.departureDate.inThePast" providers="departureDateErrors, validationSummary"/>
</v:condition>
In this example the StartingFrom property of the Trip object is compared to see if it is later than the current date, i.e. DateTime but only when the date has been set (the initial value of StartingFrom.Date was set to DateTime.MinValue).
The condition validator could be considered "the mother of all validators". You can use it to achieve almost anything that can be achieved by using other validator types, but in some cases the test expression might be very complex, which is why you should use more specific validator type if possible. However, condition validator is still your best bet if you need to check whether particular value belongs to a particular range, or perform a similar test, as those conditions are fairly easy to write.

If you're using .Net 4.0, you can use Code Contracts to control some of this.

Try to read this article from top to bottom, I've gained quite a few ideas from this.
http://codebetter.com/jeremymiller/2007/06/13/build-your-own-cab-part-9-domain-centric-validation-with-the-notification-pattern/
It is attribute based domain validation with a Notification that wraps those validations up to higher layers.

I would separate the variant validation logic out, perhaps with a Visitor as you mentioned. By separating the validation from the classes, you will be keeping your operations separate from your data, and that can really help to keep things clean.
Think about it this way too -- if you mix-in your validation and operations with your data classes, think of what are things going to look like a year from now, when you are doing an enhancement and you need to add a new operation. If each operation's validation rules and operation logic are separate, it's largely just an "add" -- you create a new operation, and a new validation visitor to go with it. On the other hand, if you have to go back and touch alot of "if operation == x" logic in each of your data classes, then you have some added risk for regression bugs/etc.

I rely on proven validation strategy which has implemented in .net framework in 'System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations Namespace' and for example used in ASP.NET MVC.
This one provides unobtrusive way to apply validation rules (using attributes or implementing IValidatableObject) and facilities to validate rules.
Scott Allen described this way in great article 'Manual Validation with Data Annotations'.
if you want to apply validation attributes on interface then look at MetadataTypeAttribute
to get better understanding how it works look at MS source code

When to use Properties and Methods?

I'm new to the .NET world having come from C++ and I'm trying to better understand properties. I noticed in the .NET framework Microsoft uses properties all over the place. Is there an advantage for using properties rather than creating get/set methods? Is there a general guideline (as well as naming convention) for when one should use properties?

It is pure syntactic sugar. On the back end, it is compiled into plain get and set methods.
Use it because of convention, and that it looks nicer.
Some guidelines are that when it has a high risk of throwing Exceptions or going wrong, don't use properties but explicit getters/setters. But generally even then they are used.

Properties are get/set methods; simply, it formalises them into a single concept (for read and write), allowing (for example) metadata against the property, rather than individual members. For example:
[XmlAttribute("foo")]
public string Name {get;set;}
This is a get/set pair of methods, but the additional metadata applies to both. It also, IMO, simply makes it easier to use:
someObj.Name = "Fred"; // clearly a "set"
DateTime dob = someObj.DateOfBirth; // clearly a "get"
We haven't duplicated the fact that we're doing a get/set.
Another nice thing is that it allows simple two-way data-binding against the property ("Name" above), without relying on any magic patterns (except those guaranteed by the compiler).

There is an entire book dedicated to answering these sorts of questions: Framework Design Guidelines from Addison-Wesley. See section 5.1.3 for advice on when to choose a property vs a method.
Much of the content of this book is available on MSDN as well, but I find it handy to have it on my desk.

Consider reading Choosing Between Properties and Methods. It has a lot of information on .NET design guidelines.

properties are get/set methods

Properties are set and get methods as people around here have explained, but the idea of having them is making those methods the only ones playing with the private values (for instance, to handle validations).
The whole other logic should be done against the properties, but it's always easier mentally to work with something you can handle as a value on the left and right side of operations (properties) and not having to even think it is a method.
I personally think that's the main idea behind properties.

I always think that properties are the nouns of a class, where as methods are the verbs...

First of all, the naming convention is: use PascalCase for the property name, just like with methods. Also, properties should not contain very complex operations. These should be done kept in methods.
In OOP, you would describe an object as having attributes and functionality. You do that when designing a class. Consider designing a car. Examples for functionality could be the ability to move somewhere or activate the wipers. Within your class, these would be methods. An attribute would be the number of passengers within the car at a given moment. Without properties, you would have two ways to implement the attribute:
Make a variable public:
// class Car
public int passengerCount = 4;
// calling code
int count = myCar.passengerCount;
This has several problems. First of all, it is not really an attribute of the vehicle. You have to update the value from inside the Car class to have it represent the vehicles true state. Second, the variable is public and could also be written to.
The second variant is one widley used, e. g. in Java, where you do not have properties like in c#:
Use a method to encapsulate the value and maybe perform a few operations first.
// class Car
public int GetPassengerCount()
{
// perform some operation
int result = CountAllPassengers();
// return the result
return result;
}
// calling code
int count = myCar.GetPassengerCount();
This way you manage to get around the problems with a public variable. By asking for the number of passengers, you can be sure to get the most recent result since you recount before answering. Also, you cannot change the value since the method does not allow it. The problem is, though, that you actually wanted the amount of passengers to be an attribute, not a function of your car.
The second approach is not necessarily wrong, it just does not read quite right. That's why some languages include ways of making attributes look like variables, even though they work like methods behind the scenes. Actionscript for example also includes syntax to define methods that will be accessed in a variable-style from within the calling code.
Keep in mind that this also brings responsibility. The calling user will expect it to behave like an attribute, not a function. so if just asking a car how many passengers it has takes 20 seconds to load, then you probably should pack that in a real method, since the caller will expect functions to take longer than accessing an attribute.
EDIT:
I almost forgot to mention this: The ability to actually perform certain checks before letting a variable be set. By just using a public variable, you could basically write anything into it. The setter method or property give you a chance to check it before actually saving it.

Properties simply save you some time from writing the boilerplate that goes along with get/set methods.
That being said, a lot of .NET stuff handles properties differently- for example, a Grid will automatically display properties but won't display a function that does the equivalent.
This is handy, because you can make get/set methods for things that you don't want displayed, and properties for those you do want displayed.

The compiler actually emits get_MyProperty and set_MyProperty methods for each property you define.

Although it is not a hard and fast rule and, as others have pointed out, Properties are implemented as Get/Set pairs 'behind the scenes' - typically Properties surface encapsulated/protected state data whereas Methods (aka Procedures or Functions) do work and yield the result of that work.
As such Methods will take often arguments that they might merely consume but also may return in an altered state or may produce a new object or value as a result of the work done.
Generally speaking - if you need a way of controlling access to data or state then Properties allow the implementation that access in a defined, validatable and optimised way (allowing access restriction, range & error-checking, creation of backing-store on demand and a way of avoiding redundant setting calls).
In contrast, methods transform state and give rise to new values internally and externally without necessarily repeatable results.
Certainly if you find yourself writing procedural or transformative code in a property, you are probably really writing a method.

Also note that properties are available via reflection. While methods are, too, properties represent "something interesting" about the object. If you are trying to display a grid of properties of an object-- say, something like the Visual Studio form designer-- then you can use reflection to query the properties of a class, iterate through each property, and interrogate the object for its value.

Think of it this way, Properties encapsulate your fields (commoningly marked private) while at the same time provides your fellow developers to either set or get the field value. You can even perform routine validation in the property's set method should you desire.

Properties are not just syntactic sugar - they are important if you need to create object-relational mappings (Linq2Sql or Linq2Entities), because they behave just like variables while it is possible to hide the implementation details of the object-relational mapping (persistance). It is also possible to validate a value being assigned to it in the getter of the property and protect it against assigning unwanted values.
You can't do this with the same elegance with methods. I think it is best to demonstrate this with a practical example.
In one of his articles, Scott Gu creates classes which are mapped to the Northwind database using the "code first" approach. One short example taken from Scott's blog (with a little modification, the full article can be read at Scott Gu's blog here):
public class Product
{
[Key]
public int ProductID { get; set; }
public string ProductName { get; set; }
public Decimal? UnitPrice { get; set; }
public bool Discontinued { get; set; }
public virtual Category category { get; set; }
}
// class Category omitted in this example
public class Northwind : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
public DbSet<Category> Categories { get; set; }
}
You can use entity sets Products, Categories and the related classes Product and Category just as if they were normal objects containing variables: You can read and write them and they behave just like normal variables. But you can also use them in Linq queries, persist them (store them in the database and retrieve them).
Note also how easy it is to use annotations (C# attributes) to define the primary key (in this example ProductID is the primary key for Product).
While the properties are used to define a representation of the data stored in the database, there are some methods defined in the entity set class which control the persistence: For example, the method Remove() marks a given entity as deleted, while Add() adds a given entity, SaveChanges() makes the changes permanent. You can consider the methods as actions (i.e. you control what you want to do with the data).
Finally I give you an example how naturally you can use those classes:
// instantiate the database as object
var nw = new NorthWind();
// select product
var product = nw.Products.Single(p => p.ProductName == "Chai");
// 1. modify the price
product.UnitPrice = 2.33M;
// 2. store a new category
var c = new Category();
c.Category = "Example category";
c.Description = "Show how to persist data";
nw.Categories.Add(c);
// Save changes (1. and 2.) to the Northwind database
nw.SaveChanges();