Consider the following code:
public class TestClass
{
public int? NullableInt { get; set; }
private bool DoPreChecks()
{
if(NullableInt == null)
return false;
return true;
}
public bool DoTest()
{
if(!DoPreChecks())
return false;
//Here R# tells me that "nullableInt" may be null
if (NullableInt.Value > 10)
{
// Do something
}
return true;
}
}
R# would be correct to worry that "NullableInt.Value" may be null when I reference it in "DoTest", except that if it was, then "DoPreChecks" would have returned false and that means I would never have gotten to this line. I was looking at R#'s code annotations and I see I can tell it what output to expect under limited conditions and it seems like that may be something I could leverage here, but I don't see any way to tell it that when the output is true/false/null/notnull, then a class variable (which has nothing to do with the input or output) will have a certain value type (true/false/null/notnull). Can something like this be done?
The use case here is this -- I have a dozen methods that all rely on the same preconditions, including several class variables being initialized. Rather than putting all those checks in each method, I want to have them all run the "DoPreChecks" method and if it returns true, we're good to go. The problem is that R# can't follow that and thinks I have lots of possible null reference exceptions. I could:
Ignore the errors completely and just tolerate wiggly lines everywhere
Disable and restore the warning at the beginning and ending of these methods
Disable the warning 1 line at a time
Do null checks or assertions before each use
The problem with each is...
Violates company policy to just ignore warnings
Disabling this check over large swaths of code would be worse than ignoring individual warnings because other valid issues may be there, but get disabled
This would require a LOT of R# comments, thus negating the helpfulness of DoPreChecks method
Same as #3
Right now I'm leaning toward getting an exception on the policy and just ignoring the warnings, but if there is a way to tell R# what is going on, that would be a much better solution. Can it be done without adding parameters or complicating the return type?
There is no contract annotation in ReSharper that sets up a relation between return value of a method and nullness of a field/property
Related
One would think that in C# 8.0 you should be able to do the following (according to this (1st snippet)):
public interface IRestApiClient : IRestClient
{
...
Task<T> PostPrivateAsync<T>(string action, OrderedDictionary<string, object> parameters = null, DeserializeCustom<T> deserializer = null)
{
return QueryPrivateAsync(Method.POST, action, parameters, deserializer);
}
...
}
public class SpecificClient : ExchangeClient, IRestApiClient, IRestHtmlClient, ISeleniumClient, IWebSocketClient
{
}
The example above won't compile because the interface members need to be explicitly and wholly implemented (including the methods supplying the default logic)
So one would think that the following should work:
public interface IRestApiClient : IRestClient
{
...
Task<T> PostPrivateAsync<T>(string action, OrderedDictionary<string, object> parameters = null, DeserializeCustom<T> deserializer = null)
{
return QueryPrivateAsync(Method.POST, action, parameters, deserializer);
}
...
}
public class SpecificClient : ExchangeClient, IRestApiClient, IRestHtmlClient, ISeleniumClient, IWebSocketClient
{
...
public async Task<T> PostPrivateAsync<T>(string action, OrderedDictionary<string, object> parameters = null, DeserializeCustom<T> deserializer = null)
=> await ((IRestApiClient) this).PostPrivateAsync(action, parameters, deserializer);
...
}
Nope, it looks like this method is recursive (despite the upcast) and will cause our favorite Stack Overflow exception.
So my question is (abstracting from the fact that I could change the design in my example), is there a way of keeping the implementation for a specific method default, preferably without the necessity of resorting to hacky or Static Helper Extension methods? I could call static extension method in both interface and the class but it kind of defeats the purpose of this feature.
// EDIT
I must admit it confuses me and it appears I am missing something critical that is obvious to other people. I didn't provide additional info because I didn't consider my issue to be code specific. Lets look at this simple example (taken from the website I linked on the beginning of my post):
According to #Panagiotis Kanavos comment: No, default members don't need to be implemented (...) what I screenshoted should not be true. Can sb please enlighten me?
// EDIT 2
As you can see I am properly targeting .NET CORE 3.0 with C# 8.0.
ERRORS:
Interface method cannot declare a body
Interface member 'void CryptoBotCoreMVC.IDefaultInterfaceMethod.DefaultMethod()' is not implemented
To answer the question in the comments: I didn't specify LangVersion explicitly in the .csproj file.
// EDIT 3
The issue was ReSharper, see:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/58614702/3783852
My comment have been deleted, presumably by the owner of the answer so I'll write it here: the clue was the fact that there was actually no error numbers, but the compilation was blocked. It turned out that there is an option to block compilation when these errors occur in ReSharper.
It seems that in the end this is a possible duplicate, but getting to this conclusion was quite a journey :).
The issue is caused by ReSharper, reference:
https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/RSRP-474628
It appears that the problem will be resolved in version v2019.3 and we currently have v2019.2.3. You can setup ReSharper to block compilation depending on issue severity, the workaround is to disable this feature for the time being.
Thanks in advance for the help -
I am new to mockito but have spent the last day looking at examples and the documentation but haven't been able to find a solution to my problem, so hopefully this is not too dumb of a question.
I want to verify that deleteLogs() calls deleteLog(Path) NUM_LOGS_TO_DELETE number of times, per path marked for delete. I don't care what the path is in the mock (since I don't want to go to the file system, cluster, etc. for the test) so I verify that deleteLog was called NUM_LOGS_TO_DELETE times with any non-null Path as a parameter. When I step through the execution however, deleteLog gets passed a null argument - this results in a NullPointerException (based on the behavior of the code I inherited).
Maybe I am doing something wrong, but verify and the use of isNotNull seems pretty straight forward...here is my code:
MonitoringController mockController = mock(MonitoringController.class);
// Call the function whose behavior I want to verify
mockController.deleteLogs();
// Verify that mockController called deleteLog the appropriate number of times
verify(mockController, Mockito.times(NUM_LOGS_TO_DELETE)).deleteLog(isNotNull(Path.class));
Thanks again
I've never used isNotNull for arguments so I can't really say what's going wrong with you code - I always use an ArgumentCaptor. Basically you tell it what type of arguments to look for, it captures them, and then after the call you can assert the values you were looking for. Give the below code a try:
ArgumentCaptor<Path> pathCaptor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(Path.class);
verify(mockController, Mockito.times(NUM_LOGS_TO_DELETE)).deleteLog(pathCaptor.capture());
for (Path path : pathCaptor.getAllValues()) {
assertNotNull(path);
}
As it turns out, isNotNull is a method that returns null, and that's deliberate. Mockito matchers work via side effects, so it's more-or-less expected for all matchers to return dummy values like null or 0 and instead record their expectations on a stack within the Mockito framework.
The unexpected part of this is that your MonitoringController.deleteLog is actually calling your code, rather than calling Mockito's verification code. Typically this happens because deleteLog is final: Mockito works through subclasses (actually dynamic proxies), and because final prohibits subclassing, the compiler basically skips the virtual method lookup and inlines a call directly to the implementation instead of Mockito's mock. Double-check that methods you're trying to stub or verify are not final, because you're counting on them not behaving as final in your test.
It's almost never correct to call a method on a mock directly in your test; if this is a MonitoringControllerTest, you should be using a real MonitoringController and mocking its dependencies. I hope your mockController.deleteLogs() is just meant to stand in for your actual test code, where you exercise some other component that depends on and interacts with MonitoringController.
Most tests don't need mocking at all. Let's say you have this class:
class MonitoringController {
private List<Log> logs = new ArrayList<>();
public void deleteLogs() {
logs.clear();
}
public int getLogCount() {
return logs.size();
}
}
Then this would be a valid test that doesn't use Mockito:
#Test public void deleteLogsShouldReturnZeroLogCount() {
MonitoringController controllerUnderTest = new MonitoringController();
controllerUnderTest.logSomeStuff(); // presumably you've tested elsewhere
// that this works
controllerUnderTest.deleteLogs();
assertEquals(0, controllerUnderTest.getLogCount());
}
But your monitoring controller could also look like this:
class MonitoringController {
private final LogRepository logRepository;
public MonitoringController(LogRepository logRepository) {
// By passing in your dependency, you have made the creator of your class
// responsible. This is called "Inversion-of-Control" (IoC), and is a key
// tenet of dependency injection.
this.logRepository = logRepository;
}
public void deleteLogs() {
logRepository.delete(RecordMatcher.ALL);
}
public int getLogCount() {
return logRepository.count(RecordMatcher.ALL);
}
}
Suddenly it may not be so easy to test your code, because it doesn't keep state of its own. To use the same test as the above one, you would need a working LogRepository. You could write a FakeLogRepository that keeps things in memory, which is a great strategy, or you could use Mockito to make a mock for you:
#Test public void deleteLogsShouldCallRepositoryDelete() {
LogRepository mockLogRepository = Mockito.mock(LogRepository.class);
MonitoringController controllerUnderTest =
new MonitoringController(mockLogRepository);
controllerUnderTest.deleteLogs();
// Now you can check that your REAL MonitoringController calls
// the right method on your MOCK dependency.
Mockito.verify(mockLogRepository).delete(Mockito.eq(RecordMatcher.ALL));
}
This shows some of the benefits and limitations of Mockito:
You don't need the implementation to keep state any more. You don't even need getLogCount to exist.
You can also skip creating the logs, because you're testing the interaction, not the state.
You're more tightly-bound to the implementation of MonitoringController: You can't simply test that it's holding to its general contract.
Mockito can stub individual interactions, but getting them consistent is hard. If you want your LogRepository.count to return 2 until you call delete, then return 0, that would be difficult to express in Mockito. This is why it may make sense to write fake implementations to represent stateful objects and leave Mockito mocks for stateless service interfaces.
Disclaimer (fully editable/removable)
I've done my homework but to the best of my recognition, I can't see the very thing I'd like to know (which is a bit surprising, so I'm sure that a kind soul will flag me as a duplicate - please accept my apology in advance, haha).
Background and anticipated issue
When I start Outlook, I'm performing an update from CRM Dynamics, which takes a while. So, I decided to put the update in a thread. It works as supposed to but there's a button on the ribbon allowing a user to manually call for an update. Anticipating a frantic user, I realize that someone will click the button before the original update is finished and all kinds of excrement may hit the gas redistributive device.
Suggested solution
In order to avoid that, I've put a private property as follows.
private bool KeepYourPantsOn { get; set; }
As long as the said property is true (which it is set to right before I start the updating thread), all the frantic clicking will be either ignored or treated by a calm and informative
MessageBox.Show("Yes, yes... Updating still... Keep your pants on.");
but as soon as the thread is done, I'd like the property to flip over to false enabling the user to manually update Outlook.
Implementation problem
My hick-up is that I haven't found any OnFinished, WhenDone etc. method to call in order to switch the value of KeepYourPantsOn. Moreover, I haven't really seen any suggested solution on how to resolve that (or, rather - I haven't perceived any solution - I might have seen one without realizing that was it, due to ignorance within the area of threaded programming).
You should be able to just set the bool to false as the last line in your thread (or as the last line before looping back to wait on something, if your thread does that).
Note #Tudor comment regarding volatile - just to be sure, do it.
You can create a backing store for your property to hold the value and use a lock whenever you set or get the value to ensure that no concurrency issue arises.
After that, when you start processing on a separate thread, set the value to true and before exiting the method set the value to false.
On user click just check the value of KeepYourPantsOn property and display the message if it is still true.
class YourClass
{
private static readonly object _syncRoot = new object();
private bool _keepYourPantsOn;
public bool KeepYourPantsOn
{
get
{
lock(_syncRoot)
{
return _keepYourPantsOn;
}
}
set
{
lock(_syncRoot)
{
_keepYourPantsOn = value;
}
}
}
private ThreadMethod()
{
KeepYourPantsOn = true; //signal that the update process is starting...
// perform your logic
KeepYourPantsOn = false; //signal that the update process is finished
}
public ManualUpdate()
{
if(KeepYourPantsOn)
MessageBox.Show("Yes, yes... Updating still... Keep your pants on.");
else
Update();
}
}
I'm using code contract (actually, learning using this).
I'm facing something weird to me... I override a method, defined in a 3rd party assembly. I want to add a Contract.Require statement like this:
public class MyClass: MyParentClass
{
protected override void DoIt(MyParameter param)
{
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(param != null);
this.ExecuteMyTask(param.Something);
}
protected void ExecuteMyTask(MyParameter param)
{
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(param != null);
/* body of the method */
}
}
However, I'm getting warnings like this:
Warning 1 CodeContracts:
Method 'MyClass.DoIt(MyParameter)' overrides 'MyParentClass.DoIt(MyParameter))', thus cannot add Requires.
[edit] changed the code a bit to show alternatives issues [/edit]
If I remove the Contract.Requires in the DoIt method, I get another warning, telling me I have to provide unproven param != null
I don't understand this warning. What is the cause, and can I solve it?
You can't add extra requirements which your callers may not know about. It violates Liskov's Subtitution Principle. The point of polymorphism is that a caller should be able to treat a reference which actually refers to an instance of your derived class as if it refers to an instance of the base class.
Consider:
MyParentClass foo = GetParentClassFromSomewhere();
DoIt(null);
If that's statically determined to be valid, it's wrong for your derived class to hold up its hands and say "No! You're not meant to call DoIt with a null argument!" The aim of static analysis of contracts is that you can determine validity of calls, logic etc at compile-time... so no extra restrictions can be added at execution time, which is what happens here due to polymorphism.
A derived class can add guarantees about what it will do - what it will ensure - but it can't make any more demands from its callers for overridden methods.
I'd like to note that you can do what Jon suggested (this answers adds upon his) but also have your contract without violating LSP.
You can do so by replacing the override keyword with new.
The base remains the base; all you did is introduce another functionality (as the keywords literally suggest).
It's not ideal for static-checking because the safety could be easily casted away (cast to base-class first, then call the method) but that's a must because otherwise it would violate LSP and you do not want to do that obviously. Better than nothing though, I'd say.
In an ideal world you could also override the method and call the new one, but C# wouldn't let you do so because the methods would have the same signatures (even tho it would make perfect sense; that's the trade-off).
If you have a class with some plain get/set properties, is there any reason to use the getters within the class methods, or should you just use the private member variables? I think there could be more of an argument over setters (validation logic?), but I'm wondering just about getters.
For example (in Java) - is there any reason to use option 2?:
public class Something
{
private int messageId;
public int getMessageId() { return this.messageId; }
public void setMessage(int messageId) { this.messageId = messageId; }
public void doSomething()
{
// Option 1:
doSomethingWithMessageId(messageId);
// Option 2:
doSomethingWithMessageId(getMessageId());
}
}
Java programmers in general tend to be very consistent about using getter methods. I program multiple languages and I'm not that consistent about it ;)
I'd say as long as you don't make a getter it's ok to use the raw variable - for private variables. When you make a getter, you should be using only that. When I make a getter for a private field, my IDE suggests that it replace raw field accesses for me automatically when I introduce a getter. Switching to using a getter is only a few keystrokes away (and without any chance of introducing errors), so I tend to delay it until I need it.
Of course, if you want to stuff like getter-injection, some types of proxying and subclassing framworks like hibernate, you have to user getters!
With getters you wont accidentally modify the variables :) Also, if you use both getters and the "raw" variable, your code can get confused.
Also, if you use inheritance and redefined the getter methods in child classes, getter-using methods will work properly, whereas those using the raw variables would not.
If you use the getter method everywhere - and in the future perform a code-search on all calls of getMessageId() you will find all of them, whereas if you had used the private ones, you may miss some.
Also if there's ever logic to be introduced in the setter method, you wont have to worry about changing more than 1 location for it.
If the value that you are assigning to the property is a known or verified value, you could safely use the private variable directly. (Except perhaps in some special situations, where it would be obvious why that would be bad.) Whether you do or not is more a matter of taste or style. It's not a performance issue either, as the getter or setter will be inlined by the compiler if it's simple enough.
If the value is unknown to the class, you should use the property to set it, so that you can protect the property from illegal values.
Here's an example (in C#):
public class Something {
private string _value;
public string Value {
get {
return _value;
}
set {
if (value == null) throw new ArgumentNullException();
_value = value;
}
}
public Something() {
// using a known value
_value = "undefined";
}
public Something(string initValue) {
// using an unknown value
Value = initValue;
}
}
If you use the getter you're ensuring you'll get the value after any logic/decisions have been applied to it. This probably isn't your typical situation but when it is, you'll thank yourself for this.
Unless I have a specific use case to use the internal field directly in the enclosing class, I've always felt that it's important to use access the field the same way it is accessed publicly. This ensures consistency in the return values across the board should there ever be any need to add some post-processing to the field via the getter method, or property. I feel like it's perfectly fine to access the raw field if you want its raw value for one reason or another.
More often than not, the getter encapsulation is plain and simple boilerplate code -- you're most likely not returning anything other than the field's value itself. However, in the case where you may want to change the way the data is presented at some point in the future, it's one less refactoring you have to make internally.