Hi everyone I am studying C# but ran into some compiler errors:
I am getting the error: 'LinkedList' does not implement interface member 'IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()'
I think I did.
Below is the code:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace LinkedListGenericsExample
{
public class LinkedListNode<T>
{
//constructor
public LinkedListNode(T value)
{
//code here
}
//code here
}
//LinkedList class with generics. It inherit the IEnumerable class with
//generics. Should I use IEnumerable or IEnumerable<T>?
public class LinkedList<T>: IEnumerable<T>
{
//code here
}
public LinkedListNode<T> AddLast(T node)
{
//code here
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
//code here
}
//here I think the GetEnumerator() method is implemented
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return GetEnumerator();
}
//Trying this but not working. Also I am confused.
/*
IEnumerator IEnumerable<T>.GetEnumerator()
{
return GetEnumerator();
}
*/
//Main() below
}
I am using the Visual Studio Code to compile the code.
Error ecountered:
'LinkedList' does not implement interface member 'IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()'
Using the generic type 'IEnumerator' requires 1 type arguments
Using the generic type 'IEnumerable' requreis 1 type arguments
'IEnumerable' in explicit interface declaration is not an interface
Question:
1) Should I inherit the IEnumerable class or IEnumerable class with generic?
2) How can I implement the "IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()" It looks like the compiler is not recognized my GetEnumerator() implementation but I am not sure why....
Need some help here. Thank you!
Updating the complete code below. It works!!
using System;
using System.Collections; //using System.Collections instead
namespace LinkedListGenericsExample
{
//Linked list node class in Generics form
public class LinkedListNode<T>
{
//LinkedListNode constructor
public LinkedListNode(T value)
{
this.Value = value;
}
public T Value;
public LinkedListNode<T> Next {get; internal set;}
public LinkedListNode<T> Prev {get; internal set;}
}
public class LinkedList<T>: IEnumerable
{
public LinkedListNode<T> First {get; private set;}
public LinkedListNode<T> Last {get; private set;}
public LinkedListNode<T> AddLast(T node)
{
var newNode = new LinkedListNode<T>(node);
if (First == null)
{
First = newNode;
Last = First;
}
else
{
Last.Next = newNode;
Last = newNode;
}
return newNode;
}
public IEnumerator GetEnumerator()
{
LinkedListNode<T> current = First;
while(current != null)
{
yield return current.Value;
current = current.Next;
}
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return GetEnumerator();
}
/*
IEnumerator IEnumerable<T>.GetEnumerator()
{
}
*/
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//Console.WriteLine("Hello World!");
var list2 = new LinkedList<int>();
var list3 = new LinkedList<String>();
list2.AddLast(1);
list2.AddLast(3);
list2.AddLast(5);
//Go throuhg entire list of numbers
foreach(int i in list2)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
Console.WriteLine();
list3.AddLast("2");
list3.AddLast("four");
list3.AddLast("foo");
//Go through entire list of strings
foreach(string s in list3)
{
Console.WriteLine(s);
}
}
}
}
Regarding your two questions, here are 2 cents.
1. I would suggest you implement the generic version. This would ensure type-safety and other benefits. You can read more on advantages of generics in this link. . Since you are learning C#, it would be a good idea to read about it.
Your implementation looks good.Please add reference to System.Collections namespace to your code for fixing the compile errors.
using System.Collections;
Related
While executing this test case, following error I'm facing...
Please anyone suggests me in overcoming this issue.
AbortedJobImportTest
testAbortedJobAddedSuccessfullyToExcludedRun
Unknown entity: java.util.LinkedHashMap
org.hibernate.MappingException: Unknown entity: java.util.LinkedHashMap
at com.rsa.test.crawler.CrawlerTestBase.setUp(CrawlerTestBase.groovy:42)
at com.rsa.test.crawler.AbortedJobImportTest.setUp(AbortedJobImportTest.groovy:19)
/*
***
CrawlerTestBase
public class CrawlerTestBase extends GroovyTestCase {
static transactional = false;
def productsModel;
protected JenkinsJobCrawlerDTO jenkinsCrawlerDTO;
def jenkinsJobService;
def httpClientService;
def sessionFactory;
def productModelsService;
protected String JENKINS_URL = "http://10.101.43.253:8080/jenkins/";
protected String JENKINS_JOB_CONSTANT= "job";
protected String JUNIT_TEST_PARAMETERS = "type=junit";
protected String CUSTOM_JUNIT_SELENIUM_TEST_PARAMETERS = "type=selenium,outputfile=Custom-junit-report*";
protected String DEFAULT_PRODUCT = "AM";
public void setUp(){
deleteDataFromTables();
Date date = new Date();
productsModel = new ProductModel(product:DEFAULT_PRODUCT,jenkinsServers:"10.101.43.253",date:date);
if (productsModel.validate()) {
productsModel.save(flush:true);
log.info("Added entry for prodct model for "+DEFAULT_PRODUCT);
}
else {
productsModel.errors.allErrors.each { log.error it }
}
jenkinsCrawlerDTO = new JenkinsJobCrawlerDTO();
productModelsService.reinitialise();
sessionFactory.currentSession.save(flush:true);
sessionFactory.currentSession.clear();
}
public void tearDown(){
deleteDataFromTables();
}
protected void deleteDataFromTables(){
Set<String> tablesToDeleteData = new HashSet<String>();
tablesToDeleteData.add("ExcludedJenkinsRuns");
tablesToDeleteData.add("TestRuns");
tablesToDeleteData.add("ProductModel");
tablesToDeleteData.add("SystemEvents");
tablesToDeleteData.add("JenkinsJobsToCrawl");
tablesToDeleteData.add("TestSuitesInViewList");
tablesToDeleteData.add("JenkinsJobsToCrawl");
(ApplicationHolder.application.getArtefacts("Domain") as List).each {
if(tablesToDeleteData.contains(it.getName())){
log.info("Deleting data from ${it.getName()}");
it.newInstance().list()*.delete()
}
}
sessionFactory.currentSession.flush();
sessionFactory.currentSession.clear();
}
public void oneTimeSetUp(){
}
public void oneTimeTearDown(){
}
}
AbortedJobImportTest
public class AbortedJobImportTest extends CrawlerTestBase {
private String jobUrl = JENKINS_URL+JENKINS_JOB_CONSTANT+"/am-java-source-build/69/";
#Before
public void setUp() {
super.setUp();
jenkinsCrawlerDTO.setJobUrl(jobUrl);
}
#After
public void cleanup() {
super.tearDown();
}
#Test
public void testAbortedJobAddedSuccessfullyToExcludedRun() {
int countBeforeImport = ExcludedJenkinsRuns.count();
jenkinsJobService.handleTestResults(jobUrl,JUNIT_TEST_PARAMETERS);
int countAfterImport = ExcludedJenkinsRuns.count();
Assert.assertEquals(countBeforeImport+1, countAfterImport);
ExcludedJenkinsRuns excludedRun = ExcludedJenkinsRuns.findByJobNameLike(jenkinsCrawlerDTO.jobName);
Assert.assertNotNull(excludedRun);
Assert.assertEquals(jobUrl, excludedRun.jobUrl);
Assert.assertEquals(jenkinsCrawlerDTO.jobName, excludedRun.jobName);
Assert.assertEquals(jenkinsCrawlerDTO.jenkinsServer, excludedRun.jenkinsServer);
Assert.assertEquals(jenkinsCrawlerDTO.buildNumber.toInteger(), excludedRun.buildNumber);
Assert.assertEquals("Build Aborted", excludedRun.exclusionReason);
}
}
*/
I cant figure out the issue in this code. Can anyone help me?
While executing this test case, following error I'm facing...
Please anyone suggests me in overcoming this issue.
It means that you try to put a LinkedHashMap in constructor of Product Model but there is no constructor with LinkedHashMap parameter.
I guess the problem is your Unit Test. The Model constructor will be added by grails framework. You aren`t running grails framework in your Unit Test, because you use GroovyTestCase instead of Spock.
Lock here https://grails.github.io/grails-doc/3.0.5/guide/single.html#unitTesting
I am trying to learn IOC principle from this screencast
Inversion of Control from First Principles - Top Gear Style
I tried do as per screencast but i get an error while AutomaticFactory try create an object of AutoCue. AutoCue class has contructor which takes IClock and not SystemClock. But my question is , in screencast IClock is resolved with SystemClock while inside AutomaticFactory .But in my code , IClock does not get resolved . Am i missing something ?
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//var clarkson = new Clarkson(new AutoCue(new SystemClock()), new Megaphone());
//var clarkson = ClarksonFactory.SpawnOne();
var clarkson = (Clarkson)AutomaticFactory.GetOne(typeof(Clarkson));
clarkson.SaySomething();
Console.Read();
}
}
public class AutomaticFactory
{
public static object GetOne(Type type)
{
var constructor = type.GetConstructors().Single();
var parameters = constructor.GetParameters();
if (!parameters.Any()) return Activator.CreateInstance(type);
var args = new List<object>();
foreach(var parameter in parameters)
{
var arg = GetOne(parameter.ParameterType);
args.Add(arg);
}
var result = Activator.CreateInstance(type, args.ToArray());
return result;
}
}
public class Clarkson
{
private readonly AutoCue _autocue;
private readonly Megaphone _megaphone;
public Clarkson(AutoCue autocue,Megaphone megaphone)
{
_autocue = autocue;
_megaphone =megaphone;
}
public void SaySomething()
{
var message = _autocue.GetCue();
_megaphone.Shout(message);
}
}
public class Megaphone
{
public void Shout(string message)
{
Console.WriteLine(message);
}
}
public interface IClock
{
DateTime Now { get; }
}
public class SystemClock : IClock
{
public DateTime Now { get { return DateTime.Now; } }
}
public class AutoCue
{
private readonly IClock _clock;
public AutoCue(IClock clock)
{
_clock = clock;
}
public string GetCue()
{
DateTime now = _clock.Now;
if (now.DayOfWeek == DayOfWeek.Sunday)
{
return "Its a sunday!";
}
else
{
return "I have to work!";
}
}
}
What you basically implemented is a small IoC container that is able to auto-wire object graphs. But your implementation is only able to create object graphs of concrete objects. This makes your code violate the Dependency Inversion Principle.
What's missing from the implementation is some sort of Register method that tells your AutomaticFactory that when confronted with an abstraction, it should resolve the registered implementation. That could look as follows:
private static readonly Dictionary<Type, Type> registrations =
new Dictionary<Type, Type>();
public static void Register<TService, TImplementation>()
where TImplementation : class, TService
where TService : class
{
registrations.Add(typeof(TService), typeof(TImplementation));
}
No you will have to do an adjustment to the GetOne method as well. You can add the following code at the start of the GetOne method:
if (registrations.ContainsKey(type))
{
type = registrations[type];
}
That will ensure that if the supplied type is registered in the AutomaticFactory as TService, the mapped TImplementation will be used and the factory will continue using this implementation as the type to build up.
This does mean however that you now have to explicitly register the mapping between IClock and SystemClock (which is a quite natural thing to do if you're working with an IoC container). You must make this mapping before the first instance is resolved from the AutomaticFactory. So you should add the following line to to the beginning of the Main method:
AutomaticFactory.Register<IClock, SystemClock>();
I have small WPF application. There are 5 projects in solution.
I want separate DOMAIN classes with UI ENTITIES and I want to use AUTOMAPPER.
You can download whole solution here: TestWPFAutomapper.zip
Domain class(Domain.Source.cs) with UI Entity(Entities.Destination.cs) have same signature.
In Entities.Destination.cs I would like to put other logic.
namespace DOMAIN
{
public class Source
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Position { get; set; }
}
}
using System.ComponentModel;
namespace ENITITIES
{
public class Destination : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private int _id;
private int _position;
public int Id
{
get { return _id; }
set
{
_id = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Id");
}
}
public int Position
{
get { return _position; }
set
{
_position = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Position");
}
}
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
protected virtual void OnPropertyChanged(string propertyName)
{
PropertyChangedEventHandler handler = PropertyChanged;
if (handler != null) handler(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
}
}
My data comes from DAL.DataContext using Entity Framework with CodeFirst. Here I´m using Source class.
using System.Data.Entity;
using DOMAIN;
namespace DAL
{
public class DataContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Source> Sources { get; set; }
}
}
Mapping is in BL.MyAppLogic.cs . In this class I have property Items which is ObservableCollection.
After puting another item into DB for Source class collection get refresh but for Destination is not refreshing.
using System.Collections.ObjectModel;
using System.Data.Entity;
using System.Linq;
using AutoMapper;
using DAL;
using DOMAIN;
using ENITITIES;
namespace BL
{
public class MyAppLogic
{
private readonly DataContext _dataContext = new DataContext();
public ObservableCollection<Source> Items { get; set; }
//public ObservableCollection<Destination> Items { get; set; }
public MyAppLogic()
{
Database.SetInitializer(new MyInitializer());
Mapping();
_dataContext.Sources.Load();
Items = _dataContext.Sources.Local;
//Items = Mapper.Map<ObservableCollection<Source>, ObservableCollection<Destination>>(_dataContext.Sources.Local);
}
private void Mapping()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<Source, Destination>().ReverseMap();
// I tried also Mapper.CreateMap<ObservableCollection<Source>, ObservableCollection<Destination>>().ReverseMap();
}
public int GetLastItem()
{
return _dataContext.Database.SqlQuery<int>("select Position from Sources").ToList().LastOrDefault();
}
public void AddNewItem(Destination newItem)
{
_dataContext.Sources.Add(Mapper.Map<Destination, Source>(newItem));
_dataContext.SaveChanges();
}
}
}
My problem is not with mapping, that’s works good, but with refreshing collection after adding or removing items from db. If I use DOMAIN.Source class everything works, collection is refreshing. But when I’m using ENTITIES.Destination data comes from DB and also I can put som new data to DB but refresing ObservableCollection is not working.
Please try to comment lines(14 & 23) in BL.MyAppLogic.cs and uncomment(15 & 24) and you’ll see what I mean.
Thank you for any help.
I got it but I don´t know if is correct.
Local has CollectionChanged event
so in constructor I put these lines
public MyAppLogic()
{
Database.SetInitializer(new MyInitializer());
Mapping();
_dataContext.Sources.Load();
_dataContext.Sources.Local.CollectionChanged += SourcesCollectionChanged;
Items = Mapper.Map<ObservableCollection<Source>, ObservableCollection<Destination>>(_dataContext.Sources.Local);
}
and handler looks
private void SourcesCollectionChanged(object sender, NotifyCollectionChangedEventArgs e)
{
var source = sender as ObservableCollection<Source>;
Mapper.Map(source, Items);
}
Now is my collection automating refreshing when I put something to DB in my UI.
Looks like automapper don´t put reference into Items, but create new instance.
I'm looking to abstract a helper method. The method needs to be able to take in an object, do things with it depending on the type of object, and return a value. Would it be better to do something like this:
interface ICanDo
{
string DoSomething();
}
string DoThings(ICanDo mything)
{
return mything.DoSomething();
}
Or is it better to do something like this:
interface IStrategy
{
string DoSomething(object o);
}
string DoThings(object mything, IStrategy strategy)
{
return strategy.DoSomething(mything);
}
Is the latter even using a strategy pattern, since the strategy isn't being built into the class?
Is there a better way to do this I'm not thinking of? Would it be better to build the strategy into the class, using a wrapper for any class that needs to have DoThings run on it?
Sorry--I'm new to this pattern and trying to figure out where and how to use it best.
This is what I ended up putting together. I'm unsure if this follows good development principles.
class IndexWrapper
{
public interface IDocumentable
{
Document BuildDocument();
}
public interface IDocumentBuilder
{
Type SupportedType { get; }
Document BuildDocument(object o);
}
public class StringDocumentBuilder : IDocumentBuilder
{
public Type SupportedType { get { return typeof(string); } }
public Document BuildDocument(object o)
{
Document doc = new Document();
doc.Add(new Field("string", o as string, Field.Store.YES, Field.Index.ANALYZED));
return doc;
}
}
public static class IndexableFactory
{
public static IDocumentable GetIndexableObject(object o)
{
return GetIndexableObject(o, DocumentBuilderFactory.GetBuilder(o));
}
public static IDocumentable GetIndexableObject(object o, IDocumentBuilder builder)
{
return new IndexableObject(o, builder);
}
}
public static class DocumentBuilderFactory
{
private static List<IDocumentBuilder> _builders = new List<IDocumentBuilder>();
public static IDocumentBuilder GetBuilder(object o)
{
if (_builders.Count == 0)
{
_builders = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly()
.GetTypes()
.Where(type => typeof(IDocumentBuilder).IsAssignableFrom(type) && type.IsClass)
.Select(type => Activator.CreateInstance(type))
.Cast<IDocumentBuilder>()
.ToList();
}
return _builders.Where(builder => builder.SupportedType.IsAssignableFrom(o.GetType())).FirstOrDefault();
}
}
private class IndexableObject : IDocumentable
{
object _o;
IDocumentBuilder _builder;
public IndexableObject(object o) : this(o, DocumentBuilderFactory.GetBuilder(o)) { }
public IndexableObject(object o, IDocumentBuilder builder)
{
_o = o;
_builder = builder;
}
virtual public Document BuildDocument()
{
return _builder.BuildDocument(_o);
}
}
}
When in doubt, keep the KISS mantra in your mind - Keep It Short and Simple. Patterns can be very useful, but often they're only useful in specific cases and add unnecessary complexity otherwise.
In my experience, the strategy pattern is useful for when you have multiple different backends to choose from for a class. For example, say you have a logging class that your program uses to print debug information. Maybe in some cases, you want to log to a file. Maybe you'd like to log to a console. Perhaps you'd even like to log to a remote server with a proprietary protocol you company made!
So, your logging class may look like this:
interface IOutputWriter
{
void WriteLn(string message);
}
class ConsoleWriter : IOutputWriter
{
public ConsoleWriter()
{
}
public void WriteLn(string message)
{
Console.WriteLine(message);
}
}
class NetworkWriter : IOutputWriter
{
public NetworkWriter()
{
}
public void WriteLn(string message)
{
//Crazy propietary server protocol action
}
}
class Logger
{
IOutputWriter writer;
public Logger(IOutputWriter writer)
{
this.writer = writer;
}
public void Log(string message)
{
writer.WriteLn(message + "Date");
}
}
With the end result that your program code looks like this:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Logger logger = new Logger(new ConsoleWriter());
logger.Log("Test");
}
}
The benefit is that if you want to use your crazy networking protocol, you can do it without even looking at the logging class. You just have to make a new class with your IOutputWriter interface and tell your logger to use your custom backend. The strategy pattern is essentially defining reusable interfaces and then using those interfaces to decouple algorithms from each other.
I have a base class in which I'm trying to use the Null Object pattern to provide a default logger implementation which can then be changed by IoC setter injection at a later stage.
public interface ILog
{
void Log(string message);
}
public class NoOpLogger: ILog
{
public void Log(string message)
{ }
}
public abstract class ClassWithLogger
{
private ILog _logger = new NoOpLogger();
protected ClassWithLogger()
{
Contract.Assert(Logger != null);
}
public ILog Logger
{
get { return _logger; }
set
{
Contract.Requires(value != null);
_logger = value;
Contract.Assert(Logger != null);
}
}
[ContractInvariantMethod]
private void ObjectInvariant()
{
Contract.Invariant(Logger != null);
}
}
public sealed class DerivedClass : ClassWithLogger
{
private readonly string _test;
public DerivedClass(string test)
{
Contract.Requires<ArgumentException>(!String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(test));
_test = test;
// I get warning at end of ctor: "invariant unproven: Logger != null"
}
public void SomeMethod()
{
Logger.Log("blah");
}
}
As I indicate in the code, my issue is that I get a warning at the end of the derived class' constructor saying that the "Logger != null" object invariant from the base class has not been proven even though it's obvious nothing has changed the Logger property value and I also have contracts around the setter to ensure it can never be null anyway.
Is there any way to avoid having to reprove this fact in all derived classes, or is this just a limitation of the static analyser?
UPDATE: Problem has been fixed in latest version of CodeContracts. Also, I don't need the assert in the abstract base class constructor anymore (the line "Contract.Assert(Logger != null);")
I just tested your code as posted and it worked fine. Are you using the most recent version of Code Contracts (1.4.30707.2)?