How to write C# implementation for a Q# operation with intrinsic body? - q#

I have created a library in C# to be used in Q# programs. The library has two scripts, a C# class library called "Class1.cs" and a matching Q# script called "Util.qs", I share the code snippet of each here:
Class1.cs:
using System;
using Microsoft.Quantum.Simulation.Common;
using Microsoft.Quantum.Simulation.Core;
using Microsoft.Quantum.Simulation.Simulators;
namespace MyLibrary {
class Class1 : QuantumSimulator {
static void Method_1 (string str) { ... }
.
.
.
}
}
Util.qs:
namespace MyLibrary {
operation Op_1 (str : String) : Unit { body intrinsic; }
}
There is another Q# program in a different namespace that uses the namespace "MyLibrary" so after adding reference, in this Q# program I have:
namespace QSharp
{
open Microsoft.Quantum.Canon;
open Microsoft.Quantum.Intrinsic;
open MyLibrary;
operation TestMyLibrary() : Unit {
Op_1("some string");
}
}
When I execute "dotnet run" in the terminal I receive this message:
Unhandled Exception: System.AggregateException: One or more errors
occurred. (Cannot create an instance of MyLibrary.Op_1 because it is
an abstract class.) ---> System.MemberAccessException: Cannot create
an instance of MyLibrary.Op_1 because it is an abstract class.
How can I fix it?
Thanks.
UPDATE:
Following Mariia' answer and also checking Quantum.Kata.Utils, I changed my code as following:
So, I changed Class1 script to:
using System;
using Microsoft.Quantum.Simulation.Common;
using Microsoft.Quantum.Simulation.Core;
using Microsoft.Quantum.Simulation.Simulators;
namespace MyLibrary {
class Class1 : QuantumSimulator {
private string classString = "";
public Class1() { }
public class Op_1_Impl : Op_1{
string cl_1;
public Op_1_Impl (Class1 c) : base (c) {
cl_1 = c.classString;
}
public override Func<string, QVoid> Body => (__in) => {
return cl1;
};
}
}
Now the error messages are:
error CS0029: Cannot implicitly convert type 'string' to 'Microsoft.Quantum.Simulation.Core.QVoid'
error CS1662: Cannot convert lambda expression to intended delegate type because some of the return types
in the block are not implicitly convertible to the delegate return type
Having checked Quantum.Kata.Utils, I realised I need to create a field and a constructor for Class1 which is a base class and also I should override Func<string, QVoid> as the Op_1 parameter is string type. But I am not sure if each of these steps individually is done properly?
Second Update:
I have changed the previous c# code in first update to the following one:
using System;
using Microsoft.Quantum.Simulation.Common;
using Microsoft.Quantum.Simulation.Core;
using Microsoft.Quantum.Simulation.Simulators;
namespace MyLibrary {
class Class1 : QuantumSimulator {
public Class1() { }
public class Op_1_Impl : Op_1{
Class1 cl_1;
public Op_1_Impl (Class1 c) : base (c) {
cl_1 = c;
}
public override Func<string, QVoid> Body => (__in) => {
return QVoid.Instance;
};
}
}
Now the error message is the same as the very first one:
Unhandled Exception: System.AggregateException: One or more errors
occurred. (Cannot create an instance of MyLibrary.Op_1 because it is
an abstract class.) ---> System.MemberAccessException: Cannot create
an instance of MyLibrary.Op_1 because it is an abstract class.
And also in this new code shouldn't the constructor public Class1() { } have a parameter? if so what datatype?

In your code, there is nothing connecting the Q# operation Op_1 and the C# code that you intend to implement it in Method_1.
Q# operations are compiled into classes. To define a C# implementation for a Q# operation with the intrinsic body, you have to define a class that implements the abstract class into which your Q# operation gets compiled; so you would have something like public class Op_1_Impl : Op_1.
Getting all the piping right can be a bit tricky (it's a hack, after all!) I would recommend looking at the operation GetOracleCallsCount and its C# implementation to see the exact pieces that have to be in place for it to work.
For the updated question, the signature of your method says that it takes string as an input and returns nothing (QVoid), but the implementation tries to return a string cl_1, so you get a Cannot implicitly convert type 'string' to 'Microsoft.Quantum.Simulation.Core.QVoid'.

To provide a custom C# emulation for your Op_1 Q# operation, you'll need to replace your Class1.cs with something like this:
using System;
using Microsoft.Quantum.Simulation.Core;
namespace MyLibrary
{
public partial class Op_1
{
public class Native : Op_1
{
public Native(IOperationFactory m) : base(m) { }
public override Func<String, QVoid> Body => (str) =>
{
// put your implementation here.
Console.WriteLine(str);
return QVoid.Instance;
};
}
}
}
You can then run the Test1Library using the QuantumSimulator.
That being said, as Mariia said, this is kind of hacky, undocumented functionality that might change in the future, may I ask why you need this?

Related

How can an abstract implement an interface?

I have a common interface that describes access to the output stream like this:
interface IOutput {
function writeInteger(aValue:Int):Void;
}
And I have an abstract implementation of this interface based on standard haxe.io.BytesOutput class:
abstract COutput(BytesOutput) from BytesOutput {
public inline function new(aData:BytesOutput) {
this = aData;
}
public inline function writeInteger(aValue:Int):Void {
this.writeInt32(aValue);
}
}
Though this abstract is truly implementing interface described above there's no direct reference to interface and when I'm trying to use it like this:
class Main {
public static function out(aOutput:IOutput) {
aOutput.writeInteger(0);
}
public static function main() {
var output:COutput = new BytesOutput();
out(output); // type error
}
}
Compiler throws an error: COutput should be IOutput. I can solve this problem only through using common class that wraps BytesOutput and implements IOutput.
My question is how to show the Haxe compiler that the abstract implements the interface.
Abstracts can't implement interfaces because they're a compile-time feature and don't exist at runtime. This conflicts with interfaces, they do exist at runtime and dynamic runtime checks like Std.is(something, IOutput) have to work.
Haxe also has a mechanism called structural subtyping that can be used as an alternative to interfaces. With this approach, there's no need for an explicit implements declaration, it's good enough if something unifies with a structure:
typedef IOutput = {
function writeInteger(aValue:Int):Void;
}
Unfortunately, abstracts aren't compatible with structural subtyping either due to the way they're implemented.
Have you considered using static extensions instead? At least for your simple example, that seems like the perfect solution for making a writeInteger() method available for any haxe.io.Output:
import haxe.io.Output;
import haxe.io.BytesOutput;
using Main.OutputExtensions;
class Main {
static function main() {
var output = new BytesOutput();
output.writeInteger(0);
}
}
class OutputExtensions {
public static function writeInteger(output:Output, value:Int):Void {
output.writeInt32(value);
}
}
You could even combine this with structural subtyping so writeInteger() becomes available on anything that has a writeInt32() method (try.haxe link):
typedef Int32Writable = {
function writeInt32(value:Int):Void;
}
As #Gama11 states, abstracts cannot implement interfaces. In Haxe, for type to implement an interface, it must be able to be compiled to something class-like that can be called using the interface’s methods without any magic happening. That is, to use a type as its interface, there needs to be a “real” class implementing that type. Abstracts in Haxe compile down to their base type—the abstract itself is entirely invisible after compilation happens. Thus, at runtime, there is no instance of a class with the methods defined in your abstract which implement the interface.
However, you can make your abstract appear to implement an interface by defining an implicit conversion to the interface you are trying to implement. For your example, the following might work:
interface IOutput {
function writeInteger(aValue:Int):Void;
}
abstract COutput(BytesOutput) from BytesOutput {
public inline function new(aData:BytesOutput) {
this = aData;
}
#:to()
public inline function toIOutput():IOutput {
return new COutputWrapper((cast this : COutput));
}
public inline function writeInteger(aValue:Int):Void {
this.writeInt32(aValue);
}
}
class COutputWrapper implements IOutput {
var cOutput(default, null):COutput;
public function new(cOutput) {
this.cOutput = cOutput;
}
public function writeInteger(aValue:Int) {
cOutput.writeInteger(aValue);
}
}
class Main {
public static function out(aOutput:IOutput) {
aOutput.writeInteger(0);
}
public static function main() {
var output:COutput = new BytesOutput();
out(output);
out(output);
}
}
Run on try.haxe.org
Note that, each time an implicit conversion happens, a new instance of the wrapper will be constructed. This may have performance implications. If you only access your value through its interface, consider setting the type of your variable to the interface rather than the abstract.
This is similar to “boxing” a primitive/value type in C#. In C#, value types, defined using the struct keyword, are allowed to implement interfaces. Like an abstract in Haxe, a value type in C# is compiled (by the JITter) into untyped code which simply directly accesses and manipulates the value for certain operations. However, C# allows structs to implement interfaces. The C# compiler will translate any attempt to implicitly cast a struct to an implemented interface into the construction of a wrapper class which stores a copy of the value and implements the interface—similar to our manually authored wrapper class (this wrapper class is actually generated by the runtime as part of JITing and is performed by the IL box instruction. See M() in this example). It is conceivable that Haxe could add a feature to automatically generate such a wrapper class for you like C# does for struct types, but that is not currently a feature. You may, however, do it yourself, as exemplified above.

Using haxe.macro.TypeTools fails

I'm trying to debug a library which uses haxe.macro.TypeTools::findField. I've created a simple code for that:
package;
using haxe.macro.TypeTools;
class Main
{
public function new()
{
var test = findField(Child, "hello");
trace(test);
}
}
class Base
{
private function hello()
{
}
}
class Child extends Base
{
public function new() {}
}
However I'm getting error Unknown identifier : findField. Is this because it can only be used in build macro context?
This is what I'm trying to emulate.
First of all, function findField() is not from the haxe.macro.TypeTools.
It is a helper function from edge.core.macro.Macros.
To use it without a class path, import it's class with a wildcard import edge.core.macro.Macros.*
Secondly, findField() should be used in a build macro context only, since it expects Array<Field>, which is obtained by haxe.macro.Context.getBuildFields().

Is there a way to have a get only (no set) in a typescript interface?

I have a case where I want to have just a get in the interface, no set. Is there a way to do that?
If not, we can implement a set and throw an exception if it is called. But it's cleaner if we can have just a get.
At present I have:
export interface IElement {
type : TYPE;
}
export class Element implements IElement {
public get type () : TYPE {
return TYPE.UNDEFINED;
}
public set type (type : TYPE) {
this.type = type;
}
}
I would like to have my interface & class be:
export class Element implements IElement {
public get type () : TYPE {
return TYPE.UNDEFINED;
}
}
TypeScript interfaces cannot currently define a property as read-only. If it's important to prevent, you'll need to throw an exception/error at runtime to prevent sets within the setter for the property.
The compiler doesn't require that you implement the get and a set though. You can just implement the get for example. However, at runtime, it won't be caught.

How to resolve generic type at runtime

I'm trying to build a command processor that can take any command that implements a marker interface (or maybe descends from a base class). The processor will handle the command that it is asked to process. However I'm struggling with resolving the true generic type as Resolve(Type) returns an object.
I'm not sure is how to cast this if at all possible?
public void Process(ICommand command)
{
var c = command.GetType();
var t = typeof(ICommandHandler<>).MakeGenericType(new[] { c });
var o = container.Resolve(t);
//((ICommandHandler)o).Handle(command); *** This doesn't work
}
The calling code would be something like this -
Dispatcher.Process(new SomeCommand(Guid.NewGuid(),"Param1",12345));
If you absolutely have to call the ICommandHandler<T>.Handle method and you have no other control over the design of the system, then reflection may be your only choice. There's no great way to deal with the switch from generic to non-generic.
Otherwise, you may have a couple of options.
First, if your Dispatcher.Process can be made generic, you can save all the casting.
public static class Dispatcher
{
public static void Process<T>(T command) where T : ICommand
{
var handler = container.Resolve<ICommandHandler<T>>();
handler.Handle(command);
}
}
This is a pretty common solution to a problem like this that I've seen out in the wild.
If you can't do that, then you may be able to make your ICommandHandler<T> interface implement a non-generic ICommandHandler base interface.
public interface ICommandHandler
{
void Handle(ICommand command);
}
public interface ICommandHandler<T> : ICommandHandler
{
void Handle(T command);
}
In this latter case you'd have to switch your strongly-typed command handler implementations to call the same internal logic for generic or basic handling or you'll get different handling based on the call, which would be bad:
public class SomeCommandHandler : ICommandHandler<SomeCommand>
{
public void Handle(ICommand command)
{
var castCommand = command as SomeCommand;
if(castCommand == null)
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Wrong command type.");
}
// Hand off to the strongly-typed version.
this.Handle(castCommand);
}
public void Handle(SomeCommand command)
{
// Here's the actual handling logic.
}
}
Then when you resolve the strongly-typed ICommandHandler<T> your cast down to ICommandHandler (as shown in your question's sample code) will work.
This is also a pretty common solution, but I've seen it more in systems that existed before generics were available where an updated API was being added.
However, in all cases here, the problem really isn't that Autofac is returning an object; it's a class/type design problem that affects any generic-to-non-generic conversion scenario.
Using Reflection - but is this the best way to approach this?
public void Process(Command command)
{
var c = command.GetType();
var ot = typeof(ICommandHandler<>);
var type = ot.MakeGenericType(new[] { c });
var mi = type.GetMethod("Handle");
var o = container.Resolve(type);
mi.Invoke(o, new object[] { command });
}

Cast class to base interface via reflection cause exception

I'm loading a .NET assembly dinamically via reflection and I'm getting all the classes that it contains (at the moment one). After this, I'm trying to cast the class to an interface that I'm 100% sure the class implements but I receive this exception: Unable to cast object of type System.RuntimeType to the type MyInterface
MyDLL.dll
public interface MyInterface
{
void MyMethod();
}
MyOtherDLL.dll
public class MyClass : MyInterface
{
public void MyMethod()
{
...
}
}
public class MyLoader
{
Assembly myAssembly = Assembly.LoadFile("MyDLL.dll");
IEnumerable<Type> types = extension.GetTypes().Where(x => x.IsClass);
foreach (Type type in types)
{
((MyInterface)type).MyMethod();
}
}
I have stripped out all the code that is not necessary. This is basically what I do. I saw in this question that Andi answered with a problem that seems the same mine but I cannot anyway fix it.
You are trying to cast a .NET framework object of type Type to an interface that you created. The Type object does not implement your interface, so it can't be cast. You should first create a specific instance of your object, such as through using an Activator like this:
// this goes inside your for loop
MyInterface myInterface = (MyInterface)Activator.CreateInstance(type, false);
myInterface.MyMethod();
The CreateInstance method has other overloades that may fit your needs.