Find direct & indirect method usages if method is overriden in base class - ndepend

please, help me to figure out how to write the query :)
The code is:
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var man = new Man("Joe");
Console.WriteLine(man.ToString());
}
}
public class SuperMan
{
public SuperMan(string name)
{
this.name = name;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return name;
}
string name;
}
public class Man : SuperMan
{
public Man(string name) : base(name)
{
}
}
}
I want to find all direct and indirect dependencies (methods) to Man.ToString(). There is only one call in Main() method.
The query I'm trying is:
from m in Methods
let depth0 = m.DepthOfIsUsing("ConsoleApplication1.SuperMan.ToString()")
where depth0 >= 0 orderby depth0
select new { m, depth0 }.
but it doesn't find dependent Program.Main() method....
How to modify query so that it finds usages for such kind of methods?

First let's look at direct callers. We want to list all methods that calls SuperMan.ToString() or any ToString() methods overriden by SuperMan.ToString(). It can looks like:
let baseMethods = Application.Methods.WithFullName("ConsoleApplication1.SuperMan.ToString()").Single().OverriddensBase
from m in Application.Methods.UsingAny(baseMethods)
where m.IsUsing("ConsoleApplication1.Man") // This filter can be added
select new { m, m.NbLinesOfCode }
Notice we put a filter clause, because in the real world pretty much every method calls object.ToString() (this is a particular case).
Now to handle indirect calls this is more tricky. We need to call the magic FillIterative() extension methods on generic sequences.
let baseMethods = Application.Methods.WithFullName("ConsoleApplication1.SuperMan.ToString()").Single().OverriddensBase
let recursiveCallers = baseMethods.FillIterative(methods => methods.SelectMany(m => m.MethodsCallingMe))
from pair in recursiveCallers
let method = pair.CodeElement
let depth = pair.Value
where method.IsUsing("ConsoleApplication1.Man") // Still same filter
select new { method , depth }
Et voilĂ !

Related

run method and store it one variable before each test in Nunit

I need to run a method before each test Like how before method works in TestNg.
What I am expecting is I need to take the Testname and find the relevant test data and store it variable. Currently I have included that step in Test. But it would be good to have to reduce a line of code in each test.
is it possible in Nunit?
Setup attribute is used to provide a common set of functions that are performed just before each test method is called. You can also get the Method name from TestContext.CurrentContext.Test.MethodName. There are also other properties on Test like Arguments or FullName depending on what you need.
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
var testName = TestContext.CurrentContext.Test.MethodName;
TestContext.WriteLine($"SetUp for {testName}");
}
Alternately, you can also use TestCaseData class which provides extended test case information for a parameterized test.
public class DemoClass {
[TestCaseSource(typeof(MyDataClass), nameof(MyDataClass.DivideTestCases))]
public int DivideTest(int n, int d)
{
return n / d;
}
[TestCaseSource(typeof(MyDataClass), nameof(MyDataClass.AddTestCases))]
public int AddTest(int a, int b)
{
return a + b;
}
}
public class MyDataClass
{
public static IEnumerable DivideTestCases
{
get
{
yield return new TestCaseData(12, 3).Returns(4);
yield return new TestCaseData(12, 2).Returns(6);
yield return new TestCaseData(12, 4).Returns(3);
}
}
public static IEnumerable AddTestCases
{
get
{
yield return new TestCaseData(10, 15).Returns(25);
yield return new TestCaseData(12, 10).Returns(22);
yield return new TestCaseData(14, 5).Returns(19);
}
}
}

Get and Set attribute values of a class using aspectJ

I am using aspectj to add some field to a existing class and annotate it also.
I am using load time weaving .
Example :- I have a Class customer in which i am adding 3 string attributes. But my issues is that I have to set some values and get it also before my business call.
I am trying the below approach.
In my aj file i have added the below, my problem is in the Around pointcut , how do i get the attribute and set the attribute.
public String net.customers.PersonCustomer.getOfflineRiskCategory() {
return OfflineRiskCategory;
}
public void net.customers.PersonCustomer.setOfflineRiskCategory(String offlineRiskCategory) {
OfflineRiskCategory = offlineRiskCategory;
}
public String net.customers.PersonCustomer.getOnlineRiskCategory() {
return OnlineRiskCategory;
}
public void net.customers.PersonCustomer.setOnlineRiskCategory(String onlineRiskCategory) {
OnlineRiskCategory = onlineRiskCategory;
}
public String net.customers.PersonCustomer.getPersonCommercialStatus() {
return PersonCommercialStatus;
}
public void net.customers.PersonCustomer.setPersonCommercialStatus(String personCommercialStatus) {
PersonCommercialStatus = personCommercialStatus;
}
#Around("execution(* net.xxx.xxx.xxx.DataMigration.populateMap(..))")
public Object invoke(ProceedingJoinPoint joinPoint) throws Throwable {
Object arguments[] = joinPoint.getArgs();
if (arguments != null) {
HashMap<String, String> hMap = (HashMap) arguments[0];
PersonCustomer cus = (PersonCustomer) arguments[1];
return joinPoint.proceed();
}
If anyone has ideas please let me know.
regards,
FT
First suggestion, I would avoid mixing code-style aspectj with annotation-style. Ie- instead of #Around, use around.
Second, instead of getting the arguments from the joinPoint, you should bind them in the pointcut:
Object around(Map map, PersonCustomer cust) :
execution(* net.xxx.xxx.xxx.DataMigration.populateMap(Map, PersonCustomer) && args(map, cust) {
...
return proceed(map, cust);
}
Now, to answer your question: you also need to use intertype declarations to add new fields to your class, so do something like this:
private String net.customers.PersonCustomer.OfflineRiskCategory;
private String net.customers.PersonCustomer.OnlineRiskCategory;
private String net.customers.PersonCustomer.PersonCommercialStatus;
Note that the private keyword here means private to the aspect, not to the class that you declare it on.

autofac: IEnumerable<Lazy<IFoo, IFooMetaData>> --> Lazy.Value(with runtime param)?

Using Autofac, I have multiple IFoo components that take a run-time parameter in the constructor. I'm using some Metadata from the types along with the run-time parameter to construct and manage running instances.
interface IFoo
{
int RunTimeId { get; }
}
[FooMeta("ShaqFoo")]
class Foo1 : IFoo
{
public Foo1 (int runtTimeId)
{
...
}
[FooMeta("KungFoo")]
class Foo2 : IFoo
{
public Foo2 (int runtTimeId)
{
...
}
Module/Registration something like:
builder.Register<Func<int, Foo1>>(c =>
{
var cc = c.Resolve<IComponentContext>();
return id => cc.Resolve<Foo1>(TypedParameter.From<int>(id));
})
.As<Func<int, IFoo>>()
.WithMetadata<IFooMetaData>(m => m.For(sm => sm.FooType, typeof(Foo1)));
builder.Register<Func<int, Foo2>>(c =>
{
var cc = c.Resolve<IComponentContext>();
return id => cc.Resolve<Foo2>(TypedParameter.From<int>(id));
})
.As<Func<int, IFoo>>()
.WithMetadata<IFooMetaData>(m => m.For(sm => sm.FooType, typeof(Foo2)));
And a component that creates new Foos with the run-time parameters and metadata. I need to be create ALL IFoos for a given run-time parameter, and need to check for existing instances (essentially using Metadata + RunTimeId as a key) before creating.
public class FooActivator
{
public FooActivator(IEnumerable<Lazy<Func<int, IFoo>, IFooMetaData>> fooFactories)
{
m_FooFactories = fooFactories;
}
private void HandleNewRunTimeIdEvent(int id)
{
CreateFoosForNewId(id);
}
private void CreateFoosForNewId(int id)
{
foreach (var fooFactory in m_FooFactories)
{
if (!FooWithThisMetadataAndIdExists(fooFactory.Metadata.FooType, id))
{
var newFoo = fooFactory.Value(id);
}
}
}
}
Obviously, I can enumerate all of the IFoos and check metadata using the Lazy Enumeration, but can't pass in the run-time parameter to Lazy.Value. Seems like I need to pass in an Enumerable of Func<>s somehow, but can't figure out how to attach the metadata. Or maybe I need an entirely different approach?
Just getting my head wrapped around autofac, and hoping there's a clean way to accomplish this. I could settle for just using the concrete Foo type (instead of metadata) if there's a simple way to enumerate all of them (without creating them), and use the type + run-time Id as my key instead.
Updated the code with a working solution. Figured out how to register Factories properly with metadata. Seems to work.

Can this extension method be improved?

I have the following extension method
public static class ListExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<T> Search<T>(this ICollection<T> collection, string stringToSearch)
{
foreach (T t in collection)
{
Type k = t.GetType();
PropertyInfo pi = k.GetProperty("Name");
if (pi.GetValue(t, null).Equals(stringToSearch))
{
yield return t;
}
}
}
}
What it does is by using reflection, it finds the name property and then filteres the record from the collection based on the matching string.
This method is being called as
List<FactorClass> listFC = new List<FactorClass>();
listFC.Add(new FactorClass { Name = "BKP", FactorValue="Book to price",IsGlobal =false });
listFC.Add(new FactorClass { Name = "YLD", FactorValue = "Dividend yield", IsGlobal = false });
listFC.Add(new FactorClass { Name = "EPM", FactorValue = "emp", IsGlobal = false });
listFC.Add(new FactorClass { Name = "SE", FactorValue = "something else", IsGlobal = false });
List<FactorClass> listFC1 = listFC.Search("BKP").ToList();
It is working fine.
But a closer look into the extension method will reveal that
Type k = t.GetType();
PropertyInfo pi = k.GetProperty("Name");
is actually inside a foreach loop which is actually not needed. I think we can take it outside the loop.
But how?
PLease help. (C#3.0)
Using reflection in this way is ugly to me.
Are you sure you need a 100% generic "T" and can't use a base class or interface?
If I were you, I would consider using the .Where<T>(Func<T, Boolean>) LINQ method instead of writing your own Search function.
An example use is:
List<FactorClass> listFC1 = listFC.Where(fc => fc.Name == "BKP").ToList();
public static IEnumerable<T> Search<T>(this ICollection<T> collection, string stringToSearch)
{
Type k = typeof(T);
PropertyInfo pi = k.GetProperty("Name");
foreach (T t in collection)
{
if (pi.GetValue(t, null).Equals(stringToSearch))
{
yield return t;
}
}
}
There's a couple of things you could do -- first you could institute a constraint on the generic type to an interface that has a name property. If it can only take a FactorClass, then you don't really need a generic type -- you could make it an extension to an ICollection<FactorClass>. If you go the interface route (or with the non-generic version), you can simply reference the property and won't have a need for reflection. If, for some reason, this doesn't work you can do:
var k = typeof(T);
var pi = k.GetProperty("Name");
foreach (T t in collection)
{
if (pi.GetValue(t, null).Equals(stringToSearch))
{
yield return t;
}
}
using an interface it might look like
public static IEnumerable<T> Search<T>(this ICollection<T> collection, string stringToSearch) where T : INameable
{
foreach (T t in collection)
{
if (string.Equals( t.Name, stringToSearch))
{
yield return t;
}
}
}
EDIT: After seeing #Jeff's comment, this is really only useful if you're doing something more complex than simply checking the value against one of the properties. He's absolutely correct in that using Where is a better solution for that problem.
Just get the type of T
Type k = typeof(T);
PropertyInfo pi = k.GetProperty("Name");
foreach (T t in collection)
{
if (pi.GetValue(t, null).Equals(stringToSearch))
{
yield return t;
}
}

Creating an object passing a lambda expression to the constructor

I have an object with a number of properties.
I want to be able to assign some of these properties when I call the constructor.
The obvious solution is to either have a constructor that takes a parameter for each of the properties, but that's nasty when there are lots. Another solution would be to create overloads that each take a subset of property values, but I could end up with dozens of overloads.
So I thought, wouldn't it be nice if I could say..
MyObject x = new MyObject(o => o.Property1 = "ABC", o.PropertyN = xx, ...);
The problem is, I'm too dim to work out how to do it.
Do you know?
C# 3 allows you to do this with its object initializer syntax.
Here is an example:
using System;
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
Foo foo = new Foo { Bar = "bar" };
}
}
class Foo
{
public String Bar { get; set; }
}
The way this works is that the compiler creates an instance of the class with compiler-generated name (like <>g__initLocal0). Then the compiler takes each property that you initialize and sets the value of the property.
Basically the compiler translates the Main method above to something like this:
static void Main()
{
// Create an instance of "Foo".
Foo <>g__initLocal0 = new Foo();
// Set the property.
<>g__initLocal0.Bar = "bar";
// Now create my "Foo" instance and set it
// equal to the compiler's instance which
// has the property set.
Foo foo = <>g__initLocal0;
}
The object initializer syntax is the easiest to use and requires no extra code for the constructor.
However, if you need to do something more complex, like call methods, you could have a constructor that takes an Action param to perform the population of the object.
public class MyClass
{
public MyClass(Action<MyClass> populator)
{
populator.Invoke(this);
}
public int MyInt { get; set; }
public void DoSomething()
{
Console.WriteLine(this.MyInt);
}
}
Now you can use it like so.
var x = new MyClass(mc => { mc.MyInt = 1; mc.DoSomething(); });
Basically what Andrew was trying to say is if you have a class (MyObject for eg) with N properties, using the Object Initializer syntax of C# 3.0, you can set any subset of the N properties as so:
MyObject x = new MyObject {Property1 = 5, Property4 = "test", PropertyN = 6.7};
You can set any of the properties / fields that way./
class MyObject
{
public MyObject(params Action<MyObject>[]inputs)
{
foreach(Action<MyObject> input in inputs)
{
input(this);
}
}
}
I may have the function generic style wrong, but I think this is sort of what you're describing.