I am reading http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd419663.aspx tutorial
i don't understand what the below code is trying to do.
_saveCommand = new RelayCommand(param => this.Save(), param => this.CanSave );
As defined in the realy Command class CanSave should have been a Method with a paramter since it maps to predicate therefore it's correspoding method should have a paramter same is true for action object. Please help understand.
RelayCommand uses functions (more precisely, delegates) passed into its constructor to implement CanExecute and Execute methods.
In this sample two functions are passed. First describes how to save - just call Save method on RelayCommand owner. Another one describes, how to check if saving is possible - just check current state of owner's CanSave property.
In this way you don't have to create your own Command class explicitly.
UPD:
Thanks, but my questions is Save() is of type Action, defined as Action and as per my understanding Save() should have a parameter in order to work. But some reason it is able to work even without a paramter.
Ok, let's look at it closer.
_saveCommand = new RelayCommand(param => this.Save(), param => this.CanSave );
is equivalent of (in syntax of C# v2.0)
_saveCommand = new RelayCommand(
new Action<object>(delegate(object param){ this.Save(); }),
new Func<object,bool>(delegate(object param){ return this.CanSave; }));
So, you create anonymous functions wrap actual methods leaving to you right to use or not to use their own parameters.
If you want to go deeper, the code above is compiled under the hood to something like:
// it is OK to ignore methods arguments.
// So, it's also OK to ignore them in anonymous methods as well
private void Save_Anonymous(object parameter){
this.Save();
}
private bool CanSave_Anonymous(object parameter){
return this.CanSave;
}
....
_saveCommand = new RelayCommand(new Action<object>(this.Save_Anonymous),
new Func<object, bool>(this.CanSave_Anonymous));
Note that compiler can select other strategies for implementing delegates, depending on what values they enclose from surrounding context. E.g. if your anonymous functions referenced some local variables compiler would generate anonymous class that contained those variables and put methods in this class.
Let us simplify it
First off, RelayCommand is not part of WPF. It is a class inside the WPFlight toolkit, and we are free to write our own implementations of it.
It acts as a wrapper on top of the WPF ICommand, and provides two aspects: action and predicate. The predicate part can be used, for example to enable or disable a button based on some condition. The action part shall contain the logic that should run when the command is executed.
As with most concepts, this too has many possible approaches.
Approach 1
Write explicit named methods for action and predicate. Sample code below
class demoViewModel
{
string filename = "";
private ICommand _saveCommand;
public ICommand SaveCommand
{
get
{
if (_saveCommand== null)
{
_saveCommand = new RelayCommand<object>(
action => Save(filename),
predicate => CanSave(filename));
}
return _saveCommand;
}
}
private bool CanSave(string fname)
{
return (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(fname));
}
private void Save(string fname)
{
SaveHelper(fname);//some logic goes inside SaveHelper
}
}
Approach 2
Here we shall use anonymous methods. This reduces many lines of code and makes the whole code more readable.
class demoViewModel1
{
string filename = "";
private ICommand _saveCommand;
public ICommand SaveCommand
{
get
{
if (_saveCommand== null)
{
_saveCommand = new RelayCommand<object>(
action => { SaveHelper(filename); },
predicate => { return (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(filename)); }
);
}
return _saveCommand;
}
}
}
Approach 3
Make use of lambda expressions, well, almost fully
class demoViewModel2
{
string filename = "";
private ICommand _saveCommand;
public ICommand SaveCommand
{
get
{
if (_saveCommand== null)
{
_saveCommand = new RelayCommand<object>(
(objParamForAction) => { SaveHelper(filename); },
() => { return (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(filename)); }
);
}
return _saveCommand;
}
}
}
Related
Class C implements INotifyPropertyChanged.
Assume the C has Length, Width and Area propreties, where Area = Length * Width. A change in either might cause a change in area. All three are bound, i.e. the UI expects all three to notify of changes in their values.
When either Length or Width change, their setters call NotifyPropertyChanged.
How should I treat the calculated Area property? Currently the pattern I can think of is detecting in NotifyPropertyChanged whether the changed property is either Length or Width and, if such is the case, initiate an addional PropertyChanged notification for Area. This, however, requires that I maintain inside NotifyPropertyChanged the dependencies graph, which I feel is an anti-pattern.
So, my question is: How should I code dependency properties that depend on other dependency properties?
edit: People here suggested that Length and Width also call NotifyPropertyChanged for Area. Again, I think this is an anti-pattern. A property (IMHO) shouldn't be aware of who depends on it, as shouldn't NotifyPropertyChanged. Only the property should be aware of who it depends on.
This issue kept on bugging me, so I re-opened it.
First, I'd like to appologize for anyone taking my "anti-pattern" comment personally. The solutions offered here were, indeed, how-it's-done in WPF. However, still, IMHO they're bad practices caused, deficiencies in ther framework.
My claim is that the information hiding guide dictates that when B depeneds on A, A should not be aware of B. For exmaple, when B derives from A, A should not have code saying: "If my runtime type is really a B, then do this and that". Simiarily, when B uses A, A should not have code saying: "If the object calling this method is a B, then ..."
So it follows that if property B depends on property A, A shouldn't be the one who's responsible to alert B directly.
Conversely, maintaining (as I currently do) the dependencies graph inside NotifyPropertyChanged is also an anti-pattern. That method should be lightweight and do what it name states, not maintain dependency relationships between properties.
So, I think the solution needed is through aspect oriented programming: Peroperty B should use an "I-depend-on(Property A)" attribute, and some code-rewriter should create the dependency graph and modify NotifyPropertyChanged transparently.
Today, I'm a single programmer working on a single product, so I can't justify dvelving with this any more, but this, I feel, is the correct solution.
Here is an article describing how to create a custom attribute that automatically calls PropertyChanged for properties depending on another property: http://www.redmountainsw.com/wordpress/2012/01/17/a-nicer-way-to-handle-dependent-values-on-propertychanged/
The code will look like this:
[DependsOn("A")]
[DependsOn("B")]
public int Total
{
get { return A + B; }
}
public int A
{
get { return m_A; }
set { m_A = value; RaisePropertyChanged("A"); }
}
public int B
{
get { return m_B: }
set { m_B = value; RaisePropertyChanged("B"); }
}
I haven't tried it myself but I like the idea
When the Length or Width properties are changed you fire PropertyChanged for Area in addition to firing it for either Length or Width.
Here is a very simple implementation based on backing fields and the method OnPropertyChanged to fire the PropertyChanged event:
public Double Length {
get { return this.length; }
set {
this.length = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Length");
OnPropertyChanged("Area");
}
}
public Double Width {
get { return this.width; }
set {
this.width = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Width");
OnPropertyChanged("Area");
}
}
public Double Area {
get { return this.length*this.width; }
}
Doing it like this is certainly not an anti-pattern. That is exactly the pattern for doing it. You as the implementer of the class knows that when Length is changed then Area is also changed and you encode it by raising the appropriate event.
Then you should raise twice, in Length and Width property setters. One for the actual property and one for the Area property.
for example:
private int _width;
public int Width
{
get { return _width; }
set
{
if (_width == value) return;
_width = value;
NotifyPropertyChanged("Width");
NotifyPropertyChanged("Area");
}
}
People here suggested that Length and Width also call
NotifyPropertyChanged for Area. Again, I think this is an
anti-pattern. A property (IMHO) shouldn't be aware of who depends on
it, as shouldn't NotifyPropertyChanged. Only the property should be
aware of who it depends on.
This is not an anti-pattern. Actually, your data encapsulated inside this class, so this class knows when and what changed. You shouldn't know outside of this class that Area depends on Width and Length. So the most logical place to notify listeners about Area is the Width and Length setter.
A property (IMHO) shouldn't be aware of who depends on it, as
shouldn't NotifyPropertyChanged.
It does not break encapsulation, because you are in the same class, in the same data structure.
An extra information is that knockout.js (a javascript mvvm library) has a concept which accessing this problem: Computed Observables. So I believe this is absolutely acceptable.
Here is a possible implementation of an attribute:
public class DependentPropertiesAttribute : Attribute
{
private readonly string[] properties;
public DependentPropertiesAttribute(params string[] dp)
{
properties = dp;
}
public string[] Properties
{
get
{
return properties;
}
}
}
Then in the Base View Model, we handle the mechanism of calling property dependencies:
public class ViewModelBase : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public ViewModelBase()
{
DetectPropertiesDependencies();
}
private readonly Dictionary<string, List<string>> _dependencies = new Dictionary<string, List<string>>();
private void DetectPropertiesDependencies()
{
var propertyInfoWithDependencies = GetType().GetProperties().Where(
prop => Attribute.IsDefined(prop, typeof(DependentPropertiesAttribute))).ToArray();
foreach (PropertyInfo propertyInfo in propertyInfoWithDependencies)
{
var ca = propertyInfo.GetCustomAttributes(false).OfType<DependentPropertiesAttribute>().Single();
if (ca.Properties != null)
{
foreach (string prop in ca.Properties)
{
if (!_dependencies.ContainsKey(prop))
{
_dependencies.Add(prop, new List<string>());
}
_dependencies[prop].Add(propertyInfo.Name);
}
}
}
}
protected void OnPropertyChanged(params Expression<Func<object>>[] expressions)
{
expressions.Select(expr => ReflectionHelper.GetPropertyName(expr)).ToList().ForEach(p => {
RaisePropertyChanged(p);
RaiseDependentProperties(p, new List<string>() { p });
});
}
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged = delegate { };
protected virtual void RaisePropertyChanged(string propertyName)
{
PropertyChanged(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
protected void RaiseDependentProperties(string propertyName, List<string> calledProperties = null)
{
if (!_dependencies.Any() || !_dependencies.ContainsKey(propertyName))
return;
if (calledProperties == null)
calledProperties = new List<string>();
List<string> dependentProperties = _dependencies[propertyName];
foreach (var dependentProperty in dependentProperties)
{
if (!calledProperties.Contains(dependentProperty))
{
RaisePropertyChanged(dependentProperty);
RaiseDependentProperties(dependentProperty, calledProperties);
}
}
}
}
Finally we define dependencies in our ViewModel
[DependentProperties("Prop1", "Prop2")]
public bool SomeCalculatedProperty
{
get
{
return Prop1 + Prop2;
}
}
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
typesafe NotifyPropertyChanged using linq expressions
I'm working on a large team application which is suffering from heavy use of magic strings in the form of NotifyPropertyChanged("PropertyName"), - the standard implementation when consulting Microsoft. We're also suffering from a great number of misnamed properties (working with an object model for a computation module that has hundreds of stored calculated properties) - all of which are bound to the UI.
My team experiences many bugs related to property name changes leading to incorrect magic strings and breaking bindings. I wish to solve the problem by implementing property changed notifications without using magic strings. The only solutions I've found for .Net 3.5 involve lambda expressions. (for example: Implementing INotifyPropertyChanged - does a better way exist?)
My manager is extremely worried about the performance cost of switching from
set { ... OnPropertyChanged("PropertyName"); }
to
set { ... OnPropertyChanged(() => PropertyName); }
where the name is extracted from
protected virtual void OnPropertyChanged<T>(Expression<Func<T>> selectorExpression)
{
MemberExpression body = selectorExpression.Body as MemberExpression;
if (body == null) throw new ArgumentException("The body must be a member expression");
OnPropertyChanged(body.Member.Name);
}
Consider an application like a spreadsheet where when a parameter changes, approximately a hundred values are recalculated and updated on the UI in real-time. Is making this change so expensive that it will impact the responsiveness of the UI? I can't even justify testing this change right now because it would take about 2 days worth of updating property setters in various projects and classes.
I did a thorough test of NotifyPropertyChanged to establish the impact of switching to the lambda expressions.
Here were my test results:
As you can see, using the lambda expression is roughly 5 times slower than the plain hard-coded string property change implementation, but users shouldn't fret, because even then it's capable of pumping out a hundred thousand property changes per second on my not so special work computer. As such, the benefit gained from no longer having to hard-code strings and being able to have one-line setters that take care of all your business far outweighs the performance cost to me.
Test 1 used the standard setter implementation, with a check to see that the property had actually changed:
public UInt64 TestValue1
{
get { return testValue1; }
set
{
if (value != testValue1)
{
testValue1 = value;
InvokePropertyChanged("TestValue1");
}
}
}
Test 2 was very similar, with the addition of a feature allowing the event to track the old value and the new value. Because this features was going to be implicit in my new base setter method, I wanted to see how much of the new overhead was due to that feature:
public UInt64 TestValue2
{
get { return testValue2; }
set
{
if (value != testValue2)
{
UInt64 temp = testValue2;
testValue2 = value;
InvokePropertyChanged("TestValue2", temp, testValue2);
}
}
}
Test 3 was where the rubber met the road, and I get to show off this new beautiful syntax for performing all observable property actions in one line:
public UInt64 TestValue3
{
get { return testValue3; }
set { SetNotifyingProperty(() => TestValue3, ref testValue3, value); }
}
Implementation
In my BindingObjectBase class, which all ViewModels end up inheriting, lies the implementation driving the new feature. I've stripped out the error handling so the meat of the function is clear:
protected void SetNotifyingProperty<T>(Expression<Func<T>> expression, ref T field, T value)
{
if (field == null || !field.Equals(value))
{
T oldValue = field;
field = value;
OnPropertyChanged(this, new PropertyChangedExtendedEventArgs<T>(GetPropertyName(expression), oldValue, value));
}
}
protected string GetPropertyName<T>(Expression<Func<T>> expression)
{
MemberExpression memberExpression = (MemberExpression)expression.Body;
return memberExpression.Member.Name;
}
All three methods meet at the OnPropertyChanged routine, which is still the standard:
public virtual void OnPropertyChanged(object sender, PropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
PropertyChangedEventHandler handler = PropertyChanged;
if (handler != null)
handler(sender, e);
}
Bonus
If anyone's curious, the PropertyChangedExtendedEventArgs is something I just came up with to extend the standard PropertyChangedEventArgs, so an instance of the extension can always be in place of the base. It leverages knowledge of the old value when a property is changed using SetNotifyingProperty, and makes this information available to the handler.
public class PropertyChangedExtendedEventArgs<T> : PropertyChangedEventArgs
{
public virtual T OldValue { get; private set; }
public virtual T NewValue { get; private set; }
public PropertyChangedExtendedEventArgs(string propertyName, T oldValue, T newValue)
: base(propertyName)
{
OldValue = oldValue;
NewValue = newValue;
}
}
Personally I like to use Microsoft PRISM's NotificationObject for this reason, and I would guess that their code is reasonably optimized since it's created by Microsoft.
It allows me to use code such as RaisePropertyChanged(() => this.Value);, in addition to keeping the "Magic Strings" so you don't break any existing code.
If I look at their code with Reflector, their implementation can be recreated with the code below
public class ViewModelBase : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
// Fields
private PropertyChangedEventHandler propertyChanged;
// Events
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged
{
add
{
PropertyChangedEventHandler handler2;
PropertyChangedEventHandler propertyChanged = this.propertyChanged;
do
{
handler2 = propertyChanged;
PropertyChangedEventHandler handler3 = (PropertyChangedEventHandler)Delegate.Combine(handler2, value);
propertyChanged = Interlocked.CompareExchange<PropertyChangedEventHandler>(ref this.propertyChanged, handler3, handler2);
}
while (propertyChanged != handler2);
}
remove
{
PropertyChangedEventHandler handler2;
PropertyChangedEventHandler propertyChanged = this.propertyChanged;
do
{
handler2 = propertyChanged;
PropertyChangedEventHandler handler3 = (PropertyChangedEventHandler)Delegate.Remove(handler2, value);
propertyChanged = Interlocked.CompareExchange<PropertyChangedEventHandler>(ref this.propertyChanged, handler3, handler2);
}
while (propertyChanged != handler2);
}
}
protected void RaisePropertyChanged(params string[] propertyNames)
{
if (propertyNames == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("propertyNames");
}
foreach (string str in propertyNames)
{
this.RaisePropertyChanged(str);
}
}
protected void RaisePropertyChanged<T>(Expression<Func<T>> propertyExpression)
{
string propertyName = PropertySupport.ExtractPropertyName<T>(propertyExpression);
this.RaisePropertyChanged(propertyName);
}
protected virtual void RaisePropertyChanged(string propertyName)
{
PropertyChangedEventHandler propertyChanged = this.propertyChanged;
if (propertyChanged != null)
{
propertyChanged(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
}
}
public static class PropertySupport
{
// Methods
public static string ExtractPropertyName<T>(Expression<Func<T>> propertyExpression)
{
if (propertyExpression == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("propertyExpression");
}
MemberExpression body = propertyExpression.Body as MemberExpression;
if (body == null)
{
throw new ArgumentException("propertyExpression");
}
PropertyInfo member = body.Member as PropertyInfo;
if (member == null)
{
throw new ArgumentException("propertyExpression");
}
if (member.GetGetMethod(true).IsStatic)
{
throw new ArgumentException("propertyExpression");
}
return body.Member.Name;
}
}
If you're concerned that the lambda-expression-tree solution might be too slow, then profile it and find out. I suspect the time spent cracking open the expression tree would be quite a bit smaller than the amount of time the UI will spend refreshing in response.
If you find that it is too slow, and you need to use literal strings to meet your performance criteria, then here's one approach I've seen:
Create a base class that implements INotifyPropertyChanged, and give it a RaisePropertyChanged method. That method checks whether the event is null, creates the PropertyChangedEventArgs, and fires the event -- all the usual stuff.
But the method also contains some extra diagnostics -- it does some Reflection to make sure that the class really does have a property with that name. If the property doesn't exist, it throws an exception. If the property does exist, then it memoizes that result (e.g. by adding the property name to a static HashSet<string>), so it doesn't have to do the Reflection check again.
And there you go: your automated tests will start failing as soon as you rename a property but fail to update the magic string. (I'm assuming you have automated tests for your ViewModels, since that's the main reason to use MVVM.)
If you don't want to fail quite as noisily in production, you could put the extra diagnostic code inside #if DEBUG.
Actually we discussed this aswell for our projects and talked alot about the pros and cons. In the end, we decided to keep the regular method but used a field for it.
public class MyModel
{
public const string ValueProperty = "Value";
public int Value
{
get{return mValue;}
set{mValue = value; RaisePropertyChanged(ValueProperty);
}
}
This helps when refactoring, keeps our performance and is especially helpful when we use PropertyChangedEventManager, where we would need the hardcoded strings again.
public bool ReceiveWeakEvent(Type managerType, object sender, System.EventArgs e)
{
if(managerType == typeof(PropertyChangedEventManager))
{
var args = e as PropertyChangedEventArgs;
if(sender == model)
{
if (args.PropertyName == MyModel.ValueProperty)
{
}
return true;
}
}
}
One simple solution is to simply pre-process all files before compilation, detect the OnPropertyChanged calls that are defined in set { ... } blocks, determine the property name and fix the name parameter accordingly.
You could do this using an ad-hoc tool (that would be my recommendation), or use a real C# (or VB.NET) parser (like those which can be found here: Parser for C#).
I think it's reasonable way to do it. Of course, it's not very elegant nor smart, but it has zero runtime impact, and follows Microsoft rules.
If you want to save some compile time, you could have both ways using compilation directives, like this:
set
{
#if DEBUG // smart and fast compile way
OnPropertyChanged(() => PropertyName);
#else // dumb but efficient way
OnPropertyChanged("MyProp"); // this will be fixed by buid process
#endif
}
Whats the best way to save variables like userid that is stored and reachable from different pages in WP7.
There's the querystring method, but can be kind of a pain to implement.
When navigating, pass the parameter like a HTTP querystring.
Then, on the otherside, check if the key exists, and extract the value. The downside of this is if you need to do more than 1, you need to type it in yourself, and it only supports strings.
So to pass an integer, you'd need to convert it. (And to pass a complex object, you need to take all the pieces you need to recompile it on the other side)
NavigationService.Navigate(new Uri("/PanoramaPage1.xaml?selected=item2", UriKind.Relative));
protected override void OnNavigatedTo(System.Windows.Navigation.NavigationEventArgs e)
{
string selected = String.Empty;
//check to see if the selected parameter was passed.
if (NavigationContext.QueryString.ContainsKey("selected"))
{
//get the selected parameter off the query string from MainPage.
selected = NavigationContext.QueryString["selected"];
}
//did the querystring indicate we should go to item2 instead of item1?
if (selected == "item2")
{
//item2 is the second item, but 0 indexed.
myPanorama.DefaultItem = myPanorama.Items[1];
}
base.OnNavigatedTo(e);
}
Here's a sample app that uses a querystring.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/129101/Panorama_querystring.zip
A easier (and better) idea is to define a variable globally, or use a static class. In App.xaml.cs, define
using System.Collections.Generic;
public static Dictionary<string,object> PageContext = new Dictionary<string,object>;
Then, on the first page, simply do
MyComplexObject obj;
int four = 4;
...
App.PageContext.Add("mycomplexobj",obj);
App.PageContext.Add("four",four);
Then, on the new page, simply do
MyComplexObj obj = App.PageContext["mycomplexobj"] as MyComplexObj;
int four = (int)App.PageContext["four"];
To be safe, you should probably check if the object exists:
if (App.PageContext.ContainsKey("four"))
int four = (int)App.PageContext["four"];
You may use an App level variable (defined in App.xaml.cs) and access it from anywhere within your app. If you want to persist, shove it into Isolated Storage and read it on App launch/activate. There are helpers available to JSon serialize/deserialize your reads/writes from the Isolated Storage.
Check out Jeff's post (here) on tips to use Isolated Storage.
Hope this helps!
Well "best" is always subjective, however, I think an application service is a good candidate for this sort of thing:-
public interface IPhoneApplicationService : IApplicationService
{
string Name {get; set;}
object Deactivating();
void Activating(object state);
}
public class AuthenticationService : IPhoneApplicationService
{
public static AuthenticationService Current {get; private set; }
public void StartService(ApplicationServiceContext context)
{
Current = this;
}
public void StopService()
{
Current = null;
}
public string Name {get; set;}
public object Deactivating()
{
// Return an serialisable object such as a Dictionary if necessary.
return UserID;
}
public void Activating(object state)
{
UserID = (int)state;
}
public int UserID { get; private set; }
public void Logon(string username, string password)
{
// Code here that eventually assigns to UserID.
}
}
You place an instance of this in your App.xaml:-
<Application.ApplicationLifetimeObjects>
<!--Required object that handles lifetime events for the application-->
<shell:PhoneApplicationService
Launching="Application_Launching" Closing="Application_Closing"
Activated="Application_Activated" Deactivated="Application_Deactivated"/>
<local:AuthenticationService Name="AuthServ" />
</Application.ApplicationLifetimeObjects>
Now you do need to tweak the App.xaml.cs:-
private void Application_Activated(object sender, ActivatedEventArgs e)
{
var state = PhoneApplicationService.Current.State;
foreach (var service in ApplicationLifetimeObjects.OfType<IPhoneApplicationService>())
{
if (state.ContainsKey(service.Name))
{
service.Activating(state[service.Name]);
}
}
}
private void Application_Deactivated(object sender, DeactivatedEventArgs e)
{
var state = PhoneApplicationService.Current.State;
foreach (var service in ApplicationLifetimeObjects.OfType<IPhoneApplicationService>())
{
if (state.ContainsKey(service.Name))
{
state[service.Name] = service.Deactivating();
}
else
{
state.Add(service.Name, service.Deactivating());
}
}
}
You can now access you UserID anywhere in your app with:-
AuthenticationService.Current.UserID
This general pattern can be used to maintain seperation of key application wide services (you don't load a whole bunch of incohesive properties into your App class). It also provides the hooks for maintaining state between activations which is essential.
LoadOperation on the client side returns null? How can I fix it? Is my code correct? Is it a best practice?
Serverside (Domain service:
public IQueryable<State> GetStates()
{
return this.ObjectContext.States.Include("Country") ;
}
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clientside
LoadOperation<State> loadOp;
public IEnumerable<State> Entities()
{
DSCommon _context = new DSCommon();
loadOp = _context.Load(_context.GetStatesQuery());
loadOp.Completed += complete;
loadOp.Completed += new EventHandler(LoadOp_Completed);
return loadOp.Entities;
}
EventHandler complete;
void LoadOp_Completed(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
foreach (var item in loadOp.Entities)
{
/************* item.Country is Null ********************/
}
}
Your question is not very clear as first you say that LoadOperation return null whereas in your code, you state that item.Country is null.
However, I believe that I see the problem.
In you Domain Service you call the Include("Country") method on the States EntityCollection. However, on client side, the State.Country Entity is still null? I had the same issue some time ago. It seems that RIA Services (or WCF) does not return those entities, unless you apply the [Include] attribute on the Entity you want to return like so in a metadata class
[MetadataType(typeof(State.StateMetadata))]
public partial class State
{
internal sealed class StateMetadata
{
private StateMetadata()
{
}
[Include]
public EntityCollection<Country> Country;
}
}
Someone will probably be able to give an explanation on why it works this way. I just know that I had to do it this way around :-)
I think this is the question, anyway. I am using a RelayCommand, which decorates an ICommand with two delegates. One is Predicate for the _canExecute and the other is Action for the _execute method.
---Background motivation --
The motivation has to do with unit testing ViewModels for a WPF presentation. A frequent pattern is that I have one ViewModel that has an ObservableCollection, and I want a unit test to prove the data in that collection is what I expect given some source data (which also needs to be converted into a collection of ViewModels). Even though the data in both collections looks the same in the debugger, it looks like the test fails due to an equality failure on the ViewModel's RelayCommand. Here's an example of the failing unit test:
[Test]
public void Creation_ProjectActivities_MatchFacade()
{
var all = (from activity in _facade.ProjectActivities
orderby activity.BusinessId
select new ActivityViewModel(activity, _facade.SubjectTimeSheet)).ToList();
var models = new ObservableCollection<ActivityViewModel>(all);
CollectionAssert.AreEqual(_vm.ProjectActivities, models);
}
--- Back to delegate equality ----
Here is the code for the RelayCommand - it's basically a direct rip-off of Josh Smith's idea, with an implementation for equality that I added in an attempt to solve this issue:
public class RelayCommand : ICommand, IRelayCommand
{
readonly Action<object> _execute;
readonly Predicate<object> _canExecute;
/// <summary>Creates a new command that can always execute.</summary>
public RelayCommand(Action<object> execute) : this(execute, null) { }
/// <summary>Creates a new command which executes depending on the logic in the passed predicate.</summary>
public RelayCommand(Action<object> execute, Predicate<object> canExecute) {
Check.RequireNotNull<Predicate<object>>(execute, "execute");
_execute = execute;
_canExecute = canExecute;
}
[DebuggerStepThrough]
public bool CanExecute(object parameter) { return _canExecute == null ? true : _canExecute(parameter); }
public event EventHandler CanExecuteChanged
{
add { CommandManager.RequerySuggested += value; }
remove { CommandManager.RequerySuggested -= value; }
}
public void Execute(object parameter) { _execute(parameter); }
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(null, obj)) return false;
if (ReferenceEquals(this, obj)) return true;
if (obj.GetType() != typeof(RelayCommand)) return false;
return Equals((RelayCommand)obj);
}
public bool Equals(RelayCommand other)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(null, other)) return false;
if (ReferenceEquals(this, other)) return true;
return Equals(other._execute, _execute) && Equals(other._canExecute, _canExecute);
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
unchecked
{
return ((_execute != null ? _execute.GetHashCode() : 0) * 397) ^ (_canExecute != null ? _canExecute.GetHashCode() : 0);
}
}
}
In a unit test where I've effectively set the _execute delegate to the same method (_canExecute is null in both cases), the unit test fails at this line:
return Equals(other._execute, _execute) && Equals(other._canExecute, _canExecute)
Debugger output:
?_execute
{Method = {Void <get_CloseCommand>b__0(System.Object)}}
base {System.MulticastDelegate}: {Method = {Void CloseCommand>b__0(System.Object)}}
?other._execute
{Method = {Void <get_CloseCommand>b__0(System.Object)}}
base {System.MulticastDelegate}: {Method = {Void CloseCommand>b__0(System.Object)}}
Can anyone explain what I am missing and what the fix is?
---- EDITED REMARKS ----
As Mehrdad pointed out, the get_CloseCommand from the debug session looks a bit weird at first. It really is just a property get, but it does raise the point as to why the equality of the delegate is problematic if I need to do tricks to make it work.
Some of the point of MVVM is to expose whatever might be useful in a presentation as properties, so you can use WPF binding. The particular class I was testing has a WorkspaceViewModel in it's heirarchy, which is just a ViewModel that already has a close command property. Here is the code:
public abstract class WorkspaceViewModel : ViewModelBase
{
/// <summary>Returns the command that, when invoked, attempts to remove this workspace from the user interface.</summary>
public ICommand CloseCommand
{
get
{
if (_closeCommand == null)
_closeCommand = new RelayCommand(param => OnRequestClose());
return _closeCommand;
}
}
RelayCommand _closeCommand;
/// <summary>Raised when this workspace should be removed from the UI.</summary>
public event EventHandler RequestClose;
void OnRequestClose()
{
var handler = RequestClose;
if (handler != null)
handler(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
public bool Equals(WorkspaceViewModel other) {
if (ReferenceEquals(null, other)) return false;
if (ReferenceEquals(this, other)) return true;
return Equals(other._closeCommand, _closeCommand) && base.Equals(other);
}
public override int GetHashCode() {
unchecked {
{
return (base.GetHashCode() * 397) ^ (_closeCommand != null ? _closeCommand.GetHashCode() : 0);
}
}
}
}
You can see that the close command is a RelayCommand, and that I monkeyed with equals to make the unit test work.
#Merhdad
Here is the unit test that only works when I use Trickster's delegate.Method in the equality comparison.
[TestFixture]
public class WorkspaceViewModelTests
{
private WorkspaceViewModel vm1;
private WorkspaceViewModel vm2;
private class TestableModel : WorkspaceViewModel
{
}
[SetUp]
public void SetUp() {
vm1 = new TestableModel();
vm1.RequestClose += OnWhatever;
vm2 = new TestableModel();
vm2.RequestClose += OnWhatever;
}
private void OnWhatever(object sender, EventArgs e) { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
[Test]
public void Equality() {
Assert.That(vm1.CloseCommand.Equals(vm2.CloseCommand));
Assert.That(vm1.Equals(vm2));
}
}
----- LATEST EDITS TO USE MERHDAD"S IDEA
debugger out put
?valueOfThisObject
{Smack.Wpf.ViewModel.RelayCommand}
base {SharpArch.Core.DomainModel.ValueObject}: {Smack.Wpf.ViewModel.RelayCommand}
_canExecute: null
_execute: {Method = {Void _executeClose(System.Object)}}
?valueToCompareTo
{Smack.Wpf.ViewModel.RelayCommand}
base {SharpArch.Core.DomainModel.ValueObject}: {Smack.Wpf.ViewModel.RelayCommand}
_canExecute: null
_execute: {Method = {Void _executeClose(System.Object)}}
?valueOfThisObject.Equals(valueToCompareTo)
false
This is the result after changing the code to:
public ICommand CloseCommand
{
get
{
if (_closeCommand == null)
_closeCommand = new RelayCommand(_executeClose);
return _closeCommand;
}
}
RelayCommand _closeCommand;
void _executeClose(object param) {
OnRequestClose();
}
Are you creating the delegate out of anonymous functions or something? These are the exact delegate equality rules according to C# specification (§7.9.8):
Delegate equality operators
Two delegate instances are considered equal as follows:
If either of the delegate instances is null, they are equal if and only if both are null.
If the delegates have different runtime type they are never equal.
If both of the delegate instances have an invocation list (§15.1), those instances are equal if and only if their invocation lists are the same length, and each entry in one’s invocation list is equal (as defined below) to the corresponding entry, in order, in the other’s invocation list.
The following rules govern the equality of invocation list entries:
If two invocation list entries both refer to the same static method then the entries are equal.
If two invocation list entries both refer to the same non-static method on the same target object (as defined by the reference equality operators) then the entries are equal.
Invocation list entries produced from evaluation of semantically identical anonymous-function-expressions with the same (possibly empty) set of captured outer variable instances are permitted (but not required) to be equal.
So, in your case, it's possible that the delegate instances are referring to the same method in two different objects, or referring to two anonymous methods.
UPDATE: Indeed, the problem is that you are not passing the same method reference when you are calling new RelayCommand(param => OnCloseCommand()). After all, the lambda expression specified here is actually an anonymous method (you are not passing a method reference to OnCloseCommand; you are passing a reference to an anonymous method which takes a single parameter and calls OnCloseCommand). As mentioned in the last line of the specification quotation above, it's not necessary that comparing those two delegates return true.
Side Note: The getter of the CloseCommand property would be simply called get_CloseCommand and not <get_CloseCommand>b__0. This is the compiler generated method name for the anonymous method inside get_CloseCommand method (the CloseCommand getter). This further proves the point I mentioned above.
I don't know anything now about other lines but what if
CollectionAssert.AreEqual(_vm.ProjectActivities, models);
fails just because ReferenceEquality is used?
You have overridden the comparison for RelayCommand but not for ObservableCollection.
And it looks like in case of Delegates Reference equality is used too.
Try to compare by Delegate.Method instead.