I have a class with a collection that needs validation. The generic on the collection takes an interface and different types can be added to the collection.
What is the cleanest path forward to creating a FluentValidation validator that supports polymorphism?
public interface IWizardStep {}
public class WizardOne : IWizardStep
{
public string Model { get; set; }
}
public class WizardTwo : IWizardStep
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
}
public class Wizard
{
public Wizard()
{
var w1 = new WizardOne();
var w2 = new WizardTwo();
Steps = new List<IWizardStep>
{
w1,
w2
};
}
public IList<IWizardStep> Steps { get; set; }
}
public class WizardValidator : AbstractValidator<Wizard>
{
public WizardValidator()
{
RuleFor(x => x.Steps)
// Steps First where is WizardOne
// Model.NotEmpty()
// Steps First where is WizardTwo
// FirstName.NotEmpty()
}
FluentValidation doesn't support polymorphism for child collections like this out of the box, but you can add this behaviour by using a custom property validator, or by using OfType in your rule definitions.
I've written about both approaches before here:
Step 1: Create a validator for each implementor
Start by creating a validator for WizardOne and WizardTwo:
public class WizardOneValidator : AbstractValidator<WizardOne> {
public WizardOneValidator() {
RuleFor(x => x.Model).NotEmpty();
}
}
public class WizardTwoValidator : AbstractValidator<WizardTwo> {
public WizardTwoValidator() {
RuleFor(x => x.FirstName).NotEmpty();
}
}
Step 2: Create the parent validator
You have two options for defining the parent validator. The simplest approach is to use OfType, but this is less performant. The more complex option is to use a custom property validator.
Option 1: Using OfType
public WizardValidator : AbstractValidator<Wizard> {
public WizardValidator() {
RuleForEach(x => x.Steps.OfType<WizardOne>()).SetValidator(new WizardOneValidator());
RuleForEach(x => x.Steps.OfType<WizardTwo>()).SetValidator(new WizardTwoValidator());
}
}
This is the simplest approach, but calling OfType inside the call RuleFor will end up bypassing FluentValidation's expression cache, which is a potential performance hit. It also iterates the collection multiple. This may or may not be an issue for you - you'll need to decide if this has any real-world impact on your application.
Option 2: Using a custom PropertyValidator.
This uses a custom custom validator which can differentiate the underlying type at runtime:
public WizardValidator : AbstractValidator<Wizard> {
public WizardValidator() {
RuleForEach(x => x.Steps).SetValidator(new PolymorphicValidator<Wizard, IWizardStep>()
.Add<WizardOne>(new WizardOneValidator())
.Add<WizardTwo>(new WizardTwoValidator())
);
}
}
Syntactically, this isn't quite as nice, but doesn't bypass the expression cache and doesn't iterate the collection multiple times. This is the code for the PolymorphicValidator:
public class PolymorphicValidator<T, TInterface> : ChildValidatorAdaptor<T, TInterface> {
readonly Dictionary<Type, IValidator> _derivedValidators = new Dictionary<Type, IValidator>();
// Need the base constructor call, even though we're just passing null.
public PolymorphicValidator() : base((IValidator<TInterface>)null, typeof(IValidator<TInterface>)) {
}
public PolymorphicValidator<T, TInterface> Add<TDerived>(IValidator<TDerived> derivedValidator) where TDerived : TInterface {
_derivedValidators[typeof(TDerived)] = derivedValidator;
return this;
}
public override IValidator<TInterface> GetValidator(PropertyValidatorContext context) {
// bail out if the current item is null
if (context.PropertyValue == null) return null;
if (_derivedValidators.TryGetValue(context.PropertyValue.GetType(), out var derivedValidator)) {
return new ValidatorWrapper(derivedValidator);
}
return null;
}
private class ValidatorWrapper : AbstractValidator<TInterface> {
private IValidator _innerValidator;
public ValidatorWrapper(IValidator innerValidator) {
_innerValidator = innerValidator;
}
public override ValidationResult Validate(ValidationContext<TInterface> context) {
return _innerValidator.Validate(context);
}
public override Task<ValidationResult> ValidateAsync(ValidationContext<TInterface> context, CancellationToken cancellation = new CancellationToken()) {
return _innerValidator.ValidateAsync(context, cancellation);
}
public override IValidatorDescriptor CreateDescriptor() {
return _innerValidator.CreateDescriptor();
}
}
}
This will probably be implemented in the library as a first class feature at some point in the future - you can track its development here if you're interested.
I am trying to call a parent method from its child which has the same method name. Doing so results in a strict standards error. There's an easy solution of renaming the child method. However, is there a way to keep the names of the two methods identical without a standards warning? Thanks.
Strict standards: Declaration of Child::getContentFromDb() should be compatible with Parent::getContentFromDb($id) in /foo/Child.class.php on line xxx
Pseudo-code example:
class Parent {
protected function getInfoFromDb($id) {
return $infoFromDb;
}
}
class Child extends Parent {
public static $id = xx;
public $info = array();
public function __construct() {
$this->info = $this->getInfoFromDb();
}
public function getInfoFromDb() {
// the line below causes the problem
return parent::getInfoFromDb(self::$id);
}
}
Your method override should take the same parameter list as the one you are overriding.
e.g.
class ParentClass {
protected function getInfoFromDb($id) {
return "INFO FROM DB:" . $id;
}
}
class Child extends ParentClass {
public static $id = "xx";
public $info = array();
public function __construct() {
$this->info = $this->getInfoFromDb();
}
/**
* #param specific ID, or do not set for default action.
* #return string
*/
public function getInfoFromDb($id = false) {
return parent::getInfoFromDb(self::$id);
}
}
I would to override constroller constrcuter's like this :
class XControler extends AppController {
public $attr = null;
public __construct(){
$this->attr = new YController();
}
}
But when I do that I take error ! can you explain me why and how I do that with out using requestAction just OOP !
thanks
Controllers are responsible for dealing with end user requests. Each controller action should have a view, and normally you would not want to access the methods from YController inside XController.
What you want to achieve can be done this way:
XController.php
App::uses('YController', 'Controller');
class XController extends AppController {
public $attr;
public $uses = array('Person');
public function __construct($request = null, $response = null) {
$this->attr = new YController();
parent::__construct($request, $response);
}
public function method1() {
// you can now call methods from YController:
$this->attr->Ymethod1();
}
}
YController.php
class YController extends AppController {
public function Ymethod1() {
// ....
}
}
However, the business logic should be inside Models or Components. This is the proper way to share methods between more controllers.
So your XController should look like:
class XController extends AppController {
public $uses = array('Model1');
public function action1() {
$this->Model1->method1();
// ....
}
}
Using interfaces won't work because I want a single implementation. Using this solution would end in a lot of redundant code because I plan on having quite a few sub classes (composition vs inheritance). I've decided that a problem-specific design solution is what I'm looking for, and I can't think of anything elegant.
Basically I want classes to have separate properties, and for those properties to be attached at design time to any sub class I choose. Say, I have class 'ninja'. I would like to be able to make arbitrary sub classes such as 'grayNinja' where a gray ninja will always have a sword and throwing stars. Then possibly 'redNinja' who will always have a sword and a cape. Obviously swords, stars, and capes will each have their own implementation - and this is where I can't use interfaces. The closest solution I could find was the decorator pattern, but I don't want that functionality at runtime. Is the best solution an offshoot of that? Where inside the Black Ninja class constructor, I pass it through the constructors of sword and throwingStar? (those being abstract classes)
haven't coded in a while and reading hasn't gotten me too far - forgive me if the answer is simple.
Edit: Answered my own question. I can't mark it as 'answer' until tomorrow. Please let me know if there's a problem with it that I didn't catch. All the reading this problem forced me to do has been awesome. Learned quite a bit.
You want classes to have separate properties. Have you considered coding exactly that?
For example, you want a RedNinja that is-a Ninja that has-a sword and cape. Okay, so define Ninja to have an inventory, make it accessible through Ninja, and pass in an inventory through RedNinja's constructor. You can do the same thing for behaviors.
I've done once a similar app. with a earlier "C++" compiler that supported only single inheritance and no interfaces, at all.
// base class for all ninjas
public class Ninja {
// default constructor
public Ninja() { ... }
// default destructor
public ~Ninja() { ... }
} // class
public class StarNinja: public Ninja {
// default constructor
public StarNinja() { ... }
// default destructor
public ~StarNinja() { ... }
public void throwStars() { ... }
} // class
public class KatannaNinja: public Ninja {
// default constructor
public KatannaNinja() { ... }
// default destructor
public ~KatannaNinja() { ... }
public void useKatanna() { ... }
} // class
public class InvisibleNinja: public Ninja {
// default constructor
public InvisibleNinja() { ... }
// default destructor
public ~InvisibleNinja() { ... }
public void becomeVisible() { ... }
public void becomeInvisible() { ... }
} // class
public class FlyNinja: public Ninja {
// default constructor
public FlyNinja() { ... }
// default destructor
public ~FlyNinja() { ... }
public void fly() { ... }
public void land() { ... }
} // class
public class InvincibleNinja: public Ninja {
// default constructor
public InvincibleNinja() { ... }
// default destructor
public ~InvincibleNinja() { ... }
public void turnToStone() { ... }
public void turnToHuman() { ... }
} // class
// --> this doesn't need to have the same superclass,
// --> but, it helps
public class SuperNinja: public Ninja {
StarNinja* LeftArm;
InvincibleNinja* RightArm;
FlyNinja* LeftLeg;
KatannaNinja* RightLeg;
InvisibleNinja* Body;
// default constructor
public SuperNinja() {
// -> there is no rule to call composed classes,
LeftArm = new StarNinja();
RightArm = new InvincibleNinja();
LeftLeg = new FlyNinja();
RightLeg = new KatannaNinja();
Body = new InvisibleNinja();
}
// default destructor
public ~SuperNinja() {
// -> there is no rule to call composed classes
delete LeftArm();
delete RightArm();
delete LeftLeg();
delete RightLeg();
delete Body();
}
// --> add all public methods from peers,
// --> to main class
public void throwStars() { LeftArm->throwStars(); }
public void useKatanna() { RightLeg->useKatanna(); }
public void becomeVisible() { Body->becomeVisible() }
public void becomeInvisible() { Body->becomeInvisible() }
public void fly() { LeftLeg->fly() }
public void land() { LeftLeg->land() }
public void turnToStone() { RightArm->turnToStone(); }
public void turnToHuman() { RightArm->turnToHuman(); }
} // class
Im afraid, that the most close example is the composition design pattern. In order, to become more similar to inheritance, I make a generic base class that all composite classes share, and I make a main class that will be the result of the multiple inheritance, that has a copy of all the public methods of the component classes.
If you want to use interfaces, to enforce that main class have all important methods,
then make an interface that matches each composing class, and implemented in the main class.
public interface INinja {
public void NinjaScream() { ... }
} // class
public interface IStarNinja {
void throwStars();
} // class
public interface IKatannaNinja {
void useKatanna();
} // class
public interface IInvisibleNinja {
void becomeVisible();
void becomeInvisible();
} // class
public interface CFlyNinja {
void fly();
void land();
} // class
public interface IInvincibleNinja {
void turnToStone() { ... }
void turnToHuman() { ... }
} // class
// base class for all ninjas
public class CNinja: public INinja {
// default constructor
public CNinja() { ... }
// default destructor
public ~CNinja() { ... }
public void NinjaScream() { ... }
} // class
public class CStarNinja: public CNinja, INinja {
// default constructor
public CStarNinja() { ... }
// default destructor
public ~CStarNinja() { ... }
public void NinjaScream() { ... }
public void throwStars() { ... }
} // class
public class CKatannaNinja: public CNinja, IKatannaNinja {
// default constructor
public CKatannaNinja() { ... }
// default destructor
public ~CKatannaNinja() { ... }
public void NinjaScream() { ... }
public void useKatanna() { ... }
} // class
public class CInvisibleNinja: public CNinja, IInvisibleNinja {
// default constructor
public CInvisibleNinja() { ... }
// default destructor
public ~CInvisibleNinja() { ... }
public void becomeVisible() { ... }
public void becomeInvisible() { ... }
} // class
public class CFlyNinja: public CNinja, IFlyNinja {
// default constructor
public CFlyNinja() { ... }
// default destructor
public ~CFlyNinja() { ... }
public void fly() { ... }
public void land() { ... }
} // class
public class CInvincibleNinja: public CNinja, IInvincibleNinja {
// default constructor
public CInvincibleNinja() { ... }
// default destructor
public ~CInvincibleNinja() { ... }
public void turnToStone() { ... }
public void turnToHuman() { ... }
} // class
// --> this doesn't need to have the same superclass,
// --> but, it helps
public class CSuperNinja: public CNinja,
IKatannaNinja,
IInvisibleNinja,
IFlyNinja,
IInvincibleNinja
{
CStarNinja* LeftArm;
CInvincibleNinja* RightArm;
CFlyNinja* LeftLeg;
CKatannaNinja* RightLeg;
CInvisibleNinja* Body;
// default constructor
public CSuperNinja() {
// -> there is no rule to call composed classes
LeftArm = new CStarNinja();
RightArm = new CInvincibleNinja();
LeftLeg = new CFlyNinja();
RightLeg = new CKatannaNinja();
Body = new CInvisibleNinja();
}
// default destructor
public ~SuperNinja() {
// -> there is no rule to call composed classes
delete LeftArm();
delete RightArm();
delete LeftLeg();
delete RightLeg();
delete Body();
}
// --> add all public methods from peers,
// --> to main class
public void throwStars() { LeftArm->throwStars(); }
public void useKatanna() { RightLeg->useKatanna(); }
public void becomeVisible() { Body->becomeVisible() }
public void becomeInvisible() { Body->becomeInvisible() }
public void fly() { LeftLeg->fly() }
public void land() { LeftLeg->land() }
public void turnToStone() { RightArm->turnToStone(); }
public void turnToHuman() { RightArm->turnToHuman(); }
} // class
I know this solution is complex, but, seems that there is not another way.
Cheers.
Alright so mix-ins through extension methods are going to be my preferred route. I couldn't figure out how to use dynamic proxies in vb.net (seemed to require libraries with lots of documentation that didn't cover specifically what I needed). Dynamic proxies also seems to be a bit dirtier of a solution than using extension methods. Composition would have been what I defaulted to if the previous two didn't work.
So one problem with extension methods, is that the code gets a little dirtier if you want to hold variables. Not much though. Another problem is that all the extension methods must be defined in modules, so the code might look a little goofy to a new eye. I will solve this by defining my interface and module with the corresponding extension method in the same file.
finally, here's some sample vb.net code if you don't want to see a full fledged example through the link.
Imports System.Runtime.CompilerServices 'for extension methods
Public Interface ISword
End Interface
Public Interface IThrowingStar
End Interface
Module ExtensionMethods
<Extension()>
Public Sub swingSword(ByVal hasASword As ISword)
Console.WriteLine("Sword has been swung")
End Sub
<Extension()>
Public Sub throwStar(ByVal hasAStar As IThrowingStar)
Console.WriteLine("Star has been thrown")
End Sub
End Module
Public Class RedNinja
Inherits Ninja
Implements IThrowingStar, ISword
Public Sub New()
End Sub
End Class
Public MustInherit Class Ninja
private curHealth as Integer
Public Sub New()
curHealth = 100
End Sub
Public Function getHP() As Integer
Return curHealth
End Function
End Class
Module Module1
Sub main()
Console.WriteLine("Type any character to continue.")
Console.ReadKey()
Dim a As New RedNinja
a.swingSword() 'prints "Sword has been swung"
a.throwStar() 'prints "Star has been thrown"
Console.WriteLine("End of program - Type any key to exit")
Console.ReadKey()
End Sub
End Module
Dirty solution, if you simply must have multiple inheritance, is using something like dynamic proxies in Java.
But I guess you're probably programming in C#, and this is language agnostic question, so here goes language agnostic answer: check out composite and factory design patterns, that should give you some ideas.
Also, it might not be needed to pass everything in constructor. Check out IoC pattern as well.
With the following:
public class AClass
{
public ADependent Dependent { get; set; }
}
public class ADependent
{
public ADependent(AClass ownerValue) {}
}
with the following registrations...
builder.RegisterType<AClass>().PropertiesAutowired().InstancePerDependency();
builder.RegisterType<ADependent>().PropertiesAutowired().InstancePerDependency();
When I resolve an AClass, how do I make sure that 'ownerValue' is the instance of AClass being resolved, and not another instance? Thx
FOLLOW ON
The example above doesn't really catch the problem properly, which is how to wire up ADependent when registering when scanning... for example
public class AClass : IAClass
{
public IADependent Dependent { get; set; }
}
public class ADependent : IADependent
{
public ADependent(IAClass ownerValue) {}
}
// registrations...
builder.RegisterAssemblyTypes(assemblies)
.AssignableTo<IAClass>()
.As<IAClass>()
.InstancePerDependency()
.PropertiesAutowired();
builder.RegisterAssemblyTypes(assemblies)
.AssignableTo<IADependent>()
.As<IADependent>()
.InstancePerDependency()
.PropertiesAutowired();
The function I am looking for really is another relationship type like
public class ADependent : IADependent
{
public ADependent(OwnedBy<IAClass> ownerValue) {}
}
The OwnedBy indicates that ownerValue is the instance that caused ADependent to created. Does something like this make sense? It would certainly make wiring up UI components a breeze.
To extend Steven's approach, you can even Resolve() the second class, passing the first instance as a parameter:
builder.RegisterType<ADependent>();
builder.Register<AClass>(c =>
{
var a = new AClass();
a.Dependent = c.Resolve<ADependent>(TypedParameter.From(a));
return a;
});
You can register a lambda to do the trick:
builder.Register<AClass>(_ =>
{
var a = new AClass();
a.Dependent = new ADependent(a);
return a;
});