I'm getting the Code Analysis Warning CA1303: Microsoft.Globalization, "Do not pass literals as localized parameters" when I use a function like this:
Logger.Log("blabla");
I use this call in lots of places, but don't want to get the warning for this calls and still get it for other calls using literals as parameters, so disabling the warning in the project properties is not an option.
I can disable the warning for concrete calls with
[SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Globalization", "CA1303:DoNotPassLiteralsAsLocalizedParameters")]
but I would need to use it in every call to Logger.Log().
Is there a way to mark the Log() function to not trigger this warning?
class Logger{
[Don't trigger CA1303 on calls to this function]
static void Log(String message){
...
}
}
This can be avoided by decorating either the method or the parameter with a [System.ComponentModel.LocalizableAttribute][1] that specifies that it is not localizable. e.g.:
public static void Log([Localizable(false)] string message)
{
//...
}
Related
I want to pass multiple optional objects in function as varags ?
Optional<ab> ab = Optional.of(ab);
Optional<cd> cd = Optional.of(cd);
Optional<dc> dc = Optional.of(dc);
Optional<ba> ba = Optional.of(ba);
data(ab, cd, dc, ba);
data(Optional<Object>... objects){...}
I am getting error if i don this, any suggestion how can be proceed?
It isn’t related to varargs. You can’t pass an Optional<SomeSpecificType> where an Optional<Object> is expected. They are not compatible.
Assume just (without varargs):
static void data(Optional<Object> object) {
// …
}
Now if we try
Optional<String> ab = Optional.of("");
data(ab);
In my Eclipse I get this error message:
The method data(Optional<Object>) in the type MyClass is not
applicable for the arguments (Optional<String>)
Java generics are defined with this restriction. You also cannot pass, for example a List<String> where a List<Object> is expected.
You can overcome the limitation by declaring the method generic too:
static <T> void data(Optional<T> object) {
// …
}
Or just like this:
static void data(Optional<?> object) {
// …
}
With any of these two declarations the call above is OK.
BTW, #HadiJ is correct in the comment: Optional is meant for return values for from methods that may or may not be there. They have very few other good uses, and as parameters is not one of them. It seems to me that for your use case you should just pass the arguments that are there and leave out those that aren’t. The your data method may receive a longer or shorter argument array, but will just have to handle all elements of the array without caring about Optional. And passing String, Integer, LocalDate, etc, to a method declared void data(Object... objs) is straightforward and poses no problem.
I have a lot of native classes that accept some form of callbacks, usually a boost::signals2::slot-object.
But for simplicity, lets assume the class:
class Test
{
// set a callback that will be invoked at an unspecified time
// will be removed when Test class dies
void SetCallback(std::function<void(bool)> callback);
}
Now I have a managed class that wraps this native class, and I would like to pass a callback method to the native class.
public ref class TestWrapper
{
public:
TestWrapper()
: _native(new Test())
{
}
~TestWrapper()
{
delete _native;
}
private:
void CallbackMethod(bool value);
Test* _native;
};
now usually what I would do is the following:
Declare a method in the managed wrapper that is the callback I want.
Create a managed delegate object to this method.
Use GetFunctionPointerForDelegate to obtain a pointer to a function
Cast the pointer to the correct signature
Pass the pointer to the native class as callback.
I also keep the delegate alive since I fear it will be garbage collected and I will have a dangling function pointer (is this assumption correct?)
this looks kind of like this:
_managedDelegateMember = gcnew ManagedEventHandler(this, &TestWrapper::Callback);
System::IntPtr stubPointer = Marshal::GetFunctionPointerForDelegate(_managedDelegateMember);
UnmanagedEventHandlerFunctionPointer functionPointer = static_cast<UnmanagedEventHandlerFunctionPointer >(stubPointer.ToPointer());
_native->SetCallback(functionPointer);
I Would like to reduce the amount of code and not have to perform any casts nor declare any delegate types. I want to use a lambda expression with no delegate.
This is my new approach:
static void SetCallbackInternal(TestWrapper^ self)
{
gcroot<TestWrapper^> instance(self);
self->_native->SetCallback([instance](bool value)
{
// access managed class from within native code
instance->Value = value;
}
);
}
Declare a static method that accepts this in order to be able to use C++11 lambda.
Use gcroot to capture the managed class in the lambda and extend its lifetime for as long as the lambda is alive.
No casts, no additional delegate type nor members, minimal extra allocation.
Question:
Is this approach safe? I'm fearing I'm missing something and that this can cause a memory leak / undefined behavior in some unanticipated scenario.
EDIT:
this approach leads to a MethodAccessException when the lambda calls a private method of its managed wrapper class. seems like this method must at least be internal.
I think that you should not be using gcroot but a shared pointer. Shared pointer are made to keep an object alive as long as someone is using it.
You should also use a more c++ style in your whole code by replacing raw pointer with smart pointer and template instead of std::function (a lambda can be stored in a compile time type).
For example using the code you posted :
class Test
{
// set a callback that will be invoked at an unspecified time
// will be removed when Test class dies
template <class T>
void SetCallback(T callback); // Replaced std::function<void(bool)> with T
}
public ref class TestWrapper
{
public:
TestWrapper()
: _native()
{}
private:
void CallbackMethod(bool value);
std::unique_ptr<Test> _native; // Replaced Test* with std::unique_ptr<Test>
};
After replacing the old method with this new method all over my code base, I can report that it is safe, more succinct, and as far as I can tell, no memory leaks occur.
Hence I highly recommend this method for passing managed callbacks to native code.
The only caveats I found were the following:
Using lambda expressions forces the use of a static method as a helper for the callback registration. This is kinda hacky. It is unclear to me why the C++-CLI compiler does no permit lambda expressions within standard methods.
The method invoked by the lambda must be marked internal so to not throw MethodAccessException upon invocation. This is sort of make sense as it is not called within the class scope itself. but still, delegates / lambdas with C# don't have that limitation.
I have VS2013 with Code Analysis turned on. I want to suppress one type of message globally, so I have following code in GlobalSuppressions.cs
[assembly: System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Naming", "CA1707:IdentifiersShouldNotContainUnderscores", Scope = "namespace", Target = "MyProject.MyNamespace")]
But my function name contains underscore still got warned/errored by VS.
[TestMethod()]
public void Do_Something_Successfully_Test()
{
}
Any idea why?
To use a made up example, suppose I have a form.submit() method and I want to validate the form before submission. Should the validation go inside the method or outside of it in the calling code?
If I put the validation inside the method then I can be assured that it is always checked and not worry about someone calling the method without the conditions being met. However, for someone reading the calling code, it may not be obvious that the validation is happening, leading them to checking it twice by adding their own checks in the calling code. If all they see is form.submit() in the calling code, they may not realize it's doing the validation, leading them to duplicate it in the calling code by adding if-conditions surrounding the method call.
What is the proper way to handle this?
public void submit() {
if(this.isValid()) {
// do submission
}
}
...
form.submit();
OR
public void submit() {
// do submission
}
...
if(form.isValid())
form.submit();
public void validateAndSubmit() {
if(this.isValid()) {
this.submitWhenValid()
}
}
public void submitWhenValid() {
// do submission
}
...
form.validateAndSubmit();
I've just modified a method for handling my DDD commands (previously it had no return type):
public static CommandResult<TReturn> Execute<TCommand, TReturn>(TCommand command)
where TCommand : IDomainCommand
{
var handler = IoCFactory.GetInstance<ICommandHandler<TCommand, TReturn>>();
return handler.Handle(command);
}
The method is fine, and does what I want it to do, however using it creates some fugly code:
CommandResult<Customer> result =
DomainCommands.Execute<CustomerCreateCommand, Customer>
(
new CustomerCreateCommand(message)
);
Before I added the Customer return type TReturn, it was nice and tidy and the method could infer the types from its usage. However that's no longer possible.
Is there any way using any new C# features that I could rewrite the above to make it tidier, i.e. using Func, Action, Expression, etc? I'm probably expecting the impossible, but I'm getting fed up of writing so much code to just call a single method that used to be very simple.
One option to reduce it slightly is to have a static generic type for the type parameter that can't be inferred, allowing you to have a generic method with just one type parameter that can be inferred:
public static class DomainCommands<TReturn>
{
public static CommandResult<TReturn> Execute<TCommand>(TCommand command)
where TCommand : IDomainCommand
{
var handler = IoCFactory.GetInstance<ICommandHandler<TCommand, TReturn>>();
return handler.Handle(command);
}
}
Then:
var result = DomainCommands<Customer>.Execute(new CustomerCreateCommand(msg));
It's not much nicer, but it's slightly better. Of course, if the domain command type itself could be generic, that might help - so CustomerCreateCommand would implement IDomainCommand<Customer> for example. If you still needed a nongeneric IDomainCommand, you could make IDomainCommand<T> derive from IDomainCommand.