Is it possible to have an anonymous type implement an interface?
I've got a piece of code that I would like to work, but don't know how to do this.
I've had a couple of answers that either say no, or create a class that implements the interface construct new instances of that. This isn't really ideal, but I'm wondering if there is a mechanism to create a thin dynamic class on top of an interface which would make this simple.
public interface DummyInterface
{
string A { get; }
string B { get; }
}
public class DummySource
{
public string A { get; set; }
public string C { get; set; }
public string D { get; set; }
}
public class Test
{
public void WillThisWork()
{
var source = new DummySource[0];
var values = from value in source
select new
{
A = value.A,
B = value.C + "_" + value.D
};
DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(values);
}
public void DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(IEnumerable<DummyInterface> values)
{
foreach (var value in values)
{
Console.WriteLine("A = '{0}', B = '{1}'", value.A, value.B);
}
}
}
I've found an article Dynamic interface wrapping that describes one approach. Is this the best way of doing this?
This question is related to
c#
anonymous-types
Using Roslyn, you can dynamically create a class which inherits from an interface (or abstract class).
I use the following to create concrete classes from abstract classes.
In this example, AAnimal is an abstract class.
var personClass = typeof(AAnimal).CreateSubclass("Person");
Then you can instantiate some objects:
var person1 = Activator.CreateInstance(personClass);
var person2 = Activator.CreateInstance(personClass);
Without a doubt this won't work for every case, but it should be enough to get you started:
using Microsoft.CodeAnalysis;
using Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp;
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.IO;
using System.Linq;
using System.Reflection;
namespace Publisher
{
public static class Extensions
{
public static Type CreateSubclass(this Type baseType, string newClassName, string newNamespace = "Magic")
{
//todo: handle ref, out etc.
var concreteMethods = baseType
.GetMethods()
.Where(method => method.IsAbstract)
.Select(method =>
{
var parameters = method
.GetParameters()
.Select(param => $"{param.ParameterType.FullName} {param.Name}")
.ToString(", ");
var returnTypeStr = method.ReturnParameter.ParameterType.Name;
if (returnTypeStr.Equals("Void")) returnTypeStr = "void";
var methodString = @$"
public override {returnTypeStr} {method.Name}({parameters})
{{
Console.WriteLine(""{newNamespace}.{newClassName}.{method.Name}() was called"");
}}";
return methodString.Trim();
})
.ToList();
var concreteMethodsString = concreteMethods
.ToString(Environment.NewLine + Environment.NewLine);
var classCode = @$"
using System;
namespace {newNamespace}
{{
public class {newClassName}: {baseType.FullName}
{{
public {newClassName}()
{{
}}
{concreteMethodsString}
}}
}}
".Trim();
classCode = FormatUsingRoslyn(classCode);
/*
var assemblies = new[]
{
MetadataReference.CreateFromFile(typeof(object).Assembly.Location),
MetadataReference.CreateFromFile(baseType.Assembly.Location),
};
*/
var assemblies = AppDomain
.CurrentDomain
.GetAssemblies()
.Where(a => !string.IsNullOrEmpty(a.Location))
.Select(a => MetadataReference.CreateFromFile(a.Location))
.ToArray();
var syntaxTree = CSharpSyntaxTree.ParseText(classCode);
var compilation = CSharpCompilation
.Create(newNamespace)
.AddSyntaxTrees(syntaxTree)
.AddReferences(assemblies)
.WithOptions(new CSharpCompilationOptions(OutputKind.DynamicallyLinkedLibrary));
using (var ms = new MemoryStream())
{
var result = compilation.Emit(ms);
//compilation.Emit($"C:\\Temp\\{newNamespace}.dll");
if (result.Success)
{
ms.Seek(0, SeekOrigin.Begin);
Assembly assembly = Assembly.Load(ms.ToArray());
var newTypeFullName = $"{newNamespace}.{newClassName}";
var type = assembly.GetType(newTypeFullName);
return type;
}
else
{
IEnumerable<Diagnostic> failures = result.Diagnostics.Where(diagnostic =>
diagnostic.IsWarningAsError ||
diagnostic.Severity == DiagnosticSeverity.Error);
foreach (Diagnostic diagnostic in failures)
{
Console.Error.WriteLine("{0}: {1}", diagnostic.Id, diagnostic.GetMessage());
}
return null;
}
}
}
public static string ToString(this IEnumerable<string> list, string separator)
{
string result = string.Join(separator, list);
return result;
}
public static string FormatUsingRoslyn(string csCode)
{
var tree = CSharpSyntaxTree.ParseText(csCode);
var root = tree.GetRoot().NormalizeWhitespace();
var result = root.ToFullString();
return result;
}
}
}
The best solution is just not to use anonymous classes.
public class Test
{
class DummyInterfaceImplementor : IDummyInterface
{
public string A { get; set; }
public string B { get; set; }
}
public void WillThisWork()
{
var source = new DummySource[0];
var values = from value in source
select new DummyInterfaceImplementor()
{
A = value.A,
B = value.C + "_" + value.D
};
DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(values.Cast<IDummyInterface>());
}
public void DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(IEnumerable<IDummyInterface> values)
{
foreach (var value in values)
{
Console.WriteLine("A = '{0}', B = '{1}'", value.A, value.B);
}
}
}
Note that you need to cast the result of the query to the type of the interface. There might be a better way to do it, but I couldn't find it.
No; an anonymous type can't be made to do anything except have a few properties. You will need to create your own type. I didn't read the linked article in depth, but it looks like it uses Reflection.Emit to create new types on the fly; but if you limit discussion to things within C# itself you can't do what you want.
While the answers in the thread are all true enough, I cannot resist the urge to tell you that it in fact is possible to have an anonymous class implement an interface, even though it takes a bit of creative cheating to get there.
Back in 2008 I was writing a custom LINQ provider for my then employer, and at one point I needed to be able to tell "my" anonymous classes from other anonymous ones, which meant having them implement an interface that I could use to type check them. The way we solved it was by using aspects (we used PostSharp), to add the interface implementation directly in the IL. So, in fact, letting anonymous classes implement interfaces is doable, you just need to bend the rules slightly to get there.
No; an anonymous type can't be made to do anything except have a few properties. You will need to create your own type. I didn't read the linked article in depth, but it looks like it uses Reflection.Emit to create new types on the fly; but if you limit discussion to things within C# itself you can't do what you want.
Anonymous types can implement interfaces via a dynamic proxy.
I wrote an extension method on GitHub and a blog post http://wblo.gs/feE to support this scenario.
The method can be used like this:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var developer = new { Name = "Jason Bowers" };
PrintDeveloperName(developer.DuckCast<IDeveloper>());
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void PrintDeveloperName(IDeveloper developer)
{
Console.WriteLine(developer.Name);
}
}
public interface IDeveloper
{
string Name { get; }
}
Another option is to create a single, concrete implementing class that takes lambdas in the constructor.
public interface DummyInterface
{
string A { get; }
string B { get; }
}
// "Generic" implementing class
public class Dummy : DummyInterface
{
private readonly Func<string> _getA;
private readonly Func<string> _getB;
public Dummy(Func<string> getA, Func<string> getB)
{
_getA = getA;
_getB = getB;
}
public string A => _getA();
public string B => _getB();
}
public class DummySource
{
public string A { get; set; }
public string C { get; set; }
public string D { get; set; }
}
public class Test
{
public void WillThisWork()
{
var source = new DummySource[0];
var values = from value in source
select new Dummy // Syntax changes slightly
(
getA: () => value.A,
getB: () => value.C + "_" + value.D
);
DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(values);
}
public void DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(IEnumerable<DummyInterface> values)
{
foreach (var value in values)
{
Console.WriteLine("A = '{0}', B = '{1}'", value.A, value.B);
}
}
}
If all you are ever going to do is convert DummySource to DummyInterface, then it would be simpler to just have one class that takes a DummySource in the constructor and implements the interface.
But, if you need to convert many types to DummyInterface, this is much less boiler plate.
The answer to the question specifically asked is no. But have you been looking at mocking frameworks? I use MOQ but there's millions of them out there and they allow you to implement/stub (partially or fully) interfaces in-line. Eg.
public void ThisWillWork()
{
var source = new DummySource[0];
var mock = new Mock<DummyInterface>();
mock.SetupProperty(m => m.A, source.Select(s => s.A));
mock.SetupProperty(m => m.B, source.Select(s => s.C + "_" + s.D));
DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(mock.Object);
}
Casting anonymous types to interfaces has been something I've wanted for a while but unfortunately the current implementation forces you to have an implementation of that interface.
The best solution around it is having some type of dynamic proxy that creates the implementation for you. Using the excellent LinFu project you can replace
select new
{
A = value.A,
B = value.C + "_" + value.D
};
with
select new DynamicObject(new
{
A = value.A,
B = value.C + "_" + value.D
}).CreateDuck<DummyInterface>();
Anonymous types can implement interfaces via a dynamic proxy.
I wrote an extension method on GitHub and a blog post http://wblo.gs/feE to support this scenario.
The method can be used like this:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var developer = new { Name = "Jason Bowers" };
PrintDeveloperName(developer.DuckCast<IDeveloper>());
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void PrintDeveloperName(IDeveloper developer)
{
Console.WriteLine(developer.Name);
}
}
public interface IDeveloper
{
string Name { get; }
}
Casting anonymous types to interfaces has been something I've wanted for a while but unfortunately the current implementation forces you to have an implementation of that interface.
The best solution around it is having some type of dynamic proxy that creates the implementation for you. Using the excellent LinFu project you can replace
select new
{
A = value.A,
B = value.C + "_" + value.D
};
with
select new DynamicObject(new
{
A = value.A,
B = value.C + "_" + value.D
}).CreateDuck<DummyInterface>();
The best solution is just not to use anonymous classes.
public class Test
{
class DummyInterfaceImplementor : IDummyInterface
{
public string A { get; set; }
public string B { get; set; }
}
public void WillThisWork()
{
var source = new DummySource[0];
var values = from value in source
select new DummyInterfaceImplementor()
{
A = value.A,
B = value.C + "_" + value.D
};
DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(values.Cast<IDummyInterface>());
}
public void DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(IEnumerable<IDummyInterface> values)
{
foreach (var value in values)
{
Console.WriteLine("A = '{0}', B = '{1}'", value.A, value.B);
}
}
}
Note that you need to cast the result of the query to the type of the interface. There might be a better way to do it, but I couldn't find it.
The answer to the question specifically asked is no. But have you been looking at mocking frameworks? I use MOQ but there's millions of them out there and they allow you to implement/stub (partially or fully) interfaces in-line. Eg.
public void ThisWillWork()
{
var source = new DummySource[0];
var mock = new Mock<DummyInterface>();
mock.SetupProperty(m => m.A, source.Select(s => s.A));
mock.SetupProperty(m => m.B, source.Select(s => s.C + "_" + s.D));
DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(mock.Object);
}
The best solution is just not to use anonymous classes.
public class Test
{
class DummyInterfaceImplementor : IDummyInterface
{
public string A { get; set; }
public string B { get; set; }
}
public void WillThisWork()
{
var source = new DummySource[0];
var values = from value in source
select new DummyInterfaceImplementor()
{
A = value.A,
B = value.C + "_" + value.D
};
DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(values.Cast<IDummyInterface>());
}
public void DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(IEnumerable<IDummyInterface> values)
{
foreach (var value in values)
{
Console.WriteLine("A = '{0}', B = '{1}'", value.A, value.B);
}
}
}
Note that you need to cast the result of the query to the type of the interface. There might be a better way to do it, but I couldn't find it.
Another option is to create a single, concrete implementing class that takes lambdas in the constructor.
public interface DummyInterface
{
string A { get; }
string B { get; }
}
// "Generic" implementing class
public class Dummy : DummyInterface
{
private readonly Func<string> _getA;
private readonly Func<string> _getB;
public Dummy(Func<string> getA, Func<string> getB)
{
_getA = getA;
_getB = getB;
}
public string A => _getA();
public string B => _getB();
}
public class DummySource
{
public string A { get; set; }
public string C { get; set; }
public string D { get; set; }
}
public class Test
{
public void WillThisWork()
{
var source = new DummySource[0];
var values = from value in source
select new Dummy // Syntax changes slightly
(
getA: () => value.A,
getB: () => value.C + "_" + value.D
);
DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(values);
}
public void DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(IEnumerable<DummyInterface> values)
{
foreach (var value in values)
{
Console.WriteLine("A = '{0}', B = '{1}'", value.A, value.B);
}
}
}
If all you are ever going to do is convert DummySource to DummyInterface, then it would be simpler to just have one class that takes a DummySource in the constructor and implements the interface.
But, if you need to convert many types to DummyInterface, this is much less boiler plate.
While the answers in the thread are all true enough, I cannot resist the urge to tell you that it in fact is possible to have an anonymous class implement an interface, even though it takes a bit of creative cheating to get there.
Back in 2008 I was writing a custom LINQ provider for my then employer, and at one point I needed to be able to tell "my" anonymous classes from other anonymous ones, which meant having them implement an interface that I could use to type check them. The way we solved it was by using aspects (we used PostSharp), to add the interface implementation directly in the IL. So, in fact, letting anonymous classes implement interfaces is doable, you just need to bend the rules slightly to get there.
The best solution is just not to use anonymous classes.
public class Test
{
class DummyInterfaceImplementor : IDummyInterface
{
public string A { get; set; }
public string B { get; set; }
}
public void WillThisWork()
{
var source = new DummySource[0];
var values = from value in source
select new DummyInterfaceImplementor()
{
A = value.A,
B = value.C + "_" + value.D
};
DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(values.Cast<IDummyInterface>());
}
public void DoSomethingWithDummyInterface(IEnumerable<IDummyInterface> values)
{
foreach (var value in values)
{
Console.WriteLine("A = '{0}', B = '{1}'", value.A, value.B);
}
}
}
Note that you need to cast the result of the query to the type of the interface. There might be a better way to do it, but I couldn't find it.
No; an anonymous type can't be made to do anything except have a few properties. You will need to create your own type. I didn't read the linked article in depth, but it looks like it uses Reflection.Emit to create new types on the fly; but if you limit discussion to things within C# itself you can't do what you want.
Using Roslyn, you can dynamically create a class which inherits from an interface (or abstract class).
I use the following to create concrete classes from abstract classes.
In this example, AAnimal is an abstract class.
var personClass = typeof(AAnimal).CreateSubclass("Person");
Then you can instantiate some objects:
var person1 = Activator.CreateInstance(personClass);
var person2 = Activator.CreateInstance(personClass);
Without a doubt this won't work for every case, but it should be enough to get you started:
using Microsoft.CodeAnalysis;
using Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp;
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.IO;
using System.Linq;
using System.Reflection;
namespace Publisher
{
public static class Extensions
{
public static Type CreateSubclass(this Type baseType, string newClassName, string newNamespace = "Magic")
{
//todo: handle ref, out etc.
var concreteMethods = baseType
.GetMethods()
.Where(method => method.IsAbstract)
.Select(method =>
{
var parameters = method
.GetParameters()
.Select(param => $"{param.ParameterType.FullName} {param.Name}")
.ToString(", ");
var returnTypeStr = method.ReturnParameter.ParameterType.Name;
if (returnTypeStr.Equals("Void")) returnTypeStr = "void";
var methodString = @$"
public override {returnTypeStr} {method.Name}({parameters})
{{
Console.WriteLine(""{newNamespace}.{newClassName}.{method.Name}() was called"");
}}";
return methodString.Trim();
})
.ToList();
var concreteMethodsString = concreteMethods
.ToString(Environment.NewLine + Environment.NewLine);
var classCode = @$"
using System;
namespace {newNamespace}
{{
public class {newClassName}: {baseType.FullName}
{{
public {newClassName}()
{{
}}
{concreteMethodsString}
}}
}}
".Trim();
classCode = FormatUsingRoslyn(classCode);
/*
var assemblies = new[]
{
MetadataReference.CreateFromFile(typeof(object).Assembly.Location),
MetadataReference.CreateFromFile(baseType.Assembly.Location),
};
*/
var assemblies = AppDomain
.CurrentDomain
.GetAssemblies()
.Where(a => !string.IsNullOrEmpty(a.Location))
.Select(a => MetadataReference.CreateFromFile(a.Location))
.ToArray();
var syntaxTree = CSharpSyntaxTree.ParseText(classCode);
var compilation = CSharpCompilation
.Create(newNamespace)
.AddSyntaxTrees(syntaxTree)
.AddReferences(assemblies)
.WithOptions(new CSharpCompilationOptions(OutputKind.DynamicallyLinkedLibrary));
using (var ms = new MemoryStream())
{
var result = compilation.Emit(ms);
//compilation.Emit($"C:\\Temp\\{newNamespace}.dll");
if (result.Success)
{
ms.Seek(0, SeekOrigin.Begin);
Assembly assembly = Assembly.Load(ms.ToArray());
var newTypeFullName = $"{newNamespace}.{newClassName}";
var type = assembly.GetType(newTypeFullName);
return type;
}
else
{
IEnumerable<Diagnostic> failures = result.Diagnostics.Where(diagnostic =>
diagnostic.IsWarningAsError ||
diagnostic.Severity == DiagnosticSeverity.Error);
foreach (Diagnostic diagnostic in failures)
{
Console.Error.WriteLine("{0}: {1}", diagnostic.Id, diagnostic.GetMessage());
}
return null;
}
}
}
public static string ToString(this IEnumerable<string> list, string separator)
{
string result = string.Join(separator, list);
return result;
}
public static string FormatUsingRoslyn(string csCode)
{
var tree = CSharpSyntaxTree.ParseText(csCode);
var root = tree.GetRoot().NormalizeWhitespace();
var result = root.ToFullString();
return result;
}
}
}
No; an anonymous type can't be made to do anything except have a few properties. You will need to create your own type. I didn't read the linked article in depth, but it looks like it uses Reflection.Emit to create new types on the fly; but if you limit discussion to things within C# itself you can't do what you want.
Casting anonymous types to interfaces has been something I've wanted for a while but unfortunately the current implementation forces you to have an implementation of that interface.
The best solution around it is having some type of dynamic proxy that creates the implementation for you. Using the excellent LinFu project you can replace
select new
{
A = value.A,
B = value.C + "_" + value.D
};
with
select new DynamicObject(new
{
A = value.A,
B = value.C + "_" + value.D
}).CreateDuck<DummyInterface>();
Source: Stackoverflow.com