Problem
There aren’t enough questions about creating immutable objects… so why not try it again with another approach. This time, it’s a builder that maps properties to constructor parameters. Properties are selected via the With method that also expects a new value for the parameter. Constructor parameters must match properties so it’s primarily for DTOs that follow this pattern. Build tries to find that constructor and creates the object.
// I need this primarily for the left-join of optional parameters.
internal class IgnoreCase : IEquatable<string>
{
public string Value { get; set; }
public bool Equals(string other) => StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.Equals(Value, other);
public override bool Equals(object obj) => obj is IgnoreCase ic && Equals(ic.Value);
public override int GetHashCode() => StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.GetHashCode(Value);
public static explicit operator IgnoreCase(string value) => new IgnoreCase { Value = value };
}
public class ImmutableBuilder<T>
{
private readonly IList<(MemberExpression Selector, object Value)> _selectors = new List<(MemberExpression Selector, object Value)>();
public ImmutableBuilder<T> With<TProperty>(Expression<Func<T, TProperty>> selector, TProperty value)
{
_selectors.Add(((MemberExpression)selector.Body, value));
return this;
}
public T Build()
{
var ctors =
from ctor in typeof(T).GetConstructors()
let parameters = ctor.GetParameters()
// Join parameters and values by parameter order.
// The ctor requires them sorted but they might be initialized in any order.
let requiredParameterValues =
from parameter in parameters.Where(p => !p.IsOptional)
join selector in _selectors on (IgnoreCase)parameter.Name equals (IgnoreCase)selector.Selector.Member.Name
select selector.Value
// Get optional parameters if any.
let optionalParameterValues =
from parameter in parameters.Where(p => p.IsOptional)
join selector in _selectors on (IgnoreCase)parameter.Name equals (IgnoreCase)selector.Selector.Member.Name into s
from selector in s.DefaultIfEmpty()
select selector.Value
// Make sure all required parameters are specified.
where requiredParameterValues.Count() == parameters.Where(p => !p.IsOptional).Count()
select (ctor, requiredParameterValues, optionalParameterValues);
var theOne = ctors.Single();
return (T)theOne.ctor.Invoke(theOne.requiredParameterValues.Concat(theOne.optionalParameterValues).ToArray());
}
}
public static class Immutable<T>
{
public static ImmutableBuilder<T> Builder => new ImmutableBuilder<T>();
}
In case we already have an immutable type and want to modify it by changing just some values, the ImmutableHelper can be used. It also provides the With method expecting a new value. Then matches it and other properties with the constructor and uses origianl values as defaults and for the specified property the new value.
public static class ImmutableHelper
{
public static T With<T, TProperty>(this T obj, Expression<Func<T, TProperty>> selector, TProperty value)
{
var comparer = StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase;
var propertyName = ((MemberExpression)selector.Body).Member.Name;
var properties = typeof(T).GetProperties();
var propertyNames =
properties
.Select(x => x.Name)
// A hash-set is convenient for name matching in the next step.
.ToImmutableHashSet(comparer);
// Find the constructor that matches property names.
var ctors =
from ctor in typeof(T).GetConstructors()
where propertyNames.IsProperSupersetOf(ctor.GetParameters().Select(x => x.Name))
select ctor;
var theOne = ctors.Single(); // There can be only one match.
var parameters =
from parameter in theOne.GetParameters()
join property in properties on (IgnoreCase)parameter.Name equals (IgnoreCase)property.Name
// They definitely match so no comparer is necessary.
// Use either the new value or the current one.
select property.Name == propertyName ? value : property.GetValue(obj);
return (T)theOne.Invoke(parameters.ToArray());
}
}
Example
This is how it can be used:
void Main()
{
var person =
Immutable<Person>
.Builder
.With(x => x.FirstName, "Jane")
.With(x => x.LastName, null)
//.With(x => x.NickName, "JD") // Optional
.Build();
person.With(x => x.LastName, "Doe").Dump();
}
public class Person
{
public Person(string firstName, string lastName, string nickName = null)
{
FirstName = firstName;
LastName = lastName;
NickName = nickName;
}
// This ctor should confuse the API.
public Person(string other) { }
public string FirstName { get; }
public string LastName { get; }
public string NickName { get; }
// This property should confuse the API too.
public string FullName => $"{LastName}, {FirstName}";
}
What do you say? Crazy? Insane? I like it? Let’s improve it?
Solution
You use IList<> where you should use ICollection<>. I’ve rarely encountered a scenario where IList<> actually needs to be used. The ICollection<> interface has most of the list’s methods, but without everything related to indexing, which you don’t use anyway. It’s not that big of a deal, but I think it’s good knowledge.
When you search for constructor parameters, I think you should match on parameter types in addition of parameter names. The reason behind this is that this that parameter types with names are guaranteed to be unique, where parameter names could not. For example (it’s not a great one, but it’s a case that would make your code potentially crash)
class Foobar
{
public Foobar(string a, int b)
{
}
public Foobar(string a, double b)
{
}
}
One problem I see with the Immutable<T> class is that I wouldn’t expect a static property to return a new reference every time I call it. I’ve been trying to find another example in the .NET framework of when this happens, and… I couldn’t. I would change it for a method named something like CreateBuilder() or something like that, this way it’s clear that we are using a new builder every time we call the method.
I think the Immutable<> type is misleading. When seeing this, I’d expect being able to use it to make some mutable type immutable (however that would be done), but that’s not what it does. As a matter of fact, most of your code doesn’t rely on the T type to be immutable, which makes me think a tweak or two could make your tool work on mutable types too. In that sense, claiming it’s an ImmutableBuilder is kind of wrong, it’s a builder that works on immutable types, but on mutable types too.
According to comments, your With method in ImmutableHelper creates a copy of the object with a changed parameter, which is alright considering it doesn’t modify the immutable type. What I think could be improved is a similar method with the signature static T With<T, TProperty>(this T obj, IEnmerable<(Expression<Func<T, TProperty>> selector, TProperty value)>), so that if you want to modify more than one field in the object you could do so without having to create a copy of the object every time.
(self-answer)
The idea for not-using the constructor is indeed insane but… since it’s possible I kept it in the new version too. I changed the name of this tool to DtoUpdater. It now can collect updates for multiple properties that at the end have to be Commited. Parameters are now matched with members not only by name but also by type and it picks the constructor with the most parameters ana matching properties. I created this helper for updating simple DTOs and they usually have only one constructor initializing all properties so I think its current complexity is sufficient for most use-cases.
This version also no longer forces the user to specify all values that a constructor requires. I think that this new functionality now makes this utility in certain situations more useful than using the construtor… if it allows default values of course.
public static class DtoUpdater
{
public static DtoUpdater<T> For<T>() => new DtoUpdater<T>(default);
public static DtoUpdater<T> Update<T>(this T obj) => new DtoUpdater<T>(obj);
}
public class DtoUpdater<T>
{
private readonly T _obj;
private readonly ICollection<(MemberInfo Member, object Value)> _updates = new List<(MemberInfo Member, object Value)>();
public DtoUpdater(T obj) => _obj = obj;
public DtoUpdater<T> With<TProperty>(Expression<Func<T, TProperty>> update, TProperty value)
{
_updates.Add((((MemberExpression)update.Body).Member, value));
return this;
}
public T Commit()
{
var members =
from member in typeof(T).GetMembers(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance).Where(m => m is PropertyInfo || m is FieldInfo)
select (member.Name, Type: (member as PropertyInfo)?.PropertyType ?? (member as FieldInfo)?.FieldType);
members = members.ToList();
// Find the ctor that matches most properties.
var ctors =
from ctor in typeof(T).GetConstructors()
let parameters = ctor.GetParameters()
from parameter in parameters
join member in members
on
new
{
Name = parameter.Name.AsIgnoreCase(),
Type = parameter.ParameterType
}
equals
new
{
Name = member.Name.AsIgnoreCase(),
Type = member.Type
}
orderby parameters.Length descending
select ctor;
var theOne = ctors.First();
// Join parameters and values by parameter order.
// The ctor requires them sorted but they might be initialized in any order.
var parameterValues =
from parameter in theOne.GetParameters()
join update in _updates on parameter.Name.AsIgnoreCase() equals update.Member.Name.AsIgnoreCase() into x
from update in x.DefaultIfEmpty()
select update.Value ?? GetMemberValueOrDefault(parameter.Name);
return (T)theOne.Invoke(parameterValues.ToArray());
}
private object GetMemberValueOrDefault(string memberName)
{
if (_obj == null) return default;
// There is for sure only one member with that name.
switch (typeof(T).GetMembers(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance).Single(m => m.Name.AsIgnoreCase().Equals(memberName)))
{
case PropertyInfo p: return p.GetValue(_obj);
case FieldInfo f: return f.GetValue(_obj);
default: return default; // Makes the compiler very happy.
}
}
}
public static class StringExtensions
{
public static IEquatable<string> AsIgnoreCase(this string str) => (IgnoreCase)str;
private class IgnoreCase : IEquatable<string>
{
private IgnoreCase(string value) => Value = value;
private string Value { get; }
public bool Equals(string other) => StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.Equals(Value, other);
public override bool Equals(object obj) => obj is IgnoreCase ic && Equals(ic.Value);
public override int GetHashCode() => StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.GetHashCode(Value);
public static explicit operator IgnoreCase(string value) => new IgnoreCase(value);
}
}
I hid the IgnoreCase helper behind a new extension:
public static class StringExtensions
{
public static IEquatable<string> AsIgnoreCase(this string str) => (IgnoreCase)str;
private class IgnoreCase : IEquatable<string>
{
private IgnoreCase(string value) => Value = value;
private string Value { get; }
public bool Equals(string other) => StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.Equals(Value, other);
public override bool Equals(object obj) => obj is IgnoreCase ic && Equals(ic.Value);
public override int GetHashCode() => StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.GetHashCode(Value);
public static explicit operator IgnoreCase(string value) => new IgnoreCase(value);
}
}
The new API can now be used like this:
public class DtoBuilderTest
{
[Fact]
public void Can_create_and_update_object()
{
var person =
DtoUpdater
.For<Person>()
.With(x => x.FirstName, "Jane")
.With(x => x.LastName, null)
//.With(x => x.NickName, "JD") // Optional
.Commit();
Assert.Equal("Jane", person.FirstName);
Assert.Null(person.LastName);
Assert.Null(person.NickName);
person =
person
.Update()
.With(x => x.LastName, "Doe")
.With(x => x.NickName, "JD")
.Commit();
Assert.Equal("Jane", person.FirstName);
Assert.Equal("Doe", person.LastName);
Assert.Equal("JD", person.NickName);
}
private class Person
{
public Person(string firstName, string lastName, string nickName = null)
{
FirstName = firstName;
LastName = lastName;
NickName = nickName;
}
// This ctor should confuse the API.
public Person(string other) { }
public string FirstName { get; }
public string LastName { get; }
public string NickName { get; set; }
// This property should confuse the API too.
public string FullName => $"{LastName}, {FirstName}";
}
}