Every now and then you think "x should be easy" - and it isn't. I had one of those situations this morning. Something I thought would take 5 minutes had me still pondering 30 minutes later. I finally cracked it (with the help of a colleague - thanks Marc!) and I wanted to note down what I did since I'm sure to forget this.
In our project we had a very simple validation class. It looked a bit like this:
I wanted to take this class and extend it to have a constructor which allowed me to specify a Type and subsequently an Expression of that Type that allowed me to specify a property. 10 points if you read the last sentence and understood it without reading it a second time.
Code is a better illustration; take a look below. I wanted to go from #1 to #2:
"Why?" I hear you ask. Well we had a swathe of statements in the code which test each property for a problem and would create a
FieldValidation with the very same property name if one was found. There's no real problem with that but I'm a man that likes to refactor. Property names change and I didn't want to have to remember to manually go through each
FieldValidation keeping these in line. If I was using the actual property name to drive the creation of my
FieldValidations then that problem disappears. And I like that.
Well it's this:
As you can see we have taken the original FieldValidation class and added in a generic constructor which instead of taking
string fieldName as a first argument it takes
Expression<Func<T, object>> expression. LINQ's Expression magic is used to determine the supplied property name which is smashing. If you were wondering, the first
MemberExpression code is used for reference types. The
UnaryExpression wrapping a
MemberExpression code is used for value types. A good explanation of this can be found here.
My colleague directed me to this crucial StackOverflow answer which provided some much needed direction when I was thrashing. And that's it; we're done, home free.