I'm using Code Contracts in C# 4.0. I'm applying the usual static method chaining to simulate optional parameters (I know C# 4.0 supports optional parameters but I really don't want to use them).
The thing is that my contract requirements are executed twice (or possibly the number of chained overloads I'd implement) if I call the Init(string , string[])
method -- an obvious effect from the sample source code below. This can be expensive, especially due to relatively expensive requirements like the File.Exists
I use.
public static void Init(string configurationPath, string[] mappingAssemblies)
{
// The static contract checker 'makes' me put these here as well as
// in the overload below.
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(configurationPath != null, "configurationPath");
Contract.Requires<ArgumentException>(configurationPath.Length > 0, "configurationPath is an empty string.");
Contract.Requires<FileNotFoundException>(File.Exists(configurationPath), configurationPath);
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(mappingAssemblies != null, "mappingAssemblies");
Contract.Requires<FileNotFoundException>(Contract.ForAll<string>(mappingAssemblies, (n) => File.Exists(n)));
Init(configurationPath, mappingAssemblies, null);
}
public static void Init(string configurationPath, string[] mappingAssemblies, string optionalArgument)
{
// This is the main implementation of Init and all calls to chained
// overloads end up here.
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(configurationPath 开发者_运维百科!= null, "configurationPath");
Contract.Requires<ArgumentException>(configurationPath.Length > 0, "configurationPath is an empty string.");
Contract.Requires<FileNotFoundException>(File.Exists(configurationPath), configurationPath);
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(mappingAssemblies != null, "mappingAssemblies");
Contract.Requires<FileNotFoundException>(Contract.ForAll<string>(mappingAssemblies, (n) => File.Exists(n)));
//...
}
If however, I remove the requirements from that method, the static checker complains that the requirements of the Init(string, string[], string)
overload are not met. I reckon that the static checker doesn't understand that there requirements of the Init(string, string[], string)
overload implicitly apply to the Init(string, string[])
method as well; something that would be perfectly deductable from the code IMO.
This is the situation I would like to achieve:
public static void Init(string configurationPath, string[] mappingAssemblies)
{
// I don't want to repeat the requirements here because they will always
// be checked in the overload called here.
Init(configurationPath, mappingAssemblies, null);
}
public static void Init(string configurationPath, string[] mappingAssemblies, string optionalArgument)
{
// This is the main implementation of Init and all calls to chained
// overloads end up here.
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(configurationPath != null, "configurationPath");
Contract.Requires<ArgumentException>(configurationPath.Length > 0, "configurationPath is an empty string.");
Contract.Requires<FileNotFoundException>(File.Exists(configurationPath), configurationPath);
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(mappingAssemblies != null, "mappingAssemblies");
Contract.ForAll<string>(mappingAssemblies, (n) => File.Exists(n));
//...
}
So, my question is this: is there a way to have the requirements of Init(string, string[], string)
implicitly apply to Init(string, string[])
automatically?
Update
I was using the ForAll
method in the wrong way: it is intended to use inside a requirement or alike, like this:
Contract.Requires<FileNotFoundException>(Contract.ForAll<string>(mappingAssemblies, (n) => File.Exists(n)));
I don't think there is for the general case.
In your specific case, you could certainly move the more expensive ForAll(File.Exists) to the actual implementation method and get no warnings :
public static void Init(string configurationPath, string[] mappingAssemblies)
{
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(configurationPath != null, "configurationPath");
Contract.Requires<ArgumentException>(configurationPath.Length > 0, "configurationPath is an empty string.");
Contract.Requires<FileNotFoundException>(File.Exists(configurationPath), configurationPath);
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(mappingAssemblies != null, "mappingAssemblies");
Init(configurationPath, mappingAssemblies, null);
}
public static void Init(string configurationPath, string[] mappingAssemblies, string optionalArgument)
{
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(mappingAssemblies != null, "mappingAssemblies");
Contract.ForAll<string>(mappingAssemblies, (n) => File.Exists(n));
}
Edit - I would forget about doing it at the earlier levels and just decorate the methods with the ContractVerification() attribute. This gives me no warnings, 7 checked assertions, with all the static checking options turned on.
[ContractVerification(false)]
public static void Init(string configurationPath, string[] mappingAssemblies)
{
Init(configurationPath, mappingAssemblies, null);
}
public static void Init(string configurationPath, string[] mappingAssemblies, string optionalArgument)
{
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(mappingAssemblies != null, "mapping assemblies");
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(configurationPath != null, "configurationpath");
Contract.Requires<ArgumentException>(configurationPath.Length > 0, "configurationPath is an empty string");
Contract.Requires<FileNotFoundException>(File.Exists(configurationPath));
Contract.Requires<FileNotFoundException>(Contract.ForAll<string>(mappingAssemblies, (n) => File.Exists(n)));
// ...
}
Since you are using Contracts I assume you are using C# 4.0. Then you can use optional parameters instead and only have one place to put your contracts.
精彩评论