Showing posts with label dictionary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dictionary. Show all posts

Friday, June 22, 2012

List all values of an enumeration

I'm probably late to the party on this one, but I recently discovered a cool, handy little static method tucked away in the Enum class: GetValues. It simply returns all the values of an enum type. This enables nifty things like:
public enum TestEnum
{
    Value1,
    Value2,
    Value3,
    Value4
};

public void ShowEnumValues()
{
    Enum.GetValues(typeof (TestEnum))
        .Cast<TestEnum>()
        .ToList()
        .ForEach(e => Console.WriteLine(e));
}
With this, any changes to TestEnum automatically get picked up at run-time without any additional changes to the rest of the code.

Last year, I wrote about using a dictionary to facilitate converting between an enum and human readable text. To adapt the code presented then to the above example, the following will convert all values in the enum to human readable text.
private IDictionary<TestEnum, string> enumToString =
    new Dictionary<TestEnum, string>
        {
            {TestEnum.Value1, "Value one"},
            {TestEnum.Value2, "Value two"},
            {TestEnum.Value3, "Value three"},
            {TestEnum.Value4, "Value four"}
        };

public void ShowEnumStrings()
{
    Enum.GetValues(typeof(TestEnum))
        .Cast<TestEnum>()
        .ToList()
        .ForEach(e => Console.WriteLine(enumToString[e]));
}

In the previous article, I lamented the fact that this C# solution, unlike the Pascal variant, does not provide a reliable means to check that all the values of the enumeration have a corresponding entry in the dictionary. Because of strong typing with generics, I know I can't have any thing that's not part of the enumeration in the dictionary, but I can't know I have all the values of the enumeration in the dictionary. In other words, I know I can't have any invalid values, but I can't know I have all the values.

Until I found this method. Now I can at least write an easy test case for this. While it's not quite as good as a compile time check, it does give an early, reliable means of being alerted to the problem.
[TestMethod]
public void EnsureAllEnumValuesAreInDictionary()
{
    Assert.IsTrue(
        Enum.GetValues(typeof(TestEnum))
            .Cast<TestEnum>()
            .All(type => EnumToString.ContainsKey(type)),
        "Enum value missing from enumToString dictionary");
}

Since variables of this type typically do not change from instance to instance, they can be made static so they're only instantiated once. And since many times they are only used inside a single class, they can be made private. In these cases having a unit test might be problematic, not being able to test a private field. To solve this, code similar to the above test can be put in a static constructor, throwing an exception if there's a mismatch.
private static readonly IDictionary<TestEnum, string> EnumToString =
    new Dictionary<TestEnum, string>
        {
            {TestEnum.Value1, "Value one"},
            {TestEnum.Value2, "Value two"},
            {TestEnum.Value3, "Value three"},
            {TestEnum.Value4, "Value four"}
        };

static UnitTest1()
{
    if (!Enum.GetValues(typeof (TestEnum))
             .Cast<TestEnum>()
             .All(type => EnumToString.ContainsKey(type)))
        throw new InvalidOperationException(
            "Enum value missing from enumToString dictionary");
}

Finally, if this needs to be done much, making a generic helper function will clean-up code, hiding all the casting and repetition of the type.
private static IEnumerable<T> GetEnumValues<T>()
{
    return Enum.GetValues(typeof (T)).Cast<T>();
}

[TestMethod]
public void EnsureAllEnumValuesAreInDictionary1()
{
    Assert.IsTrue(
        GetEnumValues().All(type => EnumToString.ContainsKey(type)),
        "Enum value missing from enumToString dictionary");
}

All in all, I'm pleased with finding this little nugget.

A complete VS2008 solution containing the code examples above is available on github.

Hope this helps someone else.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Non-int array indexes from Delphi in C#

In Delphi, array indexes can be any type that resolves to an integer, not just integers. So for example, enum and bool types can be array indexes. This can be handy in many situations to reduce a if-then or switch construct to a simple assignment. A simple, contrived example:


MyEnum = (item1, item2, item3);
...
function enumToString(value: MyEnum): string
begin
switch(value)
case item1: result = "Item one";
case item2: result = "Item two";
case item3: result = "Item three";
end;
end;
...
SomeLabel.Caption = enumToString(value);
...

becomes something like this:


MyEnum = (item1, item2, item3);
enumToString[MyEnum]: string = ("Item one", "Item two", "Item three");
...
SomeLabel.Caption = enumToString[value];
...
Not only does it reduce code, it also reduces possible bugs. Consider what happens when a value is added to MyEnum. The first example will simply return an empty string creating a possible silent failure that hopefully will be caught when tests are run. The second will generate a compiler error, forcing the programmer to intentionally decide what to do.

In C#, array indexes must be one of the four integer types: int, uint, long or ulong. I really miss the ability to use bools and enums. While lamenting this lack as I looked at some code today similar to the original switch statement, I realized I could use a generic dictionary. The new code looks like this:

MyEnum = (item1, item2, item3);
enumToString = new Dictionary = {{item1, "Item one"}, {item2, "Item two"}, {item3, "Item three")};
...
SomeLabel.Contents = enumToString[value];
...
On one hand, it is a bit more wordy than the Delphi array; on the other, it's clearer how things are associated in the initializer. The biggest drawback is it doesn't have the compiler error when things are added to the enum. This is mitigated a bit by the runtime exception generated by a missing key; it's not quite as silent as just returning nothing in the original code. However, it still depends on good test coverage to find it.