Seeing from Artech's blog and then we had a discussion in the comments. Since that blog is written in Chinese only, I'm taking a brief explanation here. Code to reproduce:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class, Inherited = true, AllowMultiple = true)]
public abstract class BaseAttribute : Attribute
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class FooAttribute : BaseAttribute { }
[Foo(Name = "A")]
[Foo(Name = "B")]
[Foo(Name = "C")]
public class Bar { }
//Main method
var attributes = typeof(Bar).GetCustomAttributes(true).OfType<FooAttribute>().ToList<FooAttribute>();
var getC = attributes.First(item => item.Name == "C");
attributes.Remove(getC);
attributes.ForEach(a => Console.WriteLine(a.Name));
The code gets all FooAttribute
and removes the one whose name is "C". Obviously the output is "A" and "B"? If everything was going smoothly you wouldn't see this question. In fact you will get "AC" "BC" or even correct "AB" theoretically (I got AC on my machine, and the blog author got BC). The problem results from the implementation of GetHashCode/Equals in System.Attribute. A snippet of the implementation:
[SecuritySafeCritical]
public override int GetHashCode()
{
Type type = base.GetType();
//*****NOTICE***** FieldInfo[] fields = type.GetFields(BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);
object obj2 = null;
for (int i = 0; i < fields.Length; i++)
{
object obj3 = ((RtFieldInfo) fields[i]).InternalGetValue(this, false, false);
if ((obj3 != null) && !obj3.GetType().IsArray)
{
obj2 = obj3;
}
if (obj2 != null)
{
break;
}
}
if (obj2 != null)
{
return obj2.GetHashCode();
}
return type.GetHashCode();
}
It uses Type.GetFields
so the properties inherited from base class are ignored, hence the equivalence of the three instances of FooAttribute
(and then the Remove
method takes one randomly). So the question is: is there any special reason for the implementation? Or it's just a bug?
If you're implementing a reference type, you should consider overriding the Equals method if your type looks like a base type, such as Point, String, BigNumber, and so on. Override the GetHashCode method to allow a type to work correctly in a hash table.
It is because the framework requires that two objects that are the same must have the same hashcode. If you override the equals method to do a special comparison of two objects and the two objects are considered the same by the method, then the hash code of the two objects must also be the same.
Every object in . NET has an Equals method and a GetHashCode method. The Equals method is used to compare one object with another object - to see if the two objects are equivalent. The GetHashCode method generates a 32-bit integer representation of the object.
No, the value can change between computers and base system versions. You should only depend on it to be constant during a given program run.
A clear bug, no. A good idea, perhaps or perhaps not.
What does it mean for one thing to be equal to another? We could get quite philosophical, if we really wanted to.
Being only slightly philosophical, there are a few things that must hold:
x.Equals(x)
must hold.x.Equals(y)
then y.Equals(x)
and if !x.Equals(y)
then !y.Equals(x)
.x.Equals(y)
and y.Equals(z)
then x.Equals(z)
.There's a few others, though only these can directly be reflected by the code for Equals()
alone.
If an implementation of an override of object.Equals(object)
, IEquatable<T>.Equals(T)
, IEqualityComparer.Equals(object, object)
, IEqualityComparer<T>.Equals(T, T)
, ==
or of !=
does not meet the above, it's a clear bug.
The other method that reflects equality in .NET are object.GetHashCode()
, IEqualityComparer.GetHashCode(object)
and IEqualityComparer<T>.GetHashCode(T)
. Here there's the simple rule:
If a.Equals(b)
then it must hold that a.GetHashCode() == b.GetHashCode()
. The equivalent holds for IEqualityComparer
and IEqualityComparer<T>
.
If that doesn't hold, then again we've got a bug.
Beyond that, there are no over-all rules on what equality must mean. It depends on the semantics of the class provided by its own Equals()
overrides or by those imposed upon it by an equality comparer. Of course, those semantics should either be blatantly obvious or else documented in the class or the equality comparer.
In all, how does an Equals
and/or a GetHashCode
have a bug:
GetHashCode
and Equals
is not as above.With the overrides on Attribute
, the equals does have the reflexive, symmetric and transitive properties, it's GetHashCode
does match it, and the documentation for it's Equals
override is:
This API supports the .NET Framework infrastructure and is not intended to be used directly from your code.
You can't really say your example disproves that!
Since the code you complain about doesn't fail on any of these points, it's not a bug.
There's a bug though in this code:
var attributes = typeof(Bar).GetCustomAttributes(true).OfType<FooAttribute>().ToList<FooAttribute>();
var getC = attributes.First(item => item.Name == "C");
attributes.Remove(getC);
You first ask for an item that fulfills a criteria, and then ask for one that is equal to it to be removed. There's no reason without examining the semantics of equality for the type in question to expect that getC
would be removed.
What you should do is:
bool calledAlready;
attributes.RemoveAll(item => {
if(!calledAlready && item.Name == "C")
{
return calledAlready = true;
}
});
That is to say, we use a predicate that matches the first attribute with Name == "C"
and no other.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With