How to detect if a property exists on an ExpandoObject?
Asked Answered
M

12

204

In javascript you can detect if a property is defined by using the undefined keyword:

if( typeof data.myProperty == "undefined" ) ...

How would you do this in C# using the dynamic keyword with an ExpandoObject and without throwing an exception?

Magalymagan answered 15/5, 2010 at 9:23 Comment(1)
@CodeInChaos: Note that the displayed code doesn't check the value of data.myProperty; it checks what typeof data.myProperty returns. It is correct that data.myProperty may exist and be set to undefined, but in that case, typeof will return something other than "undefined". So this code does work.Blench
H
204

According to MSDN the declaration shows it is implementing IDictionary:

public sealed class ExpandoObject : IDynamicMetaObjectProvider, 
    IDictionary<string, Object>, ICollection<KeyValuePair<string, Object>>, 
    IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string, Object>>, IEnumerable, INotifyPropertyChanged

You can use this to see if a member is defined:

var expandoObject = ...;
if(((IDictionary<String, object>)expandoObject).ContainsKey("SomeMember")) {
    // expandoObject.SomeMember exists.
}
Haleigh answered 15/5, 2010 at 9:33 Comment(7)
To make this check simpler, I've overloaded TryGetValue and make it always return true, setting the return value to "undefined" if the property was not defined. if( someObject.someParam != "undefined" ) ... And it works :)Magalymagan
Also possible :), but I think you meant "overridden" instead of overloaded.Haleigh
yep. I've again changed "undefined" to a special object's const value i created elsewhere. It prevents casting problems :pMagalymagan
I believe this solution is still current; don't take anyone's word for the price of reflection -- test it for yourself and see if you can afford itCockerham
Is the cast to IDictionary<String, object> really necessary? If it implements that interface, shouldn't calling ContainsKey() simply work?Claret
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Yes, it is. Without the cast it will just be a dynamic invocation, with the case you get in the internals. More specifically, it is explicitly implemented: github.com/mono/mono/blob/master/mcs/class/dlr/Runtime/…Haleigh
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft: No, it definitely is necessary. However you can write a simple function like bool ExpContainsKey(dynamic e, string key) => ((IDictionary<String, object>)e).ContainsKey(key); if you need that check more than once. Instead of dynamic you can also use ExpandoObject for the 1st parameter.Humor
B
37

An important distinction needs to be made here.

Most of the answers here are specific to the ExpandoObject which is mentioned in the question. But a common usage (and reason to land on this question when searching) is when using the ASP.Net MVC ViewBag. That's a custom implementation/subclass of DynamicObject, which won't throw an Exception when you check any arbitrary property name for null. Suppose you might declare a property like:

@{
    ViewBag.EnableThinger = true;
}

Then suppose you wanted to check its value, and whether it's even set - whether it exists. The following is valid, will compile, won't throw any exceptions, and gives you the right answer:

if (ViewBag.EnableThinger != null && ViewBag.EnableThinger)
{
    // Do some stuff when EnableThinger is true
}

Now get rid of the declaration of EnableThinger. Same code compiles and runs properly. No need for reflection.

Unlike ViewBag, ExpandoObject will throw if you check for null on a property that doesn't exist. In order to get MVC ViewBag's gentler functionality out of your dynamic objects, you'll need to use an implementation of dynamic that doesn't throw.

You could simply use the exact implementation in MVC ViewBag:

. . .
public override bool TryGetMember(GetMemberBinder binder, out object result)
{
    result = ViewData[binder.Name];
    // since ViewDataDictionary always returns a result even if the key does not exist, always return true
    return true;
}
. . .

https://github.com/ASP-NET-MVC/aspnetwebstack/blob/master/src/System.Web.Mvc/DynamicViewDataDictionary.cs

You can see it being tied into MVC Views here, in MVC ViewPage:

http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest#src/System.Web.Mvc/ViewPage.cs

The key to DynamicViewDataDictionary's graceful behavior is the Dictionary implementation on ViewDataDictionary, here:

public object this[string key]
{
    get
    {
        object value;
        _innerDictionary.TryGetValue(key, out value);
        return value;
    }
    set { _innerDictionary[key] = value; }
}

https://github.com/ASP-NET-MVC/aspnetwebstack/blob/master/src/System.Web.Mvc/ViewDataDictionary.cs

In other words, it always returns a value for all keys, regardless of what's in it - it simply returns null when nothing's there. But, ViewDataDictionary has the burden of being tied to MVC's Model, so it's better to strip out just the graceful dictionary parts for use outside MVC Views.

It's too long to really post all the guts here - most of it just implementing IDictionary - but here's a dynamic object (class DDict) that doesn't throw for null checks on properties that haven't been declared, on Github:

https://github.com/b9chris/GracefulDynamicDictionary

If you just want to add it to your project via NuGet, its name is GracefulDynamicDictionary.

Blackshear answered 12/6, 2014 at 19:30 Comment(6)
Why did you vote down on DynamicDictionary as it does not use reflection then ?Magalymagan
then you can vote it up as this is the same solution :)Magalymagan
It most certainly is not the same solution.Blackshear
"you'll need to create a similar subclass that doesn't throw when a property isn't found." => it is ! Oh no it isn't. My solution is better. It throws - because we want it, AND it can also not throw if TryXX is used;Magalymagan
THIS, THIS is exactly why I am here, I could not figure out why some code (viewbag) was NOT breaking. THANK you.Courson
Just used your package in combination with the Newtonsoft JSON deserialiser and it worked like a charm! dynamic stuff = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<DDict>(jsonStuff, new ExpandoObjectConverter());Anarthrous
B
21

I wanted to create an extension method so I could do something like:

dynamic myDynamicObject;
myDynamicObject.propertyName = "value";

if (myDynamicObject.HasProperty("propertyName"))
{
    //...
}

... but you can't create extensions on ExpandoObject according to the C# 5 documentation (more info here).

So I ended up creating a class helper:

public static class ExpandoObjectHelper
{
    public static bool HasProperty(ExpandoObject obj, string propertyName)
    {
        return obj != null && ((IDictionary<String, object>)obj).ContainsKey(propertyName);
    }
}

To use it:

// If the 'MyProperty' property exists...
if (ExpandoObjectHelper.HasProperty(obj, "MyProperty"))
{
    ...
}
Breadwinner answered 9/12, 2016 at 15:14 Comment(2)
up vote for useful comment and link on extensions for ExpandoObject.Discordance
obj could be null, hence: return obj != null && ((IDictionary<string, object>)obj).ContainsKey(propertyName);Softy
O
12

UPDATED: You can use delegates and try to get a value from the dynamic object property if it exists. If there is no property, simply catch the exception and return false.

Take a look, it works fine for me:

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        dynamic userDynamic = new JsonUser();

        Console.WriteLine(IsPropertyExist(() => userDynamic.first_name));
        Console.WriteLine(IsPropertyExist(() => userDynamic.address));
        Console.WriteLine(IsPropertyExist(() => userDynamic.last_name));
    }

    class JsonUser
    {
        public string first_name { get; set; }
        public string address
        {
            get
            {
                throw new InvalidOperationException("Cannot read property value");
            }
        }
    }

    static bool IsPropertyExist(GetValueDelegate getValueMethod)
    {
        try
        {
            //we're not interesting in the return value. What we need to know is whether an exception occurred or not
            getValueMethod();
            return true;
        }
        catch (RuntimeBinderException)
        {
            // RuntimeBinderException occurred during accessing the property
            // and it means there is no such property         
            return false;
        }
        catch
        {
            //property exists, but an exception occurred during getting of a value
            return true;
        }
    }

    delegate string GetValueDelegate();
}

The output of the code is the following:

True
True
False
Observable answered 18/9, 2012 at 20:51 Comment(7)
Catching all exceptions is bad practice, especially just to swallow them all. dodgycoder.net/2011/11/yoda-conditions-pokemon-exception.htmlEduce
@Educe it's bad to catch all the exception when you don't know what causes the exception. In our cases it's ok since we expect possibly absence of a field.Observable
if you know what causes the exception you must also know its type, so catch (WhateverException) Otherwise your code will silently carry on even if you got an unexpected exception - like OutOfMemoryException for example.Educe
You can pass in any getter to IsPropertyExist. In this example, you know one can throw an InvalidOperationException. In practice, you have no idea what exception may be thrown. +1 to counteract the cargo cult.Mutism
Exceptions should be exceptional, beware that using a check like this more often than 'occasional' will result in a pretty substantial performance dive.Loppy
This solution is unacceptable if performance is important, for example if used in a loop with 500+ iterations it adds up and can cause many seconds of delay. Every time an exception is caught the stack must be copied to the exception objectBarthold
Re: Performance: The debugger being attached and Console.WriteLine are the slow bits. 10,000 iterations here takes less than 200ms (with 2 exceptions per iteration). The same test with no exceptions takes a handful of milliseconds. That means if you expect your usage of this code to only rarely be missing a property, or if you're calling it a limited number of times, or can cache the results, then please realize that everything has its place and none of the overly-regurgitated warnings here matter.Oval
L
11

I answered a very similar question recently: How do I reflect over the members of dynamic object?

Shortly, ExpandoObject is not the only dynamic object you might get. Reflection would work for static types (types that do not implement IDynamicMetaObjectProvider). For types that do implement this interface, reflection is basically useless. For ExpandoObject, you can simply check whether the property is defined as a key in the underlying dictionary. For other implementations, it might be challenging and sometimes the only way is to work with exceptions. For details, follow the link above.

Lohse answered 17/5, 2010 at 6:34 Comment(0)
A
1

Why you do not want to use Reflection to get set of type properyes? Like this

 dynamic v = new Foo();
 Type t = v.GetType();
 System.Reflection.PropertyInfo[] pInfo =  t.GetProperties();
 if (Array.Find<System.Reflection.PropertyInfo>(pInfo, p => { return p.Name == "PropName"; }).    GetValue(v,  null) != null))
 {
     //PropName initialized
 } 
Ariel answered 15/5, 2010 at 10:12 Comment(1)
I'm not sure if that will return the dynamicly added properties, my guess is that it returns the methods of the Dynamic object.Haleigh
D
1

This extension method checks for the existence of a property and then returns the value or null. This is useful if you do not want your applications to throw unnecessary exceptions, at least ones you can help.

    public static object Value(this ExpandoObject expando, string name)
    {
        var expandoDic = (IDictionary<string, object>)expando;
        return expandoDic.ContainsKey(name) ? expandoDic[name] : null;
    }

If can be used as such :

  // lookup is type 'ExpandoObject'
  object value = lookup.Value("MyProperty");

or if your local variable is 'dynamic' you will have to cast it to ExpandoObject first.

  // lookup is type 'dynamic'
  object value = ((ExpandoObject)lookup).Value("PropertyBeingTested");
Devitt answered 7/8, 2017 at 19:46 Comment(0)
S
1

Depending on your use case, if null can be considered as being the same as undefined, you can turn your ExpandoObject into a DynamicJsonObject.

    dynamic x = new System.Web.Helpers.DynamicJsonObject(new ExpandoObject());
    x.a = 1;
    x.b = 2.50;
    Console.WriteLine("a is " + (x.a ?? "undefined"));
    Console.WriteLine("b is " + (x.b ?? "undefined"));
    Console.WriteLine("c is " + (x.c ?? "undefined"));

Output:

a is 1
b is 2.5
c is undefined
Savor answered 27/9, 2019 at 7:18 Comment(0)
I
0

If all you want to do is detect if a System.Dynamic.ExpandoObject has had a property added:

myExpandoObject.ToDictionary (s => s).Any ()

This is useful if you have a series of statements that may add a property, then see if you need to do an update to an external source.

Impletion answered 8/8, 2023 at 17:29 Comment(0)
G
-3
(authorDynamic as ExpandoObject).Any(pair => pair.Key == "YourProp");
Gemma answered 21/11, 2015 at 18:33 Comment(0)
M
-4

Hey guys stop using Reflection for everything it costs a lots of CPU cycles.

Here is the solution:

public class DynamicDictionary : DynamicObject
{
    Dictionary<string, object> dictionary = new Dictionary<string, object>();

    public int Count
    {
        get
        {
            return dictionary.Count;
        }
    }

    public override bool TryGetMember(GetMemberBinder binder, out object result)
    {
        string name = binder.Name;

        if (!dictionary.TryGetValue(binder.Name, out result))
            result = "undefined";

        return true;
    }

    public override bool TrySetMember(SetMemberBinder binder, object value)
    {
        dictionary[binder.Name] = value;
        return true;
    }
}
Magalymagan answered 15/5, 2010 at 15:43 Comment(9)
This shows how to implement a dynamic object, not how to see it a property exits on a dynamic object.Missilery
You can check if a dynamic instance has a property by doing a null check against the property in question.Duffy
"This shows how to implement a dynamic object": yes in fact it is. The solution to this question is: there is no generic solution as it depends on the implementation.Magalymagan
@Magalymagan No, the solution is that thing that we have to stop usingCockerham
@Magalymagan What is the point of the Tryxxx methods? TryGet will never return false when it doesn't find the property, so you still have to check the result. The return is useless. In TrySet, if the key does not exist, then it will throw an exception instead of returning false. I don't understand why you would even use this as an answer, if you yourself wrote here on the comments "The solution to this question is: there is no generic solution as it depends on the implementation", that's also not true. Look at Dykam's answer for the real solution.Guenther
This was really helpful to me...thanks for the suggestion. @pqsk, the point is that the override of the TryGetMember returns a true even when the underlying key is not found (which means an error is not thrown when accessed via "Dynamic")Trevelyan
@Trevelyan it's really bad coding. The signatures should be changed to AlwaysTrue_Try... It seems pointless. Now if you were to create an enumeration with the [Flags] attribute and then return that instead of always true, that is clearer. Unless this is just uncompleted code that wasn't noted, then I'll buy that.Guenther
@pqsk, the signatures can't be changed because the whole point is that you are overriding the implementations from DynamicObject. Admittedly, it's hackish, but serves as an easy workaround from the default behavior (which throws if TryGetValue returns false).Trevelyan
@Trevelyan you used the right keyword "hackish". You're not forced to override to follow order, but in the real world you should have a good reason to override, otherwise new methods with different method signatures work. Something that is readable is more maintainable than something that is, as you stated, "hackish". Imagine someone reading this code 2 years later, they would want to understand why it always returns true, at least any competent developer would want to understand that. I understand sometimes we want to just make it work, but I would work very hard to improve this.Guenther
A
-6

Try this one

public bool PropertyExist(object obj, string propertyName)
{
 return obj.GetType().GetProperty(propertyName) != null;
}
Atropos answered 18/7, 2012 at 12:1 Comment(6)
This would check the existence of a property of the object hidden under the dynamic name, which is an implementation detail. Have you verified your solution in real code before posting ? It should not work at all.Magalymagan
I have used this piece of code in real time scenario. It works good.Atropos
Gives me null all the time, even if the property exists.Yseulta
It would work with basic objects, but not with ExpandoObjects. Dynamics, not sure.Drainage
I tried this and got an "AmbiguousMatchException was unhandled" So much for what looked like it should be a pretty straight forward operation... (If you try to use this you might want to add exception handling...)Baluchistan
To confirm, this does not work with dynamic objects either (always returns null).Lansing

© 2022 - 2024 — McMap. All rights reserved.