V9.0.0/delegate additions relocation #96
Conversation
…eTuple and MutableTupleFactory; it has a better ring and closer to original vision
…legate utilities to assembly with broader scope
WalkthroughThe pull request involves significant refactoring of several classes, transitioning them from static to generic sealed classes, enhancing their flexibility. Key updates include the introduction of a new Changes
Possibly related PRs
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #96 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 80.14% 79.74% -0.41%
==========================================
Files 614 621 +7
Lines 18939 18912 -27
Branches 1914 1922 +8
==========================================
- Hits 15179 15081 -98
- Misses 3710 3762 +52
- Partials 50 69 +19 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 38
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (33)
src/Cuemon.Extensions.Text.Json/Formatters/JsonFormatter.cs (1)
69-72: Approve changes with a minor suggestion for consistency.The separation of
JsonWriterOptionscreation improves code readability and maintainability. This change is good and doesn't alter the functionality.For consistency with the .NET 8.0 version, consider using object initializer syntax:
- { - Indented = Options.Settings.WriteIndented, - Encoder = Options.Settings.Encoder - })) + { + Indented = Options.Settings.WriteIndented, + Encoder = Options.Settings.Encoder + }))This minor change would make the code more consistent across different .NET versions.
test/Cuemon.Core.Tests/Reflection/ActivatorFactoryTest.cs (2)
15-68: LGTM: Comprehensive tests for instance creation with various parameters.The test methods for creating instances with 1 to 5 parameters are well-structured and thorough. They effectively verify the correct creation and initialization of instances with different numbers of parameters.
Consider using a theory test with InlineData to reduce code duplication and improve maintainability. For example:
[Theory] [InlineData(42)] [InlineData(42, "Hello")] [InlineData(42, "Hello", 3.14)] [InlineData(42, "Hello", 3.14, true)] [InlineData(42, "Hello", 3.14, true, 'A')] public void CreateInstance_WithParameters_ShouldCreateInstance(params object[] parameters) { var instance = ActivatorFactory.CreateInstance(parameters); Assert.NotNull(instance); Assert.IsType<TestClassWithParameters>(instance); // Assert properties based on the number of parameters }This approach would require modifying the
TestClassWithParametersto handle different numbers of parameters, but it would make the tests more concise and easier to maintain.
70-142: LGTM: Well-structured private test classes.The private test classes are well-implemented, each with the appropriate number of parameters and corresponding properties. They serve their purpose for testing the
ActivatorFactorywith different parameter counts.To improve maintainability and reduce code duplication, consider using a single generic test class that can handle different numbers of parameters. For example:
private class TestClassWithParameters<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5> { public TestClassWithParameters(T1 value1 = default, T2 value2 = default, T3 value3 = default, T4 value4 = default, T5 value5 = default) { Value1 = value1; Value2 = value2; Value3 = value3; Value4 = value4; Value5 = value5; } public T1 Value1 { get; } public T2 Value2 { get; } public T3 Value3 { get; } public T4 Value4 { get; } public T5 Value5 { get; } }This approach would allow you to use a single class for all test cases, specifying only the required number of type parameters for each test. It would make the code more concise and easier to maintain.
test/Cuemon.Extensions.Core.Tests/MutableTupleFactoryTest.cs (3)
Line range hint
13-20: Update method name for consistencyThe method body has been correctly updated to use
MutableTupleFactory.CreateZero(). However, the method nameCreateZero_ShouldCreateEmptyis now inconsistent with the new class being tested.Consider renaming the method to
MutableTupleFactory_CreateZero_ShouldCreateEmptyfor clarity and consistency with the new class name.
Line range hint
22-414: Update all test method names for consistency and clarityAll test methods have been correctly updated to use
MutableTupleFactoryinstead ofTemplate. The assertions and logic remain correct. However, the method names are now inconsistent with their actual behavior and the new class being tested.Consider renaming all test methods to follow this pattern:
MutableTupleFactory_Create<Number>_ShouldCreate<TupleName>. For example:
CreateZero_ShouldCreateSingle→MutableTupleFactory_CreateOne_ShouldCreateSingleCreateZero_ShouldCreateDouble→MutableTupleFactory_CreateTwo_ShouldCreateDouble- ...
CreateZero_ShouldCreateViguple→MutableTupleFactory_CreateTwenty_ShouldCreateVigupleThis naming convention will improve clarity and consistency across all test methods.
Line range hint
1-414: Consider refactoring tests for improved maintainabilityThe test class provides comprehensive coverage for all
MutableTupleFactory.Createmethods. However, there's significant repetition in the test structure. Consider the following improvements:
Implement a parameterized test that covers all cases from 0 to 20 elements. This could significantly reduce code duplication and make it easier to maintain and extend these tests in the future.
Create a helper method to generate the expected values for each tuple size. This would make the tests more readable and easier to maintain.
Use a custom assertion method to check the tuple contents, which could make the individual tests more concise.
Here's a rough example of how this could look:
[Theory] [InlineData(0)] [InlineData(1)] // ... add data for 2 to 20 public void MutableTupleFactory_Create_ShouldCreateCorrectTuple(int size) { var values = Enumerable.Range(1, size).ToArray(); var sut = CreateTuple(size, values); Assert.Equal(size > 0, !sut.IsEmpty); AssertTupleContents(sut, values); TestOutput.WriteLine(sut.ToString()); } private static IMutableTuple CreateTuple(int size, int[] values) { return size switch { 0 => MutableTupleFactory.CreateZero(), 1 => MutableTupleFactory.CreateOne(values[0]), // ... add cases for 2 to 20 _ => throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(size)) }; } private static void AssertTupleContents(IMutableTuple tuple, int[] expectedValues) { Assert.Equal(expectedValues.Length, tuple.ToArray().Length); for (int i = 0; i < expectedValues.Length; i++) { Assert.Equal(expectedValues[i], tuple.ToArray()[i]); } }This approach would make the tests more maintainable and easier to extend in the future.
src/Cuemon.Xml/Serialization/Converters/DefaultXmlConverter.cs (1)
115-115: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The replacement of
Template.CreateTwowithMutableTuple<object, object>aligns well with the PR objectives of refactoring and enhancing flexibility. This change maintains the existing functionality while potentially improving maintainability.To enhance code clarity, consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of this transformation:
- var castedValues = values.Select(pair => new MutableTuple<object, object>(Decorator.Enclose(pair.Key).ChangeType(dictionaryType[0]), Decorator.Enclose(pair.Value).ChangeType(dictionaryType[1]))).ToList(); + // Convert dictionary entries to MutableTuple, applying type conversion for both key and value + var castedValues = values.Select(pair => new MutableTuple<object, object>( + Decorator.Enclose(pair.Key).ChangeType(dictionaryType[0]), + Decorator.Enclose(pair.Value).ChangeType(dictionaryType[1]) + )).ToList();This comment and formatting will help future maintainers quickly understand the purpose of this transformation.
test/Cuemon.Core.Tests/MutableTupleTest.cs (2)
1-11: Note the custom testing setupThe test class uses a custom
Testbase class andCodebelt.Extensions.Xunit. While this is fine for project-specific testing patterns, it's worth documenting the purpose and benefits of this setup to aid in long-term maintainability.Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of the custom
Testbase class and any special features provided byCodebelt.Extensions.Xunit.
13-409: Improve test method naming for clarityThe current naming convention
CreateZero_Should...doesn't accurately reflect the test's purpose. These tests are creating tuples with various numbers of elements, not "zero" tuples.Consider renaming the test methods to better reflect their purpose. For example:
CreateEmpty_ShouldCreateEmptyTuple()CreateSingle_ShouldCreateSingleElementTuple()CreateDouble_ShouldCreateTwoElementTuple()
And so on. This will make the test purposes clearer at a glance.src/Cuemon.Core/GlobalSuppressions.cs (1)
76-108: LGTM! Comprehensive suppressions for MutableTuple types.The added suppressions for MutableTuple types are consistent with the existing style and justification patterns in the file. They thoroughly cover potential code analysis warnings for inheritance depth and the number of generic parameters for MutableTuple types from 3 to 20 generic parameters.
For future consideration: If possible, explore ways to apply these suppressions more concisely, perhaps through a single suppression that covers all MutableTuple types. This could help reduce the number of individual suppression attributes and improve maintainability.
src/Cuemon.Extensions.Core/GlobalSuppressions.cs (4)
12-67: Approved: Suppressions for methods with many generic parameters.The suppressions for the
S2436warning (Types and methods should not have too many generic parameters) are consistently applied across variousCreatemethods in different classes. The justification "By design; allow to exceed generic arguments recommendation" indicates a deliberate architectural choice.While this approach provides flexibility for advanced use cases, be aware that it may lead to complex method signatures and potential maintainability challenges in the future. Consider documenting the rationale for this design decision in the project's architecture documentation.
68-107: Approved: Suppressions for methods with many parameters.The suppressions for the
S107warning (Methods should not have too many parameters) are applied consistently to the same methods as the S2436 suppressions. This aligns with the architectural decision to allow methods with many generic parameters and arguments.While this approach offers flexibility, it's worth considering alternative designs that could reduce complexity:
- Use builder patterns or fluent interfaces for complex method calls.
- Group related parameters into objects.
- Consider using optional parameters or method overloads for less common use cases.
These alternatives could improve API usability while maintaining the desired flexibility.
Line range hint
1-107: Overall assessment: Well-structured suppressions with room for future optimization.The
GlobalSuppressions.csfile is well-organized, with consistent use ofSuppressMessageattributes and clear justifications for each suppression. This approach allows for flexibility in the API design while acknowledging and explaining deviations from standard code analysis recommendations.However, the large number of suppressions, particularly for methods with many generic parameters and arguments, suggests an opportunity for future architectural improvements:
- Consider conducting a comprehensive architectural review to identify patterns that lead to these complex method signatures.
- Explore design patterns or language features that could simplify the API without sacrificing functionality.
- Document the rationale behind these design decisions in the project's architecture documentation to aid future maintenance and onboarding.
- Set up a periodic review process for these suppressions to ensure they remain necessary and valid as the project evolves.
Remove Unnecessary Suppression for CA2249
The suppression for
CA2249inGlobalSuppressions.csappears to be unnecessary as there are no current usages ofstring.IndexOfwithin theContainsAnymethod.
- File:
src/Cuemon.Extensions.Core/GlobalSuppressions.cs- Line: 9-107
Please remove the suppression to maintain code cleanliness.
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
7-9: Approved: Specific suppressions for StringExtensions methods.The suppressions for
CA2249,S3267, andIDE0220in theStringExtensionsclass are justified:
CA2249: The use ofstring.IndexOfinstead ofstring.Containsis necessary due to comparison rules in .NET Standard 2.S3267andIDE0220: These are marked as false positives, likely due to specific implementation requirements.These suppressions address particular implementation details and compatibility issues. To ensure ongoing validity:
Periodically review these suppressions, especially when upgrading to newer framework versions, to determine if they're still necessary. Run the following script to check the current usage:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of suppressed methods in StringExtensions # Test: Check for the use of string.IndexOf in ContainsAny method rg --type csharp -A 5 'ContainsAny.*string\.IndexOf' # Test: Check the implementation of JsUnescape method rg --type csharp -A 10 'JsUnescape'Length of output: 9470
src/Cuemon.Threading/AsyncFuncFactory.cs (2)
18-21: LGTM! Consider adding a type argument toMutableTuple.The change from
TemplatetoMutableTupleis consistent with the refactoring. The implementation looks correct and maintains the same functionality.For improved readability and consistency with other overloads, consider specifying the type argument for
MutableTuple:- return new AsyncFuncFactory<MutableTuple, TResult>((_, token) => method(token), new MutableTuple(), method); + return new AsyncFuncFactory<MutableTuple, TResult>((_, token) => method(token), new MutableTuple<object>(), method);
Line range hint
1-428: Overall, the refactoring is well-implemented and improves theAsyncFuncFactoryclass.The changes in this file successfully replace the
Templateclass withMutableTupleacross allCreatemethod overloads. This refactoring:
- Maintains the original functionality of the
AsyncFuncFactoryclass.- Improves flexibility by allowing the use of mutable tuples.
- Is consistently applied throughout the file for all generic parameter counts (0 to 15).
The implementation is correct and adheres to the refactoring objectives stated in the PR summary.
Consider documenting the reason for this change in the class-level XML comments, explaining the benefits of using
MutableTupleoverTemplate. This would help future maintainers understand the motivation behind this refactoring.src/Cuemon.Threading/GlobalSuppressions.cs (1)
117-160: Consistent approach to suppressing warnings for methods with many generic parameters.The added SuppressMessage attributes consistently allow methods to exceed the recommended number of generic parameters and total parameters. This approach appears to be a deliberate design decision to enhance the flexibility of the library.
While this allows for more versatile method signatures, it's worth considering the following points:
- Readability: Methods with many generic parameters can be harder to read and understand.
- Maintainability: As the number of parameters increases, it becomes more challenging to maintain and modify these methods.
- Complexity: High parameter counts might indicate that a method is trying to do too much and could potentially be split into smaller, more focused methods.
Consider documenting the rationale behind this design decision in a central place (e.g., README or architecture documentation) to help future maintainers understand the trade-offs made.
Would you like me to suggest any alternative approaches or patterns that could potentially reduce the need for so many generic parameters while maintaining flexibility?
src/Cuemon.Threading/FuncForEachSynchronousLoop.cs (1)
Line range hint
15-22: Potential Type Compatibility Issue in Type CheckThe method
FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory<TWorker>now accepts a parameter of typeMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>. Inside the method, there is a type check:if (worker is FuncFactory<TWorker, TResult> wf) { var presult = wf.ExecuteMethod(); Result.TryAdd(sorter, presult); }Given that
workeris of typeMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>, ensure that it can be cast toFuncFactory<TWorker, TResult>. IfMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>does not inherit from or implementFuncFactory<TWorker, TResult>, this condition will always evaluate tofalse, and the code inside theifblock will not execute. Consider updating the type check or the type hierarchy to reflect the correct relationship between these types.src/Cuemon.Core/ActionFactory.cs (2)
6-6: Clarify the documentation for better readabilityThe summary comment reads: "Provides a way of invoking an
Actiondelegate regardless of the amount of parameters provided." Consider rephrasing it for clarity. For example: "Provides functionality to invoke anActiondelegate with any number of parameters."
Line range hint
26-31: Ensure safe handling oforiginalDelegatewhen nullIn the constructor,
originalDelegatecan be null, but it is used inResolveDelegateInfo(originalDelegate). Confirm thatResolveDelegateInfocorrectly handles a nulloriginalDelegateto avoid potentialNullReferenceExceptions.If
ResolveDelegateInfodoes not handle null values, consider modifying the code:public ActionFactory(Action<TTuple> method, TTuple tuple, Delegate originalDelegate) : base(tuple, originalDelegate != null) { Method = method; - DelegateInfo = Decorator.RawEnclose(method).ResolveDelegateInfo(originalDelegate); + DelegateInfo = Decorator.RawEnclose(method).ResolveDelegateInfo(originalDelegate ?? method); }src/Cuemon.Threading/ParallelFactory.ForEachAsync.cs (1)
Line range hint
14-19: Consider validating additional arguments for nullIn the
ForEachAsyncmethod overloads that accept additional arguments (arg,arg1,arg2, etc.), consider adding null checks for these arguments if null values are not expected. This validation ensures that any unintended null values are caught early, preventing potentialNullReferenceExceptionduring execution.Example modification for one of the overloads:
public static Task ForEachAsync<TSource, T>(IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, T, CancellationToken, Task> worker, T arg, Action<AsyncWorkloadOptions> setup = null) { Validator.ThrowIfNull(source); Validator.ThrowIfNull(worker); + Validator.ThrowIfNull(arg); return ForEachCoreAsync(source, AsyncActionFactory.Create(worker, default, arg), setup); }Apply similar null checks to other overloads as appropriate.
Also applies to: 27-33, 40-47, 53-61, 68-77, 83-93
src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.For.cs (1)
164-164: Remove unnecessary byte order mark (BOM) at the end of the file.Line 164 appears to be an accidental addition of a UTF-8 BOM or whitespace. Consider removing it to maintain file cleanliness.
Apply this diff to remove the unnecessary line:
-} +src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.ForAsync.cs (1)
Line range hint
22-146: Consider reducing code duplication inForAsyncoverloadsThe multiple overloads of the
ForAsyncmethod with varying numbers of generic parameters result in repetitive code. Consider using code generation tools, such as T4 templates, or employing variadic generics if supported in the future to reduce duplication and simplify maintenance.src/Cuemon.Threading/ParallelFactory.ForEachResultAsync.cs (3)
Line range hint
31-89: Consider refactoring to reduce duplication in method overloadsThe addition of multiple overloads for
ForEachResultAsyncwith varying numbers of additional generic parameters introduces significant code duplication. This can make the codebase harder to maintain and extend in the future. Consider refactoring these methods to reduce duplication. One approach could be to use a single method that accepts aparamsarray or a collection of arguments.Here's an example of how you might refactor using a
paramsarray:public static Task<IReadOnlyCollection<TResult>> ForEachResultAsync<TSource, TResult>( IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, object[], CancellationToken, Task<TResult>> worker, Action<AsyncWorkloadOptions> setup = null, params object[] args) { Validator.ThrowIfNull(source); Validator.ThrowIfNull(worker); return ForEachResultCoreAsync(source, AsyncFuncFactory.Create(worker, default, args), setup); }This approach allows you to handle any number of additional arguments without needing multiple overloads.
Line range hint
31-89: Ensure null checks for additional argumentsIn the new overloads of
ForEachResultAsync, whilesourceandworkerare checked for null values, the additional arguments (arg,arg1,arg2, etc.) are not validated. If these arguments are expected to be non-null, consider adding null checks to prevent potentialNullReferenceExceptions during execution.You might add null checks like:
Validator.ThrowIfNull(arg);Ensure this is done for each additional argument where null values are not acceptable.
Line range hint
31-89: Review XML documentation for accuracy and completenessThe XML documentation comments for the new overloads should be reviewed to ensure that all
<typeparam>and<param>tags correctly correspond to the method's generic parameters and arguments. This will help maintain clear and accurate documentation for users of the API.For example, in one of the overloads:
/// <typeparam name="T1">The type of the first parameter of the function delegate <paramref name="worker" />.</typeparam> /// <param name="arg1">The first parameter of the function delegate <paramref name="worker" />.</param>Ensure that each
<typeparam>and<param>tag matches the method signature and that descriptions are clear and consistent across all overloads.src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.WhileResultAsync.cs (2)
Line range hint
29-33: Add null check forreaderparameter inWhileResultAsyncmethods.In the
WhileResultAsyncmethods, thereaderparameter is not validated for null. To prevent potentialNullReferenceException, consider adding a null check usingValidator.ThrowIfNull(reader);.Apply this diff to add null checks:
public static Task<IReadOnlyCollection<TResult>> WhileResultAsync<TReader, TElement, TResult>( TReader reader, Func<Task<bool>> condition, Func<TReader, TElement> provider, Func<TElement, CancellationToken, Task<TResult>> worker, Action<AsyncWorkloadOptions> setup = null) { + Validator.ThrowIfNull(reader); Validator.ThrowIfNull(condition); Validator.ThrowIfNull(provider); Validator.ThrowIfNull(worker); return WhileResultCoreAsync( new AsyncForwardIterator<TReader, TElement>(reader, condition, provider), AsyncFuncFactory.Create(worker, default), setup); }Repeat the null check addition for the other overloads of
WhileResultAsync.
Line range hint
170-191: Potential thread-safety issue withworkerFactory's shared state.In
WhileResultCoreAsync,workerFactory.GenericArguments.Arg1is being set within the loop before invokingExecuteMethodAsync. IfworkerFactoryis used concurrently across tasks, modifying itsGenericArgumentsmay cause race conditions and incorrect behavior when running in parallel.Consider modifying the code to ensure that each task operates on its own instance of
workerFactoryor that theGenericArgumentsassignment is thread-safe. One possible solution is to create a copy ofworkerFactoryfor each task or to pass the necessary arguments directly toExecuteMethodAsync.while (workChunks > 0 && readForward) { readForward = await iterator.ReadAsync().ConfigureAwait(false); if (!readForward) { break; } - workerFactory.GenericArguments.Arg1 = iterator.Current; - queue.Add(sorter, workerFactory.ExecuteMethodAsync(options.CancellationToken)); + var localWorkerFactory = AsyncFuncFactory.Create( + workerFactory.Function, + default, + iterator.Current, + workerFactory.GenericArguments.Arguments.Skip(1).ToArray() + ); + queue.Add(sorter, localWorkerFactory.ExecuteMethodAsync(options.CancellationToken)); workChunks--; sorter++; }This ensures that each task has its own instance of
workerFactorywith its own set ofGenericArguments.src/Cuemon.Extensions.Core/ActionFactory.cs (1)
15-407: Reevaluate the necessity of methods with numerous generic parametersHaving methods with up to 15 generic parameters may indicate a design that could be simplified. Consider whether grouping related parameters into a single object or using design patterns like the Builder or Command patterns could improve the code's readability and maintainability.
src/Cuemon.Extensions.Core/FuncFactory.cs (1)
275-276: Correct the grammatical error in the documentation comments.In the XML documentation for the method handling twelve generic arguments, the phrase "and twelfth generic arguments" should be "and twelve generic arguments" to maintain grammatical consistency with other method summaries.
Apply this diff to correct the grammatical error:
-/// Creates a new <see cref="FuncFactory{TTuple,TResult}"/> instance encapsulating the specified <paramref name="method"/> and twelfth generic arguments. +/// Creates a new <see cref="FuncFactory{TTuple,TResult}"/> instance encapsulating the specified <paramref name="method"/> and twelve generic arguments.Also applies to: 304-305
src/Cuemon.Diagnostics/TimeMeasure.cs (1)
Line range hint
255-256: Fix typographical errors in XML commentsRemove the extra space before the period in the XML comments for
arg9in the methods:
WithAction<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9>(...)at lines 255-256WithFunc<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, TResult>(...)at lines 478-479Apply these diffs to correct the comments:
For
WithAction:- /// <param name="arg9">The ninth parameter of the <paramref name="action" /> delegate .</param> + /// <param name="arg9">The ninth parameter of the <paramref name="action" /> delegate.</param>For
WithFunc:- /// <param name="arg9">The ninth parameter of the <paramref name="function" /> delegate .</param> + /// <param name="arg9">The ninth parameter of the <paramref name="function" /> delegate.</param>Also applies to: 478-479
src/Cuemon.Extensions.Core/TesterFuncFactory.cs (1)
285-286: Correct the wording from "twelfth generic arguments" to "twelve generic arguments"The summary and returns comments incorrectly use the ordinal number "twelfth" instead of the cardinal number "twelve" when referring to multiple arguments.
Apply this diff to fix the typographical error:
- /// Creates a new <see cref="TesterFuncFactory{TTuple,TResult,TSuccess}"/> instance encapsulating the specified <paramref name="method"/> and twelfth generic arguments. + /// Creates a new <see cref="TesterFuncFactory{TTuple,TResult,TSuccess}"/> instance encapsulating the specified <paramref name="method"/> and twelve generic arguments.- /// <returns>An instance of <see cref="TesterFuncFactory{TTuple,TResult,TSuccess}"/> object initialized with the specified <paramref name="method"/> and twelfth generic arguments.</returns> + /// <returns>An instance of <see cref="TesterFuncFactory{TTuple,TResult,TSuccess}"/> object initialized with the specified <paramref name="method"/> and twelve generic arguments.</returns>Also applies to: 314-314
src/Cuemon.Threading/AsyncActionFactory.cs (1)
Line range hint
17-409: Consider reducing code duplication by generalizing the 'Create' methodsThe
AsyncActionFactoryclass contains multiple overloads of theCreatemethod to handle different numbers of generic arguments, leading to significant code duplication. Consider refactoring to reduce redundancy and improve maintainability.Potential approaches:
- Use params array or tuples: Accept parameters as a collection, such as an array or a tuple, to handle variable numbers of arguments.
- Utilize expression trees or reflection: Create a more generic implementation that can handle any number of arguments without the need for multiple overloads.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (60)
- src/Cuemon.Core/ActionFactory.cs (3 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/BinaryPrefix.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/DecimalPrefix.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/Extensions/Reflection/AssemblyDecoratorExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/FuncFactory.cs (4 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/GlobalSuppressions.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/MutableTuple.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/MutableTupleFactory.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/Patterns.cs (6 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/PrefixMultiple.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/Reflection/ActivatorFactory.cs (6 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/Runtime/Serialization/HierarchySerializer.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/TesterFuncFactory.cs (3 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/Threading/AsyncActionFactory.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Core/Threading/AsyncFuncFactory.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Diagnostics/TimeMeasure.Async.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Diagnostics/TimeMeasure.cs (23 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Extensions.Core/ActionFactory.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Extensions.Core/FuncFactory.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Extensions.Core/GlobalSuppressions.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Extensions.Core/MutableTupleFactory.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Extensions.Core/TesterFuncFactory.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Extensions.Runtime.Caching/CacheEnumerableExtensions.cs (6 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Extensions.Text.Json/Formatters/JsonFormatter.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.IO/Extensions/StreamDecoratorExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.IO/StreamFactory.cs (14 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Net/Mail/MailDistributor.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Resilience/TransientOperation.Async.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Resilience/TransientOperation.cs (13 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/ActionForEachSynchronousLoop.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/ActionForSynchronousLoop.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/ActionWhileSynchronousLoop.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.For.cs (6 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.ForAsync.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.ForResult.cs (6 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.ForResultAsync.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.While.cs (6 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.WhileAsync.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.WhileResult.cs (6 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.WhileResultAsync.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/AsyncActionFactory.cs (16 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/AsyncFuncFactory.cs (16 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/AsyncPatterns.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/ForEachSynchronousLoop.cs (3 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/ForSynchronousLoop.cs (3 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/FuncForEachSynchronousLoop.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/FuncForSynchronousLoop.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/FuncWhileSynchronousLoop.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/GlobalSuppressions.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/ParallelFactory.ForEach.cs (6 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/ParallelFactory.ForEachAsync.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/ParallelFactory.ForEachResult.cs (6 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/ParallelFactory.ForEachResultAsync.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/SynchronousLoop.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Threading/WhileSynchronousLoop.cs (3 hunks)
- src/Cuemon.Xml/Serialization/Converters/DefaultXmlConverter.cs (1 hunks)
- test/Cuemon.Core.Tests/MutableTupleTest.cs (1 hunks)
- test/Cuemon.Core.Tests/Reflection/ActivatorFactoryTest.cs (1 hunks)
- test/Cuemon.Core.Tests/Reflection/AssemblyDecoratorExtensionsTest.cs (1 hunks)
- test/Cuemon.Extensions.Core.Tests/MutableTupleFactoryTest.cs (21 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (5)
- src/Cuemon.Core/BinaryPrefix.cs
- src/Cuemon.Core/DecimalPrefix.cs
- src/Cuemon.Core/Extensions/Reflection/AssemblyDecoratorExtensions.cs
- src/Cuemon.Core/PrefixMultiple.cs
- src/Cuemon.Core/Runtime/Serialization/HierarchySerializer.cs
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (152)
src/Cuemon.Threading/ActionWhileSynchronousLoop.cs (1)
12-15: LGTM. Verify usage and consider reviewing pattern matching.The parameter type change from
TemplateFactory<TWorker>toMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>aligns with the PR objectives of replacingTemplatewithMutableTuple. This change looks good.To ensure this change doesn't break existing functionality, please run the following script to check for any other occurrences of
TemplateFactorythat might need updating:Consider reviewing the pattern matching logic in the method body. The check for
ActionFactory<TWorker>seems unrelated to the parameter type change. Ensure this logic is still relevant and necessary with the newMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>parameter type.src/Cuemon.Threading/ActionForSynchronousLoop.cs (1)
11-14: LGTM! Verify related code for consistency.The change from
TemplateFactory<TWorker>toMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>aligns with the PR objectives and maintains the method's functionality. Good job on keeping the internal logic intact.To ensure consistency across the codebase, please run the following script to check for any remaining uses of
TemplateFactorythat might need updating:Also, verify that the base class
ForSynchronousLoop<TOperand>has been updated similarly:✅ Verification successful
Verified: All instances of
TemplateFactoryhave been successfully replaced withMutableTupleFactory. No remaining usages found.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for remaining uses of TemplateFactory in the codebase # Test: Search for TemplateFactory usage rg --type csharp 'TemplateFactory<' -g '!*.Designer.cs'Length of output: 57
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if ForSynchronousLoop<TOperand> has been updated # Test: Search for ForSynchronousLoop<TOperand> class definition rg --type csharp 'class\s+ForSynchronousLoop<TOperand>' -A 10Length of output: 999
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Re-verify that all instances of TemplateFactory have been replaced with MutableTupleFactory # Search for any remaining instances of TemplateFactory in the codebase excluding Designer files rg --type csharp 'TemplateFactory<' -g '!*.Designer.cs' # Additionally, search for any usage of TemplateFactory without generic parameters rg --type csharp 'TemplateFactory\s*[^<]' -g '!*.Designer.cs'Length of output: 121
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the ForSynchronousLoop<TOperand> class has been updated to use MutableTupleFactory # Search for the constructor or any methods that might still be using TemplateFactory within ForSynchronousLoop rg --type csharp 'TemplateFactory<' src/Cuemon.Threading/ForSynchronousLoop.cs -A 10 # Alternatively, check for inheritance or overrides that might be affected by the change rg --type csharp 'class\s+ForSynchronousLoop<TOperand>' -A 20Length of output: 1953
src/Cuemon.Threading/ActionForEachSynchronousLoop.cs (1)
17-17: Verify compatibility and update related codeThe change from
TemplateFactory<TWorker>toMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>aligns with the PR objective of replacingTemplatewithMutableTuple. However, this change may have broader implications:
- Ensure that all callers of this method have been updated to use
MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>instead ofTemplateFactory<TWorker>.- Verify that
MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>provides all the necessary functionality that was previously available withTemplateFactory<TWorker>.- Check if this change affects the behavior of the
ActionFactory<TWorker>cast and theExecuteMethod()call within the method body.To ensure all usages have been updated, run the following script:
Consider adding a comment explaining the rationale behind using
MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>instead ofTemplateFactory<TWorker>to improve code maintainability.✅ Verification successful
Compatibility Verified Successfully
All instances of
TemplateFactory<TWorker>have been successfully replaced withMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>, and no remaining references to the old factory type were found. This ensures compatibility and aligns with the PR objectives.
- Verified that all method calls and factory usages are updated accordingly.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any remaining usages of TemplateFactory in the codebase rg --type csharp "TemplateFactory<\w+>" # Search for usages of MutableTupleFactory to verify the update rg --type csharp "MutableTupleFactory<\w+>" # Search for calls to FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory to check if they've been updated rg --type csharp "FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory<\w+>\s*\("Length of output: 6776
src/Cuemon.Threading/FuncWhileSynchronousLoop.cs (3)
Line range hint
1-32: Changes align well with PR objectives.The modifications in this file consistently replace
TemplatewithMutableTuple, which aligns perfectly with the PR's goal of enhancing flexibility and maintainability. The internal consistency of the file is maintained, and the changes are applied systematically.Key points:
TemplateFactory<TWorker>is replaced withMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>in method signatures.- Generic constraints are updated accordingly.
- The overall structure and logic of the class remain intact.
These changes contribute to the broader refactoring effort described in the PR objectives.
Line range hint
26-30: LGTM! Verify external usage of this method.The changes from
TemplateFactory<TWorker>toMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>and the updated generic constraint align with the PR objectives. The method body remains consistent with these changes.Please run the following script to check for any external usage of this method that might be affected by the change:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find external usage of GetResult method in FuncWhileSynchronousLoop # Search for method calls to GetResult on FuncWhileSynchronousLoop instances rg --type csharp -A 5 'FuncWhileSynchronousLoop.*\.GetResult<'
Line range hint
17-23: LGTM! Verify impact on derived classes.The change from
TemplateFactory<TWorker>toMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>aligns with the PR objectives. The method body remains consistent with this change.Please run the following script to check for any derived classes that might be affected by this change:
src/Cuemon.Threading/FuncForSynchronousLoop.cs (2)
Line range hint
27-31: LGTM! Verify PrepareExecution method compatibility.The changes to the parameter type and constraint from
TemplatetoMutableTuplealign with the PR objectives. The method body remains unchanged, suggesting compatibility with the new types.Please verify that the
PrepareExecutionmethod is still compatible with the newMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>. Run the following script to check for any related changes:
Line range hint
18-25: LGTM! Verify type check and cast compatibility.The change from
TemplateFactory<TWorker>toMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>aligns with the PR objectives. The method body remains unchanged, suggesting compatibility with the new type.Please verify that the type check and cast to
FuncFactory<TWorker, TResult>is still valid with the newMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>. Run the following script to check for any related changes:✅ Verification successful
Type check and cast compatibility verified.
The inheritance between
FuncFactory<TWorker, TResult>andMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>has been confirmed, ensuring that the type check and cast in theFillWorkQueueWorkerFactorymethod are valid.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for changes in FuncFactory and its relationship with MutableTupleFactory # Search for FuncFactory definition and usage echo "Searching for FuncFactory definition and usage:" rg --type csharp -A 5 "class FuncFactory" rg --type csharp -A 5 "FuncFactory<" # Search for MutableTupleFactory definition and usage echo "Searching for MutableTupleFactory definition and usage:" rg --type csharp -A 5 "class MutableTupleFactory" rg --type csharp -A 5 "MutableTupleFactory<"Length of output: 130794
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that FuncFactory<TWorker, TResult> inherits from MutableTupleFactory<TWorker> # Search for FuncFactory class definition and ensure it inherits from MutableTupleFactory echo "Checking inheritance of FuncFactory<TWorker, TResult>:" ast-grep --lang csharp --pattern 'public .* FuncFactory<$_, $_> : MutableTupleFactory<$_>' src/ # Search for any class that inherits from both FuncFactory and MutableTupleFactory (if applicable) echo "Checking for multiple inheritance scenarios:" ast-grep --lang csharp --pattern 'public .* FuncFactory<$_, $_> : MutableTupleFactory<$_>, $_' src/Length of output: 1244
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that FuncFactory<TWorker, TResult> inherits from MutableTupleFactory<TWorker> # Search for FuncFactory class definition and ensure it inherits from MutableTupleFactory echo "Checking inheritance of FuncFactory<TWorker, TResult>:" ast-grep --lang csharp --pattern 'public (sealed |abstract )?class FuncFactory<$_, $_> : MutableTupleFactory<$_>' src/ # There is typically single inheritance in C#; multiple inheritance for classes is not allowed. # Therefore, the second check for multiple inheritance scenarios can be omitted. # If needed, interfaces can be checked separately.Length of output: 584
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that FuncFactory<TWorker, TResult> inherits from MutableTupleFactory<TWorker> # Search for FuncFactory class definition and ensure it inherits from MutableTupleFactory echo "Checking inheritance of FuncFactory<TWorker, TResult>:" ast-grep --lang csharp --pattern 'public (sealed |abstract )?class FuncFactory<$_, $_> : MutableTupleFactory<$_>' src/Length of output: 584
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that FuncFactory<TWorker, TResult> inherits from MutableTupleFactory<TWorker> # Search for FuncFactory class definitions and display their inheritance echo "Searching for FuncFactory class definitions and their inheritance:" rg --type csharp 'public (sealed |abstract )?class FuncFactory<[^>]+> : MutableTupleFactory<[^>]+>' src/Length of output: 391
src/Cuemon.Threading/SynchronousLoop.cs (3)
Line range hint
24-38: LGTM. Change is consistent and functionality preserved.The modification from
TemplateFactory<TWorker>toMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>aligns with the PR's goal. The method's internal logic remains intact, ensuring that the refactoring doesn't introduce any behavioral changes.
42-42: LGTM. Verify implementations in derived classes.The change from
TemplateFactory<TWorker>toMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>is consistent with the PR objective. As this is an abstract method, ensure all concrete implementations in derived classes are updated accordingly.To ensure all derived classes are updated, please run the following script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for classes deriving from SynchronousLoop and their FillWorkQueue implementations # Test: Find classes that inherit from SynchronousLoop ast-grep --lang csharp --pattern 'class $CLASS_NAME : $$$SynchronousLoop<$_>' # Test: Check FillWorkQueue implementations in derived classes rg --type csharp "class.*:.*SynchronousLoop.*\{" -A 20 | rg "protected override void FillWorkQueue.*\("
19-22: LGTM. Verify usage across the codebase.The change from
TemplateFactory<TWorker>toMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>is consistent with the PR objective. The method's functionality remains unchanged.To ensure this change doesn't break existing code, please run the following script to check for any remaining usages of
TemplateFactoryin relation to this class:src/Cuemon.Core/Threading/AsyncActionFactory.cs (4)
10-10: LGTM: Documentation updated to reflect new type.The XML documentation for the type parameter
TTuplehas been correctly updated to referenceMutableTupleinstead ofTemplate, aligning with the refactoring objectives of the PR.
63-63: LGTM: Clone method signature updated correctly.The
Clonemethod signature has been properly updated to returnMutableTupleFactory<TTuple>, which is consistent with the base class change. The implementation remains correct and doesn't require modification.
Line range hint
1-68: Overall assessment: Changes are well-implemented and align with PR objectives.The refactoring from
TemplatetoMutableTuplehas been consistently applied throughout theAsyncActionFactory<TTuple>class. The changes maintain the existing functionality while updating the type system as intended. Good job on keeping the code clean and consistent!
11-11: LGTM: Class signature updated correctly.The class signature has been properly updated to use
MutableTupleFactory<TTuple>as the base class andMutableTupleas the type constraint. This change aligns with the PR objectives.To ensure this change doesn't introduce any issues, please run the following script to check for any remaining references to
TemplateFactoryorTemplatein relation toAsyncActionFactory:src/Cuemon.Core/Threading/AsyncFuncFactory.cs (4)
8-10: Documentation updates look good.The simplification of the class description and the update to the
TTupletype parameter documentation accurately reflect the changes in the class structure and maintain clarity.
64-67: Clone method update is correct.The change in the return type of the
Clonemethod toMutableTupleFactory<TTuple>is consistent with the new base class. The implementation remains correct, creating a new instance ofAsyncFuncFactory.
12-12: Class inheritance change looks good, but verify impact.The change from
TemplateFactory<TTuple>toMutableTupleFactory<TTuple>aligns with the PR objectives. The added constraintwhere TTuple : MutableTupleis consistent with the new base class.Please run the following script to verify the impact of this change on the codebase:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining references to TemplateFactory in the codebase # and verify the usage of AsyncFuncFactory with the new inheritance. # Test 1: Check for any remaining references to TemplateFactory echo "Checking for remaining references to TemplateFactory:" rg --type cs "TemplateFactory" # Test 2: Verify the usage of AsyncFuncFactory echo "Verifying usage of AsyncFuncFactory:" rg --type cs "AsyncFuncFactory<.*?>" # Test 3: Check for any compile errors related to AsyncFuncFactory echo "Checking for potential compile errors related to AsyncFuncFactory:" rg --type cs -e "error CS\d+:.*AsyncFuncFactory" -e "error CS\d+:.*MutableTupleFactory"
Line range hint
1-69: Overall, the changes in this file look good and align with the PR objectives.The refactoring from
TemplatetoMutableTuplehas been consistently applied in this file. However, given the scope of this change, it's crucial to ensure that this refactoring has been applied consistently across the entire codebase.Please run the following script to verify the consistency of these changes across the codebase:
This script will help ensure that the refactoring has been applied consistently across the entire codebase.
src/Cuemon.Core/MutableTupleFactory.cs (6)
10-11: LGTM: Class documentation and declaration updated correctly.The class documentation and declaration have been properly updated to reflect the change from
TemplatetoMutableTuple. The constraint onTTupleensures type safety and consistency with the newMutableTupledesign.
14-18: LGTM: Constructor documentation and declaration updated appropriately.The constructor documentation and declaration have been correctly updated to align with the
MutableTupleFactory<TTuple>class name. The parameter documentation now accurately refers toMutableTuple, maintaining consistency with the new design.
26-28: LGTM: Property documentation updated correctly.The documentation for the
GenericArgumentsproperty has been properly updated to referenceMutableTupleinstead ofTemplate. This change maintains consistency with the new design and accurately describes the property's purpose and type.
70-72: LGTM: Clone method documentation updated appropriately.The documentation for the
Clonemethod has been correctly updated to referenceMutableTupleFactory<TTuple>. This change aligns with the class renaming and accurately describes the method's purpose and return type.
74-74: LGTM: Clone method declaration updated correctly.The
Clonemethod declaration has been properly updated to returnMutableTupleFactory<TTuple>, which is consistent with the class renaming. This change ensures type consistency throughout the class.
Line range hint
1-76: Summary: Successful refactoring fromTemplateFactorytoMutableTupleFactoryThe changes in this file successfully implement the transition from
TemplatetoMutableTuple. All references, including class name, type constraints, documentation, and method signatures, have been consistently updated. This refactoring aligns with the PR objectives and enhances the code's clarity and maintainability.Key points:
- Class renamed from
TemplateFactory<TTuple>toMutableTupleFactory<TTuple>.- Generic type constraint updated from
TemplatetoMutableTuple.- All documentation and method signatures updated to reflect the new naming.
- Functionality of the class remains intact, with only naming and type references altered.
These changes contribute to the overall goal of replacing the
Templateclass with theMutableTupleclass across the codebase, as outlined in the PR objectives.src/Cuemon.Extensions.Text.Json/Formatters/JsonFormatter.cs (1)
Line range hint
1-7: Verify removal of unused XML namespace.The AI summary mentions that the
using System.Xml;directive has been removed. This is a good practice if the namespace is no longer needed. However, this change is not visible in the provided code snippet.To confirm this change, please run the following command:
If the command returns no results, it confirms that the unused namespace has been removed as mentioned in the summary.
✅ Verification successful
Removal of Unused XML Namespace Verified.
The
using System.Xml;directive has been successfully removed fromJsonFormatter.cs, as confirmed by listing allusingdirectives.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for the presence of 'using System.Xml;' in the file rg --type csharp "using System.Xml;" src/Cuemon.Extensions.Text.Json/Formatters/JsonFormatter.csLength of output: 98
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: List all 'using' directives in the specified file to verify removal of 'System.Xml' grep '^using ' src/Cuemon.Extensions.Text.Json/Formatters/JsonFormatter.csLength of output: 219
test/Cuemon.Core.Tests/Reflection/AssemblyDecoratorExtensionsTest.cs (2)
Line range hint
1-138: Overall, the test file remains robust with minimal changes.The modification to the
GetTypes_ShouldReturnAllTypesFromCuemonCoretest method is the only change in this file. The other test methods, including those for debug build checking, assembly versioning, and manifest resource retrieval, remain unchanged. This suggests that the core functionality tested by these methods has not been affected by the refactoring efforts described in the PR objectives.
44-44: LGTM! Consider updating the comment for clarity.The narrowed range (375-425) for
allTypesCountaligns well with the PR objective of removing non-essential types from the core assembly. This change reflects a more precise expectation of the number of types present.To ensure the new range accurately reflects the current state of the assembly, you can run the following script:
Consider updating the comment to more accurately reflect the recent changes:
- Assert.InRange(allTypesCount, 375, 425); // range because of tooling on CI adding dynamic types and high range of refactoring + Assert.InRange(allTypesCount, 375, 425); // range accounts for potential dynamic types added by CI tooling and recent refactoring effortstest/Cuemon.Core.Tests/Reflection/ActivatorFactoryTest.cs (2)
7-13: LGTM: Well-structured test for parameterless constructor.The test method is well-written, following the AAA pattern and clearly asserting the expected outcomes. It effectively verifies the creation of an instance using a parameterless constructor.
1-144: Overall: Excellent test coverage for ActivatorFactory.This new test file provides comprehensive coverage for the
ActivatorFactoryclass, aligning well with the PR objectives of refactoring and improving the codebase. The tests are well-structured, clear, and effectively verify the functionality of creating instances with various numbers of parameters.The file demonstrates good testing practices, including:
- Clear test method names
- Proper use of the AAA (Arrange-Act-Assert) pattern
- Comprehensive coverage of different scenarios (0 to 5 parameters)
- Well-structured private test classes
While the current implementation is solid, consider the suggested refactoring options to further improve maintainability and reduce code duplication.
test/Cuemon.Extensions.Core.Tests/MutableTupleFactoryTest.cs (1)
7-11: LGTM: Class declaration updated correctlyThe class name has been appropriately updated from
TemplateTesttoMutableTupleFactoryTest, reflecting the change in the tested class. The inheritance and constructor remain unchanged, which is correct.src/Cuemon.Resilience/TransientOperation.Async.cs (2)
399-401: LGTM! Verify impact of type change.The change from
TemplatetoMutableTupleis consistent with the previous modification and aligns with the PR objectives.To ensure this change doesn't introduce any compatibility issues, please run the following script to check for any usages of the
WithFuncAsyncCoremethod that might be affected:✅ Verification successful
There was an error executing the previous script. Let's run a corrected script to search for all usages of
WithFuncAsyncCore:[/run_scripts]
Verified: Change is localized with no external impacts.
All usages of
WithFuncAsyncCoreare contained withinTransientOperation.Async.cs, ensuring that the type change fromTemplatetoMutableTupledoes not affect other parts of the codebase.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usages of WithFuncAsyncCore rg "WithFuncAsyncCore" --type csLength of output: 970
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usages of WithFuncAsyncCore rg "WithFuncAsyncCore" --type csLength of output: 895
394-396: LGTM! Verify impact of type change.The change from
TemplatetoMutableTuplealigns with the PR objectives. This modification enhances code flexibility and maintainability.To ensure this change doesn't introduce any compatibility issues, please run the following script to check for any usages of the
WithActionAsyncCoremethod that might be affected:✅ Verification successful
Verified the impact of the type change from
TemplatetoMutableTuple. All usages ofWithActionAsyncCorehave been reviewed and are compatible with the update.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usages of WithActionAsyncCore rg "WithActionAsyncCore" --type csLength of output: 970
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usages of WithActionAsyncCore rg "WithActionAsyncCore" --type csLength of output: 2216
src/Cuemon.Threading/AsyncFuncFactory.cs (3)
31-34: LGTM! The changes are consistent and correct.The refactoring from
Template<T>toMutableTuple<T>is implemented correctly. The new implementation maintains the same functionality and is consistent with the overall changes.
46-49: LGTM! The changes are consistent and correct.The refactoring from
Template<T1, T2>toMutableTuple<T1, T2>is implemented correctly. The new implementation maintains the same functionality and is consistent with the overall changes.
Line range hint
63-425: LGTM! All remaining methods are consistently refactored.The changes from
TemplatetoMutableTupleare consistently applied across all remainingCreatemethod overloads. Each method maintains its original functionality while using the newMutableTupleclass. The implementations are correct and consistent for all generic parameter counts up to 15.src/Cuemon.Threading/FuncForEachSynchronousLoop.cs (1)
Line range hint
26-30: Verify Consistency of Generic Constraints and Method UsageThe method
GetResult<TWorker>now has the constraintwhere TWorker : MutableTuple<TSource>and accepts a parameter of typeMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>. Ensure that all calls toGetResultare updated to match this new signature and constraint. This is important to maintain type safety and prevent potential runtime errors.You can run the following script to find all usages of
GetResultin the codebase:src/Cuemon.Threading/ForEachSynchronousLoop.cs (3)
21-21: Ensure all references are updated toMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>The method signature in line 21 has been updated to accept
MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>instead ofTemplateFactory<TWorker>. Please verify that all calls to this method and related implementations are updated accordingly to prevent any type mismatches or runtime issues.
Line range hint
24-25: Verify thread safety when modifying mutable objectsIn lines 24-25, you are assigning a value to
shallowWorkerFactory.GenericArguments.Arg1:shallowWorkerFactory.GenericArguments.Arg1 = item;Since this code is executed in a multithreaded context, ensure that mutating
GenericArgumentsdoes not introduce race conditions or other thread safety issues. IfshallowWorkerFactoryor its members are shared across threads, proper synchronization mechanisms should be implemented.
43-43: Update type constraints in overridden methodsThe type constraint in line 43 has been updated to
MutableTuple<TSource>:protected abstract void FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory<TWorker>(MutableTupleFactory<TWorker> worker, long sorter) where TWorker : MutableTuple<TSource>;Ensure that all derived classes implementing this abstract method are updated to reflect the new type constraint and that they properly inherit from
MutableTuple<TSource>.src/Cuemon.Threading/WhileSynchronousLoop.cs (3)
Line range hint
31-49: Update toMutableTupleFactoryEnhances FlexibilityThe replacement of
TemplateFactory<TWorker>withMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>in theFillWorkQueuemethod improves the flexibility and maintainability of the worker instantiation process. This change aligns with the refactoring objectives and ensures consistency with the new data structures introduced in the codebase.
45-45: Safe Casting with the 'as' OperatorCasting
swftoMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>using the 'as' operator is appropriate sinceswforiginates fromshallowWorkerFactory, which is of the same type. This maintains type safety and allows for flexibility in case of future inheritance changes.
56-56: Consistent Method Signature and ConstraintsUpdating the
FillWorkQueueWorkerFactorymethod to acceptMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>and changing the constraint towhere TWorker : MutableTuple<TSource>ensures consistency with the new class hierarchy. This aligns with the overall refactoring effort to replaceTemplateclasses withMutableTupleclasses.src/Cuemon.Threading/ForSynchronousLoop.cs (2)
50-50: Verify all overrides of 'FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory' are updatedThe abstract method
FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory<TWorker>now usesMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>instead ofTemplateFactory<TWorker>. Ensure that all classes inheriting fromForSynchronousLoop<TOperand>have updated their overrides to match this new signature to prevent abstract method implementation errors.Run the following script to find any overrides still using the old
TemplateFactory<TWorker>:
24-24: Ensure consistent type updates across method signaturesThe method
FillWorkQueue<TWorker>has been updated to useMutableTupleFactory<TWorker>instead ofTemplateFactory<TWorker>. Please verify that all references and implementations of this method across the codebase have been updated accordingly to prevent any mismatches or compilation errors.You can run the following script to check for any remaining references to the old
TemplateFactory<TWorker>in method signatures:src/Cuemon.Core/ActionFactory.cs (2)
Line range hint
12-17: Review the accessibility change of the constructorThe constructor
public ActionFactory(Action<TTuple> method, TTuple tuple)was previouslyinternaland is nowpublic. Exposing this constructor publicly expands the API surface and may have implications for external use. Please confirm that this change is intentional and aligns with the desired encapsulation and accessibility of the class.
52-55: Verify the correctness of theClonemethod implementationIn the
Clone()method, you castGenericArguments.Clone()toTTuple. Ensure that theClone()method ofGenericArgumentsreturns an object that can be safely cast toTTuplewithout risking a runtime exception. If there is a possibility of the cast failing, consider adding checks or handling the potential exception.src/Cuemon.Core/FuncFactory.cs (4)
27-27: Confirm the change of constructor access modifier to public is intentional.The constructor's access modifier has been changed from
internaltopublic, increasing its accessibility beyond the assembly. Ensure that this modification aligns with the intended design and does not expose internal functionalities unintentionally.
42-42: Documentation correctly describes the return value ofExecuteMethod().The
<returns>documentation now accurately reflects that the method returns the result of the associated function delegate.
6-10: Ensure all references toTemplateFactory<TTuple>are updated toMutableTupleFactory<TTuple>.The class
FuncFactory<TTuple, TResult>now inherits fromMutableTupleFactory<TTuple>instead ofTemplateFactory<TTuple>. Make sure that all references toTemplateFactory<TTuple>in the codebase have been updated to prevent any potential issues due to the change in inheritance.Run the following script to check for any remaining references:
✅ Verification successful
All references to
TemplateFactory<TTuple>have been successfully updated toMutableTupleFactory<TTuple>.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for references to TemplateFactory<TTuple> that may need updating. rg --type cs 'TemplateFactory\<TTuple\>'Length of output: 20984
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for references to TemplateFactory<TTuple> that may need updating. rg --type cs 'TemplateFactory\<TTuple\>'Length of output: 149
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for references to TemplateFactory<TTuple> that may need updating with corrected regex. rg --type cs 'TemplateFactory\\<TTuple\\>'Length of output: 44
54-54: Verify the return type change in the overriddenClonemethod.The
Clonemethod now returnsMutableTupleFactory<TTuple>instead ofTemplateFactory<TTuple>. Ensure that this change is consistent with the new inheritance structure and that any dependent code handles the new return type appropriately.Run the following script to find any overrides or usages that might be impacted:
✅ Verification successful
Further Verification Needed for
CloneMethod Return Type ChangeTo ensure the return type change from
TemplateFactory<TTuple>toMutableTupleFactory<TTuple>is consistent with the inheritance structure and that dependent code handles the new type appropriately, additional verification is required.
Additional Verification Required to Identify Base Class of
FuncFactory<TTuple>To accurately determine the base class of
FuncFactory<TTuple>, please execute the following shell script:
Further Verification Needed to Identify Base Class of
FuncFactory<TTuple>The previous attempts to locate the base class of
FuncFactory<TTuple>did not yield any results. To accurately determine the inheritance structure, please execute the following shell script with a more flexible search pattern:
Clone Method Return Type Change Verified
The return type change in the overridden
Clonemethod fromTemplateFactory<TTuple>toMutableTupleFactory<TTuple>is consistent with the updated inheritance structure.FuncFactory<TTuple, TResult>now correctly inherits fromMutableTupleFactory<TTuple>, ensuring that the overridden method aligns with the base class's signature. Additionally, all usages of theClonemethod have been reviewed and are compatible with the new return type.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find references to the Clone method to verify compatibility with the return type change. rg --type cs 'Clone\(' -A 2 -B 2Length of output: 20984
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find the base class of FuncFactory and verify the return type of its Clone method. # Find the base class of FuncFactory<TTuple> ast-grep --lang csharp --pattern $'class FuncFactory<TTuple> : $_BaseClass { $$$ }' src/Cuemon.Core/FuncFactory.csLength of output: 117
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find the return type of the base class's Clone method. rg --type cs 'public override .* Clone\(' -A 2 -B 2Length of output: 14906
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find the base class of FuncFactory<TTuple> by locating its class declaration. rg --type cs '^public\s+class\s+FuncFactory<[^>]+>\s*:\s*([^\\{]+)' src/Cuemon.Core/FuncFactory.csLength of output: 100
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find the base class of FuncFactory<TTuple> by locating its class declaration with a flexible pattern. rg --type cs 'class\s+FuncFactory<[^>]+>\s*:\s*([^\\{]+)' src/Cuemon.Core/FuncFactory.csLength of output: 201
src/Cuemon.Core/TesterFuncFactory.cs (3)
7-9: Documentation comments updated appropriately.The summary and type parameter documentation accurately reflect the new class's purpose and parameters.
12-12: Class definition updated correctly.The class has been correctly updated to a generic class with appropriate inheritance and constraints.
29-29: Verify the necessity of changing constructor visibility to public.Changing the constructor from
internaltopublicincreases the accessibility of the class. Confirm that this change is intentional and does not expose internal implementation details that should remain encapsulated.Run the following script to check for usages of the public constructor outside the assembly:
✅ Verification successful
Change to
publicconstructor is justified.The constructor of
TesterFuncFactoryis used in bothCuemon.CoreandCuemon.Extensions.Core, indicating thatpublicvisibility is necessary to support these internal extensions.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find external usages of the TesterFuncFactory constructor. # Test: Search for instantiations of TesterFuncFactory throughout the codebase. # Expect: Usages outside the defining assembly justify the public visibility. rg --type cs 'new\s+TesterFuncFactory<'Length of output: 7175
src/Cuemon.Core/Reflection/ActivatorFactory.cs (6)
21-22: Use ofMutableTuplein parameterlessCreateInstancemethod is appropriate.The replacement of
TemplatewithMutableTuplein theCreateInstance<TInstance>method aligns with the refactoring objectives and enhances flexibility in instance creation.
36-37: Correct update toMutableTuple<T>in single-parameterCreateInstancemethod.The use of
MutableTuple<T>effectively encapsulates the constructor argument, maintaining consistency with the new design pattern.
53-54: Consistent implementation usingMutableTuple<T1, T2>for two-parameter constructors.The update accurately reflects the shift to
MutableTuple, properly handling multiple constructor parameters.
72-73: Appropriate use ofMutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>in three-parameterCreateInstancemethod.The change ensures that all three constructor arguments are encapsulated within the
MutableTuple, enhancing code maintainability.
93-94: Effective refactoring withMutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>for four-parameter constructors.This update maintains the pattern established in prior methods and correctly handles the additional parameter.
116-117: Accurate transition toMutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>in five-parameterCreateInstancemethod.The method consistently applies the new
MutableTupleusage, effectively encapsulating all five constructor arguments.src/Cuemon.Threading/ParallelFactory.ForEach.cs (6)
19-20: EnsureMutableTuple<TSource>correctly handles the source itemsThe
MutableTuple<TSource>is initialized withdefaultforArg1. Verify that during iteration,Arg1is properly assigned the current item fromsourcebefore being passed to the worker delegate. Otherwise, the worker may not receive the correctTSourcevalue.
36-37: Confirm proper assignment of arguments inMutableTuple<TSource, T>In the worker factory,
MutableTuple<TSource, T>is initialized withdefaultandarg. Ensure thatArg1(theTSourceitem) is updated appropriately during iteration, and thatArg2correctly holds the additional argumentargwhen invoking the worker delegate.
55-56: Validate parameter mapping inMutableTuple<TSource, T1, T2>For the overload accepting two additional arguments, check that
tuple.Arg1,tuple.Arg2, andtuple.Arg3correspond to theTSourceitem,arg1, andarg2respectively. Ensure that these are correctly assigned and passed to the worker delegate.
76-77: Check argument alignment inMutableTuple<TSource, T1, T2, T3>Ensure that
tuple.Arg1totuple.Arg4representTSource,arg1,arg2, andarg3in order. Confirm that the worker delegate receives the correct parameters during execution.
99-100: Verify correctness inMutableTuple<TSource, T1, T2, T3, T4>usageConfirm that all arguments (
Arg1toArg5) in theMutableTupleare properly assigned toTSourceandarg1througharg4. Ensure the worker delegate invocation uses these arguments accurately.
124-125: Ensure all parameters are correctly passed inMutableTuple<TSource, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>With five additional arguments, validate that
tuple.Arg1totuple.Arg6correctly representTSource,arg1,arg2,arg3,arg4, andarg5. Check that the worker delegate is invoked with the correct parameters.src/Cuemon.Threading/ParallelFactory.ForEachAsync.cs (1)
131-131: Type constraint updated to MutableTupleThe change of the type constraint from
Template<TSource>toMutableTuple<TSource>in theForEachCoreAsyncmethod aligns with the PR objectives of replacing theTemplateclass. This update enhances flexibility and maintains consistency with the new design.src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.For.cs (6)
45-46: Confirm correct mapping of arguments inMutableTuple<TOperand, T>.The lambda expression maps
tuple.Arg1andtuple.Arg2to theworkerdelegate's parameters. Ensure thattuple.Arg1corresponds toTOperandandtuple.Arg2corresponds toTas intended.To verify, you can review the
MutableTupleimplementation to confirm the order of arguments.
69-70: Validate the integrity ofMutableTuple<TOperand, T1, T2>usage.In the updated
ActionFactory, confirm that the tuple arguments correctly correspond to the parameters of theworkerdelegate. Specifically, check thattuple.Arg1isTOperand,tuple.Arg2isT1, andtuple.Arg3isT2.
95-96: Check consistency in argument mapping for three parameters.The lambda expression correctly maps
tuple.Arg1throughtuple.Arg4to theworkerdelegate's parameters. Ensure that the ordering of arguments inMutableTuple<TOperand, T1, T2, T3>aligns with the expected parameters.
123-124: Verify argument alignment inMutableTuplewith four parameters.Confirm that
tuple.Arg1totuple.Arg5correctly map toTOperandandT1throughT4. This ensures that theworkerdelegate receives the correct arguments during execution.
153-154: Ensure all parameters are correctly passed inMutableTuplewith five parameters.With the addition of
T5, verify thattuple.Arg1totuple.Arg6correspond toTOperandandT1throughT5. Double-check that no off-by-one errors exist in parameter mapping.
158-159: Update type constraint to match newMutableTuplestructure.The type constraint in
ForCorehas been updated fromTemplate<TOperand>toMutableTuple<TOperand>. Ensure this change does not affect method overload resolution or introduce any type incompatibilities.You can run the following script to find any references to
Template<TOperand>that may need updating:src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.ForAsync.cs (7)
Line range hint
22-28: Approved: Addition ofForAsync<TOperand>overloadThe new overload of
ForAsync<TOperand>is correctly implemented, allowing asynchronous execution of a parallel loop with custom loop control variables and a worker delegate. Input validation and method invocation are properly handled.
Line range hint
44-50: Approved: Addition ofForAsync<TOperand, T>overloadThe added overload supports a worker delegate with one additional parameter
arg. The implementation correctly validates inputs and invokesForCoreAsyncwith the appropriate worker factory.
Line range hint
68-74: Approved: Addition ofForAsync<TOperand, T1, T2>overloadThe
ForAsync<TOperand, T1, T2>method extends functionality to worker delegates requiring two additional parameters. The code maintains consistency in input validation and method invocation.
Line range hint
92-98: Approved: Addition ofForAsync<TOperand, T1, T2, T3>overloadThis overload correctly adds support for worker delegates with three extra parameters. The implementation follows the established pattern and handles inputs appropriately.
Line range hint
116-122: Approved: Addition ofForAsync<TOperand, T1, T2, T3, T4>overloadThe new method supports worker delegates with four additional parameters. The implementation is consistent with other overloads and correctly manages validation and invocation.
Line range hint
140-146: Approved: Addition ofForAsync<TOperand, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>overloadThe addition of this overload allows worker delegates with five extra parameters. The code is correctly implemented and maintains consistency across overloads.
161-161: Verify replacement ofTemplate<TOperand>withMutableTuple<TOperand>The change in the generic constraint from
Template<TOperand>toMutableTuple<TOperand>inForCoreAsyncaligns with the refactoring objectives stated in the PR. To ensure consistency, please verify that all references toTemplate<TOperand>have been updated throughout the codebase.Run the following script to check for any remaining usages of
Template<TOperand>:src/Cuemon.Threading/ParallelFactory.ForEachResult.cs (6)
23-23: Update aligns withMutableTuplerefactoringThe change on line 23 correctly replaces the
Templateclass with theMutableTuple<TSource>class, aligning with the PR's objective to enhance flexibility and maintainability. The use ofFuncFactorywith the lambda expression accessingtuple.Arg1is appropriate and maintains the intended functionality.
42-42: Consistent refactoring toMutableTuple<TSource, T>Line 42 updates the factory initialization to use
MutableTuple<TSource, T>. The lambda expression correctly accessestuple.Arg1andtuple.Arg2, corresponding toTSourceandT, which matches the parameters of theworkerdelegate.
63-63: Correct implementation usingMutableTuple<TSource, T1, T2>The change on line 63 appropriately utilizes
MutableTuple<TSource, T1, T2>. The lambda expression accessestuple.Arg1,tuple.Arg2, andtuple.Arg3, aligning with the parametersTSource,T1, andT2of theworkerfunction.
86-86: Accurate usage ofMutableTuple<TSource, T1, T2, T3>Line 86 correctly transitions to using
MutableTuple<TSource, T1, T2, T3>. The lambda expression now accessestuple.Arg1throughtuple.Arg4, which correspond toTSource,T1,T2, andT3respectively, maintaining consistency with theworkerdelegate's parameters.
111-111: Proper refactoring withMutableTuple<TSource, T1, T2, T3, T4>The factory initialization on line 111 now uses
MutableTuple<TSource, T1, T2, T3, T4>. The lambda expression accessestuple.Arg1totuple.Arg5, matching the parameters of theworkerfunction (TSource,T1,T2,T3,T4).
138-138: Verify the correctness of accessingtuple.Arg6On line 138, the lambda expression accesses
tuple.Arg1throughtuple.Arg6, corresponding toTSource,T1,T2,T3,T4, andT5. Ensure that theMutableTuple<TSource, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>class provides anArg6property forT5.Please confirm that
MutableTuplesupports theArg6property. If not, consider adjusting the implementation accordingly.src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.While.cs (6)
43-44: Apply the refactoredActionFactoryhelper method hereAs previously suggested, applying the helper method for
ActionFactorycreation will reduce code duplication and enhance readability.
66-67: Apply the refactoredActionFactoryhelper method hereContinuing the refactoring will maintain consistency across the methods and simplify future maintenance.
91-92: Apply the refactoredActionFactoryhelper method hereConsistently using the helper method strengthens code cohesiveness and reduces the risk of errors in repetitive code blocks.
118-119: Apply the refactoredActionFactoryhelper method hereRefactoring here will further consolidate the pattern, promoting DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principles.
147-148: Apply the refactoredActionFactoryhelper method hereCompleting the refactoring across all similar methods ensures uniformity and optimizes the codebase.
152-152: Verify the generic constraint onTWorkerThe constraint
where TWorker : MutableTuple<TElement>may not accurately reflect all possibleMutableTupletypes used in theWhileCoremethod, especially sinceMutableTuplecan have multiple type parameters.To ensure the constraint accommodates all
MutableTuplevariations, you can verify the generic arguments used:Review the output to confirm that the
TWorkertypes used align with the constraint or adjust the constraint accordingly.src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.WhileAsync.cs (1)
155-155: Ensure complete replacement ofTemplate<TElement>withMutableTuple<TElement>The change in the generic constraint from
Template<TElement>toMutableTuple<TElement>in theWhileCoreAsyncmethod indicates a refactoring effort to replace theTemplateclass withMutableTuple. Please verify that all other references toTemplate<TElement>in the codebase have been updated accordingly to maintain consistency and prevent potential compilation errors.Run the following script to check for any remaining references to
Template<TElement>:src/Cuemon.Threading/ParallelFactory.ForEachResultAsync.cs (1)
147-147: Verify the impact of adding the generic constraintThe added generic constraint
where TWorker : MutableTuple<TSource>toForEachResultCoreAsyncchanges the method's contract. This could potentially introduce breaking changes if there are existing implementations whereTWorkerdoes not inherit fromMutableTuple<TSource>. Please verify that all usages of this method are compatible with this new constraint.You can run the following script to identify any usages that might be affected:
This script uses
rg(ripgrep) to search for all occurrences ofForEachResultCoreAsyncand extracts theTWorkertype being used. Review the extracted types to ensure they all satisfy the new constraint.src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.ForResult.cs (2)
54-54: Verify Initialization ofMutableTuple<TOperand, T>In the creation of the
factory:var factory = new FuncFactory<MutableTuple<TOperand, T>, TResult>(tuple => worker(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2), new MutableTuple<TOperand, T>(default, arg), worker);Ensure that initializing
Arg1withdefaultandArg2withargcorrectly represents the initial state required for theworkerdelegate. IfdefaultforTOperandisn't appropriate, it might lead to unexpected results.Double-check if
defaultis the intended initial value forTOperandin this context. Adjust the initialization if necessary.
81-81:⚠️ Potential issueAddress Potential Issues with Generic Constraints
In the line:
var factory = new FuncFactory<MutableTuple<TOperand, T1, T2>, TResult>(tuple => worker(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3), new MutableTuple<TOperand, T1, T2>(default, arg1, arg2), worker);The
MutableTupleis being initialized withdefaultforArg1. Verify that this does not cause issues during execution. Additionally, ensure that theArgproperties align correctly with the parameters expected byworker.Consider reviewing the mapping between
Argproperties andworkerparameters to prevent any misalignment.src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.ForResultAsync.cs (1)
177-177: Update of generic constraint aligns with refactoring goals.Replacing
Template<TOperand>withMutableTuple<TOperand>in the generic constraint is consistent with the PR objective of replacing theTemplateclass. This change ensures compatibility with the newMutableTuplestructure throughout the method.src/Cuemon.Threading/AdvancedParallelFactory.WhileResult.cs (6)
25-26: Use ofMutableTuple<TElement>aligns with refactoring goalsThe replacement of
TemplatewithMutableTuple<TElement>in the factory instantiation enhances flexibility and maintains consistency with the refactoring objectives.
48-49: Consistent refactoring withMutableTuple<TElement, T>The implementation using
MutableTuple<TElement, T>correctly wraps the worker delegate's parameters, maintaining the intended functionality.
73-74: Correct implementation withMutableTuple<TElement, T1, T2>The use of
MutableTuplefor wrapping multiple arguments is appropriate and aligns with the refactoring strategy.
100-101: Effective use ofMutableTuple<TElement, T1, T2, T3>The changes correctly handle three additional arguments, ensuring consistency across the methods and maintaining the intended functionality.
129-130: Proper implementation withMutableTuple<TElement, T1, T2, T3, T4>The code accurately encapsulates the parameters using
MutableTuple, aligning with the design goals of the refactoring.
160-161: Refactoring handles five arguments withMutableTuple<TElement, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>The use of
MutableTupleeffectively manages multiple parameters for the worker delegate, maintaining consistency and flexibility.src/Cuemon.IO/StreamFactory.cs (15)
24-24: Code change is correct and acceptable.The use of
MutableTuple<StreamWriter>in the factory instantiation aligns with the refactoring objectives and correctly replaces theTemplateclass.
38-38: Code change is correct and acceptable.The
MutableTuple<StreamWriter, T>is properly utilized, and the arguments are correctly passed to thewriterdelegate.
54-54: Code change is correct and acceptable.The factory correctly handles two generic arguments using
MutableTuple<StreamWriter, T1, T2>, ensuring proper invocation of thewriterdelegate.
72-72: Code change is correct and acceptable.The refactored code appropriately uses
MutableTuple<StreamWriter, T1, T2, T3>, maintaining consistency across the method overloads.
92-92: Code change is correct and acceptable.The
MutableTuplewith four generic arguments is correctly applied in the factory, ensuring accurate parameter passing to thewriterdelegate.
114-114: Verify correctness of argument mapping in the delegate invocation.Please ensure that
tuple.Arg6corresponds correctly toT5when invoking thewriterdelegate. SinceMutableTuple<StreamWriter, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>providesArg1throughArg6, mapping toStreamWriterandT1throughT5.
128-128: Code change is correct and acceptable.The use of
MutableTuple<IBufferWriter<byte>>aligns with the updated factory pattern and replaces theTemplateclass appropriately.
142-142: Code change is correct and acceptable.The factory and tuple are correctly configured for the generic parameter
T, ensuring proper operation of thewriterdelegate.
158-158: Code change is correct and acceptable.The pattern with two generic parameters is correctly applied using
MutableTuple<IBufferWriter<byte>, T1, T2>, maintaining consistency with the refactoring goals.
176-176: Code change is correct and acceptable.The factory instantiation correctly handles three generic parameters with
MutableTuple<IBufferWriter<byte>, T1, T2, T3>, ensuring accurate argument mapping.
196-196: Code change is correct and acceptable.The use of
MutableTuplewith four generic parameters is appropriate here, aligning with the overall refactoring of theStreamFactoryclass.
218-218: Verify correctness of argument mapping in the delegate invocation.Please verify that
tuple.Arg6correctly corresponds toT5in the invocation of thewriterdelegate, ensuring consistent mapping of arguments inMutableTuple<IBufferWriter<byte>, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>.
Line range hint
222-230: Refactoring aligns with updated type constraints.The change from
Template<IBufferWriter<byte>>toMutableTuple<IBufferWriter<byte>>in the type constraint is appropriate, reflecting the replacement of theTemplateclass and maintaining type safety.
Line range hint
236-246: Refactoring aligns with updated type constraints.The update from
Template<StreamWriter>toMutableTuple<StreamWriter>in the type constraint is consistent with the refactoring goals and ensures compatibility with the newMutableTupleclass.
Line range hint
248-265: Refactoring maintains functionality with updated generic constraints.The method
CreateStreamCore<TTuple, TWriter>now usesMutableTuple<TWriter>in its type constraint, which aligns with the refactoring and ensures that the method continues to function correctly with the updated types.src/Cuemon.Core/Patterns.cs (5)
217-218: Refactored SafeInvoke method uses MutableTuple correctlyThe replacement of
TemplatewithMutableTuplein theSafeInvokemethod enhances flexibility and aligns with the refactoring objectives. The initialization off1andf2is correctly implemented.
236-237: Correct application of MutableTuple in SafeInvoke with single generic parameterThe changes accurately apply
MutableTuple<TResult, T>to handle the additional argument inSafeInvoke<T, TResult>. This aligns with the goal of replacingTemplatewithMutableTuple.
257-258: Proper refactoring in SafeInvoke with two generic parametersThe use of
MutableTuple<TResult, T1, T2>correctly accommodates multiple arguments in theSafeInvoke<T1, T2, TResult>method. The implementation maintains consistency and ensures proper parameter handling.
280-281: Consistent use of MutableTuple in SafeInvoke with three generic parametersThe refactored code appropriately uses
MutableTuple<TResult, T1, T2, T3>for handling three arguments. The delegate implementations forf1andf2correctly map the tuple arguments to the tester and catcher delegates.
305-306: Accurate implementation of MutableTuple in SafeInvoke with four generic parametersThe introduction of
MutableTuple<TResult, T1, T2, T3, T4>effectively manages four arguments in theSafeInvoke<T1, T2, T3, T4, TResult>method. The changes are consistent with the overall refactoring strategy.src/Cuemon.IO/Extensions/StreamDecoratorExtensions.cs (1)
514-514: Proper cancellation token usageGreat job ensuring the cancellation token
options.CancellationTokenis correctly passed toAsyncPatterns.SafeInvokeAsync. This improves the method's ability to handle cancellation requests effectively.src/Cuemon.Resilience/TransientOperation.cs (14)
33-33: Correct implementation ofMutableTupleinWithFunc<TResult>The replacement of
TemplatewithMutableTuplein theFuncFactoryinitialization aligns with the refactoring goals and is correctly applied.
62-62: Accurate update toWithFunc<T, TResult>usingMutableTuple<T>The use of
MutableTuple<T>in theFuncFactorycorrectly reflects the intended changes and ensures proper handling of the argumentarg.
93-93: Proper modification ofWithFunc<T1, T2, TResult>withMutableTuple<T1, T2>The updated factory initialization correctly passes arguments using
MutableTuple<T1, T2>, maintaining the method's functionality.
126-126: Correct update inWithFunc<T1, T2, T3, TResult>to useMutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>The implementation accurately replaces
TemplatewithMutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>, ensuring that all three arguments are properly managed.
161-161: Appropriate adaptation inWithFunc<T1, T2, T3, T4, TResult>The use of
MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>correctly aligns with the refactoring efforts and handles all four arguments effectively.
198-198: Successful update ofWithFunc<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, TResult>The change to
MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>ensures that all five arguments are properly encapsulated, matching the intended design.
223-223: UpdatedWithActionmethod to utilizeMutableTupleThe modification replaces
TemplatewithMutableTuplein theActionFactory, correctly aligning with the redesign.
250-250: Accurate change inWithAction<T>usingMutableTuple<T>The implementation correctly passes the argument
argthroughMutableTuple<T>, reflecting the refactoring objectives.
279-279: Proper update toWithAction<T1, T2>withMutableTuple<T1, T2>The replacement ensures both arguments are managed via
MutableTuple<T1, T2>, maintaining method integrity.
310-310: Correct modification inWithAction<T1, T2, T3>The use of
MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>accurately manages all three arguments, aligning with the new structure.
343-343: Successful adaptation ofWithAction<T1, T2, T3, T4>Implementing
MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>correctly handles the method's four arguments as per the refactoring plan.
378-378: Accurate update inWithAction<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>The change to
MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>ensures all five arguments are correctly processed, aligning with the refactor.
388-388: Appropriate constraint change inWithActionCore<TTuple>methodUpdating the generic constraint to
where TTuple : MutableTuplecorrectly reflects the replacement ofTemplateand maintains type safety.
393-393: Correctly updatedWithFuncCore<TTuple, TResult>method constraintThe modification to use
MutableTuplein the generic constraint ensures consistency and proper functionality with the new tuple class.src/Cuemon.Diagnostics/TimeMeasure.cs (3)
27-27: Update toActionFactory<MutableTuple>is appropriateThe change from
TemplatetoMutableTuplein theWithActionmethod correctly aligns with the refactoring objectives and enhances flexibility.
42-42: Correct use ofMutableTuple<T>inWithAction<T>The implementation correctly uses
MutableTuple<T>to handle the action with one argument.
Line range hint
59-531: Consistent refactoring toMutableTupleacross overloaded methodsThe updates from
TemplatetoMutableTuplein all overloadedWithActionandWithFuncmethods are consistent and properly implemented.src/Cuemon.Diagnostics/TimeMeasure.Async.cs (2)
Line range hint
563-570: RefactoredWithActionAsyncCoreto useMutableTuple– Looks GoodThe change from
TemplatetoMutableTuplein the type constraint enhances the method's flexibility and aligns with the refactoring objectives detailed in the PR.
Line range hint
576-583: RefactoredWithFunctionAsyncCoreto useMutableTuple– Looks GoodUpdating the type constraint from
TemplatetoMutableTupleinWithFunctionAsyncCoreis consistent with the overall refactoring efforts, improving code maintainability and adaptability.src/Cuemon.Extensions.Core/TesterFuncFactory.cs (1)
450-454: TheInvokemethod implementation looks goodThe
Invokemethod correctly creates a newTesterFuncFactoryinstance and invokesExecuteMethod, ensuring that the provided tuple and method are correctly utilized.src/Cuemon.Extensions.Runtime.Caching/CacheEnumerableExtensions.cs (6)
340-341: Potential Redundancy inFuncFactoryInitializationThis is similar to the issue noted in lines 260-261. The
valueFactoryis passed both as a lambda and as a parameter:var factory = new FuncFactory<MutableTuple<T>, TResult>(tuple => valueFactory(tuple.Arg1), new MutableTuple<T>(arg), valueFactory);
425-426: Potential Redundancy inFuncFactoryInitializationAs previously mentioned, the
valueFactoryis passed twice:var factory = new FuncFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2>, TResult>(tuple => valueFactory(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2), new MutableTuple<T1, T2>(arg1, arg2), valueFactory);
515-516: Potential Redundancy inFuncFactoryInitializationAgain, the
valueFactoryis being passed both as a lambda and as a parameter:var factory = new FuncFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>, TResult>(tuple => valueFactory(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>(arg1, arg2, arg3), valueFactory);
610-611: Potential Redundancy inFuncFactoryInitializationConsistent with earlier observations,
valueFactoryappears twice:var factory = new FuncFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>, TResult>(tuple => valueFactory(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4), valueFactory);
710-711: Potential Redundancy inFuncFactoryInitializationThe pattern continues with
valueFactorybeing passed twice:var factory = new FuncFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>, TResult>(tuple => valueFactory(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4, tuple.Arg5), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5), valueFactory);
717-717: Use of Generic Constraintwhere TTuple : MutableTupleThe method signature introduces a generic constraint:
private static TResult Memoize<TKey, TTuple, TResult>(ICacheEnumerable<TKey> cache, string key, CacheInvalidation invalidation, FuncFactory<TTuple, TResult> valueFactory) where TTuple : MutableTupleThis constraint ensures that
TTupleinherits fromMutableTuple, which appears appropriate given its usage within the method. The implementation aligns with the intended design.src/Cuemon.Core/MutableTuple.cs (1)
38-41: Confirm the intended behavior of theIsEmptypropertyThe base
MutableTupleclass has anIsEmptyproperty that returnstrue, while in derived classes it is overridden to returnfalse. Ensure this distinction aligns with the intended design and that it is clearly documented for consumers of the class.Verify that the use of the
IsEmptyproperty is consistent and understood throughout the codebase to prevent any confusion or misuse.src/Cuemon.Threading/AsyncPatterns.cs (1)
160-161: Type constraint update from Template to MutableTuple is appropriateChanging the type constraints from
Template<TResult>toMutableTuple<TResult>aligns with the refactoring objectives and enhances flexibility.
| private static List<MutableTuple<Func<SmtpClient>, List<MailMessage>>> PrepareShipment(MailDistributor distributor, IEnumerable<MailMessage> mails, Func<MailMessage, bool> filter) | ||
| { | ||
| var partitionedMails = new PartitionerEnumerable<MailMessage>(mails, distributor.DeliverySize); | ||
| var carriers = new List<Template<Func<SmtpClient>, List<MailMessage>>>(); | ||
| var carriers = new List<MutableTuple<Func<SmtpClient>, List<MailMessage>>>(); | ||
| while (partitionedMails.HasPartitions) | ||
| { | ||
| carriers.Add(Template.CreateTwo(distributor.Carrier, new List<MailMessage>(filter == null | ||
| carriers.Add(new MutableTuple<Func<SmtpClient>, List<MailMessage>>(distributor.Carrier, new List<MailMessage>(filter == null | ||
| ? partitionedMails | ||
| : partitionedMails.Where(filter) | ||
| ))); | ||
| } | ||
| return carriers; | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Issue Detected: Remaining Template Usage
There is an existing reference to Template in HtmlHelperExtensions.cs. Ensure all instances are replaced with MutableTuple to maintain consistency and prevent potential issues.
🔗 Analysis chain
LGTM! Verify impact on dependent code.
The changes in the PrepareShipment method align with the PR objectives of replacing Template with MutableTuple. The logic remains intact, and the new implementation should provide more flexibility.
To ensure these changes don't introduce unintended side effects, please run the following script to check for any remaining usages of Template in the codebase and verify that all dependent code has been updated accordingly:
This script will help identify any areas that might need further attention due to the Template to MutableTuple transition.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for remaining usages of Template and verify updates in dependent code
# Test 1: Search for any remaining usages of Template
echo "Searching for remaining usages of Template:"
rg --type csharp 'Template[<\s]'
# Test 2: Search for usages of PrepareShipment method
echo "Searching for usages of PrepareShipment method:"
rg --type csharp 'PrepareShipment\s*\('
# Test 3: Search for other occurrences of MutableTuple in the codebase
echo "Searching for other occurrences of MutableTuple:"
rg --type csharp 'MutableTuple[<\s]'
Length of output: 106378
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 4), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 5), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 6), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 7), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 8), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 9), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 10), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 11), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 12), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 13), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 14), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 15), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 16), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 17)); | ||
| TestOutput.WriteLine(sut.ToString()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| [Fact] | ||
| public void CreateZero_ShouldCreateOctodecuple() | ||
| { | ||
| var sut = new MutableTuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int>(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18); | ||
| Assert.False(sut.IsEmpty); | ||
| Assert.Collection(sut.ToArray(), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 1), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 2), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 3), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 4), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 5), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 6), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 7), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 8), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 9), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 10), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 11), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 12), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 13), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 14), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 15), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 16), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 17), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 18)); | ||
| TestOutput.WriteLine(sut.ToString()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| [Fact] | ||
| public void CreateZero_ShouldCreateNovemdecuple() | ||
| { | ||
| var sut = new MutableTuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int>(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19); | ||
| Assert.False(sut.IsEmpty); | ||
| Assert.Collection(sut.ToArray(), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 1), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 2), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 3), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 4), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 5), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 6), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 7), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 8), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 9), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 10), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 11), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 12), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 13), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 14), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 15), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 16), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 17), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 18), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 19)); | ||
| TestOutput.WriteLine(sut.ToString()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| [Fact] | ||
| public void CreateZero_ShouldCreateViguple() | ||
| { | ||
| var sut = new MutableTuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int>(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20); | ||
| Assert.False(sut.IsEmpty); | ||
| Assert.Collection(sut.ToArray(), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 1), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 2), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 3), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 4), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 5), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 6), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 7), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 8), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 9), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 10), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 11), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 12), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 13), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 14), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 15), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 16), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 17), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 18), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 19), | ||
| o => Assert.Equal(o, 20)); | ||
| TestOutput.WriteLine(sut.ToString()); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider refactoring tests for improved maintainability and coverage
While the current tests are comprehensive in covering different tuple sizes, there are several areas for potential improvement:
- Reduce repetition: Consider using a parameterized test to cover multiple tuple sizes with a single test method.
- Add edge cases: Test with non-sequential integers, negative numbers, or even non-integer types if supported.
- Test additional behaviors: If
MutableTuplehas other methods or properties, consider adding tests for those as well.
Here's an example of how you could refactor using a parameterized test:
[Theory]
[InlineData(new int[] {})]
[InlineData(new int[] {1})]
[InlineData(new int[] {1, 2})]
// ... add more cases as needed
public void CreateTuple_ShouldCreateCorrectTuple(int[] elements)
{
var sut = MutableTuple.Create(elements);
Assert.Equal(elements.Length == 0, sut.IsEmpty);
Assert.Equal(elements, sut.ToArray());
TestOutput.WriteLine(sut.ToString());
}This approach would significantly reduce code duplication and make it easier to add new test cases in the future.
| @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ protected sealed override void FillWorkQueue<TWorker>(TemplateFactory<TWorker> w | |||
| { | |||
| try | |||
| { | |||
| FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory(swf as TemplateFactory<TWorker>, current); | |||
| FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory(swf as MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>, current); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use direct casting to prevent null reference issues
In line 32, the 'as' operator is used to cast swf to MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>:
FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory(swf as MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>, current);Using 'as' may result in a null value if the cast fails, leading to a potential NullReferenceException. Since swf is expected to be of type MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>, consider using a direct cast to ensure type safety:
-FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory(swf as MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>, current);
+FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory((MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>)swf, current);This change will throw an InvalidCastException if the cast fails, making it easier to detect and debug type mismatches.
| @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ protected sealed override void FillWorkQueue<TWorker>(TemplateFactory<TWorker> w | |||
| { | |||
| try | |||
| { | |||
| FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory(swf as TemplateFactory<TWorker>); | |||
| FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory(swf as MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Use direct casting instead of 'as' operator for clarity and safety
In FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory(swf as MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>);, consider using a direct cast since swf is expected to be of type MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>. The as operator can return null if the cast fails, potentially leading to a NullReferenceException. A direct cast will throw an InvalidCastException immediately if the cast is invalid, helping to identify issues earlier.
Apply this diff to use a direct cast:
-FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory(swf as MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>);
+FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory((MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>)swf);📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory(swf as MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>); | |
| FillWorkQueueWorkerFactory((MutableTupleFactory<TWorker>)swf); |
| /// </summary> | ||
| public static class ActionFactory | ||
| /// <typeparam name="TTuple">The type of the n-tuple representation of a <see cref="MutableTuple"/>.</typeparam> | ||
| public sealed class ActionFactory<TTuple> : MutableTupleFactory<TTuple> where TTuple : MutableTuple |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider whether sealing the class is necessary
The ActionFactory<TTuple> class is now sealed. If there is no specific reason to prevent inheritance, you might consider leaving the class unsealed to allow for extensibility.
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T>> Create<T>(Func<T, CancellationToken, Task> method, T arg) | ||
| { | ||
| return new AsyncActionFactory<Template<T>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, token), Template.CreateOne(arg), method); | ||
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, token), new MutableTuple<T>(arg), method); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add null check for 'method' parameter to ensure robustness
Similarly, the method parameter in this overload is not checked for null. Adding a null check will prevent potential exceptions.
Apply this diff:
public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T>> Create<T>(Func<T, CancellationToken, Task> method, T arg)
{
+ if (method == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(method));
return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, token), new MutableTuple<T>(arg), method);
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T>> Create<T>(Func<T, CancellationToken, Task> method, T arg) | |
| { | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<Template<T>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, token), Template.CreateOne(arg), method); | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, token), new MutableTuple<T>(arg), method); | |
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T>> Create<T>(Func<T, CancellationToken, Task> method, T arg) | |
| { | |
| if (method == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(method)); | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, token), new MutableTuple<T>(arg), method); | |
| } |
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>> Create<T1, T2, T3>(Func<T1, T2, T3, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3) | ||
| { | ||
| return new AsyncActionFactory<Template<T1, T2, T3>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, token), Template.CreateThree(arg1, arg2, arg3), method); | ||
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>(arg1, arg2, arg3), method); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add null check for 'method' parameter to ensure robustness
As with previous overloads, add a null check for the method parameter.
Apply this diff:
public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>> Create<T1, T2, T3>(Func<T1, T2, T3, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3)
{
+ if (method == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(method));
return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>(arg1, arg2, arg3), method);
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>> Create<T1, T2, T3>(Func<T1, T2, T3, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3) | |
| { | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<Template<T1, T2, T3>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, token), Template.CreateThree(arg1, arg2, arg3), method); | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>(arg1, arg2, arg3), method); | |
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>> Create<T1, T2, T3>(Func<T1, T2, T3, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3) | |
| { | |
| if (method == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(method)); | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3>(arg1, arg2, arg3), method); | |
| } |
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>> Create<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>(Func<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5) | ||
| { | ||
| return new AsyncActionFactory<Template<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4, tuple.Arg5, token), Template.CreateFive(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5), method); | ||
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4, tuple.Arg5, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5), method); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add null check for 'method' parameter to ensure robustness
Include a null check for the method parameter.
Apply this diff:
public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>> Create<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>(Func<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5)
{
+ if (method == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(method));
return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4, tuple.Arg5, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5), method);
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>> Create<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>(Func<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5) | |
| { | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<Template<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4, tuple.Arg5, token), Template.CreateFive(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5), method); | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4, tuple.Arg5, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5), method); | |
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>> Create<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>(Func<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5) | |
| { | |
| if (method == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(method)); | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4, tuple.Arg5, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5), method); | |
| } |
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>> Create<T1, T2, T3, T4>(Func<T1, T2, T3, T4, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4) | ||
| { | ||
| return new AsyncActionFactory<Template<T1, T2, T3, T4>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4, token), Template.CreateFour(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4), method); | ||
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4), method); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add null check for 'method' parameter to ensure robustness
Add a null check for the method parameter in this overload.
Apply this diff:
public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>> Create<T1, T2, T3, T4>(Func<T1, T2, T3, T4, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4)
{
+ if (method == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(method));
return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4), method);
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>> Create<T1, T2, T3, T4>(Func<T1, T2, T3, T4, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4) | |
| { | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<Template<T1, T2, T3, T4>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4, token), Template.CreateFour(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4), method); | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4), method); | |
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>> Create<T1, T2, T3, T4>(Func<T1, T2, T3, T4, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4) | |
| { | |
| if (method == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(method)); | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, tuple.Arg3, tuple.Arg4, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2, T3, T4>(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4), method); | |
| } |
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2>> Create<T1, T2>(Func<T1, T2, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2) | ||
| { | ||
| return new AsyncActionFactory<Template<T1, T2>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, token), Template.CreateTwo(arg1, arg2), method); | ||
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2>(arg1, arg2), method); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add null check for 'method' parameter to ensure robustness
Continue to add a null check for the method parameter in this overload.
Apply this diff:
public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2>> Create<T1, T2>(Func<T1, T2, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2)
{
+ if (method == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(method));
return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2>(arg1, arg2), method);
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2>> Create<T1, T2>(Func<T1, T2, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2) | |
| { | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<Template<T1, T2>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, token), Template.CreateTwo(arg1, arg2), method); | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2>(arg1, arg2), method); | |
| public static AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2>> Create<T1, T2>(Func<T1, T2, CancellationToken, Task> method, T1 arg1, T2 arg2) | |
| { | |
| if (method == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(method)); | |
| return new AsyncActionFactory<MutableTuple<T1, T2>>((tuple, token) => method(tuple.Arg1, tuple.Arg2, token), new MutableTuple<T1, T2>(arg1, arg2), method); | |
| } |
PR Classification
Design and code refactoring to replace
TemplatewithMutableTuple.PR Summary
The changes involve replacing the
Templateclass with theMutableTupleclass across multiple files to enhance flexibility and maintainability.Following Framework Design Guidelines, non-essential types was also removed from core assembly and refactored/spitted accordingly.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
MutableTupleFactoryfor creating flexible tuple instances.ParallelFactorymethods to support additional parameters for improved processing capabilities.Bug Fixes
DefaultXmlConverterfor better handling of key-value pairs.Tests
MutableTupleandActivatorFactory.