Proxy class properties accessing object instance properties

[leekelleher]

Added failing unit-test for issue #177

When using proxy classes, it appears that lazy-loaded properties can not access the property values of its object instance.

@JimBobSquarePants to review (in due course - no rush, just wanted to keep track of this) :sunglasses:

[mattbrailsford]

Just to note what lee and I observed when we reviewed this (to the best of our understanding), it looks like an IProxy object is made per property that only contains that individual property, so if one property accesses another, it doesn't exist on the IProxy, so it fails.

[JimBobSquarePants]

@mattbrailsford No, that's not correct at all. An IProxy is created per instance.

https://github.com/leekelleher/umbraco-ditto/blob/develop/src/Our.Umbraco.Ditto/Extensions/PublishedContentExtensions.cs#L362

Basically if you have a class like this:

public class Foo {
    public virtual string Bar {get; set;}
}

The proxy generator will create a class like this:

public class FooProxy : Foo, IProxy {

    public IInterceptor Interceptor { get; set; }

    public override string Bar {
        get {
            return (string) interceptor.Intercept(methodof(Foo.get_Property), null);
        }
        set {
            interceptor.Intercept(methodof(Foo.set_Property), value);
        }
}

We set the interceptor containing all the virtual properties here. It also reference the current instance.

In the example code the lazy property seems to be getting called against the base class and not the proxy class but Ill have to dig around to be sure. Now we have a failing test I should easily be able to do so.

It really is an odd design pattern though. Why have to properties referencing the same object? If they want to convert it to a string they should be using a method or casting their property. They're hurting performance and making their code difficult to follow.

[mattbrailsford]

Is this still relevant with PR #191?

[JimBobSquarePants]

TBH I don't know. Will have to conduct further tests after we merge.

[leekelleher]

Merged in and tested locally... the failing unit-test (for issue #177) now passes.

Merged in this PR - we can decide whether or not to keep the actual unit-test, or to combine with another unit-test (from PR #190)?

[JimBobSquarePants]

I'd move the tests together. still want to have a dig around though.