Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 865081
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T09:35:05+00:00 2026-05-15T09:35:05+00:00

I have a set of classes with the same functions but with different logic.

  • 0

I have a set of classes with the same functions but with different logic. However, each class function can return a number of objects. It is safe to set the return type as the interface?

Each class (all using the same interface) is doing this with different business logic.

protected IMessage validateReturnType; <-- This is in an abstract class

public bool IsValid() <-- This is in an abstract class
{
    return (validateReturnType.GetType() == typeof(Success));
}

public IMessage Validate()
{
    if (name.Length < 5)
    {
        validateReturnType = new Error("Name must be 5 characters or greater.");
    }
    else
    {
        validateReturnType = new Success("Name is valid.");
    }

    return validateReturnType;
}

Are there any pitfalls with unit testing the return type of an function? Also, is it considered bad design to have functions needing to be run in order for them to succeed? In this example, Validate() would have to be run before IsValid() or else IsValid() would always return false.

Thank you.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-15T09:35:06+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 9:35 am

    However, each class function can
    return a number of objects. It is safe
    to set the return type as the
    interface?

    This is good practice and common. For example look at the way COM was built, it heavily relies on this methodology.

    Are there any pitfalls with unit testing the return type of an function

    No.

    Also, is it considered bad design to have functions needing to be run in order for them to succeed? In this example, Validate() would have to be run before IsValid() or else IsValid() would always return false.

    That’s fine for working with an object oriented programming paradigm, take for example working with sockets. It’s common to have a connect method before you can send and receive data.

    That being said it’s good to keep less state than more state as a general rule because in that way it’s easier to prove your program is correct. For example you have to test each function that relies on this function not in one way but in 2 ways now. Possible program states grows exponentially if you have a lot of state. Take a look at functional programming if you are interested in why state is a bad thing.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have the following classes: public class Person { public String FirstName { set;
If have a set of classes that all implement an interface. interface IMyinterface<T> {
I have a set of callback classes that I use for handling callbacks with
I have a set of some classes which are all capable of being constructored
I would love to be able to have a common set of Classes in
I have a set of XSDs from which I generate data access classes, stored
I have a set of core, complicated JavaScript data structures/classes that I'd like to
I have been assigned a project to develop a set of classes that act
We have set up a system where notifications get sent to a user with
I have set a canvas' background to an image of a company logo. I

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.