Suppose I have the following contrived code:
abstract class Root
{
public abstract void PrintHierarchy();
}
class Level1 : Root
{
override public void PrintHierarchy()
{
Console.WriteLine("Level1 is a child of Root");
}
}
class Level2 : Level1
{
override public void PrintHierarchy()
{
Console.WriteLine("Level2 is a child of Level1");
base.PrintHierarchy();
}
}
If I am only looking at the Level2 class, I can immediately see that Level2.PrintHierarchy follows the open/closed principle because it does something on its own and it calls the base method that it is overriding.
However, if I only look at the Level1 class, it appears to be in violation of OCP because it does not call base.PrintHierarchy -- in fact, in C#, the compiler forbids it with the error "Cannot call an abstract base member".
The only way to make Level1 appear to follow OCP is to change Root.PrintHierarchy to an empty virtual method, but then I can no longer rely on the compiler to enforce deriving classes to implement PrintHierarchy.
The real issue I'm having while maintaining code here is seeing dozens of override methods that do not call base.Whatever(). If base.Whatever is abstract, then fine, but if not, then the Whatever method might be a candidate to be pulled into an interface rather than a concrete override-able method -- or the class or method need to be refactored in some other fashion, but either way, it clearly indicates poor design.
Short of memorizing that Root.PrintHierarchy is abstract or putting a comment inside Level1.PrintHierarchy, do I have any other options to quickly identify whether a class formed like Level1 is violating OCP?
There's been a lot of good discussion in the comments, and some good answers too. I was having trouble figuring out exactly what to ask here. I think what is frustrating me is that, as @Jon Hanna points out, sometimes a virtual method simply indicates "You must implement me" whereas other times it means "you must extend me -- if you fail to call the base version, you break my design!" But C# doesn't offer any way to indicate which of those you mean, other than that abstract or interface clearly is a "must implement" situation. (Unless there's something in Code Contracts, which is a little out of scope here, I think).
But if a language did have a must-implement vs. must-extend decorator, it would probably create huge problems for unit-testing if it couldn't be disabled. Are there any languages like that? This sounds rather like design-by-contract, so I wouldn't be surprised if it were in Eiffel, for instance.
The end result is probably as @Jordão says, and it's completely contextual; but I'm going to leave the discussion open for a while before I accept any answers still.
