Creating a nullable object via Activator.CreateInstance returns null

Question

I'm creating a system that turns a small script into a dll. I'm encountering a problem when I try to take a nullable value class and make it the default value of a parameter. The problem is that I need to create an instance of user selected nullable within the compiler and set it as the constant.

Unfortunately, whenever I use Activator.CreateInstance(NullableType) (where NullableType is a created type from user input) I get null as the return value. For example, simply executing:

object Test = Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(Nullable<int>));
Console.WriteLine(Test == null);

returns true. This ONLY happens with Nullables. A struct created in C#, even a generic one, is created fine. Heck, if I copy & paste nullable from DotNetReflector (and remove TypeDependencyAttribute, TargetPatchingOptOutAttribute, and ThrowHelper calls since I don't have access to those), it shows False above.

What is going on? Is there any other possible way to create a nullable when I don't know the generic parameters until run-time?

score 6 · Answer 1 · answered Jan 01 '12 at 02:54

6

From this MSDN blog:

Activator.CreateInstance could never be expected to return null before; with this DCR, it will return null when creating instance of type Nullable but not providing non-null T value. For example, Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(Int32?)) returns null.

The problem has to do with how variables of Nullable<T> are boxed as explained by the blog post.

answered Jan 01 '12 at 02:54

M.Babcock

18,753
6
54
84

That answers one of my two questions. Also, I found this answer a few minutes before seeing yours via the MSDN article: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228597.aspx . That leaves: How do I create a nullable without knowing its parameters until runtime, and pass it to ParameterBuilder.SetConstant? Even passing a null nullable to SetContstant fails for the reasons cited in the blog and MSDN article. – Kevin Fee Jan 01 '12 at 03:05
I stumbled on to a similar question in my research. Their situation is slightly different though: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1488706/set-property-nullable-by-reflection – M.Babcock Jan 01 '12 at 03:12
I don't know if it will answer your second question, but you could dynamically create your generic type at runtime based on your requirements using Reflection (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2078914/c-sharp-dynamic-generic-type) and pass the resulting dynamic type to `Activator.CreateInstance` as you show in your question. I actually have experience with that though so if you need help please let us know. – M.Babcock Jan 01 '12 at 05:45

Kevin Fee · Accepted Answer · 2016-06-01T07:24:33.240

The problem is in ParameterBuilder.SetConstant, not Activator.CreateInstance. SetConstant is a function for defining the default value of an optional parameter, and requires a concrete value be provided as the constant. For ref classes, null is a valid concrete value, but for value classes prior to the creation of Nullable<>, null was not a valid value. How do you unbox null into an int, for example? So SetConstant checked value types to see if the concrete value passed in as the constant was null and throws an ArgumentException as a more descriptive error than the NullReferenceException you'd get for unboxing a null into a value class.

In the case of a Nullable<>, null is now a valid concrete value for a value class. Nullable<> itself is a value class, as seen with Activator.CreateInstance, and unboxing null into a Nullable<int> has meaning. This is where SetConstant has a bug: it fails to take this into account and throws a 'descriptive' error for what isn't actually an error. In lieu of a bugfix from Microsoft, any call to SetConstant with a null Nullable<> will have to implement the behavior that's guarded by the incorrect conditional. This means digging into ParameterBuilder's private methods and fields using reflection. Here's the code I made to handle just this case. The standard SetConstant function should be used in situations that don't manifest the bug.

//ModuleBuilder module : a parameter passed into the containing function, the module which is being built (which contains the method that has the optional parameter we are setting the constant for)
//ParameterBuilder optParam : A parameter passed into the containing function, the parameter that is being built which is to have the null default value.
MethodInfo method = typeof(TypeBuilder).GetMethods(BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.NonPublic)
    .Where(m => m.Name == "SetConstantValue" && m.GetParameters().Length > 0 && m.GetParameters()[0].ParameterType.Name == "RuntimeModule")
    .Single();
var RuntimeHandle = typeof(ModuleBuilder).GetMethod("GetNativeHandle", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
method.Invoke(null, new object[]
{
    RuntimeHandle.Invoke(module, new object[]{}),
    optParam.GetToken().Token,
    0x12,
    null
});

I have reported the bug to Microsoft. They responded that it wouldn't be fixed in .NET 3.5, but it was added to the internal bug database.

UPDATE:

The bug has been fixed in .NET 4.0. ParameterBuilder.SetConstant now has a branch to the constant == null conditional that checks to see if a value type is a generic derived from Nullable<> and only throws the exception if it is not.

1. Very crazy hack. 2. Nullables are null in an object form - this is by design. 3. More description please. — Vlad, Mar 09 '16 at 09:31
Yes, it is a crazy hack. It was to work around `ParameterBuilder.SetConstant` having an `if(value == null) throw new ArgumentException(...)`. The actual native code that `ParameterBuilder.SetConstant` uses (which is private and what I'm reflecting for above) is fine with Nullables being null, because it is by design. It was simply the managed, public facing function that contained a bug, and required bypassing. The bug has since been fixed, so this answer is no longer necessary unless you're targeting 3.5 or lower. — Kevin Fee, May 31 '16 at 18:09

Creating a nullable object via Activator.CreateInstance returns null

2 Answers2

Linked