# SOLID : Liskov Substitution Principle (Part 2)

In the first part of the post, we visited the core definition of Liskov Substitution principle and took time to understand the problem using an example. In this second part, we would take time to understand some of the governing rules of the principle.

The rules that needs to be followed for LSP compliance can be broadly categorized into mainly two categories.

• Contract Rules
• Variance Rules

Let us examine the Contract Rules first.

Contact Rules
The three contact rules are defined as follows.
* Preconditions cannot be strengthened in a subtype.
* Postconditions cannot be weakened in a subtype.
* Invariants—conditions that must remain true—of the supertype must be preserved in a subtype

Let us examine each of them breifly.

Preconditions cannot be strengthend in a subtype.

Preconditions are conditions that are necessary for a method to run reliably. For example, consider a method in a school application, which returns the count of students above specified age.

```public virtual int GetStudentCount(int minAge)
{
if(minAge <=0)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("Invalid Age");
return default; // For demo purpose
}
```

As observed in the above method, a non-positive value for age needs to be flagged as an exception and method should stop executing. The method does this check as the first step before it executes any logic related to the funcationlity of the method and thereby preventing the method execution unless the parameters are valid. This is a typical example of preconditions. There are other ways to add preconditions, but that would be out of scope of the current context.

So what happens if the precondition is strengthed. Let us assume that the application for Kindergarden for the school derieves from the same class, but adds another precondition.

```public override int GetStudentCount(int minAge)
{
if(minAge <=0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("Invalid Age"); if(minAge >=5)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("Invalid Age");
return default; // For demo purpose
}
```

This creates a conflict in the calling class. The caller was invoking the method from the base Class, it would not throw an exception if the value is greater then 5. However, if the caller was invoking the method from the Child Class, it would now throw an exception, thanks to the new precondition we have added. Let’s demonstrate the same using Unit Tests.

```[Test]
[TestCaseSource(typeof(Preconditions), nameof(TestCases))]
public void GetStudentCount(School school,int age)
{
Assert.GreaterOrEqual(school.GetStudentCount(age), 0);
}

public static IEnumerable TestCases
{
get
{
yield return new TestCaseData(new School(), 7);
yield return new TestCaseData(new Kindergarden(), 7);
}
}
}

```

The Unit Tests show that the strengthening of Preconditions would now indirectly force the caller to violate the fact that it should not make any assumptions about the type it is acting on (and thereby violating Open Closed Principle).

Post Conditions cannot be weakend in a subtype

During the execution of the method, the state of the object is most likely to be mutated, opening the door of possiblity that the method might leave the object in an invalid state due to errors in the method. Post Conditions ensures that the state of the object is in a valid state when the method exits.

Much similiar to the Preconditions, the Post Conditions are commonly implemented using Guard clauses, which ensure the state is valid after the execution of logic (any code that might alter the state of the object) associated with the method. For the same reason, the Post Conditions are placed at the end of the method.

The behavior of Post Conditions in sub-classes is the complete opposite of what happens with Pre Conditions. The Post Conditions, if weakened, could l;ead to existing clients to behave incorrectly. Let us explore a scenario. We will write the Unit Tests first.

```[Test]
[TestCaseSource(typeof(Postconditions), nameof(TestCases))]
public void TestLabFeeForSchool(School school, long studentId)
{
Assert.Greater(school.CalculateLabFees(studentId),0);
}

public static IEnumerable TestCases
{
get
{
yield return new TestCaseData(new School(), 7);
}
}
```

The above Test Case ensures that the CalculateLabFees method returns a positive and non-zero value as result. Let us assume that School.CalculateLabFees method was defined as following.

```public class School
{
public virtual decimal CalculateLabFees(long studentId)
{
var labFee = MockMethodForCalculatingLabFees(studentId);

if (labFee <= 0)
return 1000;
return labFee;
}

private decimal MockMethodForCalculatingLabFees(long studentID)
{
return default;
}
}
```

The Post Condition in the base class ensures that if the labFee is less than or equal to zero, a default value of 1000 is returned. The Test Case would pass successfully with the instance of class. The CalculateLabFees method would return a positive, non-zero value as expected by the Unit Test.

Now, let us assume the Kindergarden Implementation. The Kindergarden doesn’t have Lab Fees and hence, would return a default value 0 for the CalculateLabFee method.

```public class Kindergarden : School
{
public override decimal CalculateLabFees(long studentId)
{
return 0;
}
}
```

As you can notice the Post Condition has been weakened in the Child Class. This would cause issues with client which would expect a positive response, as with the Unit Test Case. This highlights another instance where significance of honoring LSP is highlighted.

Invariants must be maintained

An invariant describes a condition of a process that remains true before the process begins and after the process ends, until ofcourse the object is out of scope.

Consider the following base class.

```public class Student
{
public string Name{ get; set; }

public void CheckInvariants()
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(Name))
Name = "Name Not Assigned";
}
public virtual void AssignName(string name)
{
CheckInvariants();
Name = name;
CheckInvariants();
}
}
```

The class requires the Name property to be always have a value. The CheckInvariants method assigns a default value if the clause is violated. Let us assume we have an sub class NurseryStudent.

```public class NurseryStudent : Student
{
public override void AssignName(string name)
{
Name = name;
}

}
```

The author of NurseryStudent forgots to ensure the Invariants holds true after the AssignName exits. This is a violation of LSP as a client using the SuperClass would expect the Name to always have a value. Consider the following code.

```[Test]
[TestCaseSource(typeof(Invariants), nameof(TestCases))]
public void TestInvariants(Student student,string name)
{
student.AssignName(name);
Assert.Greater(student.Name.Length, 0);
}

public static IEnumerable TestCases
{
get
{
yield return new TestCaseData(new Student(), string.Empty);
yield return new TestCaseData(new NurseryStudent(), string.Empty);
}
}
```

The Unit Test Case would fail

Let’s write the Unit Test Case before writing the example for sub class.

```[Test]
[TestCaseSource(typeof(Invariants), nameof(TestCases))]
public void TestInvariants(Student student,string name)
{
student.AssignName(name);
Assert.Greater(student.Name.Length, 0);
}

public static IEnumerable TestCases
{
get
{
yield return new TestCaseData(new Student(), null);
yield return new TestCaseData(new NurseryStudent(), null);
}
}
```

The Test Case would fail when an instance of NurserStudent is passed to the method as the Name property would have an unexpected value of null when leaving the AssignName method. This would cause exceptions in all clients which expects the behavior of invariants are retained by any subclass of the Student.

In this post we explored the Contract Rules for LSP. In the part, we would explore the variance rules involved for conforming with LSP. All code samples given in the post are available in my Github