Use the required keyword instead of String.Empty in options class

[Daan5556]

Description

In the PositionOptions class, maybe we want to use the required keyword because it's the more modern syntax.

Example:

public class PositionOptions
{
    public const string Position = "Position";

    public required string Title { get; set; } 
    public required string Name { get; set; } 
}

If you agree, we should also change the other instances of String.Empty.

Page URL

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/configuration/options?view=aspnetcore-9.0

Content source URL

https://github.com/dotnet/AspNetCore.Docs/blob/main/aspnetcore/fundamentals/configuration/options.md

Document ID

dc7e3449-650b-d117-5eac-69e5ccb250cb

Article author

@tdykstra

Metadata

• ID: ed39cb0e-aa85-8bba-ffb4-859b56a60723
• Service: aspnet-core
• Sub-service: fundamentals

Related Issues

[tdykstra]

The proposed rewrite isn't equivalent to the original code -- the two classes, original and proposed replacement, behave differently. So we can't simply replace one with the other without a significant change in functionality.

Summary of Differences

1. Initialization Requirement:

   • Proposed code: Properties must be initialized either during object creation or through an object initializer due to the required keyword.
   • Original code: Properties have default values and do not need to be explicitly initialized.

2. Default Values:

   • Proposed code: No default values are provided, so properties must be set explicitly.
   • Original code: Properties are initialized to empty strings by default.

3. Compile-Time Enforcement:

   • Proposed code: The required keyword provides compile-time enforcement to ensure properties are initialized.
   • Original code: There is no compile-time enforcement to ensure properties are initialized, relying instead on default values.