Record overrides are overridden

[digitaldias]

VS2019 v16.8.1
C# 9

overrides are either ignored or overridden by the compiler in records.

Steps to Reproduce:
Create the following record:

    public abstract record RecordOf<T>
    {
        public T Value { get; set; }

        public override string ToString()
        {
            return Value.ToString();
        }
    }

Create a record that extends this base record:
public record EmployeeCapacity : RecordOf<int>{};

Expected Behavior:
I have a restaurant record that has a property defined as
public EmployeeCapacity ChefCapacity{get;set;}
And it is output to a blazor page as such:

<td>@restaurant.ChefCapacity</td>
I expect to see for example "1".

Actual Behavior:
I see the entire record, such as
EmployeeCapacity { Value = 1 }

[Youssef1313]

I believe the current behavior is known to be expected. So I think this needs a language design review; or probably this scenario could be a good candidate for a source generator.

[333fred]

I've converted this to a discussion on csharplang, as the record feature is behaving exactly as expected here and it is not a bug. As we discussed in discord, you probably just want a class that can inherit from a record, which will hopefully be coming in C# next.

[canton7]

If the LDT wanted to support this case, would it be acceptable to let users seal the ToString method (or any other method)? This currently results in:

error CS8870: 'RecordOf.ToString()' cannot be sealed because containing record is not sealed.
error CS0239: 'Money.ToString()': cannot override inherited member 'RecordOf.ToString()' because it is sealed

But I'd personally find it intuitive as a way of telling the compiler "back off, I've got this".

[jnm2]

@canton7 Fred is championing this: #4174

[canton7]

Oh! Very nice, thanks.

[canton7]

Suggest writing that as an answer and accepting it? I think that solves this issue entirely.

[digitaldias]

Super!! That will solve my problem! Thumbs up!