Should the new static abstract members not be enforced in abstract classes?

[SoftCircuits]

I would like to put off implementing static abstract members to my derived class, as shown in the following example.

public interface IReport
{
	static abstract string Name { get; }
	static abstract string Description { get; }
}

public abstract class Report : IReport // ERROR: Must implement Name and Description
{
        // Additional functionality
}

public class TestReport : Report
{
	public static string Name => "Name";
	public static string Description => "Description";
}

Here, I want TestReport to define Name and Description. So I made Report abstract.

But I still get an error for Report because it didn't define Name and Description.

[KennethHoff]

Related to #5783 and I agree that it's annoying.

A (poor) workaround is this:

public interface IReport
{
	static abstract string Name { get; }
	static abstract string Description { get; }
}

-public abstract class Report : IReport
+public abstract class Report
{
        // Additional functionality
}

-public class TestReport : Report
+public class TestReport : Report, IReport
{
	public static string Name => "Name";
	public static string Description => "Description";
}

[SoftCircuits]

Thanks. Now I need to figure out if I can still implement some IReport members in Report if I do it this way. I'll give it a try.

[SoftCircuits]

Unfortunately, you cannot do the following. This still gives an error for TestReport not implementing DoSomething(). So, taking this approach, I cannot put any common functionality from IReport in Report.

public interface IReport
{
    static abstract string Name { get; }
    static abstract string Description { get; }
    void DoSomething();
}

public abstract class Report
{
    void DoSomething() { }
}

public class TestReport : Report, IReport
{
    public static string Name => "Name";
    public static string Description => "Description";
}

[TahirAhmadov]

Your Report.DoSomething is not public, that's why.

https://sharplab.io/#v2:EYLgtghglgdgNAFxAJwK4wD4AEDMACWBAU2QDMIBjIvASQCUiAHAe2QQFgAoAby737xYAjADY8EYAGcEySgkFCADHgByEMNW54A5kQQBuPAF8+A4WInTZFecOUARIpIrIojBFGYw8W3QeOm/FgALHj2zADKzBoIABaw2gAUAJT6XCacXLjiUjJyggBMeAwsbFy8nAKC+CFhkdF68TBJyT4BnBlZNUUAKk4IJazyIMVMQ3C0g2U8gdUKYnaq6tQAvAB8eABEahqbaZVmNaIKDk4ubh5eeOtbjs6u7p4we+lcWQU45bNYBQXcGUYgA

[SoftCircuits]

Oh, right you are! Cool. Many thanks!

[HaloFour]

This has always been the case with interfaces and abstract classes. The required members of the interface aren't inherited as "abstract" by the abstract class, they need to be explicitly defined:

public interface I {
    void M();
}

public abstract class C : I { // error CS0535: 'C' does not implement interface member 'I.M()'
}