Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

Source generators in C# represent a shift from runtime code generation to compile-time synthesis, enabling developers to produce additional code during compilation without modifying the original source files. By analyzing existing code and emitting new, well-formed C# constructs, generators can implement repetitive patterns, mapping, serialization, or validation logic with precise type safety. The approach preserves developer intent while reducing manual boilerplate that tends to drift over time. Teams gain consistency across modules because the generator enforces conventions and practices uniformly. As a result, future refactors are easier, and on-boarding new contributors becomes simpler since the generated patterns are consistent and well understood.

Getting started with a source generator in C# involves creating a separate project that references the target project and implements the Roslyn-based APIs responsible for analyzing syntax trees. The generator inspects types, methods, and attributes, then writes new source files that are compiled alongside the main project. Important design choices center on when to emit code, how to handle partial classes, and ensuring that emitted code does not duplicate existing definitions. Thoughtful use of incremental generators improves performance by caching analysis results and re-emitting only changed fragments. With careful testing, the emitted code behaves predictably regardless of the complexity of the input models, preserving behavior while expanding capabilities.

A common use case is generating equality and comparison members for value types, which eliminates repetitive boilerplate while enforcing a consistent equality contract across the codebase. The generator can scan for data-bearing types and automatically emit accurately implemented IEquatable<T> interfaces, GetHashCode methods, and operator overloads. By centralizing this logic, developers avoid subtle inconsistencies that creep in from manual implementations. The impact is measurable: fewer defects related to equality semantics, faster code reviews, and a clearer signal when a type’s semantics evolve. The generator acts as an enforcer of the intended design while reducing the cognitive burden on engineers.

Another strong scenario is serialization support, where a generator can produce optimized converters for common formats such as JSON or XML based on attributes applied to types. Rather than writing multiple bespoke serializers, you get a single, robust path that respects access modifiers, type hierarchies, and versioning concerns. Emitted code can leverage reflection-free access patterns, yielding faster runtime performance. Because the produced code lives alongside hand-written code, it remains accessible to debugging tools and familiar IDE features. This combination of speed, safety, and transparency makes serialization builders a natural fit for source generator workflows.

A key benefit of source generators is reducing boilerplate in data transfer objects and API contracts. By inspecting declared properties, attributes, and naming conventions, a generator can create mapping utilities, validation stubs, and shallow copy methods automatically. This reduces repetitive edits when the shape of data changes and helps ensure that mappings stay consistent across layers. Developers can focus on business rules rather than mechanical code. The emitted utilities also become testable artifacts with well-defined behavior that mirrors the source types. Over time, this consistency translates into fewer regression incidents and a more expressive core domain.

Generators also improve compile-time safety by moving certain validations into the generation phase. For example, if a property is annotated as required, a generator can emit code that enforces nullability checks early, or it could generate validators that run during initialization. This approach reduces the likelihood of null reference exceptions and other runtime surprises. By surfacing potential misconfigurations at compile time, teams gain quicker feedback loops and a clearer understanding of intent. As a result, developers become more confident when evolving APIs because the generator provides a guardrail that evolves with the codebase.

Successful generator design starts with a precise acceptance criterion: what problem is being solved, and what guarantees does the emitted code provide? A practical strategy is to start small, delivering a narrow capability and expanding it through iterations driven by real-world needs. This approach helps prevent the generator from becoming a monolith that tries to handle every edge case. Clear source mappings, meaningful diagnostic messages, and deterministic emission behavior are essential to keep the generator predictable. When contributors understand exactly what the generator does and why, adoption improves, and the maintenance burden remains manageable.

Integrating generators into existing build pipelines should be done with care to avoid surprising build results. Rely on incremental generation where possible, so that only changed types trigger recompilation. Provide robust diagnostics that guide developers toward the exact code that needs attention, rather than vague errors. Documentation and example-driven guides accelerate adoption, while tests that exercise both positive and negative scenarios ensure stability across refactors. The end goal is to create a tooling experience that feels like a natural extension of the language and the compiler, rather than an optional add-on.

When writing a generator, create a well-defined abstract syntax view to decouple the emitted content from the raw syntax. This abstraction makes it easier to reason about the input side and to evolve emission rules without entangling concerns. Use attributes to mark extensible points, keeping the surface area small and predictable. Emitted code should be readable, idiomatic, and maintainable, as the generated source will live in the same repository alongside handwritten code. Logging diagnostics at the emission stage helps surface corner cases and keeps teams aligned on expectations during builds.

Testing generator behavior requires both unit tests for deterministic emission and integration tests that compile the resulting project. Mock inputs that cover typical usage patterns, mixed inheritance structures, and boundary conditions provide confidence that the generator behaves as intended. It’s also valuable to exercise scenarios where the emitted code might interact with reflection or dynamic features, ensuring that runtime behavior remains stable. Comprehensive tests reduce the risk of regressions and provide a clear safety net for future changes to the emission logic.

Over time, source generators can become an architectural feature that enforces consensus around data modeling and API design. By centralizing conventions in generated code, teams minimize divergent implementations that complicate maintenance. A governance model around generator rules—who can author, review, and extend templates—helps sustain quality as the system evolves. Additionally, generators can evolve alongside language updates, unlocking new capabilities while preserving compatibility with existing code. This strategic alignment yields more predictable builds, faster developer feedback, and a stronger sense of ownership across the project.

Finally, adopting source generators requires balancing automation with clarity. Provide opt-out paths for scenarios where generated code would be inappropriate or where custom logic is genuinely unique. Encourage contributors to understand the emitted output, not just its surface behavior, and promote continuous learning about Roslyn-based tooling. When done well, source generators become a durable productivity lift: fewer mistakes, quicker iteration cycles, and safer, more maintainable software that scales alongside teams and features. This long-term investment pays dividends in both velocity and quality.