I have some heavily repeating code, which has always the same structure, just using different columns in a database for accessing it and doing similar stuff
A typical query looks like:
var portfolioIds = context.PortSelMotorSeries
.Select(x => new { x.Id, x.InstallationAltitudeMax })
.ToList();
Now I want to use a generic function for dependency inversion and to pass the selector function as a delegate to the query:
private void ForEachIterate<T1>(Func<MotorSeriesDb, T1> selectorFunc): where T1 : (int Id, double Value)
{
...
var portfolioIds = context.PortSelMotorSeries
.Select(selectorFunct)
.ToList();
...
}
So that I can call the query with my own selector:
ForEachIterate(x => new { Id = x.Id, Value = x.InstallationAltitudeMax });
ForEachIterate(x => new { Id = x.Id, Value = x.TemperatureMax });
Specifying the constraint with "where T1 : (int Id, double Value)" leads to a compiler error CS0701.
Leaving it away leads to other compiler errors.
Is there any way to use tuples in generic functions?
For one thing you're confusing tuples (the (int Id, double Value) thing) with anonymous classes (the new { Id = x.Id, Value = x.TemperatureMax }). They aren't even related, so your code would never work as is.
For another, if all you want is to force the user to output a tuple of some specific type, you can do something like this:
private void ForEachIterate(Func<MotorSeriesDb, (int, double)> selectorFunc)
{
...
var portfolioIds = context.PortSelMotorSeries
.Select(selectorFunct)
.ToList();
...
}
// call like:
ForEachIterate(x => (x.Id, x.InstallationAltitudeMax));
Note that there's nothing generic about your function at all. Which leads me to my third point: you're missing the entire point of Linq. You talk about inversion of control, but you're the one who's inverting it in the wrong direction to begin with.
You already have a construct that allows arbitrary selection: context.PortSelMotorSeries. Simply use Linq to select what you want out of it in the call site and you're done.
If you try this it could works:
private static void ForEachIterate<T1>(Func<MotorSeriesDb, T1> selectorFunc) where T1 : Tuple<int, double>
{
var portfolioIds = context.PortSelMotorSeries
.Select(selectorFunct)
.ToList();
}
Related
A linq query Where clause can apply a func to an item in the original set and return a bool to include or not include the item based on the item's characteristics. Great stuff:
var q = myColl.Where(o => o.EffectiveDate = LastThursday);
But what if I want to find a set of items where each item is related to the last item in some way? Like:
var q = myColl.Where(o => o.EffectiveDate = thePreviousItem.ExpirationDate);
How do you make a Where (or other linq function) "jump out" of the current item?
Here's what I tried, trying to be clever. I made every item an array just so I can use the Aggregate function:
public IQueryable<T> CurrentVersions
{
get => AllVersions
.Select(vo => new T[] { vo })
.Aggregate((voa1, voa2) => voa1[0].BusinessExpirationDate.Value == voa2[0].BusinessEffectiveDate.Value ? voa1.Concat(voa2).ToArray() : voa1)
.SelectMany(vo => vo);
}
but that doesn't compile on the SelectMany:
The type arguments for method Enumerable.SelectMany<TSource,
TResult>(IEnumerable<TSource>, Func<TSource, IEnumerable<TResult>>)
cannot be inferred from the usage. Try specifying the type arguments
explicitly.
EDIT (SOLUTION)
As it turns out, I was on the right track, but was just confused about what SelectMany does. I didn't need it. I also needed to change IQueryable to IEnumerable because I'm using EF and you can't query after you let go of the DbContext. So, here is the actual solution.
public IEnumerable<T> CurrentVersions
{
get => AllVersions
.Select(vo => new T[] { vo })
.Aggregate((voa1, voa2) => voa1[0].BusinessExpirationDate.Value == voa2[0].BusinessEffectiveDate.Value ? voa1.Concat(voa2).ToArray() : voa1);
}
Linq queries are most effective when each item is processed in isolation. It doesn't work well when trying to relate items within the same collection, without having to process the same collection multiple times and standard linq operators.
The MoreLINQ library helps provide additional operators to fill in some of those gaps. I'm not sure what operators it provides that could be used in this instance, but I know it has a Pairwise() method that combines the current and previous items in the iteration.
In general, for situations like this, if you needed to roll out your own, it would be far easier to write it using a generator to generate your sequence. Either as a general purpose extension method:
public static IEnumerable<TSource> WhereWithPrevious<TSource>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Func<TSource, TSource, bool> predicate)
{
using (var iter = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if (!iter.MoveNext())
yield break;
var previous = iter.Current;
while (iter.MoveNext())
{
var current = iter.Current;
if (predicate(current, previous))
yield return current;
}
}
}
or one specifically for the problem you're trying to solve.
public static IEnumerable<MyType> GetVersions(IEnumerable<MyType> source)
{
using (var iter = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if (!iter.MoveNext())
yield break;
var previous = iter.Current;
while (iter.MoveNext())
{
var current = iter.Current;
if (current.EffectiveDate == previous.ExpirationDate)
yield return current;
}
}
}
An alternative approach which while standard practice in other languages but terribly inefficient here would be to zip the collection with itself offset by one.
var query = Collection.Skip(1).Zip(Collection, (c, p) => (current:c,previous:p))
.Where(x => x.current.EffectiveDate == x.previous.ExpirationDate)
...;
And with all of that said, using any of these options will most likely make your query incompatible with query providers. It's not something you would want expressed as a single query anyway.
I'm looking for an elegant way to execute a Contains() statement in a scalable way. Please allow me to give some background before I come to the actual question.
The IN statement
In Entity Framework and LINQ to SQL the Contains statement is translated as a SQL IN statement. For instance, from this statement:
var ids = Enumerable.Range(1,10);
var courses = Courses.Where(c => ids.Contains(c.CourseID)).ToList();
Entity Framework will generate
SELECT
[Extent1].[CourseID] AS [CourseID],
[Extent1].[Title] AS [Title],
[Extent1].[Credits] AS [Credits],
[Extent1].[DepartmentID] AS [DepartmentID]
FROM [dbo].[Course] AS [Extent1]
WHERE [Extent1].[CourseID] IN (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Unfortunately, the In statement is not scalable. As per MSDN:
Including an extremely large number of values (many thousands) in an IN clause can consume resources and return errors 8623 or 8632
which has to do with running out of resources or exceeding expression limits.
But before these errors occur, the IN statement becomes increasingly slow with growing numbers of items. I can't find documentation about its growth rate, but it performs well up to a few thousands of items, but beyond that it gets dramatically slow. (Based on SQL Server experiences).
Scalable
We can't always avoid this statement. A JOIN with the source data in stead would generally perform much better, but that's only possible when the source data is in the same context. Here I'm dealing with data coming from a client in a disconnected scenario. So I have been looking for a scalable solution. A satisfactory approach turned out to be cutting the operation into chunks:
var courses = ids.ToChunks(1000)
.Select(chunk => Courses.Where(c => chunk.Contains(c.CourseID)))
.SelectMany(x => x).ToList();
(where ToChunks is this little extension method).
This executes the query in chunks of 1000 that all perform well enough. With e.g. 5000 items, 5 queries will run that together are likely to be faster than one query with 5000 items.
But not DRY
But of course I don't want to scatter this construct all over my code. I am looking for an extension method by which any IQueryable<T> can be transformed into a chunky executing statement. Ideally something like this:
var courses = Courses.Where(c => ids.Contains(c.CourseID))
.AsChunky(1000)
.ToList();
But maybe this
var courses = Courses.ChunkyContains(c => c.CourseID, ids, 1000)
.ToList();
I've given the latter solution a first shot:
public static IEnumerable<TEntity> ChunkyContains<TEntity, TContains>(
this IQueryable<TEntity> query,
Expression<Func<TEntity,TContains>> match,
IEnumerable<TContains> containList,
int chunkSize = 500)
{
return containList.ToChunks(chunkSize)
.Select (chunk => query.Where(x => chunk.Contains(match)))
.SelectMany(x => x);
}
Obviously, the part x => chunk.Contains(match) doesn't compile. But I don't know how to manipulate the match expression into a Contains expression.
Maybe someone can help me make this solution work. And of course I'm open to other approaches to make this statement scalable.
I’ve solved this problem with a little different approach a view month ago. Maybe it’s a good solution for you too.
I didn’t want my solution to change the query itself. So a ids.ChunkContains(p.Id) or a special WhereContains method was unfeasible. Also should the solution be able to combine a Contains with another filter as well as using the same collection multiple times.
db.TestEntities.Where(p => (ids.Contains(p.Id) || ids.Contains(p.ParentId)) && p.Name.StartsWith("Test"))
So I tried to encapsulate the logic in a special ToList method that could rewrite the Expression for a specified collection to be queried in chunks.
var ids = Enumerable.Range(1, 11);
var result = db.TestEntities.Where(p => Ids.Contains(p.Id) && p.Name.StartsWith ("Test"))
.ToChunkedList(ids,4);
To rewrite the expression tree I discovered all Contains Method calls from local collections in the query with a view helping classes.
private class ContainsExpression
{
public ContainsExpression(MethodCallExpression methodCall)
{
this.MethodCall = methodCall;
}
public MethodCallExpression MethodCall { get; private set; }
public object GetValue()
{
var parent = MethodCall.Object ?? MethodCall.Arguments.FirstOrDefault();
return Expression.Lambda<Func<object>>(parent).Compile()();
}
public bool IsLocalList()
{
Expression parent = MethodCall.Object ?? MethodCall.Arguments.FirstOrDefault();
while (parent != null) {
if (parent is ConstantExpression)
return true;
var member = parent as MemberExpression;
if (member != null) {
parent = member.Expression;
} else {
parent = null;
}
}
return false;
}
}
private class FindExpressionVisitor<T> : ExpressionVisitor where T : Expression
{
public List<T> FoundItems { get; private set; }
public FindExpressionVisitor()
{
this.FoundItems = new List<T>();
}
public override Expression Visit(Expression node)
{
var found = node as T;
if (found != null) {
this.FoundItems.Add(found);
}
return base.Visit(node);
}
}
public static List<T> ToChunkedList<T, TValue>(this IQueryable<T> query, IEnumerable<TValue> list, int chunkSize)
{
var finder = new FindExpressionVisitor<MethodCallExpression>();
finder.Visit(query.Expression);
var methodCalls = finder.FoundItems.Where(p => p.Method.Name == "Contains").Select(p => new ContainsExpression(p)).Where(p => p.IsLocalList()).ToList();
var localLists = methodCalls.Where(p => p.GetValue() == list).ToList();
If the local collection passed in the ToChunkedList method was found in the query expression, I replace the Contains call to the original list with a new call to a temporary list containing the ids for one batch.
if (localLists.Any()) {
var result = new List<T>();
var valueList = new List<TValue>();
var containsMethod = typeof(Enumerable).GetMethods(BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public)
.Single(p => p.Name == "Contains" && p.GetParameters().Count() == 2)
.MakeGenericMethod(typeof(TValue));
var queryExpression = query.Expression;
foreach (var item in localLists) {
var parameter = new List<Expression>();
parameter.Add(Expression.Constant(valueList));
if (item.MethodCall.Object == null) {
parameter.AddRange(item.MethodCall.Arguments.Skip(1));
} else {
parameter.AddRange(item.MethodCall.Arguments);
}
var call = Expression.Call(containsMethod, parameter.ToArray());
var replacer = new ExpressionReplacer(item.MethodCall,call);
queryExpression = replacer.Visit(queryExpression);
}
var chunkQuery = query.Provider.CreateQuery<T>(queryExpression);
for (int i = 0; i < Math.Ceiling((decimal)list.Count() / chunkSize); i++) {
valueList.Clear();
valueList.AddRange(list.Skip(i * chunkSize).Take(chunkSize));
result.AddRange(chunkQuery.ToList());
}
return result;
}
// if the collection was not found return query.ToList()
return query.ToList();
Expression Replacer:
private class ExpressionReplacer : ExpressionVisitor {
private Expression find, replace;
public ExpressionReplacer(Expression find, Expression replace)
{
this.find = find;
this.replace = replace;
}
public override Expression Visit(Expression node)
{
if (node == this.find)
return this.replace;
return base.Visit(node);
}
}
Please allow me to provide an alternative to the Chunky approach.
The technique involving Contains in your predicate works well for:
A constant list of values (no volatile).
A small list of values.
Contains will do great if your local data has those two characteristics because these small set of values will be hardcoded in the final SQL query.
The problem begins when your list of values has entropy (non-constant). As of this writing, Entity Framework (Classic and Core) do not try to parameterize these values in any way, this forces SQL Server to generate a query plan every time it sees a new combination of values in your query. This operation is expensive and gets aggravated by the overall complexity of your query (e.g. many tables, a lot of values in the list, etc.).
The Chunky approach still suffers from this SQL Server query plan cache pollution problem, because it does not parametrizes the query, it just moves the cost of creating a big execution plan into smaller ones that are more easy to compute (and discard) by SQL Server, furthermore, every chunk adds an additional round-trip to the database, which increases the time needed to resolve the query.
An Efficient Solution for EF Core
🎉 NEW! QueryableValues EF6 Edition has arrived!
For EF Core keep reading below.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a way of composing local data in your query in a way that's SQL Server friendly? Enter QueryableValues.
I designed this library with these two main goals:
It MUST solve the SQL Server's query plan cache pollution problem ✅
It MUST be fast! ⚡
It has a flexible API that allows you to compose local data provided by an IEnumerable<T> and you get back an IQueryable<T>; just use it as if it were another entity of your DbContext (really), e.g.:
// Sample values.
IEnumerable<int> values = Enumerable.Range(1, 1000);
// Using a Join (query syntax).
var query1 =
from e in dbContext.MyEntities
join v in dbContext.AsQueryableValues(values) on e.Id equals v
select new
{
e.Id,
e.Name
};
// Using Contains (method syntax)
var query2 = dbContext.MyEntities
.Where(e => dbContext.AsQueryableValues(values).Contains(e.Id))
.Select(e => new
{
e.Id,
e.Name
});
You can also compose complex types!
It goes without saying that the provided IEnumerable<T> is only enumerated at the time that your query is materialized (not before), preserving the same behavior of EF Core in this regard.
How Does It Works?
Internally QueryableValues creates a parameterized query and provides your values in a serialized format that is natively understood by SQL Server. This allows your query to be resolved with a single round-trip to the database and avoids creating a new query plan on subsequent executions due to the parameterized nature of it.
Useful Links
Nuget Package
GitHub Repository
Benchmarks
SQL Server Cache Pollution Problem
QueryableValues is distributed under the MIT license
Linqkit to the rescue! Might be a better way that does it directly, but this seems to work fine and makes it pretty clear what's being done. The addition being AsExpandable(), which lets you use the Invoke extension.
using LinqKit;
public static IEnumerable<TEntity> ChunkyContains<TEntity, TContains>(
this IQueryable<TEntity> query,
Expression<Func<TEntity,TContains>> match,
IEnumerable<TContains> containList,
int chunkSize = 500)
{
return containList
.ToChunks(chunkSize)
.Select (chunk => query.AsExpandable()
.Where(x => chunk.Contains(match.Invoke(x))))
.SelectMany(x => x);
}
You might also want to do this:
containsList.Distinct()
.ToChunks(chunkSize)
...or something similar so you don't get duplicate results if something this occurs:
query.ChunkyContains(x => x.Id, new List<int> { 1, 1 }, 1);
Another way would be to build the predicate this way (of course, some parts should be improved, just giving the idea).
public static Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>> ContainsPredicate<TEntity, TContains>(this IEnumerable<TContains> chunk, Expression<Func<TEntity, TContains>> match)
{
return Expression.Lambda<Func<TEntity, bool>>(Expression.Call(
typeof (Enumerable),
"Contains",
new[]
{
typeof (TContains)
},
Expression.Constant(chunk, typeof(IEnumerable<TContains>)), match.Body),
match.Parameters);
}
which you could call in your ChunkContains method
return containList.ToChunks(chunkSize)
.Select(chunk => query.Where(ContainsPredicate(chunk, match)))
.SelectMany(x => x);
Using a stored procedure with a table valued parameter could also work well. You in effect write a joint In the stored procedure between your table / view and the table valued parameter.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/data/adonet/sql/table-valued-parameters
This has been ruining my life for a few days now, time to ask...
I am using Entity Framework 4.0 for my app.
A Location (such as a house or office) has one or more facilities (like a bathroom, bedroom, snooker table etc..)
I want to display a checkbox list on the location page, with a checkbox list of facilities, with the ones checked that the location currently has.
My View Model for the facilities goes like this...
public class FacilityViewItem
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool Checked { get; set; }
}
So when im passing the Location View Model to the UI, i want to pass a List<T> of facilities where T is of type FacilityViewItem.
To get the facilities that the location already has is simple - i make a query using Location.Facilities which returns an EntityCollection where T is of type Facility. This is because Facilities is a navigation property....
var facs = from f in location.Facilities
select new FacilityViewItem()
{
Id = f.FacilityId,
Name = f.Name,
Checked = true
};
So here is where my problem lies - i want the rest of the facilities, the ones that the Location does not have.
I have tried using Except() and Any() and Contains() but i get the same error.
Examples of queries that do not work...
var restOfFacilities = from f in ctx.Facilities
where !hasFacilities.Contains(f)
select new FacilityViewItem()
{
Id = f.FacilityId,
Name = f.Name
};
var restOfFacilities = ctx.Facilities.Except(facilitiesThatLocationHas);
var notFacs = from e in ctx.Facilities
where !hasFacilities.Any(m => m.FacilityId == e.FacilityId)
select new FacilityViewItem()
{
Id = e.FacilityId,
Name = e.Name
};
And the error i get with every implementation...
System.NotSupportedException was unhandled
Message=Unable to create a constant value of type 'Chapter2ConsoleApp.Facility'. Only primitive types ('such as Int32, String, and Guid') are supported in this context.
What am i overlooking here?
ironically enough i solved it in a matter of hours after i posted the question on here, after days of suffering.
The error is basically saying 'i dont know how to calculate what items are not included by comparing strongly typed objects. Give me a list of Ints or some simple types, and i can take care of it'.
So, first you need to get a list of the primary keys, then use that in the contains clause...
//get the primary key ids...
var hasFacilityIds = from f in hasFacilities
select f.FacilityId;
//now use them in the contains clause...
var restOfFacilities = from f in ctx.Facilities
where !hasFacilityIds.Contains(f.FacilityId)
select new FacilityViewItem()
{
Id = f.FacilityId,
Name = f.Name
};
The first query seems fine, but you need to compare the Ids:
var restOfFacilities = from f in ctx.Facilities
where !facs.Select(fac => fac.Id).Contains(f.Id)
select f;
I wanna see what's hasFacilities, anyway, as L2E shows, "Only primitive types ('such as Int32, String, and Guid') are supported in this context", so I suppose you must retrieve first the data and put into a collection of FacilityViewItem.
var restOfFacilities = ctx
.Facilities
.Where(f => !hasFacilities.Contains(f))
.Select(f => new { f.FacilityId, f.Name })
.ToList()
.Select(f => new FacilityViewItem {
Id = f.FacilityId,
Name = f.Name
});
var notFacs = ctx
.Facilities
.Where(e => !hasFacilities.Any(m => m.FacilityId == e.FacilityId))
.Select(e => new { e.FacilityId, e.Name })
.ToList()
.Select(e => new FacilityViewItem {
Id = e.FacilityId,
Name = e.Name
});
hope it helps
Forgive me if this has been asked already. I've only just started using LINQ. I have the following Expression:
public static Expression<Func<TblCustomer, CustomerSummary>> SelectToSummary()
{
return m => (new CustomerSummary()
{
ID = m.ID,
CustomerName = m.CustomerName,
LastSalesContact = // This is a Person entity, no idea how to create it
});
}
I want to be able to populate LastSalesContact, which is a Person entity.
The details that I wish to populate come from m.LatestPerson, so how can I map over the fields from m.LatestPerson to LastSalesContact. I want the mapping to be re-useable, i.e. I do not want to do this:
LastSalesContact = new Person()
{
// Etc
}
Can I use a static Expression, such as this:
public static Expression<Func<TblUser, User>> SelectToUser()
{
return x => (new User()
{
// Populate
});
}
UPDATE:
This is what I need to do:
return m => (new CustomerSummary()
{
ID = m.ID,
CustomerName = m.CustomerName,
LastSalesContact = new Person()
{
PersonId = m.LatestPerson.PersonId,
PersonName = m.LatestPerson.PersonName,
Company = new Company()
{
CompanyId = m.LatestPerson.Company.CompanyId,
etc
}
}
});
But I will be re-using the Person() creation in about 10-15 different classes, so I don't want exactly the same code duplicated X amount of times. I'd probably also want to do the same for Company.
Can't you just use automapper for that?
public static Expression<Func<TblCustomer, CustomerSummary>> SelectToSummary()
{
return m => Mapper.Map<TblCustomer, CustommerSummary>(m);
}
You'd have to do some bootstrapping, but then it's very reusable.
UPDATE:
I may not be getting something, but what it the purpose of this function? If you just want to map one or collection of Tbl object to other objects, why have the expression?
You could just have something like this:
var customers = _customerRepository.GetAll(); // returns IEnumerable<TblCustomer>
var summaries = Mapper.Map<IEnumerable<TblCustomer>, IEnumerable<CustomerSummary>>(customers);
Or is there something I missed?
I don't think you'll be able to use a lambda expression to do this... you'll need to build up the expression tree by hand using the factory methods in Expression. It's unlikely to be pleasant, to be honest.
My generally preferred way of working out how to build up expression trees is to start with a simple example of what you want to do written as a lambda expression, and then decompile it. That should show you how the expression tree is built - although the C# compiler gets to use the metadata associated with properties more easily than we can (we have to use Type.GetProperty).
This is always assuming I've understood you correctly... it's quite possible that I haven't.
How about this:
public static Person CreatePerson(TblPerson data)
{
// ...
}
public static Expression<Func<TblPerson, Person>> CreatePersonExpression()
{
return d => CreatePerson(d);
}
return m => (new CustomerSummary()
{
ID = m.ID,
CustomerName = m.CustomerName,
LastSalesContact = CreatePerson(m.LatestPerson)
});
If I have something like:
var query = from children in _data.Children
where children.ChildId == childId
select new CustomModel.MyChild
{
ChildId = children.ChildId,
Name = children.ChildName
};
return query.FirstOrDefault();
Where I want the resultant object to be my custom model.
Can I handle the custom model instantiation in a different method, which could be reused if I had multiple linq queries that all generated a custom child model?
For example,
var query = from children in _data.Children
where children.ChildId == childId
select CreateMyCustomChild([param ??]);
return query.FirstOrDefault();
This may well be impossible, I don't know, but what would the method signature be like if it is possible?
I'm only thinking reuse for when multiple linq queries contain duplicate object initialisation code.
Thanks
It really depends on what version of LINQ you're using. If you're using LINQ to SQL, I don't believe you can call arbitrary methods in the query. The query translator wouldn't know what to do with the method call
If you're using LINQ to Objects, you're absolutely fine to do it, like this:
var query = from children in _data.Children
where children.ChildId == childId
select CreateMyCustomChild(children)
return query.FirstOrDefault();
// Elsewhere
public CustomModel.MyChild CreateMyCustomChild(OtherChild child)
{
return new CustomModel.MyChild
{
ChildId = child.ChildId,
Name = child.ChildName
};
}
(Side note: I'd call the range variable in the query "child" rather than "children" as at any one time it only represents a single child.)
If you wanted you could write "select 1" or in your case "CreateMyCustomChild(children)" since "children" is containing all your info. In your case you aren't adding a lot of info to "children", so why not "select children"?
In other words, just try it out. The return type of your value will determine over which type your LINQ enumerates.
Suppose you had a method that did the transform for you.
public static class Conversions
{
public static CustomModel.MyChild ToCustomModel(this DataModel.MyChild source)
{
return new CustomModel.MyChild()
{
ChildId = source.ChildId,
Name = source.ChildName
}
}
}
You can use such a method to do the conversion of a single item.
DataModel.MyChild myResult = getResult();
CustomModel.MyChild myConvertedResult = myResult.ToCustomModel()
Such a method can also be used in a Enumerable.Select method call.
IEnumerable<DataModel.MyChild> myQueriedResults = getResult();
IEnumerable<CustomModel.MyChild> myConvertedResults =
myQueryiedResults.Select(c => c.ToCustomModel());
While you can do with expressions, I don't think it is worth the hassle. Instead I suggest you define an extension method like:
IQueryable<CustomModel.MyChild> ToModel(this IQueryable<Child> childs)
{
return childs.Select( c=>
select new CustomModel.MyChild
{
ChildId = children.ChildId,
Name = children.ChildName
}
);
}
You can then call:
return _data.Children
.Where(c=>c.ChildId == childId)
.ToModel()
.FirstOrDefault();