In my C# application i am using linq. I need a help what is the syntax for if-elseif- using linq in single line. Data, RangeDate are the inputs. Here is the code:
var Date1 = RangeData.ToList();
int record =0;
foreach (var tr in Date1)
{
int id =0;
if (tr.Item1 != null && tr.Item1.port != null)
{
id = tr.Item1.port.id;
}
else if (tr.Item2 != null && tr.Item2.port != null)
{
id = tr.Item2.port.id;
}
if (id >0)
{
if(Data.Trygetvalue(id, out cdat)
{
// Do some operation. (var cdata = SumData(id, tr.item2.port.Date)
record ++;
}
}
}
I think your code example is false, your record variable is initialized to 0 on each loop so increment it is useless .
I suppose that you want to count records in your list which have an id, you can achieve this with one single Count() :
var record = Date1.Count(o => (o.Item1?.port?.id ?? o.Item2?.port?.id) > 0);
You can use following code:
var count = RangeData.Select(x => new { Id = x.Item1?.port?.id ?? x.Item2?.port?.id ?? 0, Item = x })
.Count(x =>
{
int? cdate = null; // change int to your desired type over here
if (x.Id > 0 && Data.Trygetvalue(x.Id, out cdat))
{
// Do some operation. (var cdata = SumData(x.Id, x.Item.Item2.port.Date)
return true;
}
return false;
});
Edit:
#D Stanley is completely right, LINQ is wrong tool over here. You can refactor few bits of your code though:
var Date1 = RangeData.ToList();
int record =0;
foreach (var tr in Date1)
{
int? cdat = null; // change int to your desired type over here
int id = tr.Item1?.port?.id ?? tr.Item2?.port?.id ?? 0;
if (id >0 && Data.Trygetvalue(id, out cdat))
{
// Do some operation. (var cdata = SumData(id, tr.Item2.port.Date)
record ++;
}
}
Linq is not the right tool here. Linq is for converting or querying a collection. You are looping over a collection and "doing some operation". Depending on what that operation is, trying to shoehorn it into a Linq statement will be harder to understand to an outside reader, difficult to debug, and hard to maintain.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the loop that you have. As you can tell from the other answers, it's difficult to wedge all of the information you have into a "single-line" statement just to use Linq.
Related
Sorry for the very rudimentary question.
I used LINQ to join the two tables.
using(var db = new BooksDbContext())
{
var q = db.Books.Join(db.Author,
b => b.Id,
a => a.Id,
(b, a) => new { Book = b, Author = a });
}
From the obtained result, I would like to fill the null part with 0.
I want to leave non-null values as they are.
If you write it without using LINQ, you can imagine this.
0 if null.
If it is not null, the value is stored as it is.
while (reader.Read())
{
for(var i = 0; i <= 10; i++)
{
if (Convert.IsDBNull(reader[i]))
{
testList[i] = 0;
}
else testList[i] = reader[i]
}
}
I want to do this with LINQ, but I'm having a hard time thinking about it.
I would like advice.
Sorry for the boring question.
I have a table named industries. In this my fields are
workfor_id,
workfor_usr_id,
workfor_industry_id.
With the same values of workfor_id, I have different workfor_industry_id's.
foreach (var k in us){
var ind = dbContext.industries.Where(i => i.workfor_id ==
k.id).Select(i => i).FirstOrDefault();
string ind2 = k.industry;
var industryParts = ind2.Split(',');
var o = (industryParts.Length);
for (c = 0; c < o; c++){
ind.workfor_id = Convert.ToInt16(k.id);
ind.workfor_industry_id = Convert.ToInt16(k.industryid); }
}
To update workfor_industry_id field I have implemented inner loop inside the foreach loop to get the values of workfor_industry_id's.here same record is over loading with different workfor_industry_id's.
can you tell me how to implement this.
UPDATED
This update adds a little more error checking and assumes that -1 is never a valid value for industry_id
short GetShort(string value) {
short returnValue;
value = (value ?? string.Empty).Replace("\"",null);
return short.TryParse(value, out returnValue) ? returnValue : (short)-1;
}
foreach (var k in us){
var id=Convert.ToInt16(k.id);
var toRemove=from i in dbContext.industries
where i.workfor_id == k.id
select i;
var toAdd = from x in (k.industry ?? string.Empty).Split(',')
select new Industry {
workfor_id=id,
workfor_industry_id=GetShort(x)
};
dbContext.industries.DeleteAllOnSubmit(toRemove);
dbContext.industries.InsertAllOnSubmit(toAdd.Where(x=>x.workfor_industry_id != -1));
}
dbContext.SubmitChanges();
Im trying to write a method which will allow me to search different DataTables, over different columns.
So far i have the following:
string selectedValue;
string searchColumn;
string targetColumn;
var results = (from a in dt.AsEnumerable()
where a.Field<string>(searchColumn) == selectedValue
select new
{
targetColumn = a.Field<string>(targetColumn)
}).Distinct();
Which kind of gets the job done, but I'm left with the column name as targetColumn rather than the actual column name I want.
Is there any way to resolve this?
Thanks in advance
CM
I make a LINQ to Datatables
public List<DataRow> Where(this DataTable dt, Func<DataRow, bool> pred)
{
List<DataRow> res = new List<DataRow>();
try {
if (dt != null && dt.Rows.Count > 0) {
for (i = 0; i <= dt.Rows.Count - 1; i++) {
if (pred(dt(i))) {
res.Add(dt(i));
}
}
}
} catch (Exception ex) {
PromptMsg(ex);
}
return res;
}
Usage :
var RowsList = dt.Where(f => f("SomeField").toString() == "SomeValue" ||
f("OtherField") > 5);
I have a list of prices ordered by date. I need to select all monotonously decreasing values. The following code works:
public static List<DataPoint> SelectDecreasingValues(List<DataPoint> dataPoints)
{
var ret = new List<DataPoint>(dataPoints.Count);
var previousPrice = dataPoints[0].Price;
for (int i = 0; i < dataPoints.Count; i++)
{
if (dataPoints[i].Price <= previousPrice)
{
ret.Add(dataPoints[i]);
previousPrice = dataPoints[i].Price;
}
}
return ret;
}
However, is there a shorter/cleaner way to accomplish it with Linq?
This code is equivalent:
previousPrice = dataPoints[0].Price;
var ret = dataPoints.Where(x => {
if(x.Price <= previousPrice)
{ previousPrice = x.Price; return true;}
return false;
}).ToList();
However, if you don't need to have a list, go with plain enumerables and drop the ToList at the end. That way you can make use of the deferred execution feature built into LINQ.
The following code is also equivalent:
DataPoint previous = dataPoints.FirstOrDefault();
var ret = dataPoints.Where(x => x.Price <= previous.Price)
.Select(x => previous = x).ToList();
This works because of the deferred execution in LINQ. For each item in dataPoints it will first execute the Where part and then the Select part and only then will it move to the second item in dataPoints.
You need to decide which version you want to use. The second one is not as intention revealing as the first one, because you need to know about the internal workings of LINQ.
public IEnumerable<T> WhereMonotonicDecreasing<T>(
IEnumerable<T> source,
Func<T, IComparable> keySelector)
{
IComparable key;
bool first = true;
foreach(T t in source)
{
if (first)
{
key = keySelector(t);
yield return t;
first = false;
}
else
{
IComparable newKey = keySelector(t);
if (newKey.CompareTo(key) < 0)
{
key = newKey;
yield return t;
}
}
}
}
Called by:
dataPoints.WhereMonotonicDecreasing(x => x.Price);
previousPrice = dataPoints[0];
dataPoints.Where(p => p.Price <= previousPrice.Price)
.Select(p => previousPrice = p);
You can then use .ToList() if you really need one.
How about (untested):
return dataPoints.Take(1)
.Concat(dataPoints.Skip(1)
.Zip(dataPoints,
(next, previous) =>
new { Next = next, Previous = previous })
.Where(a => a.Next.Price <= a.Previous.Price)
.Select(a => a.Next))
.ToList();
Essentially, this overlays a "one-deferred" version of the sequence over the sequence to produce "next, previous" tuples and then applies the relevant filters on those tuples. The Take(1) is to pick the first item of the sequence, which it appears you always want.
If you don't care for the readability of the variable names, you could shorten it to:
return dataPoints.Take(1)
.Concat(dataPoints.Skip(1)
.Zip(dataPoints, Tuple.Create)
.Where(a => a.Item1.Price <= a.Item2.Price)
.Select(a => a.Item1))
.ToList();
While looking though some code of the project I'm working on, I've come across a pretty hefty method which does
the following:
public string DataField(int id, string fieldName)
{
var data = _dataRepository.Find(id);
if (data != null)
{
if (data.A == null)
{
data.A = fieldName;
_dataRepository.InsertOrUpdate(data);
return "A";
}
if (data.B == null)
{
data.B = fieldName;
_dataRepository.InsertOrUpdate(data);
return "B";
}
// keep going data.C through data.Z doing the exact same code
}
}
Obviously having 26 if statements just to determine if a property is null and then to update that property and do a database call is
probably very naive in implementation. What would be a better way of doing this unit of work?
Thankfully C# is able to inspect and assign class members dynamically, so one option would be to create a map list and iterate over that.
public string DataField(int id, string fieldName)
{
var data = _dataRepository.Find(id);
List<string> props = new List<string>();
props.Add("A");
props.Add("B");
props.Add("C");
if (data != null)
{
Type t = typeof(data).GetType();
foreach (String entry in props) {
PropertyInfo pi = t.GetProperty(entry);
if (pi.GetValue(data) == null) {
pi.SetValue(data, fieldName);
_dataRepository.InsertOrUpdate(data);
return entry;
}
}
}
}
You could just loop through all the character from 'A' to 'Z'. It gets difficult because you want to access an attribute of your 'data' object with the corresponding name, but that should (as far as I know) be possible through the C# reflection functionality.
While you get rid of the consecutive if-statements this still won't make your code nice :P
there is a fancy linq solution for your problem using reflection:
but as it was said before: your datastructure is not very well thought through
public String DataField(int id, string fieldName)
{
var data = new { Z = "test", B="asd"};
Type p = data.GetType();
var value = (from System.Reflection.PropertyInfo fi
in p.GetProperties().OrderBy((fi) => fi.Name)
where fi.Name.Length == 1 && fi.GetValue(data, null) != null
select fi.Name).FirstOrDefault();
return value;
}
ta taaaaaaaaa
like that you get the property but the update is not yet done.
var data = _dataRepository.Find(id);
If possible, you should use another DataType without those 26 properties. That new DataType should have 1 property and the Find method should return an instance of that new DataType; then, you could get rid of the 26 if in a more natural way.
To return "A", "B" ... "Z", you could use this:
return (char)65; //In this example this si an "A"
And work with some transformation from data.Value to a number between 65 and 90 (A to Z).
Since you always set the lowest alphabet field first and return, you can use an additional field in your class that tracks the first available field. For example, this can be an integer lowest_alphabet_unset and you'd update it whenever you set data.{X}:
Init:
lowest_alphabet_unset = 0;
In DataField:
lowest_alphabet_unset ++;
switch (lowest_alphabet_unset) {
case 1:
/* A is free */
/* do something */
return 'A';
[...]
case 7:
/* A through F taken */
data.G = fieldName;
_dataRepository.InsertOrUpdate(data);
return 'G';
[...]
}
N.B. -- do not use, if data is object rather that structure.
what comes to my mind is that, if A-Z are all same type, then you could theoretically access memory directly to check for non null values.
start = &data;
for (i = 0; i < 26; i++){
if ((typeof_elem) *(start + sizeof(elem)*i) != null){
*(start + sizeof(elem)*i) = fieldName;
return (char) (65 + i);
}
}
not tested but to give an idea ;)