TAB_XXX and TAB_XXX_details are one-to-many relationships, I need to query the two tables, however, we need to be filtered TAB_XXX_details。
The code is as follows：
var qu = from c in db.TAB_XXX.Where(n => n.DELETE_MARK == false)
let dets = c.TAB_XXX_DETAILS.Where(n => condition.SaleType.HasValue ? n.SALE_TYPE == (decimal)condition.SaleType : 1 == 1)
select new
{
c,
dets
};
Condition.SaleType is number?, if the condition.SaleType is a valid number, such as 1, 2, 3 ... I want to filter the child record based on these numbers; when the condition.SaleType is null, I want to query TAB_XXX and all its child records;
How do I modify the where clause?
Thank you for your answer!
Since 1 == 1 is always true, your condition boils down to this:
let dets = c.TAB_XXX_DETAILS
.Where(n => !condition.SaleType.HasValue || n.SALE_TYPE == condition.SaleType.Value)
Essentially, you want to return all rows when condition.SaleType does not have value; otherwise, you make a comparison to condition.SaleType.Value.
Related
For the following query:
var result = from sch in schemeDashboard
join exp in Expenditure on sch.schemeId equals exp.SchemeCode
into SchExpGroup
where sch.SectorDepartmentId == selectedDepartmentId &&
sch.YearCode == StateManager.CurrentYear
orderby sch.ADPId
select new
{
ModifiedAmounts = SchExpGroup.Select(a => a.ModifiedAmounts),
ProjectName = sch.schemeName,
ADPNo = sch.ADPId,
Allocation = sch.CurrentAllocation,
Expenditures = from expend in SchExpGroup
where expend.YearCode == StateManager.CurrentYear &&
expend.DepartmentId == selectedDepartmentId &&
InvStatus.Contains(expend.Status)
orderby expend.ADPId
group expend by expend.InvoiceId
};
I want to filter the above query on a condition so that result gives only those records where "ModifiedAmounts" are not null. I have tried as follow:
if (rbList2.SelectedIndex == 6)
{
result = result.Where(a => a.ModifiedAmounts != null));
}
but this gives error as:
Cannot compare elements of type
'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1'. Only primitive types,
enumeration types and entity types are supported.
Any suggestions as I am lost as how to rephrase the filtered query.
I think the problem is that ModifiedAmounts will never be null. Select will return an empty list. Unless SchExpGroup is null in which case you will get a null reference exception.
Try changing your code to
result = result.Where(a => a.ModifiedAmounts.Any());
if (rbList2.SelectedIndex == 6)
{
result = result.Where(a => a.!ModifiedAmounts.Any());
}
Summary
I have a list of Transactions. Using Linq, I want to get a sum of the Cost and sum of the Quantity from this list in one query.
Grouping
My first thought is to use grouping - but I don't really have a key that I want to group on, I want just one group with the results from the whole list. So, I happen to have a property called "Parent" that will be the same for all of the transactions, so I'm using that to group on:
var totalCostQuery =
(from t in Transactions
where t.Status != GeneralStoreTransactionStatus.Inactive &&
(t.Type == GeneralStoreTransactionType.Purchase ||
t.Type == GeneralStoreTransactionType.Adjustment)
group t by t.Parent into g
select new
{
TotalCost = g.Sum(t => t.Cost.GetValueOrDefault()),
TotalQuantity = g.Sum(t => t.Quantity.GetValueOrDefault())
});
Grouping by t.Parent seems like it could be wrong. I really don't want to group at all, I just want the sum of t.Quantity and sum of t.Cost.
Is that the correct way to get a sum of two different properties or can it be done in a different way.
Assuming this is Linq to SQL or Entity Framework, you can do that:
var totalCostQuery =
(from t in Transactions
where t.Status != GeneralStoreTransactionStatus.Inactive &&
(t.Type == GeneralStoreTransactionType.Purchase ||
t.Type == GeneralStoreTransactionType.Adjustment)
group t by 1 into g
select new
{
TotalCost = g.Sum(t => t.Cost),
TotalQuantity = g.Sum(t => t.Quantity)
});
Note that you don't need to use GetValueOrDefault, null values will be ignored in the sum.
EDIT: not sure this works with Linq to NHibernate though...
Note that if you're using Linq to objects, the solution above won't be efficient, because it will enumerate each group twice (once for each sum). In that case you can use Aggregate instead:
var transactions =
from t in Transactions
where t.Status != GeneralStoreTransactionStatus.Inactive &&
(t.Type == GeneralStoreTransactionType.Purchase ||
t.Type == GeneralStoreTransactionType.Adjustment)
select t;
var total =
transactions.Aggregate(
new { TotalCost = 0.0, TotalQuantity = 0 },
(acc, t) =>
{
TotalCost = acc.TotalCost + t.Cost.GetValueOrDefault(),
TotalQuantity = acc.TotalQuantity + t.Quantity.GetValueOrDefault(),
});
I tried to use the suggestion provided here for using In operator in linq but, i am not able to convert my requirement into LINQ statement.
Below is the SQL query which i need to convert to Linq
select *
from navigator_user_field_property
where user_id = 'albert'
and field_id in (
select field_id
from navigator_entity_field_master
where entity_id = 1
and use_type = 0)
order by field_id
I want this to be converted to a Efficient Linq.
Most of the answers deal with the predetermined list of string array which is not working in my case.
Thanks
Looks like a join to me:
var query = from navigator in db.NavigatorUserFieldProperties
where navigator.UserId == "albert"
join field in db.NavigatorEntityFieldMasters
.Where(f => f.EntityId == 1 && f.UseType == 0)
on navigator.FieldId equals field.FieldId
select navigator;
Note that this will return the same value multiple times if there are multiple fields with the same ID - but I suspect that's not the case.
You could do a more literal translation like this:
var query = from navigator in db.NavigatorUserFieldProperties
where navigator.UserId == "albert" &&
db.NavigatorEntityFieldMasters
.Where(f => f.EntityId == 1 && f.UseType == 0)
.select(f => f.FieldId)
.Contains(navigator.FieldId)
select navigator;
... and that may end up translating to the same SQL... but I'd personally go with the join.
Here is an efficient and readable LINQ query:
var fields =
from field in db.navigator_entity_field_masters
where field.entity_id == 1 && field.user_type == 0
select field;
var properties =
from property in db.navigator_user_field_properties
where property.user_id == "albert"
where fields.Contains(property.field)
select property;
Look mama!! Without joins ;-)
With Linq, can I use a conditional statement inside of a Where extension method?
var query = someList.Where(a => (someCondition)? a == "something" : true);
so, if 'someCondition' is false, 'Where' will be skipped.
Yes you can like:
var query = someList.Where(a => a == "something");
if (condition)
{
query = query.Where(b => b == "something else");
}
var result = query.ToList();
Because Where is producing an IQueryable, the execution is deferred until the ToList in my example so you can chain Wheres together as much as you want and then just execute it after you have passed all your conditions.
Make use of WhereIf extenstion method avaialbe in linq
Example
if (SearchControlMain.PostingID.HasValue)
query = query.Where(q => q.PostingID == SearchControlMain.PostingID);
instead of above go for the below
query = query.WhereIf(SearchControlMain.CategoryID.HasValue, q => q.CategoryID == SearchControlMain.CategoryID);
LINQ WhereIf Extension Method
LINQ to SQL Where Clause Optional Criteria
Not sure if this is appropriate but it is quite useful, you can use ifs quite handily with conditional where clauses:
var r = (from p in productinfo.tblproduct
where p.Accountid == accountid
select p);
if (uuf1 != null)
r = r.Where(p => p.UnitUserField1 == uuf1);
if (uuf2!= null)
r = r.Where(p => p.UnitUserField2 == uuf2);
So the where clause will be amended according to what is in UUF1 or UUF2 i.e. you might have only UUF1 with info, in which case it will take that and ignore the UUF2 where clause, you might have both in which it will take both or you might not have anything in UUF1 or 2 and your where clause will just take the accountid as the where clause.
In my case there were two "conditional" where depending on search keys, so I did:
var query = db.Package.Include("SomeThing")
.Where(item => searchString1 == null || searchString1 == "" || item.Contains(searchString1))
.Where(item => searchString2 == null || searchString2 == "" || item.Contains(searchString2));
...
from item in items
where condition1
&& (condition2 ? true : condition3)
select item
This is how can you can do it with the noob Linq syntax.
This applies the condition3 only if condition2 is false.
If condition2 is true, you are essentially doing && true which has no effect on the where clause.
So it is essentially doing this:
if(condition2)
{
from item in items
where condition1
select item
else
{
from item in items
where condition1
&& condition3
select item
}
I had a scenario like this where I had to check for null within the list itself. This is what I did.
items = from p in items
where p.property1 != null //Add other if conditions
select p;
// Use items the way you would use inside the if condition
But as Kelsey pointed out this would work too -
items = items.Where(a => a.property1 != null);
I'm not sure what the question is, but a possible answer could be:
Yes,
list.Where(item => { if (Foo(item)) return true; else return false; });
It would be a complicated way of saying something simple, though.
In my case, I wanted to keep the elements which met my criteria and log the ones that didn't without iterating multiple times.
var merchantsWithLocations = allMerchants.Where(m =>
{
if (m.Locations?.Any() != true)
{
_logger.Log("Merchant {merchantId} has no locations", m.Id);
return false;
}
return true;
};
Any time you want to do a side-effect per element (such as logging), breaking out the lambda into a statement body makes it easy to reason about.
I am trying to find the corerct LINQ to SQL query operator and predicate combo that can operate on an audit table.
Imagine a table called Setting that has three columns : rowID, DefID, and Value.
I want to be able to check that every DefID ( in this case all definition 1 through 3 ) has at least one row which has a value set to true.
the LINQ expression should return a bool true or false. For example,
RowID DefID Value
1 1 true
2 2 false
3 3 true
LINQ returns false because DefID = 2 does not have any value = true
RowID DefID Value
1 1 true
2 2 false
3 2 true
returns false because defid 3 is missing
RowID DefID Value
1 1 true
2 1 false
3 2 true
4 3 true
returns true because ALL definitions have at least one value = true
Here is an example using extension methods:
int[] ids = new int[] { 1, 2, 3 };
bool allFound = Settings.Where( s => s.Value && ids.Contains( s.DefID ) )
.Select( s => s.DefID )
.Distinct()
.Count() == ids.Length;
I've never used linq to sql, but the linq to objects would look something like this:
defIds.All(d => d.rows.Any( row => row.Value == true ) )
To do it in raw SQL, I don't think it's possible in one query. You could do something like this though:
select id from DefIds
join rows on row.DefId = DefIds.ID
where row.Value = true
That would give you a list of defId's which have true values. In code you could then do something like
DefIds.Select(d => d.id).ToArray() == (results from select).ToArray()
Well, there are a lot of valid ways to do this. One simple way is:
int[] DefIDs = new int[] {1, 2, 3};
bool bHasValidDefs =
(
from set in myDataBase.settings
where
set.Value == true
&& DefIDs.Contains(set.DefID)
select set.DefID
).Distinct().Count() == DefIDs.Count();
This gets the number of unique DefIDs that are in your valid list and also have at least one "value == true" row. It then makes sure that the number of these valid DefIDs is equal to the expected value that you define above.
If you are ok with having a ValidSettings or SettingsMaster table, you could:
bool allFound = myContext.SettingsMaster.All(m=> m.Settings.Any(s=>s.Value));
For the current tables version, I would
int[] allIds = new int[] {1, 2, 3};
var validIds = (
from s in myContext.Settings
where s.Value
select s.DefId
)
.Distinct().ToList();
bool allFound = allIds.All(id => validIds.Contains(id));