I am trying to write some logic to determine if all values of a certain property of an object in a collection are numeric and greater than zero. I can easily write this using ForEach but I'd like to do it using Linq to Object. I tried this:
var result = entity.Reports.Any(
x =>
x.QuestionBlock == _question.QuestionBlock
&& (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(x.Data)) && Int32.TryParse(x.Data, out tempVal)
&& Int32.Parse(x.Data) > 0);
It does not work correctly. I also tried this, hoping that the TryParse() on Int32 will return false the first time it encounter a string that cannot be parsed into an int. But it appears the out param will contain the first value string value that can be parsed into an int.
var result = entity.GranteeReportDataModels.Any(
x =>
x.QuestionBlock == _question.QuestionBlock
&& (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(x.Data)) && Int32.TryParse(x.Data, out tempVal));
Any help is greatly appreciated!
If you want to test if "all" values meet a condition, you should use the All extension method off IEnumerable<T>, not Any. I would write it like this:
var result = entity.Reports.All(x =>
{
int result = 0;
return int.TryParse(x.Data, out result) && result > 0;
});
I don't believe you need to test for an null or empty string, because int.TryPrase will return false if you pass in a null or empty string.
var allDataIsNatural = entity.Reports.All(r =>
{
int i;
if (!int.TryParse(r.Data, out i))
{
return false;
}
return i > 0;
});
Any will return when the first row is true but, you clearly say you would like to check them all.
You can use this extension which tries to parse a string to int and returns a int?:
public static int? TryGetInt(this string item)
{
int i;
bool success = int.TryParse(item, out i);
return success ? (int?)i : (int?)null;
}
Then this query works:
bool all = entity.Reports.All(x => {
if(x.QuestionBlock != _question.QuestionBlockint)
return false;
int? data = x.Data.TryGetInt();
return data.HasValue && data.Value > 0;
});
or more readable (a little bit less efficient):
bool all = entityReports
.All(x => x.Data.TryGetInt().HasValue && x.Data.TryGetInt() > 0
&& x.QuestionBlock == _question.QuestionBlockint);
This approach avoids using a local variable as out parameter which is an undocumented behaviour in Linq-To-Objects and might stop working in future. It's also more readable.
Related
I'm trying to loop through every row of a variable length table on the a webpage (http://www.oddschecker.com/golf/the-masters/winner) and extract some data
The problem is I can't seem to catch the null reference and terminate the loop without it throwing an exception!
int i = 1;
bool test = string.IsNullOrEmpty(doc.DocumentNode.SelectNodes(String.Format("//*[#id='t1']/tr[{0}]/td[3]/a[2]", i))[0].InnerText);
while (test != true)
{
string name = doc.DocumentNode.SelectNodes(String.Format("//*[#id='t1']/tr[{0}]/td[3]/a[2]", i))[0].InnerText;
//extract data
i++;
}
try-catch statements don't catch it either:
bool test = false;
try
{
string golfersName = doc.DocumentNode.SelectNodes(String.Format("//*[#id='t1']/tr[{0}]/td[3]/a[2]", i))[0].InnerText;
}
catch
{
test = true;
}
while (test != true)
{
...
The code logic is a bit off. With the original code, if test evaluated true the loop will never terminates. It seems that you want to do checking in every loop iteration instead of only once at the beginning.
Anyway, there is a better way around. You can select all relevant nodes without specifying each <tr> indices, and use foreach to loop through the node set :
var nodes = doc.DocumentNode.SelectNodes("//*[#id='t1']/tr/td[3]/a[2]");
foreach(HtmlNode node in nodes)
{
string name = node.InnerText;
//extract data
}
or using for loop instead of foreach, if index of each node is necessary for the "extract data" process :
for(i=1; i<=nodes.Count; i++)
{
//array index starts from 0, unlike XPath element index
string name = nodes[i-1].InnerText;
//extract data
}
Side note : To query single element you can use SelectSingleNode("...") instead of SelectNodes("...")[0]. Both methods return null if no nodes match XPath criteria, so you can do checking against the original value returned instead of against InnerText property to avoid exception :
var node = doc.DocumentNode.SelectSingleNode("...");
if(node != null)
{
//do something
}
I want to do the following
var totalNoOfRows = result.First().TotalNumberOfCount;
And finally do something like that
bookssList.AddRange(retResult.Select(r => r.ToBook()));
where ToBook is extended method
but I always get The result of a query cannot be enumerated more than once.
if (result != null)
{
var totalNoOfRows = result.First().TotalNumberOfCount;
pagingContext.ItemsTotal = totalNoOfRows != null ? int.Parse(totalNoOfRows.ToString()) : 0;
var retResult = result.ToList();
// pagingContext.ItemsTotal = totalcount.Value != null ? int.Parse(totalcount.Value.ToString()) : 0;
bookssList.AddRange(retResult.Select(r => r.ToBook()));
}
Hard to guess what are you doing, and how these snippets relate to each other, but if you can enumerate a collection only once, then call ToArray first:
var resultCopy = result.ToArray();
//... any number of operations on resultCopy
Note that calling First also counts as enumerating. So you need to enumerate and copy the collection even before this.
Try changing the code to this, so you only enumerate result once:
var retResult = result.ToList();
var totalNoOfRows = retResult.First().TotalNumberOfCount; //You are now using LINQ on the list, not the query!
pagingContext.ItemsTotal = totalNoOfRows != null ? int.Parse(totalNoOfRows.ToString()) : 0;
// pagingContext.ItemsTotal = totalcount.Value != null ? int.Parse(totalcount.Value.ToString()) : 0;
Logger.LogInfo("Search Payments GetPaymentsWithCount stored procedure result not null and count=" + totalcount);
bookssList.AddRange(retResult.Select(r => r.ToBook()));
How can we do validation for percentage numbers in textbox .
I need to validate these type of data
Ex: 12-3, 33.44a, 44. , a3.56, 123
thanks in advance
sri
''''Add textbox'''''
<asp:TextBox ID="PERCENTAGE" runat="server"
onkeypress="return ispercentage(this, event, true, false);"
MaxLength="18" size="17"></asp:TextBox>
'''''Copy below function as it is and paste in tag..'''''''
<script type="text/javascript">
function ispercentage(obj, e, allowDecimal, allowNegative)
{
var key;
var isCtrl = false;
var keychar;
var reg;
if (window.event)
{
key = e.keyCode;
isCtrl = window.event.ctrlKey
}
else if (e.which)
{
key = e.which;
isCtrl = e.ctrlKey;
}
if (isNaN(key)) return true;
keychar = String.fromCharCode(key);
// check for backspace or delete, or if Ctrl was pressed
if (key == 8 || isCtrl)
{
return true;
}
ctemp = obj.value;
var index = ctemp.indexOf(".");
var length = ctemp.length;
ctemp = ctemp.substring(index, length);
if (index < 0 && length > 1 && keychar != '.' && keychar != '0')
{
obj.focus();
return false;
}
if (ctemp.length > 2)
{
obj.focus();
return false;
}
if (keychar == '0' && length >= 2 && keychar != '.' && ctemp != '10') {
obj.focus();
return false;
}
reg = /\d/;
var isFirstN = allowNegative ? keychar == '-' && obj.value.indexOf('-') == -1 : false;
var isFirstD = allowDecimal ? keychar == '.' && obj.value.indexOf('.') == -1 : false;
return isFirstN || isFirstD || reg.test(keychar);
}
</script>
You can further optimize this expression. Currently its working for all given patterns.
^\d*[aA]?[\-.]?\d*[aA]?[\-.]?\d*$
If you're talking about checking that a given text is a valid percentage, you can do one of a few things.
validate it with a regex like ^[0-9]+\.?[0-9]*$ then just convert that to a floating point value and check it's between 0 and 100 (that particular regex requires a zero before the decimal for values less than one but you can adapt it to handle otherwise).
convert it to a float using a method that raises an exception on invalid data (rather than just stopping at the first bad character.
use a convoluted regex which checks for valid entries without having to convert to a float.
just run through the text character by character counting numerics (a), decimal points (b) and non-numerics (c). Provided a is at least one, b is at most one, and c is zero, then convert to a float.
I have no idea whether your environment support any of those options since you haven't actually specified what it is :-)
However, my preference is to go for option 1, 2, 4 and 3 (in that order) since I'm not a big fan of convoluted regexes. I tend to think that they do more harm than good when thet become to complex to understand in less than three seconds.
Finally i tried a simple validation and works good :-(
function validate(){
var str = document.getElementById('percentage').value;
if(isNaN(str))
{
//alert("value out of range or too much decimal");
}
else if(str > 100)
{
//alert("value exceeded");
}
else if(str < 0){
//alert("value not valid");
}
}
I have an object with large number of similar fields (like more than 10 of them) and I have to assign them values from an array of variable length. The solution would be either a huge nested bunch of ifs based on checking length of array each time and assigning each field
OR
a chain of ifs checking on whether the length is out of bounds and assigning each time after that check.
Both seem to be repetitive. Is there a better solution ?
If you language has switch/case with fallthrough, you could do it like this:
switch(array.length){
case 15: field14 = array[14];
case 14: field13 = array[13];
case 13: field12 = array[12];
// etc.
case 1: field0 = array[0];
case 0: break;
default: throw Exception("array too long!");
}
for (int i = 0; i < fieldCount; i++)
fields[i].value = array[i];
That is to say, maintain an array of fields that corresponds to your array of values.
If your language supports delegates, anonymous functions, that sort of thing, you can use those to clean it up. For example, in C# you could write this:
string[] values = GetValues();
SomeObject result = new SomeObject();
Apply(values, 0, v => result.ID = v);
Apply(values, 1, v => result.FirstName = v);
Apply(values, 2, v => result.LastName = v);
// etc.
The apply method would look like:
void Apply(string[] values, int index, Action<string> action)
{
if (index < values.Length)
action(values[index]);
}
This is obviously language-dependent, but something to think about regardless.
Another very simple option that we might be overlooking is, if you are actually trying to initialize an object from this value array (as opposed to update an existing object), to just accept the default values if the array isn't large enough.
C# example:
void CreateMyObject(object[] values)
{
MyObject o = new MyObject();
o.ID = GetValueOrDefault<int>(values, 0);
o.FirstName = GetValueOrDefault<string>(values, 0);
o.LastName = GetValueOrDefault<string>(values, 0);
// etc.
}
void GetValueOrDefault<T>(object[] values, int index)
{
if (index < values.Length)
return (T)values[index];
return default(T);
}
Sometimes the dumb solution is the smartest choice.
If your fields are declared in the same order of the array's elements, you could use reflection (if available in your language) to set these values. Here is an example of how you could do it in Java:
// obj is your object, values is the array of values
Field[] fields = obj.getClass().getFields();
for (int i = 0; i < fields.length && i < values.length; ++i) {
fields[i].set(obj, values[i]);
}
The most egregiously redundant code construct I often see involves using the code sequence
if (condition)
return true;
else
return false;
instead of simply writing
return (condition);
I've seen this beginner error in all sorts of languages: from Pascal and C to PHP and Java. What other such constructs would you flag in a code review?
if (foo == true)
{
do stuff
}
I keep telling the developer that does that that it should be
if ((foo == true) == true)
{
do stuff
}
but he hasn't gotten the hint yet.
if (condition == true)
{
...
}
instead of
if (condition)
{
...
}
Edit:
or even worse and turning around the conditional test:
if (condition == false)
{
...
}
which is easily read as
if (condition) then ...
Using comments instead of source control:
-Commenting out or renaming functions instead of deleting them and trusting that source control can get them back for you if needed.
-Adding comments like "RWF Change" instead of just making the change and letting source control assign the blame.
Somewhere I’ve spotted this thing, which I find to be the pinnacle of boolean redundancy:
return (test == 1)? ((test == 0) ? 0 : 1) : ((test == 0) ? 0 : 1);
:-)
Redundant code is not in itself an error. But if you're really trying to save every character
return (condition);
is redundant too. You can write:
return condition;
Declaring separately from assignment in languages other than C:
int foo;
foo = GetFoo();
Returning uselessly at the end:
// stuff
return;
}
I once had a guy who repeatedly did this:
bool a;
bool b;
...
if (a == true)
b = true;
else
b = false;
void myfunction() {
if(condition) {
// Do some stuff
if(othercond) {
// Do more stuff
}
}
}
instead of
void myfunction() {
if(!condition)
return;
// Do some stuff
if(!othercond)
return;
// Do more stuff
}
Using .tostring on a string
Putting an exit statement as first statement in a function to disable the execution of that function, instead of one of the following options:
Completely removing the function
Commenting the function body
Keeping the function but deleting all the code
Using the exit as first statement makes it very hard to spot, you can easily read over it.
Fear of null (this also can lead to serious problems):
if (name != null)
person.Name = name;
Redundant if's (not using else):
if (!IsPostback)
{
// do something
}
if (IsPostback)
{
// do something else
}
Redundant checks (Split never returns null):
string[] words = sentence.Split(' ');
if (words != null)
More on checks (the second check is redundant if you are going to loop)
if (myArray != null && myArray.Length > 0)
foreach (string s in myArray)
And my favorite for ASP.NET: Scattered DataBinds all over the code in order to make the page render.
Copy paste redundancy:
if (x > 0)
{
// a lot of code to calculate z
y = x + z;
}
else
{
// a lot of code to calculate z
y = x - z;
}
instead of
if (x > 0)
y = x + CalcZ(x);
else
y = x - CalcZ(x);
or even better (or more obfuscated)
y = x + (x > 0 ? 1 : -1) * CalcZ(x)
Allocating elements on the heap instead of the stack.
{
char buff = malloc(1024);
/* ... */
free(buff);
}
instead of
{
char buff[1024];
/* ... */
}
or
{
struct foo *x = (struct foo *)malloc(sizeof(struct foo));
x->a = ...;
bar(x);
free(x);
}
instead of
{
struct foo x;
x.a = ...;
bar(&x);
}
The most common redundant code construct I see is code that is never called from anywhere in the program.
The other is design patterns used where there is no point in using them. For example, writing "new BobFactory().createBob()" everywhere, instead of just writing "new Bob()".
Deleting unused and unnecessary code can massively improve the quality of the system and the team's ability to maintain it. The benefits are often startling to teams who have never considered deleting unnecessary code from their system. I once performed a code review by sitting with a team and deleting over half the code in their project without changing the functionality of their system. I thought they'd be offended but they frequently asked me back for design advice and feedback after that.
I often run into the following:
function foo() {
if ( something ) {
return;
} else {
do_something();
}
}
But it doesn't help telling them that the else is useless here. It has to be either
function foo() {
if ( something ) {
return;
}
do_something();
}
or - depending on the length of checks that are done before do_something():
function foo() {
if ( !something ) {
do_something();
}
}
From nightmarish code reviews.....
char s[100];
followed by
memset(s,0,100);
followed by
s[strlen(s)] = 0;
with lots of nasty
if (strcmp(s, "1") == 0)
littered about the code.
Using an array when you want set behavior. You need to check everything to make sure its not in the array before you insert it, which makes your code longer and slower.
Redundant .ToString() invocations:
const int foo = 5;
Console.WriteLine("Number of Items: " + foo.ToString());
Unnecessary string formatting:
const int foo = 5;
Console.WriteLine("Number of Items: {0}", foo);