I basically try to use htmlagilitypack to parse a piece of html and use linq to put it into object for uses with other piece of my code. I've got below two code snippets where #1 uses linq and does not work, but #2 uses a for loop and works.
Two pieces of codes are nearly identical except for the usage of linq. In that sense, I guess I have missed something in linq that prevents me from making it work?
Appreciate if anyone can help me take a look
using linq - it does not work. res ends up being null
res = from li in ul.Elements("li").Where(i => GetClass(i) != "titles-h")
select new Post()
{
title = li.Element("h2").InnerText,
// ....
};
no linq - it works
foreach (var li in ul.Elements("li"))
{
if (GetClass(li) != "titles-h")
ress.Add(new Post()
{
title = li.Element("h2").InnerText,
// ....
});
}
implementation of GetClass
static string GetClass(HtmlNode n)
{
if (n.Attributes["class"] != null)
return n.Attributes["class"].Value;
else
return "";
}
Related
I am facing a problem in searching a exact record by LINQ query method in ASP.NET Web API my controller. This is my code:
[HttpGet]
[Route("api/tblProducts/AllProductbySearch/{SearchText}")]
[ResponseType(typeof(IEnumerable<tblProduct>))]
public IHttpActionResult AllProductbySearch(string SearchText)
{
IEnumerable<tblProduct> tblProduct = db.tblProducts.Where(x=>x.PrdKeyword.Contains(SearchText)).AsEnumerable();
if (tblProduct == null)
{
return NotFound();
}
return Ok(tblProduct);
}
In this I am searching the record with value have keyword column and getting the result but problem is that it is not giving exact result for example if in database two record have keyword column value like shirt and another have Tshirt
Then if I pass shirt in SearchText or pass tshirt in SearchText it is giving both record while I want one record which exact match with SearchText. Please help me
My updated action method code is:
[HttpGet]
[Route("api/tblProducts/AllProductbySearch/{SearchText}")]
[ResponseType(typeof(IEnumerable<tblProduct>))]
public IHttpActionResult AllProductbySearch(string SearchText)
{
IEnumerable<tblProduct> tblProduct = db.tblProducts.Where(x => CheckWord(x.PrdKeyword, SearchText)).AsEnumerable();
if (tblProduct == null)
{
return NotFound();
}
return Ok(tblProduct);
}
private bool CheckWord(string source, string searchWord)
{
var punctuation = source.Where(Char.IsPunctuation).Distinct().ToArray();
var words = source.Split().Select(x => x.Trim(punctuation));
return words.Contains(searchWord, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
}
But is throwing the same error - http 500
EDITED 2
Added ToList() - db.tblProducts.ToList().... In this case we retrieve all data from Data Base and filter them in memory. If we don't retrieve all data before filtering .Net tries to create request to SQL with filtration and can't because there are .Net methods as CheckWord().
I think we can get required data without retrieving all table into memory, but don't know how. As variant we should write specific Stored Procedure and use it. Get all into memory is a simplest way (but not faster)
Please, look at this post Get only Whole Words from a .Contains() statement
Actually, for your case solution can be:
IEnumerable<tblProduct> tblProduct = db.tblProducts.ToList()
.Where(x => Regex.Match(x.PrdKeyword, $#"\b{SearchText}\b", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase).Success)
.AsEnumerable();
Option 2. Without regexp:
public static bool CheckWord(string source, string searchWord)
{
if (source == null)
return false;
var punctuation = source.Where(Char.IsPunctuation).Distinct().ToArray();
var words = source.Split().Select(x => x.Trim(punctuation));
return words.Contains(searchWord, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
}
[HttpGet]
[Route("api/tblProducts/AllProductbySearch/{SearchText}")]
[ResponseType(typeof(IEnumerable<tblProduct>))]
public IHttpActionResult AllProductbySearch(string SearchText)
{
IEnumerable<tblProduct> tblProduct = db.tblProducts.ToList()
.Where(x => CheckWord(x.PrdKeyword, SearchText)).AsEnumerable();
if (tblProduct == null)
{
return NotFound();
}
return Ok(tblProduct);
}
Sorry, I'm from phone now, there can be mistakes here. Will try it in 3-4 hour
You are making a simple mistake. You just need to use .Equals instead of .Contains.
When you use Contains .Net will check if the input string is part of the main string. Whereas Equals will check for exact match.
var mainStr = “long string with Hello World”;
var inputStr = “Hello”;
var status = mainStr.Contains(inputStr);
// Value of status is `true`
status = mainStr.Equals(inputStr);
// Value of status is `false`
So your code should look like this:
IEnumerable<tblProduct> tblProduct = db.tblProducts.Where(x=>x.PrdKeyword.Equals(SearchText)).AsEnumerable();
.Equals can also help you find exact match with or without having case-sensitive check in force. The single-parameterised method does a Case-Sensitive check whereas the other overridden methods of .Equals gives you an opportunity to ignore it.
Hope this helps!
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
I have a function inside a class that will run a Linq to Entities query (or any type of Linq query actually), and it's gonna return 2 columns in the resultset. I would like to return an object to whoever is calling my function that will allow Intellisense to know what I have returned.
Let me explain. If I have a function like this:
public static IQueryable GetInfo(MyEntityModel oEntityModel)
{
var query =
(from t in oEntityModel.Table1
from u in t.Table2
where t.Status == true &&
u.Status == true
select new
{
t.Column1,
u.Column2
})
return query;
}
What can (should) I put instead of IQueryable so that whoever calls my GetInfo function, will get Intellisense from the resultset, and show that it has a Column1 and Column2?
var linqresult = ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel);
if (linqresult.Column1 == 1)
{
foreach (var oItem in linqresult)
{
.. do stuff...
}
}
Tks
You cannot return an anonymous type from a function, they are strictly "inline" classes. When you return it, the foreach loop will only be able to interpret the result as an plain object. I guess you could use reflection to query the property names and values, however it seems much more straight forward to define a data transfer type to hold the results.
See this question, and this blog post.
So you could create a simple struct or class:
public class MyDataResult
{
public object Column1 { get; set; }
public object Column2 { get; set; }
}
Then modify your query in the function:
public static IQueryable<MyDataResult> GetInfo(MyEntityModel oEntityModel)
{
var query =
(from t in oEntityModel.Table1
from u in t.Table2
where t.Status == true &&
u.Status == true
select new MyDataResult
{
Column1 = t.Column1,
Column2 = u.Column2
})
return query;
}
Something like that should work. Note that I used "object" for the properties in MyDataResult. I don't know the types of the columns you are returning, you should use the actual types in order to get full intellisense.
You are returning a collection of anonymous types, they will be casted to objects, so when you try to iterate over them, altough they will be your objects (and they will contain your properties) at compile time they will be casted to objects:
foreach (var x in ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel))
{
//x is an Object
}
You can read more about it here.
If you want to have intellisense, I suggest you create a custom class they will hold your properties and return not an anonymous type (using new {}) but object of your class (new MyClass(prop1, prop2)). You also need to change signature of your method, so it returns IQueryable<YourClass> and not just plain non-generic IQueryable.
As others have said, creating a new type to hold the two columns is usually the best option.
But if, for some reason, you don't want to do that and you are using .Net 4.0, you can use Tuple:
public static IQueryable<Tuple<Column1Type, Column2Type>>
GetInfo(MyEntityModel oEntityModel)
{
return from …
select Tuple.Create(t.Column1, u.Column2);
}
var linqresult = ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel);
foreach (var oItem in linqresult)
Console.WriteLIne(oItem.Item1, oItem.Item2);
When you return your resultset AsQueryable, the app is already able to give you intellisense, however in your example, you must specify either .FirstOrDefault if you know your collection will only have a single row, or iterate over your collection to get the items from it, like so:
This is what you're doing:
var linqresult = ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel);
if (linqresult.Column1 == 1)
{
..do stuff...
}
This is how you should do it:
var linqresult = ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel);
foreach(var item in linqresult)
{
if (item.Column1 == 1)
{
..do stuff...
}
}
You must iterate over linqresult because when you query with link, it returns a result set, even if it just has one column. As with any collection, your data columns aren't available on the whole result set, only with individual items.
If you want to strongly typed enumerate a non-generic IEnumerable (IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() instead of IEnumerable<T>.GetEnumerator<T>()) you can use the Cast<>() extension, like so
var myquery = GetQueryable();
for (var item in myquery.Cast<MyDataType>())
{
// use item.Column1 directly and strongly typed with intellisense
}
I have a piece of code which combines an in-memory list with some data held in a database. This works just fine in my unit tests (using a mocked Linq2SqlRepository which uses List).
public IRepository<OrderItem> orderItems { get; set; }
private List<OrderHeld> _releasedOrders = null;
private List<OrderHeld> releasedOrders
{
get
{
if (_releasedOrders == null)
{
_releasedOrders = new List<nOrderHeld>();
}
return _releasedOrders;
}
}
.....
public int GetReleasedCount(OrderItem orderItem)
{
int? total =
(
from item in orderItems.All
join releasedOrder in releasedOrders
on item.OrderID equals releasedOrder.OrderID
where item.ProductID == orderItem.ProductID
select new
{
item.Quantity,
}
).Sum(x => (int?)x.Quantity);
return total.HasValue ? total.Value : 0;
}
I am getting an error I don't really understand when I run it against a database.
Exception information:
Exception type: System.NotSupportedException
Exception message: Local sequence cannot be used in LINQ to SQL
implementation of query operators
except the Contains() operator.
What am I doing wrong?
I'm guessing it's to do with the fact that orderItems is on the database and releasedItems is in memory.
EDIT
I have changed my code based on the answers given (thanks all)
public int GetReleasedCount(OrderItem orderItem)
{
var releasedOrderIDs = releasedOrders.Select(x => x.OrderID);
int? total =
(
from item in orderItems.All
where releasedOrderIDs.Contains(item.OrderID)
&& item.ProductID == orderItem.ProductID
select new
{
item.Quantity,
}
).Sum(x => (int?)x.Quantity);
return total.HasValue ? total.Value : 0;
}
I'm guessing it's to do with the fact
that orderItems is on the database
and releasedItems is in memory.
You are correct, you can't join a table to a List using LINQ.
Take a look at this link:
http://flatlinerdoa.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!17124D03A9A052B0!455.entry
He suggests using the Contains() method but you'll have to play around with it to see if it will work for your needs.
It looks like you need to formulate the db query first, because it can't create the correct SQL representation of the expression tree for objects that are in memory. It might be down to the join, so is it possible to get a value from the in-memory query that can be used as a simple primitive? For example using Contains() as the error suggests.
You unit tests work because your comparing a memory list to a memory list.
For memory list to database, you will either need to use the memoryVariable.Contains(...) or make the db call first and return a list(), so you can compare memory list to memory list as before. The 2nd option would return too much data, so your forced down the Contains() route.
public int GetReleasedCount(OrderItem orderItem)
{
int? total =
(
from item in orderItems.All
where item.ProductID == orderItem.ProductID
&& releasedOrders.Contains(item.OrderID)
select new
{
item.Quantity,
}
).Sum(x => (int?)x.Quantity);
return total.HasValue ? total.Value : 0;
}
I have a variable size array of strings, and I am trying to programatically loop through the array and match all the rows in a table where the column "Tags" contains at least one of the strings in the array. Here is some pseudo code:
IQueryable<Songs> allSongMatches = musicDb.Songs; // all rows in the table
I can easily query this table filtering on a fixed set of strings, like this:
allSongMatches=allSongMatches.Where(SongsVar => SongsVar.Tags.Contains("foo1") || SongsVar.Tags.Contains("foo2") || SongsVar.Tags.Contains("foo3"));
However, this does not work (I get the following error: "A lambda expression with a statement body cannot be converted to an expression tree")
allSongMatches = allSongMatches.Where(SongsVar =>
{
bool retVal = false;
foreach(string str in strArray)
{
retVal = retVal || SongsVar.Tags.Contains(str);
}
return retVal;
});
Can anybody show me the correct strategy to accomplish this? I am still new to the world of LINQ :-)
You can use the PredicateBuilder class:
var searchPredicate = PredicateBuilder.False<Songs>();
foreach(string str in strArray)
{
var closureVariable = str; // See the link below for the reason
searchPredicate =
searchPredicate.Or(SongsVar => SongsVar.Tags.Contains(closureVariable));
}
var allSongMatches = db.Songs.Where(searchPredicate);
LinqToSql strange behaviour
I recently created an extension method for creating string searches that also allows for OR searches. Blogged about here
I also created it as a nuget package that you can install:
http://www.nuget.org/packages/NinjaNye.SearchExtensions/
Once installed you will be able to do the following
var result = db.Songs.Search(s => s.Tags, strArray);
If you want to create your own version to allow the above, you will need to do the following:
public static class QueryableExtensions
{
public static IQueryable<T> Search<T>(this IQueryable<T> source, Expression<Func<T, string>> stringProperty, params string[] searchTerms)
{
if (!searchTerms.Any())
{
return source;
}
Expression orExpression = null;
foreach (var searchTerm in searchTerms)
{
//Create expression to represent x.[property].Contains(searchTerm)
var searchTermExpression = Expression.Constant(searchTerm);
var containsExpression = BuildContainsExpression(stringProperty, searchTermExpression);
orExpression = BuildOrExpression(orExpression, containsExpression);
}
var completeExpression = Expression.Lambda<Func<T, bool>>(orExpression, stringProperty.Parameters);
return source.Where(completeExpression);
}
private static Expression BuildOrExpression(Expression existingExpression, Expression expressionToAdd)
{
if (existingExpression == null)
{
return expressionToAdd;
}
//Build 'OR' expression for each property
return Expression.OrElse(existingExpression, expressionToAdd);
}
}
Alternatively, take a look at the github project for NinjaNye.SearchExtensions as this has other options and has been refactored somewhat to allow other combinations
There is another, somewhat easier method that will accomplish this. ScottGu's blog details a dynamic linq library that I've found very helpful in the past. Essentially, it generates the query from a string you pass in. Here's a sample of the code you'd write:
Dim Northwind As New NorthwindDataContext
Dim query = Northwind.Products _
.Where("CategoryID=2 AND UnitPrice>3") _
.OrderBy("SupplierId")
Gridview1.DataSource = query
Gridview1.DataBind()
More info can be found at scottgu's blog here.
Either build an Expression<T> yourself, or look at a different route.
Assuming possibleTags is a collection of tags, you can make use of a closure and a join to find matches. This should find any songs with at least one tag in possibleTags:
allSongMatches = allSongMatches.Where(s => (select t from s.Tags
join tt from possibleTags
on t == tt
select t).Count() > 0)