IQueryable<double?> query = (from t in ctx.MyList orderby t.MyNums select t.MyNums).Take(1);
IQueryable<double> q2 = query.Cast<double>();
IEnumerator<double> enumerator = q2.GetEnumerator();
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
double d = enumerator.Current;
return System.Convert.ToInt32(d);
}
The context for the above code is that I'm attempting to get the greatest integer value from a SharePoint list column. SharePoint seems to treat all list item values as "Number" so that's the reason that I initially had "double?" and not "int?". How could I write that query better? Also, at the moment, it doesn't work at all.. it says "Can only specify query options (orderby, where, take, skip) after last navigation." What does that mean? Thanks..
Additional Information e.g. "Why Max() doesn't work in SharePoint Web Services"
Go to the following link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd673933.aspx. The note contained there says the following:
The set of queries expressible in the LINQ syntax is broader than those enabled in the representational state transfer (REST)-based URI syntax that is used by data services. A NotSupportedException is raised when the query cannot be mapped to a URI in the target data service.
Did you try using Max instead?
double max = ctx.MyList.Max(t => t.MyNums);
return (int) max;
Don't forget to check for a null value in case all items in the list are null
return (int)(ctx.MyList.Max(x => x.MyNums) ?? 0);
Related
I am using LinqPad to test my query. This query works when the LInqPad connection is to my database (LInq to SQL) but it does not work when I change the connection to use my Entity Framework 5 Model.dll. (Linq to Entity). This is in C#.
I have two tables called Plan and PlanDetails. Relationship is one Plan to many PlanDetails.
var q = from pd in PlanDetails
select new {
pd.PlanDetailID,
ThePlanName = (from p in this.Plans
where p.PlanID == pd.PlanID
select p.PlanName)
};
var results = q.ToList();
q.Dump(); //This is a linqpad method to output the result.
I get this error "NotSupportedException: Unable to create a constant value of type 'Domain.Data.Plan'. Only primitive types or enumeration types are supported in this context." Any ideas why this only works with Linq to SQL?
basically it means you are using some complex datatype inside the query for comparison.
in your case i suspect from p in this.Plans where p.PlanID == pd.PlanID is the culprit.
And it depends on DataProvider. It might work for Sql Data Provider, but not for SqlCE data Provider and so on.
what you should do is to convert your this.Plans collection into a primitive type collection containing only the Ids i.e.
var integers = PlanDetails.Plans.Select(s=>s.Id).ToList();
and then use this list inside.
var q = from pd in PlanDetails
select new {
pd.PlanDetailID,
ThePlanName = (from p in integers
where p == pd.PlanID
select pd.PlanName)
};
I got this error when i was trying to null check for a navigational property in the entity framework expression
I resolved it by not using the not null check in the expression and just using Any() function only.
protected Expression<Func<Entities.Employee, bool>> BriefShouldAppearInSearchResults(
IQueryable<Entities.Employee> briefs, string username)
{
var trimmedUsername = NameHelper.GetFormattedName(username);
Expression<Func<Entities.Employee, bool>> filterExpression = cse =>
cse.Employee.Cars.All(c =>
c.Employee.Cars!=null && <--Removing this line resolved my issue
c.Employee.Cars.Any(cur => cur.CarMake =="Benz")));
return filterExpression;
}
Hope this helps someone!
This is a Linqpad bug if you like (or a peculiarity). I found similar behaviour myself. Like me, you may find that your query works with an ObjectContext, but not a DbContext. (And it works in Visual Studio).
I think it has to do with Linqpad's inner structure. It adds MergeAs (AppendOnly) to collections and the context is a UserQuery, which probably contains some code that causes this bug.
This is confirmed by the fact that the code does work when you create a new context instance in the Linqpad code and run the query against this instance.
If the relationship already exists.
Why not simply say.
var q = from pd in PlanDetails
select new {
pd.PlanDetailID,
ThePlanName = pd.Plan.PlanName
};
Of course i'm assuming that every PlanDetail will belong to a Plan.
Update
To get better results from LinqPad you could tell it to use your own assembly (which contains your DbContext) instead of the default Datacontext it uses.
I am trying to bind distinct records to a dropdownlist. After I added distinct function of the linq query, it said "DataBinding: 'System.String' does not contain a property with the name 'Source'. " I can guarantee that that column name is 'Source'. Is that name lost when doing distinct search?
My backend code:
public IQueryable<string> GetAllSource()
{
PromotionDataContext dc = new PromotionDataContext(_connString);
var query = (from p in dc.Promotions
select p.Source).Distinct();
return query;
}
Frontend code:
PromotionDAL dal = new PromotionDAL();
ddl_Source.DataSource = dal.GetAllSource();
ddl_Source.DataTextField = "Source";
ddl_Source.DataValueField = "Source";
ddl_Source.DataBind();
Any one has a solution? Thank you in advance.
You're already selecting Source in the LINQ query, which is how the result is an IQueryable<string>. You're then also specifying Source as the property to find in each string in the databinding. Just take out the statements changing the DataTextField and DataValueField properties in databinding.
Alterantively you could remove the projection to p.Source from your query and return an IQueryable<Promotion> - but then you would get distinct promotions rather than distinct sources.
One other quick note - using query syntax isn't really helping you in your GetAllSources query. I'd just write this as:
public IQueryable<string> GetAllSource()
{
PromotionDataContext dc = new PromotionDataContext(_connString);
return dc.Promotions
.Select(p => p.Source)
.Distinct();
}
Query expressions are great for complicated queries, but when you've just got a single select or a where clause and a trivial projection, using the dot notation is simpler IMO.
You're trying to bind strings, not Promotion objects... and strings do not have Source property/field
Your method returns a set of strings, not a set of objects with properties.
If you really want to bind to a property name, you need a set of objects with properties (eg, by writing select new { Source = Source })
DynamicObject LINQ query with the List compiles fine:
List<string> list = new List<string>();
var query = (from dynamic d in list where d.FirstName == "John" select d);
With our own custom class that we use for the "usual" LINQ compiler reports the error "An expression tree may not contain a dynamic
operation":
DBclass db = new DBclass();
var query = (from dynamic d in db where d.FirstName == "John" select d);
What shall we add to handle DynamicObject LINQ?
Does DBClass implement IEnumerable? Perhaps there is a method on it you should be calling to return an IEnumerable collection?
You could add a type, against which to write the query.
I believe your problem is, that in the first expression, where you are using the List<>, everything is done in memory using IEnumerable & Link-to-Objects.
Apparently, your DBClass is an IQueryable using Linq-to-SQL. IQueryables use an expression tree to build an SQL statement to send to the database.
In other words, despite looking much alike, the two statements are doing radically different things, one of which is allowed & one which isn't. (Much in the way var y = x * 5; will either succeed or fail depending on if x is an int or a string).
Further, your first example may compile, but as far as I can tell, it will fail when you run it. That's not a particular good benchmark for success.
The only way I see this working is if the query using dynamic is made on IEnumerables using Link-to-Objects. (Load the full table into a List, and then query on the list)
I'm trying to do a query like so...
query.Where(x => !string.IsNullOrEmpty(x.PropertyName));
but it fails...
so for now I have implemented the following, which works...
query.Where(x => (x.PropertyName ?? string.Empty) != string.Empty);
is there a better (more native?) way that LINQ handles this?
EDIT
apologize! didn't include the provider... This is using LINQ to SQL
http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=367077
Problem Statement
It's possible to write LINQ to SQL that gets all rows that have either null or an empty string in a given field, but it's not possible to use string.IsNullOrEmpty to do it, even though many other string methods map to LINQ to SQL.
Proposed Solution
Allow string.IsNullOrEmpty in a LINQ to SQL where clause so that these two queries have the same result:
var fieldNullOrEmpty =
from item in db.SomeTable
where item.SomeField == null || item.SomeField.Equals(string.Empty)
select item;
var fieldNullOrEmpty2 =
from item in db.SomeTable
where string.IsNullOrEmpty(item.SomeField)
select item;
Other Reading:
1. DevArt
2. Dervalp.com
3. StackOverflow Post
This won't fail on Linq2Objects, but it will fail for Linq2SQL, so I am assuming that you are talking about the SQL provider or something similar.
The reason has to do with the way that the SQL provider handles your lambda expression. It doesn't take it as a function Func<P,T>, but an expression Expression<Func<P,T>>. It takes that expression tree and translates it so an actual SQL statement, which it sends off to the server.
The translator knows how to handle basic operators, but it doesn't know how to handle methods on objects. It doesn't know that IsNullOrEmpty(x) translates to return x == null || x == string.empty. That has to be done explicitly for the translation to SQL to take place.
This will work fine with Linq to Objects. However, some LINQ providers have difficulty running CLR methods as part of the query. This is expecially true of some database providers.
The problem is that the DB providers try to move and compile the LINQ query as a database query, to prevent pulling all of the objects across the wire. This is a good thing, but does occasionally restrict the flexibility in your predicates.
Unfortunately, without checking the provider documentation, it's difficult to always know exactly what will or will not be supported directly in the provider. It looks like your provider allows comparisons, but not the string check. I'd guess that, in your case, this is probably about as good of an approach as you can get. (It's really not that different from the IsNullOrEmpty check, other than creating the "string.Empty" instance for comparison, but that's minor.)
... 12 years ago :) But still, some one may found it helpful:
Often it is good to check white spaces too
query.Where(x => !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(x.PropertyName));
it will converted to sql as:
WHERE [x].[PropertyName] IS NOT NULL AND ((LTRIM(RTRIM([x].[PropertyName])) <> N'') OR [x].[PropertyName] IS NULL)
or other way:
query.Where(x => string.Compare(x.PropertyName," ") > 0);
will be converted to sql as:
WHERE [x].[PropertyName] > N' '
If you want to go change the type of the collection from nullable type IEnumerable<T?> to non-null type IEnumerable<T> you can use .OfType<T>().
.OfType<T>() will remove null values and return a list of the type T.
Example: If you have a list of nullable strings: List<string?> you can change the type of the list to string by using OfType<string() as in the below example:
List<string?> nullableStrings = new List<string?> { "test1", null, "test2" };
List<string> strings = nullableStrings.OfType<string>().ToList();
// strings now only contains { "test1", "test2" }
This will result in a list of strings only containing test1 and test2.
Why do I get the error:
Unable to create a constant value of type 'Closure type'. Only
primitive types (for instance Int32, String and Guid) are supported in
this context.
When I try to enumerate the following Linq query?
IEnumerable<string> searchList = GetSearchList();
using (HREntities entities = new HREntities())
{
var myList = from person in entities.vSearchPeople
where upperSearchList.All( (person.FirstName + person.LastName) .Contains).ToList();
}
Update:
If I try the following just to try to isolate the problem, I get the same error:
where upperSearchList.All(arg => arg == arg)
So it looks like the problem is with the All method, right? Any suggestions?
It looks like you're trying to do the equivalent of a "WHERE...IN" condition. Check out How to write 'WHERE IN' style queries using LINQ to Entities for an example of how to do that type of query with LINQ to Entities.
Also, I think the error message is particularly unhelpful in this case because .Contains is not followed by parentheses, which causes the compiler to recognize the whole predicate as a lambda expression.
I've spent the last 6 months battling this limitation with EF 3.5 and while I'm not the smartest person in the world, I'm pretty sure I have something useful to offer on this topic.
The SQL generated by growing a 50 mile high tree of "OR style" expressions will result in a poor query execution plan. I'm dealing with a few million rows and the impact is substantial.
There is a little hack I found to do a SQL 'in' that helps if you are just looking for a bunch of entities by id:
private IEnumerable<Entity1> getByIds(IEnumerable<int> ids)
{
string idList = string.Join(",", ids.ToList().ConvertAll<string>(id => id.ToString()).ToArray());
return dbContext.Entity1.Where("it.pkIDColumn IN {" + idList + "}");
}
where pkIDColumn is your primary key id column name of your Entity1 table.
BUT KEEP READING!
This is fine, but it requires that I already have the ids of what I need to find. Sometimes I just want my expressions to reach into other relations and what I do have is criteria for those connected relations.
If I had more time I would try to represent this visually, but I don't so just study this sentence a moment: Consider a schema with a Person, GovernmentId, and GovernmentIdType tables. Andrew Tappert (Person) has two id cards (GovernmentId), one from Oregon (GovernmentIdType) and one from Washington (GovernmentIdType).
Now generate an edmx from it.
Now imagine you want to find all the people having a certain ID value, say 1234567.
This can be accomplished with a single database hit with this:
dbContext context = new dbContext();
string idValue = "1234567";
Expression<Func<Person,bool>> expr =
person => person.GovernmentID.Any(gid => gid.gi_value.Contains(idValue));
IEnumerable<Person> people = context.Person.AsQueryable().Where(expr);
Do you see the subquery here? The generated sql will use 'joins' instead of sub-queries, but the effect is the same. These days SQL server optimizes subqueries into joins under the covers anyway, but anyway...
The key to this working is the .Any inside the expression.
I have found the cause of the error (I am using Framework 4.5). The problem is, that EF a complex type, that is passed in the "Contains"-parameter, can not translate into an SQL query. EF can use in a SQL query only simple types such as int, string...
this.GetAll().Where(p => !assignedFunctions.Contains(p))
GetAll provides a list of objects with a complex type (for example: "Function"). So therefore, I would try here to receive an instance of this complex type in my SQL query, which naturally can not work!
If I can extract from my list, parameters which are suited to my search, I can use:
var idList = assignedFunctions.Select(f => f.FunctionId);
this.GetAll().Where(p => !idList.Contains(p.FunktionId))
Now EF no longer has the complex type "Function" to work, but eg with a simple type (long). And that works fine!
I got this error message when my array object used in the .All function is null
After I initialized the array object, (upperSearchList in your case), the error is gone
The error message was misleading in this case
where upperSearchList.All(arg => person.someproperty.StartsWith(arg)))